Neither you nor peacegirl, can base Free-Will on what does not or cannot exist.
You can only base Free-Will on what DOES exist and CAN exist. That’s the problem here, premising Freedom from a negative, versus a positive.
If your Axiom is negative, then yes, I agree, you will never have Free-Will. You defined it as impossible from the onset. It’s not something you are willing to consider.
It’s not even a possibility, for you, or for her.
It’s a theory with evidence supporting it -
but a theory it will always remain, I suspect.
In science, theories are never really said to be known 100% -
rather, they’re spoken in terms of likelihood and confidence.
That’s for you to reconcile with.
There are multiple definitions of free will - none of which I created.
I was taught the concept of free will, which I took for granted for many years,
until I was given reason to question it & it’s connotations.
Afterwhich, I arrived at the conclusion I didn’t [**] believe in the accuracy of the concept.
I’m not trying to force you to agree with me.
I hope, that I can speak accurately to this belief system -
such that you understand the position of others.
If you understand my position,
that’s a success to me.
It is for you to decide what you make of it.
If you have substantial criticisms,
I’m always open to hearing them.
But as I said earlier,
I think it’s an unfair request on my behalf -
as I don’t really think it’s possible to disprove [or prove].
…so probably, there’s little else to say.
[ heading out, may respond later - don’t hold me to it
have a good one, friend ]
EDIT:
** did to didn’t - complete opposite meaning 
Isn’t this much the basis of Philosophy?
That mental limits define the barrier between Free-Will and individual constraints? And what is possible to one person, one mind, is not so to others? Although a great many people are limited, and agree on limits, again this does not speak to any certainty or barriers that ‘cannot’ be crossed. At least not physically. Physical constraints are matters of Physics. But the Metaphysical is another matter that pushes the conversation and debate forward. Forget about what’s physically possible—consider what is mentally possible. If you can’t imagine it, then you wouldn’t believe it even if you saw it. It would take a miracle, for the majority of people of Earth to believe in “Free-Will”. At least by how they define it, under specific constraints. Essentially, what is Possible or Probable to one, does not necessarily apply to others. Because peacegirl misses this point, she and her position cannot be convincing. It won’t persuade or convince.
The most common point I come across here, between Free-Will and Determinism, is that the average man or woman define “Free-Will” in such a way as to constrain their animal desires. That if relieved from Constraint (Morality) then people would commit every atrocity, evil, sin, crime, etc. This only proves the obvious among the majority—the masses do suppress animalistic desires which would otherwise “be evil” and “do harm”. This is the exact reason why peacegirl denies Free-Will. It’s in her name: peace-girl. She knows, within herself, that if her emotional desires were released, then Calamity would result. Thus she makes it ‘impossible’ for herself to do so. She wants to convince others, to join her in her (morally validated) self-suppression. She then contradicts herself at will, you can be free (gain moral responsibility), but only after you’re not free.
She fails to realize her own contradiction.
The problem with this point of debate, up to now, is that it focuses on Morality, and not what is physically possible, and not what is mentally possible. Rather the focus is squarely on what is emotionally possible, whatever is “not criminal” or within the laws of mankind.
It says nothing about Nature. It says nothing about Physics.
_
Your thoughts on this, will be most welcome @Urwrong.
It depends on how damaged the brain is. What does this have to do with the author’s demonstration that we can only move in the direction of greater preference? Are you purposely getting off track to try to offset anything related to the FACT that we have NO FREE WILL? Explain yourself.
You are out in left field Ichthus77. You don’t seem to be able to understand anything I’m saying. You just don’t get it. It’s okay. I understand why but it does not take away from the truth that we have no free will whatsoever.
Are you being serious? I hope not. Do you understand anything I’ve posted? ANYTHING AT ALL? I’m dumbfounded.
You are using a definition that I AM NOT. The flawed definition of determinism would make us slaves. We are our own people in that we are not controlled by anything external. But we are controlled by a law that compels us to choose what we want, not what we don’t want. Why can’t you agree to something that is so obvious other than wanting to prove me wrong?
Switching gears to insert discussion of physics for a second. The input we receive about the context we are in is old information. But it’s still actionable in a relevant frame.
We can’t act on 300-year-old information, unless you’re talking about a shock wave so strong it will destroy all life on Earth unless everyone goes underground for 50 years in little arks all over the unaffected part of the globe.
But even the signals in our brains take time. Is it so much time our experience is illusory - of being the decision-maker of some things we do with our body?
No. Here’s something I haven’t read:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746176/
Stuff that only makes sense with free will:
None of those things matter or would even be thinkable if we didn’t have free will.
To say we have no free will is to nullify the point of advance warning systems.
