[i][i]Using the term “free will”, whether by its advocates or its opponents, denotes the concept of “unfree will” in contrast.
If, by any chance, there is no unfree will, and what all the "will"s in the world can be, is free, then there is no need to argue whether there is “free will” or not. In that case, what may be in question is if there is a will or not, since a “will” is inherently taken to be free.
On the other hand, if there are such distinctive concepts as “free will” and “unfree will”, however, they should naturally have distinctive properties, too, differentiating them from one another.
Suppose you decide to cross the street; who is going to tell if that is an example of a free will or an unfree one, and by what criteria?
One thing worth mentioning here, is that if someone forces you into doing that, at gun point, it cannot be considered an example of an unfree will, unless you call all “will"s unfree, since it is a normal cause and effect process which is not essentially any different from other cause and effect processes that take place in decision making, but might not look as evident.
If you decide to cross the street at gun point, 1. you know why you have made such a decision; and 2. you most probably are not very interested to do so.
On the other hand, if you decide to cross the street where there’re no guns, 1. you may not be quite sure what your ultimate cause would be, and 2. most of the time, you might not feel much dislike to do so. These differences are not enough to make for such dramatic distinction.
If you can never tell the true difference, however, why should you be so happy about having a philosophically free will (in contrast to a common"free will”, meaning “you are free to do whatever you like to, or you deem necessary”.)
It is ok, if you say you stick to any idea, whether right or wrong, as long as it gives you comfort, but what if the sum of the consequences of having such notion proves the contrary?
Still, my main questions are:

1. Is it possible to practically make a distinction between a free will and an “unfree will”(if it exists)?
2. On the assumption that there are no "unfree will"s, why should one use the term “free will”? [/i][/i]

Will - deliberate intention or wish -

Assuming this definition, I think it’s very clear that people do indeed have a will.

As a hard determinist, I say that the will people possess is not free, rather a product of past conditions set in motion before one existed.

There’s a distinct difference between free will and determinism (‘unfree will’) and there’s reason to make the distinction.

Free will attributes the individual as the sole author and cause of the will, thus credits the individual entirely for the results of said will - good or bad.

Determinism attributes a range of factors internally and externally that shape the individual (including their will), thus does not credit the individual entirely for a result, instead focuses on the degree any which influence contributed to the result.

=

Sam Harris gave an example relating to this -

A man went on a shooting massacre that killed and injured many people. Before going on the massacre, the man wrote a note asking that his body be studied because he couldn’t understand why he had these urges to be violent, when beyond these urges, he lived a normal healthy life.

After his death at the scene of the crime, his body was taken to be autopsied. The medical examination uncovered a tumor that was inside the man’s brain. It was growing in an area involved in decision making and impulse control.

It is believed that the tumor influenced an otherwise healthy human being, to commit an atrocity. The man didn’t cause the tumor to grow, nor did he have awareness of it’s influence or existence. Initially the man was portrayed as ‘evil’, yet in light of the medical examination, he was considered more of a victim than perpetrator.

=

To hold someone to account for something beyond their control - to punish them for being shaped into something undesirable by factors beyond their control, doesn’t make sense.

It also isn’t just, reasonable or fair.

Free will misrepresents reality, and thereby perpetuates ignorance and mistakes due to that ignorance.

The current legal system is a prime example of perpetuating ignorance.

Neither exist. The scientists never tell you what consciousness is doing both in and of itself, or in response to input. If the consciousness is doing something in here, rather than hanging around taking orders, then whatever that something is, is making effect.

Ergo one party affects the other and vice-versa. One is the party of the whole [consciousness], the other of the parts [= physical brain [non-conscious part at least], then one which experiences and responds, and that which is lit the instrument of input [is a biological instrument being utilised by a consciousness].

50/50% relationship but both exist for the one.

ANOTHER free will post? This is getting out of hand.

It was out of hand 200 years ago.

Some things are determined. Some things you can choose. You can choose to stand on train tracks, but you can’t choose to not get hit by a train in doing so.

The End.

Free will - the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. + freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Free (As quoted by James) -

a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; free from need.
b. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: income that is free of all taxes.
5. Not subject to external restraint:

====

To the other posters -

What’s your issue with discussing free will?

Are you challenged by it, yet have no defense?

Discussing an issue is a problem to you also?

Perhaps a philosophy forum is the wrong place for you.

The definitions you posted do not answer the questions raised by the OP.

Nor are they an argument for or against the issue.

Unfortunately for you, stating something doesn’t make it true, furthermore, it’s an unpersuasive and lazy form of argument.

Sorry, don’t mean to derail your topic.

Just…there’s probably over a hundred topics on this now on this forum.

Ben, what are you trying to persuade people to believe about the free will argument?

I’m stating my beliefs in regard to free will, and am opening the door to any substantial defense of free will.

When discussing anything being “free”, one has to include of what it is to be free. Nothing is free from literally ALL things, else it wouldn’t physically exist.

You can’t prove that I don’t have free will until you can predict all my actions.

Yes.

I gave free will a definition - highlighting my interpretation of it. I also quoted the definition of free you gave, in the context that I believe is relevant to the issue of free will.

My argument is that our will doesn’t meet the criteria of being free.

You agree then that our will isn’t ‘literally’ free, and free will ‘literally’ doesn’t exist?

