Most Humans Do NOT Have Completely Frree Will

[bennyboy]

If a drug addict could switch off his addiction if he pleased if he had free will, according to what most of you define it as - wouldn't it mean he lack the free will to remain addicted?  Lmao!

The thing is, a drug addict doesn't really WANT to switch off his addiction.  He is in a state of conflict, because due to life problems, probation orders or the best intentions of family members, he is acting against his own will-- he is trying to use his will against itself, essentially.  So while what you said sounds funny, there's a degree of truth to it.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Will"= willpower.

Your willpower compels you. It is not free because it motivates you rather than you motivating it.

And ultimately other external factors cause the willpower to have power.

I'm sorry, but it's not very clear what you mean. Let me try and see if I've got it:

- The part of people which compels them to a particular act is the willpower.
- Freedom would consist in people motivating their own willpower to a particular act, but...
- External factors (and not internal personal input) cause the willpower to have power.

Therefore: The willpower is not free.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree with you about the whole responsibility stuff, but that's another topic. My question to you is: why is not being coerced not an indicator of freedom? After all, how do you normally define freedom?

It is an indicator of freedom but it doesn't apply to the willpower. And responsibility is relevant to the topic of free will once the true conclusion that the will itself is not free is reached, which is true because to redefine "free will" itself in such a way that we can merely label it as free is not the same thing as proving that it's actually free. "free" and "will" already have perfectly good definitions and both exist but not together because the will/willpower isn't free.

Well, I'm fine with people equating God to such a spectacular magnificent thing as the universe as long as they make it clear that's what they mean by God.

Exactly. And people often don't, they just throw the word "God" around expecting people to know what they talk about and many people will assume it means the standard definition even when they just mean the universe. Same goes with "free will", it's equally misleading but far more morally significant when someone misleads matters by throwing "free will" around when all they mean is "will" and redefine it in such a way that they are redefining "will" itself to mean "free will" because the compatablist sense of "free will" is no different to merely "will" and any sense of freedom that is possible within determinism and compatabilism is so trivially true that it was never under question anyway, it's a dodge, a mistep, an equivocation and an easy answer superficially but a complete non-answer to a deeper question.

On a related note, some people experience something really deep when they're contemplating the universe, existence, and all that. And to them, that is God. In that sense, God does exist as a metaphor of some sort.

No. Not true at all. UNLESS you also concede that in a metaphorical sense when I experience something really deep when I contemplate how truly incredibly happy I am with my life and I redefine that feeling to mean "Butt-On-Top-Of-A-Magic-Shaped-Raspberry-Flavored-Shepherd-Star-Monster A.KA. "the being also known as simply "ALF"" then that means that this being exists as a metaphor of some sort for something more meaningful and deeper simply because my happiness exists as something more meaningful and deeper and I have chosen to label my happiness so retardedly ("God" is equally retarded to my label by the way, and if you disagree have a bitter cookie to nibble pleaseness-making, my friend).

[GrandizerII]

It is an indicator of freedom but it doesn't apply to the willpower. And responsibility is relevant to the topic of free will once the true conclusion that the will itself is not free is reached, which is true because to redefine "free will" itself in such a way that we can merely label it as free is not the same thing as proving that it's actually free. "free" and "will" already have perfectly good definitions and both exist but not together because the will/willpower isn't free.

Why doesn't it apply to willpower? It sounds like special pleading to me. Have you explained elsewhere why willpower is a special case?

Exactly. And people often don't, they just throw the word "God" around expecting people to know what they talk about and many people will assume it means the standard definition even when they just mean the universe. Same goes with "free will", it's equally misleading but far more morally significant when someone misleads matters by throwing "free will" around when all they mean is "will" and redefine it in such a way that they are redefining "will" itself to mean "free will" because the compatablist sense of "free will" is no different to merely "will" and any sense of freedom that is possible within determinism and compatabilism is so trivially true that it was never under question anyway, it's a dodge, a mistep, an equivocation and an easy answer superficially but a complete non-answer to a deeper question.

