Free will Argument against Divine Providence

[bennyboy]

My counter to that is "freedom from determinism" is not the accepted definition of free-will. The accepted definition is "freedom from X" where X can refer to a particular concept within their philosophy which can be determinism as a whole, a part of determinism or bear no relation to determinism whatsoever.

You seemed to accept this and list 3 things you thought X could refer to and proceeded to reject two of them.

I don't reject God and fate, I discard them. I do this because nobodoy here is making a case for either of these (except of course in the OP lol). If anybody wants to make a serious case that gods can set our behavior, in the context of a free will discussion, then we can actually include that in the discussion.

My counter was to list a few other things X could refer to - things that X has been traditionally referred to - which do not fall under the given categories.

Except all those things DID fall exactly as children of the first 3 categories I mentioned.

Do I really have to consider ever possibly sub-category of freedom? How about freedom from tight drawers? Freedom from Pink Unicorns? Freedom from future-peering Space Monkeys?

If you wish to prove that yours is the only possible 'correct' definition - then yes, you do.

My definition is "correct" because the words have always meant what I say they meant. Look to historical discussions of free will, or even to etymology of the words "free" and "will." This is not an arbitrary POSITION, it's just a knowledge of what those two words mean.

That being said, I acknowledge what you're saying: there are many world views, and depending on your world view, words can have various meanings. So, in a physical monist world view, will (if it means anything) means, and can only mean, the faculty of making decisions (based on both that world view and on one's emotional state, for example).

What I'm saying is that I do not accept that the words mind, will, etc. HAVE valid meanings in that kind of monism-- they are just euphemisms for brain function, and are better dropped than clung to.

Philosophers 'n' sich. Basically, anyone who thinks that behavior is deterministic, but is aware that people say they feel like free agents.

I'm sure their position gets frequently criticized.

Yes. By me.

You seem to have been reduced to incoherent babbling. Perhaps you should read up on the different monist positions regarding "mind" and "will" which should clear up a lot of ignorant statements here.

Condescension much? If you want to pull out your philosophical pecker and measure it against mine, then there's always 1 vs. 1. Otherwise, let's stick to ideas rather than ad homs.

First of all, you can't use dualist language while talking about Monism.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Second of all, within monism, mind is measurable and observable even though our current technology is not at the level of doing so fully. Study up on it and come back once you have actually understood the position.

Noooo. Brain function is measurable. I'm asking you to show me a mind. I'll show you red light, a property which emerges out of collections of particles which themselves have no color. You show me that emergent property, mind, which you say arises out of brains.