Proof of nonexistence of free will

I completely agree with the original OP. However, as one writer said, you can't prove a universal negative., although you can show reasonableness. So if we're going to turn this around and put it back on the libertarians, here is a simple task. All you have to do is tell us what free will means. If it ends up being experiences or hormonal emotions that guide us, it's deterministic. If it ends up being a nature that is unique to everyone, it's deterministic. If it ends up being due to the randomness of quantum particles (if they truly are random), then it's arbitrary and random. So what in the world is this free will if it's not causal or pointless?

It's okay if I'm deceiving myself, because the very fact that you are responding to my post is enough validation for this observer.

If I am not mistaken, the term comes from religion. God is all-powerful, but has seen fit in his benevolence to grant you the option to disregard his commands and rules, thereby washing his hands of all the ungodly and f**ked up things that's going on in this world.

Then philosophers contrasted free will with determinism, but that does not give a satisfactory account of the fact that some things we can chose and some things we can't. You can't say either or, because without the background of a determined state of affairs the ability to make choices is meaningless.

You can quit your job, and you probably know what would happen.
You can walk over to the neighbor and steal his car, and you also know what would happen.
You can jump off a building, and there's a pretty definite ending to that choice.
You can chat up a girl. You have a pretty good idea what is likely to happen and what probably won't happen if you do.

All of these things you can chose with your own free will. But how will you know what to chose if you have no anticipation of what the outcome might be, If there wasn't a background of determined outcomes you were able to aim for...?

Free will is not the contrast to determinism. It's how we practice it...

Best explanation thus far on this topic - IMHO.

The "internal mode" of our being is in-determination, which we call self-determination, because we also experience ourselves as external objects. Free will is internal determination as directly experienced by us, instead of our external projection of it (self-determination).



Free will is no mediation: it is unmediated, just as indetermination itself is unmediated--although you can map all external determinations of your decisions (all their circumstances) the decision itself comes from the indetermination that constitutes your subjectivity.



Free will does not coincide with its external determinations: it always transcends them. This is called "time."



It is rather free will that becomes conscious of the subject as an external object--although you can perceive yourself as a concrete body (your hands, your image on a mirror), you as an indeterminate subject is not only beyond all those perceptions, but also behind them.



Free will is our very subjectivity, without which our consciousness would simply vanish.

Perhaps you could find your answer by watching the adjustment bureau!

You do however, have a choice in beliefs. This is ultimately what compels behavior. Depending on one's understanding of "beliefs," this may or may not support your idea.

You do however, have a choice in beliefs. This is ultimately what compels behavior.>>

Belief is a feeling and behavior is a reaction to a situation. I thought everyone knew that.

Reasons are causes. Reasons influence you to do something because that's why you do it. Why else would you do it? Only unintentionally.>>

Maybe a better way to put it is cause always precedes effect.

Your post, for example, caused my response (effect.

You do however, have a choice in beliefs. >>

If this is true, you are the only one in history. All the rest of us can do is react to situations --- cause and effect.

Your post was the cause of my response (effect)

I can see your point and consider it legit.
I need to admit that this is one discussion that I kind of go back and forth on in my own mind. That being said, this back and forth debate of mine almost completely excludes the idea that all we do is react (although I do not consider this as an impossibility). After considering the notion, I choose to exclude it from the realm of worthy conclusions on the basis that it implies that we cannot (or perhaps should not) be held accountable for our beliefs. I believe that there are more truthful conclusions and that one of these is the idea that we do in fact have a choice in what we believe.
I guess to really understand one another, regarding this matter, we would first need to come to some agreement as to what degree our beliefs determine our actions. To me, beliefs are significant (if not crucial) to what actions we take in any given situation. From there, we would also need to conclude how responsible we are for our own actions. To me, we are. What do you think?

So... wouldn't that other consciousness then have free will? 0_o

There are only 3 possible ways your action can originate:

1) When you have reasons for your action - then the action is the result of those reasons.

2) When you don't have reasons for your action - then the action is unintentional.

3) Your action can be the result of a combination of 1) and 2).

None of those possibilities allow for free will because you are always compelled to your action and never in control of your action. >>

We're close to being on the same page. The difference is you say reason and I see it as reaction to stimuli.

Your post was the stimuli, my response was the reaction.

The idea of free will doesn't work. But neither does the idea of determinism. Remember that they are ideas we invoke to account for some aspects of our human experience. A seemingly deterministic world is what provides the context for choice to have any meaning. A problematical realization if you think in terms of "either free will or determinism".

I think your three ways an action can originate might be overly simplistic and inadequate to describe what takes place.

We have free will to the extent of our genes and environment; we have internal and external limitations on what we can do.

The concept of "free will" just sounds like a contradiction to me. I've said it many times, but I don't mind repeating it.

Choice is not free. It works within certain parameters that are determined before the choice, and that make up the context in which the choice has any meaning.
The way I understand you, you are saying pretty much the same thing.
My only reason for this 'objection' is that I wonder if there is a better term for what happens than 'free will'. That term is just so misleading and still carries with it associations to the religious thinking that it is (as far as I can tell) originally meant to support.

Your rejection of the false dichtomy between free will and determinism should put to rest the question of this thread--but of course iti won't; the question is perennial. That applies also to the notion of a chooser who "freely" exercises choice in a vacuum. First, our choices reflect the expression of drives that precede and direct our so-called free choices. Moreover, the notion of a free agent of choice, an ego, is no more sustainable that is Decartes' "thinker." There is thinking and choosing but no thinkers and choosers, therefore no problem of free will vs. determinism.

I think we're close to agreement on this issue.

perhaps another way of looking at free-will is standing back and observing the outside goings on

I miss your point.