If free will was not real

[bennyboy]

Nope, you are, just like the universe already determined. You aren't determined, the whole universe is, and you are a part of the universe, the universe whatever you define as you're still already determined. And if it isn't then it's partly random and that doesn't support free will.

And what you don't understand is that intent isn't ultimately our decision and the intent isn't formed freely at all.

Do you really think I don't understand what you're saying? Is that why you've been repeating the same thing for 20 pages?

[bennyboy]

Even if that was the case, deep meanings to words don't really change the fact that the universe, including you is determined. That allows no free will.

I agree that the kind of free will you are talking about probably doesn't exist. But you are asserting something as fact which you have not / cannot prove to be fact. Can you demonstrate that the universe is determined? How would you even go about doing that? I think you are confusing a philosophical assumption with a scientific fact.

Even the free will where no one is constricting you by holding a gun to your head is not really allowed. You're still constricted, bound by physics. Your will is just a part of the causal chain, there's no free in it. What your will is, what your intention is and will be, what your actions will be, every single movement of your arms, legs, eyes, every twitch is all determined, all of it is in the brain, and the brain is causal i.e determined. It doesn't matter what your experience is, you can't escape causality, determinism, that your brain is physical and such by giving words a deeper meaning. Not that there is something to escape, it's not as if the lack of free will is going to ruin your life, it's not as if you're going to be severely depressed, sitting on your couch, not able to move because you don't have the free will to do so.

Now you can demonstrate how deeper meanings to words somehow allows the existence of a free will.

This is getting a little bit dumb. I keep saying what free will is, and you keep talking about some magical, mystical free will which nobody here is attempting to support. You don't really get to do that. What you CAN say, is "I'm not willing to debate under your definition of the term."

SO let me say it to you: "I'm not willing to debate under your definition of the term."

[RozKek]

Even if that was the case, deep meanings to words don't really change the fact that the universe, including you is determined. That allows no free will.

I agree that the kind of free will you are talking about probably doesn't exist.  But you are asserting something as fact which you have not / cannot prove to be fact.  Can you demonstrate that the universe is determined?  How would you even go about doing that?  I think you are confusing a philosophical assumption with a scientific fact.

Even the free will where no one is constricting you by holding a gun to your head is not really allowed. You're still constricted, bound by physics. Your will is just a part of the causal chain, there's no free in it. What your will is, what your intention is and will be, what your actions will be, every single movement of your arms, legs, eyes, every twitch is all determined, all of it is in the brain, and the brain is causal i.e determined. It doesn't matter what your experience is, you can't escape causality, determinism, that your brain is physical and such by giving words a deeper meaning. Not that there is something to escape, it's not as if the lack of free will is going to ruin your life, it's not as if you're going to be severely depressed, sitting on your couch, not able to move because you don't have the free will to do so.

Now you can demonstrate how deeper meanings to words somehow allows the existence of a free will.

This is getting a little bit dumb.  I keep saying what free will is, and you keep talking about some magical, mystical free will which nobody here is attempting to support.  You don't really get to do that.  What you CAN say, is "I'm not willing to debate under your definition of the term."

SO let me say it to you: "I'm not willing to debate under your definition of the term."

I don't know. Try reading some physics. If you're going to claim that the universe isn't deterministic nor random then you're pulling stuff out of your arse. And also, a free will doesn't exist in a deterministic universe nor in a random universe. There's no free if it's already determined and there's no free either if it's completely random.

No, I actually said that even by your definition free will cannot exist, I don't know if you missed it several times or if you decide to ignore it.

Also, EP and Jehanne were supporting my definition of free will afaik and one of the biggest free will debaters, Sam Harris is talking about the free will I am talking about, but you seem to ignore that too and keep telling me my definition of free will isn't debated. Your definition of free will was introduced because some people can't let go of their dear free will so they redefine it in an attempt to keep it.

[bennyboy]

I don't know. Try reading some physics. If you're going to claim that the universe isn't deterministic nor random then you're pulling stuff out of your arse. And also, a free will doesn't exist in a deterministic universe nor in a random universe. There's no free if it's already determined and there's no free either if it's completely random.

You've just said what I've already said. Is this your way of agreeing me, or did you not read those posts?

No, I actually said that even by your definition free will cannot exist, I don't know if you missed it several times or if you decide to ignore it.

Are you saying people cannot form intent? Are you saying this intent cannot be either obstructed or compelled from the outside? As far as I can say, it is not possible to argue against either of these points.

You will parrot on that the formation of intent isn't free. I never said it was, nor did I define it as such. Nor did I say that anything about a person must be non-deterministic in order for the will to be free. I said:
WILL is the expression of intent as a behavior.
FREE WILL is the capacity to execute the will without obstruction or compulsion from the outside world.

