If free will was not real

[RozKek]

I know it doesn't need to be free. But we're talking about free will and we're saying it's not free.

What you said doesn't match with what you quoted.

A sentient agent can't transcend physical limitations, that's why I've been asking, can you or you with your brain break the causal chain?

]
I think literally zero people are arguing the kind of free will you're talking about.

IIRC I pointed it out, that in the everyday life, sure if you want you can say it's free since no one's holding a gun to your head. However if you dig deeper down it's not free at all, that's what people refer to when they're talking about whether or not our will is free. If with free will people meant what you mean the question wouldn't even be asked because the answer would obviously be "of course it's free, no one's holding a gun to my head."

You're right.  It's obvious.  Nobody would argue against it.  Oh. . . . wait a minute. . .

Compatibilist free will was introduced when some people realised that an ultimately free will couldn't exist. Compatibilist free will is irrelevant. The will where you're ultimately free is relevant, maybe not in the everyday life but let's say when you go into a court room. If the murderer literally had no choice at all but to commit what he did because it was determined to happen, is it really correct to sentence him to a lifetime prison or give him the electric chair? Or is it actually morally right to recondition the person so he/she becomes a functional human being that contributes to society in a positive way. This is just an example of why the free will people are talking about isn't your definition of free will because that's irrelevant

"Compatibilist" isn't really a kind of free will.  Compatibilism is the philosophical idea that free will can be reconciled with determinism, specifically with determinist brain function.  And nothing about our life experience, including the fact that we can freely choose things, is "irrelevant" except to those who want to fit the world into a small world view.

But thinking about it, even by the gun example, your will is still constricted/bound and cannot be changed at all, it will be what it is, so it is still not free. No one's holding a gun to your head, but classical physics got your will chained to itself, it's not free one way or another.

You still aren't working with my definition of either will or free will.  I'm not sure to whom you are speaking.

Many many people are arguing the kind of free will I'm talking about, yours is irrelevant. Who cares if a thief is holding a gun to my head, of fucking course by your definition the answer is going to be "well a thief isn't holding a gun to my head therefore I have free will" If the answer was so simple it wouldn't have been a hot topic for three thousands of years. It's only your irrelevant definition that has a simple answer. Also if people aren't debating my definition of free will why are they classified under determinism and indeterministim? Because people generally want to know if it ultimately is their decision. Have you ever watched Sam Harris talk about it? He even mentioned in one of his talks how his friend Daniel Dennett completely shifts the meaning of free will and then says, it exists.

And usually the compatibilist ideas of free will are dumbed down to "a thief isn't holding a gun to my head = free will, wow! problem solved!"

The free will I'm talking about is much more relevant when you're e.g going to sentence a criminal. That's what people are interested in, if one really ultimately is responsible for his actions. Your definition doesn't adress the question if one is ultimately responsible for ones action i.e if they could've done otherwise. Because if they cannot break the causal chain they couldn't have done otherwise at all, they might've been "capable" to, but what they were going to do was already determined. Your definition doesn't adress that question, that's why it's problematic.

In the end, if you can't break the causal chain, every single thing you do was bound to happen, you had no way of doing otherwise therefore your will still isn't free. Free will is an illusion in other words, it feels real, but it isn't real. Your intentions, will, they way you express yourself or intentions, everything is determined. How is it possibly free if it's already determined?