That's what I thought as well until I started reader further into this topic. Just like you, I underestimated most philosophers when it came to this topic and mistakenly thought they haven't thought deeply enough about it. Turns out I was the one redefining free will to mean something it literally does not mean, and you are doing that here as well.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why doesn't it apply to willpower? It sounds like special pleading to me. Have you explained elsewhere why willpower is a special case?

Lol. it's not special pleading. The willpower is what motivates or 'wills' us, and what motivates and wills us by definiton cannot be willed be 'us' because it is the part of 'us' that wills us. It would be circular reasoning for us to be self-causing. Ultimately self motivation is impossible because everything that spurs us must ultimately come from outside of ourselves, from external to us... and everything outside of us is not part of out conciousness and therefore beyond out control.

It's the very reason why libertarian/contra-causal free will makes no sense. Compatablism basically = "Oh well let's just say that the will is free anyways. Let's call "will" "free will" simply because freedom exists regardless of our wills themselves being unfree... let's completely dodge the question and ignore the issue just to keep people pleased and to pat ourselves on the back for finding an answer to an old philosophical question."

Yes most philosophers are compatabilists. But a lot of philosophy is fucking bullshit. I should know, I'm philosophical

That is what I thought as well until I started reader further into this topic. Just like you, I underestimated most philosophers when it came to this topic and mistakenly thought they haven't thought deeply enough about it. Turns out I was the one redefining free will to mean something it literally does not mean, and you are doing that here as well.

Nope. It's the opposite. I spent years being 90% sure I was right but 10% of me maybe thought that the compatabilist definition made sense, because Daniel Dennett was a compatabilist and everything else he says makes sense... so I was very interested in him publically debating Sam Harris which he unfortunately refused to do (afraid to lose I think). Shortly after Sam Harris had debated with him via email and produced his wonderful book and lectures on why free will is bullshit, Daniel Dennett released a talk saying that Free Will was man made like money, that it's a cultural construct and people should just agree who is and isn't allowed to be in the moral agents club. He throughally admitted that free will is basically defined into existence and is a load of bullshit. After years of all this "it's evitability, the opposite of inevitablity" B.S. -- I say B.S. that all made sense but I was wanting to know the bottom of his argument on that matter. Yes, the future is inevitable regardless of whether the universe is determinsitic or indeterministic, and yes evitability exists because we have evolved, we have freedom. But again the will is NOT free. It was never in question that we as humans have evolved to a level where we have more freedom than other animals. It doesn't mean our wills are free, it can't be. It is a dangerous equivocation to say otherwise. If you tell people they have "free will" and all you mean is "You have a normal human willpower like anyone else who who is an adult and isn't severely brain damaged, under the influence of a huge amount of alcohol, psychotic, etc," -- then that was never into question anyway! That's just willpower! The "free" part of the will is what most people mistakenly believe in -- people intuitively believe that the will is free in the libertarian contra-causal sense. People fucking incoherently and illogically believe that "we can do otherwise" hence why justice tends to be retributive rather than just focusing on mitigating harm and suffering -- and hence why people often believe revenge is morally justifiable, that people can be punished because they deserve it as opposed to punished only when it works long-term as a way to prevent re-offences.

* Edwardo Piet ends his rant that he's given many many times before over the course of several years, + with the extra part he's learned since that stupid Daniel Dennett video about free will being "like money".

Sam Harris is the shit on this topic. He's fucking awesome. He spells out more concisely and eloquently what I have intuitively thought since I was about 12 years old or something (I was home educated and my dad talked philosophy to me most days).

Sorry if I seem impatient I've just talked about this and explained this so many times in so many ways that it gets tiring. You've done nothing wrong and (couldn't have done otherwise anyway ), I enjoy your posts, sorry for getting frustrated

[GrandizerII]

Sorry if I seem impatient I've just talked about this and explained this so many times in so many ways that it gets tiring. You've done nothing wrong and (couldn't have done otherwise anyway ), I enjoy your posts, sorry for getting frustrated

All good.

[Heat]

Whether or not I have free will is irrelevant, as I, among every other Human, still live life as though it exists, which is all that matters.

[Whateverist]

Maybe not, but I've got spell check goddammit.