None of this has anything to do with whether the universe is or isn't deterministic.

Now look, I've already given the remedy to this situation: refuse to debate under my definition of free will. I've declared that I'm unwilling to debate under yours. But you keep arguing against positions I don't hold, as though you think I hold them, and it's getting slightly annoying at this point.

Also, EP and Jehanne were supporting my definition of free will afaik and one of the biggest free will debaters, Sam Harris is talking about the free will I am talking about, but you seem to ignore that too and keep telling me my definition of free will isn't debated. Your definition of free will was introduced because some people can't let go of their dear free will so they redefine it in an attempt to keep it.

EP and Jehanne are both arguing under the same definitions you're using. But nobody is SUPPORTING that definition of free will. As far as I can tell, Irrational and I are both arguing for one definition, and you all are both arguing against another. It's the world's most pointless debate

If I debated Sam Harris, who by the way is a Buddhist so probably not your best possible reference, I'd tell him the same thing-- the definition of free will as separate from causation is incoherent. I'd tell him to read a book by his buddy Dennett.

You know, it was pointed out almost right away that I'm talking about a compatibilist view on free will. This is true enough, but I'm even taking it a step FURTHER. It matters completely not at all how the Universe functions under the hood: deterministic, non-deterministic, random, whatever. So it doesn't even matter to me (as it does to Dennett) whether free will is compatible with a physical monist world view. What matters is only the capacity to express intent, and that the agent expressing intent is neither compelled nor obstructed in that expression.

[Banjo]

Nothing in life is free.

[bennyboy]

Nothing in life is free.

Hugs are free, as long as you have a Grandma.

[GrandizerII]

Subjective does not mean arbitrary, whimsical, or not to be seriously considered at all.

Even if that was the case, deep meanings to words don't really change the fact that the universe, including you is determined. That allows no free will. Even the free will where no one is constricting you by holding a gun to your head is not really allowed. You're still constricted, bound by physics. Your will is just a part of the causal chain, there's no free in it. What your will is, what your intention is and will be, what your actions will be, every single movement of your arms, legs, eyes, every twitch is all determined, all of it is in the brain, and the brain is causal i.e determined. It doesn't matter what your experience is, you can't escape causality, determinism, that your brain is physical and such by giving words a deeper meaning. Not that there is something to escape, it's not as if the lack of free will is going to ruin your life, it's not as if you're going to be severely depressed, sitting on your couch, not able to move because you don't have the free will to do so.

Now you can demonstrate how deeper meanings to words somehow allows the existence of a free will.

Again, under your subjective definition of "free", if something is predetermined, it is not free.

But I don't consider randomness/spontaneity to be equal to freedom in the context of human freedom. My idea of freedom, in the context of ths topic, is a very reasonable one in that freedom of choice is that which is exercised in accordance with one's intent or desire. Ok? That's all there is to it. I can do what I want a lot of the time. You can do what you want a lot of the time. That's freedom.

And Rozkek, please stop treating us as if we have no idea what libertarian free will means or entails. Perhaps rather than just arguing strawman with us over and over again, how about you consider what we're actually trying to say instead? I'm not a newbie when it comes to this topic, and I used to a hard determinist myself as a matter of fact (up until fairly recently), so I know very well what libertarian free will is about. I also, for the record, do not find the idea of no libertarian free will to be depressing. This isn't an emotional struggle for me. The free will you speak is illogical, of course. I am in no way disputing that. But again and again and again, argue against my idea of freedom. Tell me how my idea of freedom is irrational.

[RozKek]

I don't know. Try reading some physics. If you're going to claim that the universe isn't deterministic nor random then you're pulling stuff out of your arse. And also, a free will doesn't exist in a deterministic universe nor in a random universe. There's no free if it's already determined and there's no free either if it's completely random.

You've just said what I've already said.  Is this your way of agreeing me, or did you not read those posts?

No, I actually said that even by your definition free will cannot exist, I don't know if you missed it several times or if you decide to ignore it.

Are you saying people cannot form intent?  Are you saying this intent cannot be either obstructed or compelled from the outside?  As far as I can say, it is not possible to argue against either of these points.

You will parrot on that the formation of intent isn't free.  I never said it was, nor did I define it as such.  Nor did I say that anything about a person must be non-deterministic in order for the will to be free.  I said:
WILL is the expression of intent as a behavior.
FREE WILL is the capacity to execute the will without obstruction or compulsion from the outside world.

None of this has anything to do with whether the universe is or isn't deterministic.

Now look, I've already given the remedy to this situation: refuse to debate under my definition of free will.  I've declared that I'm unwilling to debate under yours.  But you keep arguing against positions I don't hold, as though you think I hold them, and it's getting slightly annoying at this point.

