I don’t think anyone here has argued for something akin to “non free will”. Many here believe that free will is “something” that they possess, in spite of the fact that they’re unable to say what that something might be.

I have argued that the concept is a logical impossibility. It simply makes no sense. This is not the same as endorsing a new concept called “non free will”. To have non free will, you’d have to be able to coherently say what free will is. This cannot be done.

If someone said “I believe in ‘qwertyuiopianism’ and he is unable to define what ‘qweretyuiopianism’ is, I would say “qwertyuiopianism without a definition is a meaningless string of letters and nothing more”. This is not the same as saying “I believe in ‘non-qwertyuiopianism’”. See the difference?

Because of your definition of the word 'free'. But why narrow it down to only free will? there are so many other concepts made up by combining the word 'free' with another word, like 'free market'.

Total boundlessness cannot exist. If you define freedom as total boundlesness, anything combined with the word becomes a contradiction.
Like deadliving mouse, deadliving cat, deadliving people, deadliving birds.

"If someone said “I believe in ‘qwertyuiopianism’ and he is unable to define what ‘qweretyuiopianism’ is, I would say “qwertyuiopianism without a definition is a meaningless string of letters and nothing more”. This is not the same as saying “I believe in ‘non-qwertyuiopianism’”. See the difference?"

yes but that is not what I am talking about. I think you misunderstand what I am saying becasue it is hard to really put it into language. When I say "non free will" I am referring to basically any arguement against free will. To make points as to why free will might not make sense is one thing, and totally reasonable..but to then say that free will does not exist, without really acknowledging that the whole concept in it's entirety is man made anyway just seems off to me. This is really hard to explain and I dont expect my words to be interpreted the way I mean them.

There seems to be a sort of paradox here and this is why I think that at the level we are currently at it is pointless to assume we can take the discussion much farther. It is a subject that seems far to complex for our current capacity for complexity.

"Total boundlessness cannot exist. If you define freedom as total boundlesness, anything combined with the word becomes a contradiction.
Like deadliving mouse, deadliving cat, deadliving people, deadliving birds."

yes and that is a problem with the semantics of such a discussion. The way that most people in daily life use the term "free will" makes it sound as if they think they can just jump up and fly away over the rainbow on they're purple magical unicorn if they will it. This is why I made the distinction between that sort of "free will" and the ability to make an informed choice.

I still think that anytime you lean towards having free will, or not having free will you have have just collapsed into a dualisitc mindgame and missed the whole point. The reality of the situation is probabily far far more complicated that that and requires extra dimensions of thought to properly grasp.

Think of it this way. If you believe that you are one with the rest of the universe on some level, that everything is connected than you must agree that you do not have limitless movement as an individual within that whole. The only thing that could possibly have that sort of ability would be the whole itself..which again brings about another paradox becasue you have to ask at what level do we concider something whole if you believe in infinity..are we as individuals objectivly whole in one sense?..it just goes on and on. There is always paradox.

When I concider the paradox I tend to think ANYTHING is possible though, so every point I make I try to leave conclusionless, which seems impossible to do with language so I feel hopeless when it comes to conveying how I really feel about such things.

Since free will can’t be adequately defined, we can’t really comment on what it is or isn’t. But the concept of choice is clearly defined, so we can talk about choice.

It’s not possible to make a “free” choice, as I’ve explained countless times now. This is not mysterious or complex beyond human understanding. It’s fairly simple and straightforward.

Even though we can’t define free will adequately, what we can do is express a condition: IF free will is defined so that it is related to or depends on choice, then free will is a logical impossibility and cannot exist. Notice that this statement doesn’t say what free will is or isn’t, or even if it exists or not. It’s saying that if you define it in a certain way, then the result is a logical impossibility.

What this means is that, for those who believe that free will exists, they must define it in a way such that it is not related to or dependent on choice.

So here’s my final word: If someone can define free will in a way such that it is not related to or dependent on choice, and in a way that preserves the meaning of the word “free”, then I’ll agree that free will exists. I’m waiting…

I would define free will like endlesness does, as a gradual phenomenon.

The real problem with the concept of free will, if we leave the semantics for what they are, is that the human mind is such a complex thing.

I think that the complexity of it lies in it's reflective nature: i assume that free will is a phenomenon that is defined by some form of self reference.

Iteration is a mathematical phenomenon known throughout nature, seen in DNA sequencing, language and in geometric structures like the mantelbrot.
It allows simple formula's to spiral into infinitely complex patterns.

The self-iterative part of it is probably, that the concept (or illusion) of free will itself is part of how it functions: thinking that you are making a decission is likely to affect the decision.

It is also here where the paradox may arise with the different levels of complexity endlesness refers to: Knowing you are not entirely free, will increase your level of freedom both in the levels of self-reflection as in the subsequent greater availability of more options to choose between.

The word free in my view would refer to the infinite complexity of it wich is responsible for it's unpredictability and probably also for the illusion of boundlesness.

In this sense speaking of free will makes sense because it makes a distinction between non-complex and infinitely complex forms of agency.

do you know where all those concepts originate?
that's right..

they're concepts of consciousness. good luck showing those exist outside of prefrontal cortex
perception.

