Haven’t you read any of my other posts? Do you know what a logical tautology is?

I’ll repeat what I’ve said numerous times now, just for you:

Either a choice has a cause, or a choice has no cause.

If a choice has a cause, then it depends on something. If it depends on something, then it isn’t free. If a choice has no cause, then the choice is random, and a random choice is not free.

Finally, IF free will is somehow associated with choice, then free will is not free. This is a contradiction, so free will can’t exist.

Where exactly is the logical error, and what is it?

well, based on logic, free will is a concept someone must've devised by thinking about it, assigned it a term..isn't this the fundamental basis of consciousness?
this was communicated throughout history, by conscious living beings (more evidence that consciousness has a biological source).

now, while we are bound by the laws of physics, would you argue that we cannot operate freely within these laws (i.e. 'degrees of freedom' ?
if so, explain your reasoning.

that is completely contradictory to the term.
yours is purely an argument in semantics.

there is no way free will is independent of choice.
a person makes a choice, and acts upon it. that person, under his/her own power, completed an action he/she decided upon, whether consciously or sub-consciously. if a person didn't have to choose, there's obviously no freedom involved. it was already predetermined.

Yes I know what a logical tautology is and I've been reading your bringing it up for pages now. First I'm gonna go ahead and say that propositional logic is inherently flawed as it is. Take this following argument which is clearly untrue, yet obeys all the laws of propositional logic:

1. q ---> p If I believe in God, God exists
2. q I believe in God
3. therefore p: therefore God exists

Secondly, you're creating this binary argument where choices without a cause are random, but they don't have to be. You could still have a non-arbitrary choice that depends on something.

"You are making the claim that free will somehow depends on consciousness and that both exist. So it’s up to you to:

1 – Prove consciousness exists.
2 – Prove free will exists.
3 – Prove free will depends on consciousness.

Get to it!"

What else would you suppose it depends on? The point benzyme is making has alot more somewhat verifiable weight behind it compared to whatever it is you seem to be suggesting. I am not saying that anyone here is right but you yourself stated already that you think it is basically impossible to know so all we have to speculate upon is what we DO know.

My claim is that free will doesn’t and can’t exist. So I can’t say what a non-existent “something” depends on or doesn’t depend on.

If someone claimed that Santa Claus exists, and then claims that Christmas depends on Santa Claus, I wouldn’t argue about whether or not the dependence exists, I’d argue about whether or not Santa Claus exists. And if it can be shown that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, then the Christmas-Santa Claus dependence issue is moot.

Since it can be shown that free will is a logical impossibility, the issue of dependence between free will and consciousness is moot.

However, if someone makes a claim that consciousness, free will, and an inter-dependent relationship between them exist, then he should be ready to prove the claims. If he is unable to prove them, then the claims get demoted to personal beliefs which are not subject to proof.

you're also claiming that free will negates choice, and vice-versa; that is a logical fallacy.
if you don't have to choose, it really isn't free will. the concept of free will was devised to describe the ability to actively choose to make decisions, conscious or subconscious decisions.

Free will doesn't negate anything because free will does not exist. Choices can’t be free, so if free will is defined as being related to choice, then free will - as defined - is a logical impossibility.

I never said that we don’t have to choose. To the contrary, we are bound by physical law to choose, and the choices we make are determined by physical law.

and before you argue that we technically wouldn't be free, we obviously can still freely make choices within the defined parameters of physical laws.
I've made examples of how I can act [semi]freely to execute a choice, no force/entity stops me; but you don't show any evidence for how I don't freely make the decision, you just counter with logical fallacies.

If i say I'm going to get a drink of water, then get a drink of water, I have acted 'freely' within the laws of physics (I didn't say I was going to teleport).

I'm not sure what you mean by "operate freely within these laws"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom

mechanistically speaking, I freely act upon a decision, and nothing (sterics, divine intervention, antibonding orbitals, etc.) prevented it.

you bring a valid argument when you mention physics, but claiming having to choose isn't free will, is faulty logic.

"My claim is that free will doesn’t and can’t exist. So I can’t say what a non-existent “something” depends on or doesn’t depend on."

Yes but my point is that you have not provided evidence that would have me entirely convinced that it can not exist. So I dont know why you therefore expect someone else to back up they're points by proving that consciousness exists? It cannot be proven, just as you can't prove that free will does not exist. I am only observing this from a sort of rationalist perspective, because in truth I dont think that it either exists or does not exist.

As long as we are saying that it is either this way or that way I think there will always be some variable. This is something that is impossible to verify.

Now, what benzyme is saying I think does make some sense though, and I would agree with him. His definition of "free will" is different than my personal one though becasue I would define it as something not limited to certain parameters, such as physics. You see how this is still just about semantics?

that's ultimately what it is, a semantics debate...

but whoever originally came up with the idea of free will simply had decision-making in mind; it wasn't a tautological fuckall.

I have REPEATEDLY provided evidence.
Free will, IF it is defined in a way that relates it to choice, is a logical impossibility. Here is the proof:

Either something causes a choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free, or nothing causes the choice to be made, in which case the choice isn’t free. This is a logical tautology and is always true.

The only possible way that free will might exist is if it can be defined in a way that doesn’t relate it to choice. I’ve said this before, and no one has yet explained how one can have free will without making choices. It seems that “will”, whether free or not, is inextricably linked to choice.

I do agree that part of the problem is semantic. The words “will” and “free” and “choice” are used in many different ways and can mean many different things.

that doesn't constitute logical proof, because you haven't defined the parameters, i.e. 'something', 'cause', and 'free'.

The statement is a logical tautology regardless of how we define the terms. Symbolic logic doesn't rely on definitions of variables/clauses. We could substitute any symbols and it would remain true.

What is the importance of the realization that there is no free will, gibran2?

How does that affect your daily life? In what way do you think humans individually or society would benefit from accepting there is no free will? What difference does it make?

It's a fallacious "tautology" and is only true in propositional logic. From a phenomenlogical logic perspective, I have free will because that is how it presents itself to me.

You believe you have free will, but you can't prove it.

you believe consciousness exists from an immaterial realm but you can't prove it.