Also, EP and Jehanne were supporting my definition of free will afaik and one of the biggest free will debaters, Sam Harris is talking about the free will I am talking about, but you seem to ignore that too and keep telling me my definition of free will isn't debated. Your definition of free will was introduced because some people can't let go of their dear free will so they redefine it in an attempt to keep it.

EP and Jehanne are both arguing under the same definitions you're using.  But nobody is SUPPORTING that definition of free will.  As far as I can tell, Irrational and I are both arguing for one definition, and you all are both arguing against another.  It's the world's most pointless debate

If I debated Sam Harris, who by the way is a Buddhist so probably not your best possible reference, I'd tell him the same thing-- the definition of free will as separate from causation is incoherent.  I'd tell him to read a book by his buddy Dennett.

You know, it was pointed out almost right away that I'm talking about a compatibilist view on free will.  This is true enough, but I'm even taking it a step FURTHER.  It matters completely not at all how the Universe functions under the hood: deterministic, non-deterministic, random, whatever.  So it doesn't even matter to me (as it does to Dennett) whether free will is compatible with a physical monist world view.  What matters is only the capacity to express intent, and that the agent expressing intent is neither compelled nor obstructed in that expression.

You asked me how I know that the universe is deterministic, I answered by telling you to read some physics, what are you on about?

And what I'm saying is even your definition of free will doesn't exist because you are encountering obstruction and compulsion from the outside world because everything is deterministic. In a deterministic world a single butterfly's wing flapping can change your entire thought process in the future. It's not free. So I am fucking arguing against your free will, and I'm not saying it can't be free. Haven't you noticed how severely you have reduced your definition of free will in order to argue it into existence? Also, I asked you why are you free unless a foreign agent is holding a gun to your head? Why a foreign agent? Is there something special about the foreign agent that makes him able to strip away the free from your will? Is the foreign agent also more than particles determined to do whatever they're going to do?

Sam Harris isn't a buddhist nor spiritual, he simply meditates and he has studied buddhism if that makes you think he's a buddhist. And if I'm wrong then my apologies, but that doesn't matter. He doesn't believe in God or any woo bullshit. 

What I've been saying the past thousands years now is that the agent expressing intent is compelled and obstructed in any context because every single thing is determined, he isn't free if it's already determined.

I'd gladly stop debating this. We're going nowhere.

Sam

[RozKek]

Even if that was the case, deep meanings to words don't really change the fact that the universe, including you is determined. That allows no free will. Even the free will where no one is constricting you by holding a gun to your head is not really allowed. You're still constricted, bound by physics. Your will is just a part of the causal chain, there's no free in it. What your will is, what your intention is and will be, what your actions will be, every single movement of your arms, legs, eyes, every twitch is all determined, all of it is in the brain, and the brain is causal i.e determined. It doesn't matter what your experience is, you can't escape causality, determinism, that your brain is physical and such by giving words a deeper meaning. Not that there is something to escape, it's not as if the lack of free will is going to ruin your life, it's not as if you're going to be severely depressed, sitting on your couch, not able to move because you don't have the free will to do so.

Now you can demonstrate how deeper meanings to words somehow allows the existence of a free will.

Again, under your subjective definition of "free", if something is predetermined, it is not free.

But I don't consider randomness/spontaneity to be equal to freedom in the context of human freedom. My idea of freedom, in the context of ths topic, is a very reasonable one in that freedom of choice is that which is exercised in accordance with one's intent or desire. Ok? That's all there is to it. I can do what I want a lot of the time. You can do what you want a lot of the time. That's freedom.

And Rozkek, please stop treating us as if we have no idea what libertarian free will means or entails. Perhaps rather than just arguing strawman with us over and over again, how about you consider what we're actually trying to say instead? I'm not a newbie when it comes to this topic, and I used to a hard determinist myself as a matter of fact (up until fairly recently), so I know very well what libertarian free will is about. I also, for the record, do not find the idea of no libertarian free will to be depressing. This isn't an emotional struggle for me. The free will you speak is illogical, of course. I am in no way disputing that. But again and again and again, argue against my idea of freedom. Tell me how my idea of freedom is irrational.

How is something free if it's determined, enlighten me. If we're going to be that subjective I can give a rock a free will.

You can do what you want, I know that, everyone does. But what you want, in other words what your will is isn't your free choice =))))))

Strawmanning? I'm saying even your definition of free will doesn't exist. The free will I speak of is not illogical, it can be applied and should be applied e.g when someone is going to be sentenced for a crime. It also makes, at least me understand people better.

[RozKek]

I'm losing taste in this debate, got boring real fast.