We can do something about it because we have free will. We only get upset when no one does anything about it because (when) we know they could have. We don’t blame those without a consent structure or choice mechanism… free will.
If there is no free will, nothing Lessans offers will increase freedom. If what Lessans offers will increase freedom, there is free will.
You have to have the capacity to further develop the capacity. The resolution to Meno’s paradox (hunch) is … innate capacity…because nature** knows. That’s why DNA is in code & other stuff like that.
**I am not suggesting we “worship the creation” … I am suggesting the use of the word “nature” as meant by Kant in this:
drive.google.com/file/d/1wtXoLk … p=drivesdk
What does the input we receive timewise have to do with the fact that will is not free?
You are not using the definition the author gave. You go back to the definition that is flawed. Determinism does not mean any of the things you are suggesting.
We don’t blame anyone with a consent structure or choice mechanism, because choice (or the ability to contemplate) does not mean it is FREE. Being able to consent does not make our will free. How can you blame someone who could not have done otherwise? We obviously have to blame in the world we are living, but as you follow the extension you will see that not blaming is better than blaming in every way.
Everything takes a 180 degree turn when the world stops blaming. Everyone will be free to do whatever they want, but God won’t let them use this freedom to take advantage.
Tell that to Steven Hawking. It is true that the brain has enormous compensatory abilities, but it can’t do the impossible. We all have limited options, some more limited than others. Whatever options we are using to make a choice at any given moment, we are compelled to choose the least undesirable or the most preferable of those options.
ADDED TO PREVIOUS POST:
"Moving from dissatisfaction (for lack of a better word) to greater satisfaction is the direction of all life; all humanity; all mammals. There is no consensus on “greater satisfaction.” Each person is different to a degree. All that is necessary is to know that under the changed environmental conditions, no one will be able to find GREATER SATISFACTION out of hurting another. This is the one common denominator.
I don’t have a choice (not a FREE one); neither do you.
I don’t, but the laws that govern us, do.
PG wrote: “Everything takes a 180 degree turn when the world stops blaming. Everyone will be free to do whatever they want, but God won’t let them use this freedom to take advantage.”
Ecmandu replies: ahh…. Shit! I didn’t know you were a god person. That explains it. Ichthus put you in your place by making a very simple statement: “so people can have more freedom than others?” That’s it. That’s the end PG. your whole argument is that we’re all determined but those who see no sin are freer. There is an iota of truth to that. I know females who aren’t into me in sexual ways are mentally handicapped. Why get angry at retards?
There is a freedom to not getting angry when you realize there are 8 billion retards. It’s a mental health issue, and you should never expect recovery …
It just is what it is.
You are closer to the truth than Unwrong and Ichthus77, although the word “cause” is problematic when defining determinism. Nothing from the past causes a person to do what they do in the present, for all we have is the present. The past is but a memory. We are not forced to do anything against our will (as if we are slaves to an outside force); rather, we are compelled by our nature to choose (when given options) that which is the most preferable. What is significant here is that the decision-making process occurs only in the present. We are free to choose what we want (when there is nothing external forcing us), but what we want is subject to the influences (both our environment and heredity) that produce it, which is absolutely true.
You got it all wrong as usual. 
It isn’t that the present or future can’t be changed. New discoveries always bring change. This is no different. In fact, when this knowledge is confirmed valid and applied on a global scale, everything changes for the better.
The majority of the world believe in Free-Will. Why do you say it would take a miracle? That I don’t get at all. Very few of the masses have even thought about this topic. They think that because they have choices, they have free will. They can choose this or that FREELY. Isn’t that the theme?
I give up. This is not a contradiction if you are going by the author’s definition of determinism. We still get to choose Unwrong, and we can call it a free choice colloquially when we are choosing without force, but the moment we decide on one option over another, the option that was not chosen could have never been chosen at that moment. That is why the word “choice” is leading us astray. We are compelled to choose only the option that we find the most preferable. This can be easily seen when choosing between two very different set of options. For example, you have a choice to merge with oncoming cars without looking, or to merge while looking. Do you really have a choice? Are you free to choose B (to merge without looking) when A (to look) is available to you? Do you feel the compulsion? You could never have chosen to not look because it would have given you less satisfaction, which is a direction you cannot go.
Although most of our choices are less dire, the compulsion is still there whenever we are choosing between meaningful differences. If you analyze your own choices, especially if they are important ones, you will feel the compulsion. Sometimes we don’t have to make a choice at all. We just act. I just scratched my leg. I didn’t think about it but it was still a movement away from an uncomfortable position. Animals don’t contemplate or think in terms of greater satisfaction, but they still move instinctively from one position to another, which is life pushing them forward. To repeat: We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when a more satisfying alternative is available. This is an impossibility because it goes against the very law that we are part of and, consequently, cannot escape.