So are you making the claim that being aware is related with size of prefrontal cortex? So conclusion is if you measure prefrontal cortex you can have a clear view on who's "enlightened" and who's not? I dont think so, and I dont think you do either.

Im talking about something else, not just amount of possibilities. More like a universal sense of responsibility to one's actions and dedication to inner growth. You know what I mean?

Gibran keeps saying it cant be free but I feel like it is some kind of freedom, in level of experiencing reality, imo. I do not consider two actions to be the same free because it depends on the consciousness of the person doing it, context, consequences, etc. Do you not feel this too gibran, and if this is not related to some kind of semi-free will, then where is it? Where does it fit in, or do you not adopt it in your current world model?

has nothing to do with the size of a prefrontal cortex, it's simply a matter of having one.
just having one allows an organism to make decisions independent of logic and instinct.



that's what nazis and communists would have you believe. might as well forfeit all the traits that make you human. call the thought police, because free-thinking isn't allowed to exist...it's a thought crime, and an impossibility.

Yeah but how do you explain the level of awareness then? What is its purpouse? Dont you think inside the different "free-will"s of humans, there are different levels, levels of freedom, of awareness, conscience and consciousness ?

yes I do.
I don't think it's as simple as, "cause makes free will an impossibility".
especially from a nonmaterialistic point of view, this really makes no sense..
because if you determine that consciousness occurs from an immaterialistic source
(which there is no basis for), then free will also comes from an immaterialistic source...because it is a product of consciousness.

if we have no free will, we have no consciousness. it's all an illusion.
hey, that's my 'belief', so it doesn't need evidence to show it...right?


this is why even logic is flawed.

Wow… This is obviously a very sensitive topic for you.

I think you’re getting confused about the philosophical implications of supposed “free will” and the social implications of the concept “freedom”. The only thing these two concepts have in common is the first four letters of the labels we use to reference them.

You don’t need Nazis or Communists to keep you from exercising free will – physics already determines your every thought and feeling. Every atom in your prefrontal cortex is obediently and unerringly conforming to the laws that define physical existence.You are controlled by the laws of physics. This seems to upset you?

(btw: Nazism is a variety of Fascism, and both were very anti-Communist.)


”The ultimate freedom is not having to choose at all.”

When you are presented with the option to act, you must make a choice. The choice is minimally between acting or not acting. You must choose. Every moment of your life, you are continuously presented with options, and choosing is not optional. You must choose! How is that free?

if you're going to argue philosophically, then don't mention physics, because that's another school of thought....especially if you can't show physical evidence that consciousness occurs outside of the physical realm. consciousness is obviously very relevant to this discussion.

OK – let’s just discuss all of this from a purely materialistic point of view. It actually makes the discussion much easier:

Matter and energy obey physical laws.

We are made of matter and energy.

Therefore, we obey physical laws.

Easy!

You also conveniently ignored this paragraph (which is not a philosophical opinion, but rather a simple observation) :

definitely

and i said, of course, we are bound by those laws...but we are permitted to make choices within
those laws...so it is, in effect, semi-free will.

this also observes that conscious decisions occur in a materialistic realm, as does consciousness.
if there is no free will, there is no free consciousness,
it is an impossibility... show me physical/nonphysical evidence otherwise.

What’s “free consciousness”? I’ve never heard that one before. And how is consciousness bound to will, free or otherwise?

Of course we make choices. But the choices we make are fully and completely bound to physical laws. So how is that free?

well, free will is obviously a constuct of consciousness..
you contend that consciousness originates from a nonmaterialistic source. this is inconsistant with your theory that physics negates free will. of course free will isn't free, we are bound by these laws of physics. so therefore, consciousness is also bound by these laws, since they originate from neurological processes, which you've already acknowledged.

but your logic is inconsistent...

how can consciousness originate from an immaterial source, if we are actively aware of it in a waking state? there are means of testing this, and thought-->action responses. correlations can be physically shown which connect decision with action, of course, this is based in the physical realm, our best model to show that consciousness has a biological source.

Please don’t take this the wrong way – it really isn’t meant to be derogatory – but, … what are you saying? Your ideas are devolving into gibberish:

You’ve talked about consciousness and introduced a new concept you call “free consciousness”. You claim that free will is tied to consciousness (and “free consciousness”?), make claims about some magical properties of the prefrontal cortex, acknowledge that we are bound by physical laws, yet we are somehow, although bound, not bound when we make choices. You claim that inanimate objects and other non-human organisms don’t have free will, but that humans, although constrained by the same physical laws, are somehow exempt from their consequences. Gibberish!

My ideas and beliefs are and have been consistent: I believe consciousness arises from an immaterial (non-physical) source. It is not bound to free will in any way, because free will (if defined as being associated with choice) does not exist. Only consciousness exists. The rest is “illusion”.

that is absolutely incorrect.
the idea of free will came from consciousness, as did consciousness itself, and language, for that matter. if you can't show evidence that consciousness originates from an immaterial source, there's really no point of even mentioning it. it's just an anecdote.

Ugh...