Now the question is, could your actions ever have been different than they were?

Is this not to say the past determines the future?

If the past determines the future, and all elements of our existence are a progression of an environment that existed long before us, how can we claim complete authority of the result?

Non-free or confined will doesn’t stumble at this question, it can ‘literally’ exist, and I argue it does.

==

Free will - the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. + freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

All I have to prove is that your will is either constrained or determined by prior causes.

It’s widely accepted that a person’s external environment contributes significantly to their development. Since we do not control our external environment, the effect of the external environment on the individual undermines their capacity for free will.

It doesn’t even seem necessary to make arguments relating to one’s authority of their internal environment.

Humans have no “free will”, but only a relative free will.

Those are two different types of “free-will”. The first specifies that something is free from “certain factors” (not free from all). The second specifies that something is free from ALL things by referring to “[any] prior causes”. The first type always exists and the second type never exists.

From the “God perspective”, no they could not. All things are determined by the past Situation (also known as “God”).

Certainly.

But if anyone is expecting to make an argument concerning the lack of blame due to determination, it won’t fly.

Thought is directly correlated to processes within our brain.

Thought is a product of the brain.

As smell is to one’s nose, as sound is to one’s ears, as taste is to one’s tongue, as sight is to one’s eyes.

Thought is not some mystical thing detached from reality. It’s the product of a chemical process within our brain.

The certain factors aren’t specified.

I believe a certain factor that restricts one’s will is the past, which one had no control over.

As you say further in your post, the past determines the present, thus, the past completely restricts the present.

This is sufficient reason to reject the idea that our will has any degree of freedom.

Our will is completely constrained, but we’ll still call it ‘free will’?

That doesn’t make sense.

We’ll hold people accountable for a will that is completely determined by factors beyond their control?

Are you listening to yourself?

A determined universe is different than God.

A determined universe isn’t said to love man, isn’t said to have any interest in man, isn’t said to have any intent, isn’t said to be sentient, isn’t said to be benevolent, isn’t said to be watching everything we do, isn’t said to be judging us.

A determined universe doesn’t command that we do not murder, that we do not steal, that we’re not allowed to believe in anything else.

You’re the one saying it’s God, but that’s your mistake.

The situation, as you describe it, is responsible.

The composition of all factors that contributed to an outcome, is responsible.

An individual isn’t the composition of all factors that contribute to any result, thus, the individual should never be held solely responsible.

Even within the system that is the individual’s body, there are many different factors that compose the reason for any act. Yet, not all elements that compose the individual contribute equally to any given result. Thus, to retaliate against the entirety of an individual, is a crude means of resolution.

A man has a tumor in his brain. The tumor led the man to commit a crime. The tumor is the main culprit, not the the man in his entirety. Respond to the tumor.

A man is raised to be racist. Racism led a man to enslave another man. The racism is the culprit, not the man in his entirety. Respond the the racism.

These are very simplified scenarios, but I’m trying to make a point. That is, respond directly to the source, whilst doing as little harm as possible.

To villainize, to accuse of being ‘evil’. That isn’t a real solution. That’s ignorance.

Why do you want to perpetuate ignorance?

=

You imply that determinism is a crutch, just people who don’t want to accept responsibility.

This is bullshit.

I’ve done more things in my life that I have to be proud of, than I have of things that ever caused me shame. My existence has been a net positive, I’m well in the green. Beyond that, I face all my mistakes, learn from them, and set them right.

I believe free will to be false and determinism to be the truth, and if those beliefs are true, there are serious implications that ought be considered and responded to.

Determinism humbles me. Anything positive I have done, is simply a product of the past, which I did not cause.

Well… You do. That isn’t what I call it.

So why keep doing it?

Do you seriously think that I am ever not?

I will ignore your misinterpretations and bow to your vastly superior wisdom.

I prefer to see everything in here-and-now. With that in mind, it is not desirable to attribute restraint to the past, but rather, to the forces in our brain that were shaped by the past events.

I’ve been claiming free will doesn’t exist from the moment I entered this thread and a long time before that.

I say we have a will, but it isn’t free. I do not claim we have free will.

You’re the one misrepresenting me.

You did, and I quote:

James: ‘Those are two different types of “free-will”. The first specifies that something is free from “certain factors” (not free from all). […] The first type always exists.’

You just claimed free will exists, and now you’re denying it.

You’re purposefully trying to confuse the situation. You’re perpetuating ignorance.

You’re blatantly misrepresenting the situation.

You claimed free will exists.

I did not.

Cut the bullshit.

You keep implying that a deterministic universe is synonymous with God.

It isn’t.

I pointed it out, and now you’re going into the refuge of sarcasm.

Typical bullshit from James, ladies and gentlemen.

==
==

And as I want people to see my post, not your shitty half arsed misrepresentation of it, I’ll quote it below.

Notice how much James completely skewed what I said?

And if your preferences of perception and desires for attribution are the source of problems in the here-and-now, what then?

The effects of the past are in the here-and-now. Determinism doesn’t only relate to the past, it informs the present. It does not restrict one from focusing on the present, as I focus on the present. I just don’t falsely attribute the present as a product of the present detached from the past, and I do not ignore the past.

I’m going to sleep now, but I think your reasoning is flawed.