What I am sharing is only to demonstrate that we move in one direction. That’s all. This is not about the scope of what is mentally or physically possible. The definition I’m demonstrating does not limit human ability. It enhances it because it will give us more freedom (remember; the word freedom in this context is not contradictory) under the changed conditions to test one’s mettle.
I’m not a god person if you mean religious. I use the term as a metaphor for the laws of nature.
It’s not just about not getting angry at those who reject us. It’s about preventing the rejection at the outset. You would enjoy the chapter on Words, Not Reality, and Premarital Relations. It’s very comforting.
Influences, yes. That’s why “cause” is problematic.
Thank you for admitting we have free will. The determinism is self-determinism, as far as we are aware. Some have developed their innate capacity more than others, some have more options/info than others, but all persons have the seed: free will.
I agree with you that all that happens, including decisions, happens in “now”. For beings subject to time, we can influence the future only in now, and we can act on old info only in now.
Anything further waits for me to polish C Theory.
Ecmandu… 8 billion people can’t be wrong 
heh
For what it’s worth, I think more people believe in free will than don’t.
So the average person, by the literal meaning of average, does believe it.
I acknowledge that you said define, not believe - and to this I say,
I think most have not defined ‘free will’ in their own terms, but have accepted the concept that was taught to them - the general definition.
All one’s desires are animal desires, as we are animals - but this is pedantic.
You likely mean, ‘base animal desires’ - those that aren’t enlightened by logic / reason / deeper understanding.
A lot of one’s desires aren’t necessarily in conflict,
and can be guided and pruned, with one’s reason, towards wise behavior without compromising the initial instinct.
One however cannot chase every desire to it’s maximum extent without compromising other desires.
For example, one may desire to eat excessive amounts of food - but also desire to be healthy.
These two desires demand compromise - otherwise one desire will be neglected, producing dissonance.
With wisdom though, we can find a path balancing these desires - such that we meet a satisfactory equilibrium.
Determinism isn’t necessary to constrain base animal desires.
One can be an atheist, and still have the will to live in a way guided by reason -
not mindlessly chasing urges without any consideration towards the myriad of cascading consequences.
I believe we are born with preferences that can be utilized towards compassionate behavior,
that is authentic to our ‘nature’ / to our structure - enabling us to live a wise, ethical and fulfilling life.
We are a social animal. We evolved working as a cooperative unit.
Our structure does not demand of us that we ought be each other’s enemies.
A lot of our more violent tendencies are products of scarcity and non-mutual success.
Where two parties, due to their circumstances, have needs at the expense of the other.
Despite what we may be taught, this needn’t be applicable to our species currently.
We can coexist - if we were to change our expectations and ideals towards what a preferred society looks like.
Many aren’t doing this - thus, the conflict and the violence continues.
This is isn’t an indication of what our species is capable of -
but an indication of how we react to pretty dismal circumstances.
We ain’t saints, but can get close if we tried.
All that being said:
If one believes in determinism,
one can try to find the silver linings.
Try to find ways to utilize this information.
Not every truth is convenient,
and some believe things that inconvenient -
not because they want it to be the case,
but because their judgement concludes it to be the most likely case.
Not everyone who lacks belief in the credibility of free will,
desires that they have no free will - some do, sure, but not all.
Food and drug additives are Pollutants.
Although it’s undeniable the degrees of manipulation, subterfuge, demoralization used to control the general population, poison as byproduct and benefit of wealthy profit margins, at the end of the day, decisions and ‘Choice’ fall down to the level of individuals. You and I are responsible for what we ingest. You and I are responsible for our Society.
Let me know when starving lions on the Savannah start laying down peacefully with lambs. I’ll wait.
You’re only 50% correct here.
YOU don’t have a choice. But I do. I wish you had the ability Choose too, but, you choose not to have a choice.
That’s okay, you put up a better fight than Magnus, so props to you on that.
I’m thinking of a number between 1 to 100, take a moment and consider what number I’m thinking of …okay got it? Can you guess the number? The number I’m thinking of is the square root of negative one. Sorry, you lose. You see, there are no sets of rules that cannot be broken. Especially man-made ones. And I fear you don’t have enough knowledge of Physics to determine what is or is not physically possible. That’s the more interesting question, concerning Choice, Free-Will, Determinism, what is physically possible to do, or mentally possible to do.
Instead you remain locked in the Guilt of postmodern Morality, the emotional, animal drives that you work to suppress within yourself, and use as proof of YOUR lack of choice.
That’s not good enough, PG. That’s why what you say, isn’t convincing, to me, or anyone else really.
“We” are not going in the same direction though. And no amount of manipulating the Environment, changing the walls around of the rat maze, is going to remove Choice from the equation.
