Freewill debate.

[classthe_king]

How do we not have free will? We can do anything we want all the time. Of course because of the way our society is set up you SHOULD get a job and eduction to make money but that doesn't mean you HAVE to. And you have the free will to go about that anyway possible.

No we can't. We aren't free to do anything possible. We are confined to the laws of physics.

We can take different paths and choices but they are all subject to the laws of physics and the state of the universe. If we cannot change the laws of physics or the state of the universe then we are not truly free to do anything possible, are we champ?

That is literally one of the dumbest things I've read. I can't jump to Mars therefore I don't have free will durr durr. Are you serious? Freewill is about being able to make your own decisions. I couldn't run 100 mph no matter how much I wanted to but I still have the freewill to try and do it.

[CrashBand]

You're an idiot.

You said "We can do anything we want all the time" and "you have the free will to go about that anyway possible".

I'm sorry buster. We can't do anything we want all the time.

Freewill is about being able to make your own decisions. I couldn't run 100 mph no matter how much I wanted to but I still have the freewill to try and do it.

You are just changing the definition of having free will to 'the freedom to make different choices'.

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.

We are not free from certain contraints. The laws of physics and the state of the universe are relevant because they are the constraints that we are not free from.

[classthe_king]

No, you're wrong. Free will is, “a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives."

Of course we can't do anything we want because we're limited by our bodies but that has nothing to do with free will. You're just arguing semantics and being a prick. According to that definition we absolutely have free will because we have a plethora of choices we can make all the time through out our lives and we have the free will to make those choices. That's it.

[CrashBand]

You and many philosophers who argue for free will are changing the definition to suit you.

The conventional (libertarian) idea of free will makes no sense and cannot be brought into register with our scientific picture of the world.

I agree that we have the abilities to reason effectively, choose different paths etc.

But these abilities do not lend credence to the traditional idea of free will.

[classthe_king]

I'm not changing the definition of free will, that's from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (oh they changed it too har har har). That IS what free will is. Saying we don't have free will because we can't do things that the laws of physics don't let us do is beyond ridiculous and in this argument you're the one who's clutching at straws.

[CrashBand]

Saying we don't have free will because we can't do things that the laws of physics don't let us do is beyond ridiculous and in this argument you're the one who's clutching at straws.

Lol, that is why we don't have the traditional idea of free will.

[classthe_king]

Nobody has ever thought of freewill in that way. It's completely illogical.

[CrashBand]

This leads me to think you are ignorant to the subject of free will. You obviously haven't done much research on the matter.

The tradition notion is The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances

Which, as I've argued, makes no sense and contradicts with our scientific picture of the world.

Compatibilsts just define "free will" in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism or indeterminsm and completely bypass the problem.

[classthe_king]

This leads me to think you are ignorant to the subject of free will. You obviously haven't done much research on the matter.

The tradition notion is The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances

Which, as I've argued, makes no sense and contradicts with our scientific picture of the world.

Compatibilsts just define "free will" in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism or indeterminsm and completely bypass the problem.

Cite one source that states that's what free will is

[CrashBand]

I'm on my phone but just google 'fee will defintion'. The Internet has a dictionary doesn't it?

[EminemBase]

^ Free will is an illusion tbh.

Tend to agree in general with this sentiment; will post full thoughts in a bit.

[classthe_king]

I'm on my phone but just google 'fee will defintion'. The Internet has a dictionary doesn't it?

"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

There's the official dictionary definition and according to that we still have free will

[CrashBand]

Um. No we don't. I've already told you many times how we have constraints.

You were bringing up well thought out points in the atheist thread so I take back my idiot comment.

You should do more research regarding free will though.

It's not a secret that people who argue that we have free will change the definition to suit their argument.

As I have pointed out there are two levers for controlling outcomes in the universe.
1. The previous state of the universe
2. The laws that govern the universe

If you do not have some measure of influence on at least one of these two variables, you simply cannot affect (let alone control) any future state of the universe.

If you are unable to control any future state of the universe, (regardless of how it may feel to someone) you are incapable of making a true, free decision.

Your angle of quantum randomness doesn't bring any further credence to your argument.

Randomness simply removes predictability from the universe, it does not provide humans any additional control of outcomes.

[classthe_king]

Um. No we don't. I've already told you many times how we have constraints.

We don't have constraints of necessity or fate though, which is what the definition said.

As I have pointed out there are two levers for controlling outcomes in the universe.
1. The previous state of the universe
2. The laws that govern the universe

If you do not have some measure of influence on at least one of these two variables, you simply cannot affect (let alone control) any future state of the universe.

If you are unable to control any future state of the universe, (regardless of how it may feel to someone) you are incapable of making a true, free decision.

I still don't think this has anything to do with freewill. Why would you have to have influence on the previous state of the universe or the laws that govern it to be able to control a future state? If I choose to go out to dinner then I have created a different universe as opposed to if I stayed in to eat. That's free will. Obviously that's a small example but we have choices on all different levels of scales.

I understand that you're saying we don't have absolute free will because we can't do things that the laws of the universe won't let us do and therefore are constrained by the laws of the universe but I think that's stupid and we still have the free will to choose between the almost infinite amount of choices we do have available to us and that is enough for me to consider that we have free will.

Your angle of quantum randomness doesn't bring any further credence to your argument.

Randomness simply removes predictability from the universe, it does not provide humans any additional control of outcomes.

I just said that in case you brought up einstein because I've had people do that before. I just wanted to nip that in the bud before it started.

[Willy]

CrashBand, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned genetics at all yet. I have done a fair share of research into this topic and am kind of scared to do anymore. I'm going to enjoy my illusion.