If free will was not real

[J a c k]

Heh heh Gemini is kewl.

[Edwardo Piet]

And sexy.

[bennyboy]

IDK if I'd go so far as to say it -is-....particularly since the acknowledgement that it's possible, and that we have good evidentiary reason to suspect that it may be, is a sufficient response.

It's an evidenced plausibility (and possibility) that must be excluded, in any rigorous description of a non-trivially "free" will.

Now, it -could be- equally plausible and it -is- equally possible that the will is not deterministic in it's effect (which is what we give shits about), even if it is deterministic in composition and operation...it's just not in evidence at present, which is where the one proposition falls down relative to the other.

Hmmmm. . . and what would that demonstration look like?  You don't think forming intent and then acting on it however you want is free?

Okay, I'm gonna demonstrate my definition of free will, with a super-advanced scientific test.

Apparatus:
1)  A room
2)  3 flavors of ice cream: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry
3)  A sign, reading, "Please have some ice cream. But please take only one."
4)  Some test subjects.  They are apparatus, cuz, you know, they are machines.

Method:
Each subject will be put in a room with the ice cream and the sign.  A hidden camera will observe which kind of ice cream each takes.

Results:
People chose a variety of ice creams; some chose not to eat ANY ice cream; some ignored the sign and ate two or all of the ice creams.  Even though chocolate is clearly the best kind, many of them chose other kinds, because the influence of chocolatey goodness was insufficient to overcome their own predilections, as misguided as they may be.

Discussion:
Since people chose different kinds of ice cream, it is clear that the choice was variable not on their environment, but on their own agency.  Since free will is defined as the ability of agents to form and act on choices without compulsion or obstruction from their environment, it is therefore apparent that the test subjects were demonstrating free will.

Since this is an American test, performed on American soil, it is necessary hereby to quote also the constitution of those goodly landes: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness."

Now, since the test subjects' choice of ice cream was done in the pursuit of happiness, to call their liberty "trivial" is to call the American constitution "trivial." How dare you, sir! If you hate America so much, I recommend you move to Canada, where they have only Pickle and Ketchup ice cream flavors, and nobody eats ice cream because they are compelled by disgust not to!

[Angrboda]

A man walks into an ice cream parlor. He chooses between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. He chooses chocolate. Later, as he's eating the chocolate ice cream, he says to himself, "I could have had vanilla." Is that a true statement under determinism? No it is not, assuming the brain to be a deterministic thinking machine. The phenomenology of free will is a lie. He could not have chosen vanilla in that actual world, despite what might occur in possible worlds. So are we talking about possible worlds when we refer to the experience of choice? Or are we talking incorrectly about the actual world?

[bennyboy]

A man walks into an ice cream parlor.  He chooses between chocolate and vanilla ice cream.  He chooses chocolate.  Later, as he's eating the chocolate ice cream, he says to himself, "I could have had vanilla."  Is that a true statement under determinism?  No it is not, assuming the brain to be a deterministic thinking machine.  The phenomenology of free will is a lie.  He could not have chosen vanilla in that actual world, despite what might occur in possible worlds.  So are we talking about possible worlds when we refer to the experience of choice?  Or are we talking incorrectly about the actual world?

At that time, the sum total of his nature was such that he preferred chocolate ice cream (very sensible choice, I might add).  For him to be free of that, he'd have to be free of his own agency-- choose not to like the things he likes, etc.  But that's a misshapen view of free will in my opinion.

Determinism or not, soul or not, a man's gonna eat what he wants to eat.  How/why would he want to be free of that?

[Arkilogue]

A man walks into an ice cream parlor.  He chooses between chocolate and vanilla ice cream.  He chooses chocolate.  Later, as he's eating the chocolate ice cream, he says to himself, "I could have had vanilla."  Is that a true statement under determinism?  No it is not, assuming the brain to be a deterministic thinking machine.  The phenomenology of free will is a lie.  He could not have chosen vanilla in that actual world, despite what might occur in possible worlds.  So are we talking about possible worlds when we refer to the experience of choice?  Or are we talking incorrectly about the actual world?

At that time, the sum total of his nature was such that he preferred chocolate ice cream (very sensible choice, I might add).  For him to be free of that, he'd have to be free of his own agency-- choose not to like the things he likes, etc.  But that's a misshapen view of free will in my opinion.

Determinism or not, soul or not, a man's gonna eat what he wants to eat.  How/why would he want to be free of that?

How does he know he's craving the sweets and it's not the Candida that has colonized his body and brain?

[Gemini]

Ah, the lazy/silly hermeneutic for interpreting the Critique of Pure Reason. You've got to help me now. My Kant needs help. So much help!

The bolded word is a new word for me. That feels good in my balls.

I'm struggling with his transcendental idealism. Maybe you could use your hermaneutic in my Kant...use it slowly and skillfully, until the meaning explodes out of the text.

but how? I haven't read it?

Maybe if you read Kant while I say irrelevant stuff that hits you right in the redacted it would make you relax enough to comprehend everything Kantian with sublimely intuitive ease?'

I will either end up very popular with Kant scholars or working for an escort service. Wait, what is your plan, Mr. Turtle? Do you own an escort service? Are you a Kant pimp?

I turtley love making you limp from my exertions slow and deep in the phenomenology of your pretentiously frisky quivering redacted.

I see the thrust of your agruments. Your penetrating insights, slow though they may be at first, are deep. So, so deep. I'm going to have to pick my pretentiously friskly quivering redacted back up off the floor again

[Foxaèr]

A man walks into an ice cream parlor.  He chooses between chocolate and vanilla ice cream.  He chooses chocolate.  Later, as he's eating the chocolate ice cream, he says to himself, "I could have had vanilla."  Is that a true statement under determinism?  No it is not, assuming the brain to be a deterministic thinking machine.  The phenomenology of free will is a lie.  He could not have chosen vanilla in that actual world, despite what might occur in possible worlds.  So are we talking about possible worlds when we refer to the experience of choice?  Or are we talking incorrectly about the actual world?

You clearly used the terminology that "he chooses".

Clearly, he chose one over the other.

That is free will.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm struggling with his transcendental idealism. Maybe you could use your hermaneutic in my Kant...use it slowly and skillfully, until the meaning explodes out of the text.

How very delicious for you.

I will either end up very popular with Kant scholars or working for an escort service. Wait, what is your plan, Mr. Turtle? Do you own an escort service? Are you a Kant pimp?

I'm not a Kant one but I could be... I'm a turtle pimp with philosophical musings. Is that sufficent? Yes, yes it is. Suck my turtleyness

I see the thrust of your agruments.

I see the quivering is making you typo. This makes me feel good in my balls.

Your penetrating insights, slow though they may be at first, are deep. So, so deep. I'm going to have to pick my pretentiously friskly quivering redacted back up off the floor again

No, stay on the floor. I like it down there.

[Edwardo Piet]

You clearly used the terminology that "he chooses".

Clearly, he chose one over the other.

That is free will.

So free will is the fact we make decisions, to you?

Then you're having a conversation on your own. Go sit in the corner, there's turtley business afoot.