Problem about free will

[ucim]

The problem about arguments about free will is nobody really has a good definition for what "free will" means in the first place.

No, the problem is that people change the definition of the entity involved. What is the "you" that has (or doens't have) this "free will"? It only works if you treat it as an atomic entity, and therefore you specifically do not look at just how decisions are made in the first place.

"Free will" is the temporary name we use for the mechanism we are not looking at.

Jose

[Greatest I am]

Really? It's does so.

Does not! Nyah nyah nyah~

This is a classic case of begging the question (assuming the consequent). If you aim to show that people have free will, you cannot begin with the premise "Life and nature program us with free will and the freedom to choose." and reasonably expect a thinking person to conclude your reasoning is sound. You need to begin from principles that are agreed upon by all parties.

Jose

Deflect much?

If you think otherwise as you propose without any further information, rather lazy of you, then what or who does?

Regards
DL

[SecondTalon]

I rather enjoy how I was ignored there. Good free will.

[Greatest I am]

The problem about arguments about free will is nobody really has a good definition for what "free will" means in the first place. Or, at least, I've never heard one.

If you do not like what the dictionary defines it like, why not give us your definition.

Free and will are clearly defined in Webster's dictionary and have been used in certain ways forever so what makes you unhappy with the dictionary's definition?

You should also consider that in philosophical circles, the definition of words is usually debated after a general consensus has been agreed to. If not, then the discussion of the actual topic would never take place and wo9uld likely be lost in semantics.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I can live with Webster's definitions I am not creating new terms and those are fairly well described.

Since you were apparently too lazy:

Full Definition of free will
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

1: is basically a tautology.
2: so going by this: NO, we do not have free will. *Nothing* we do isn't determined by prior causes.

See? that was easy. once you have a definition, everything falls into place.

I, freely agree that effect comes after the cause.

Regards
DL

[ucim]

Deflect much?

You need a new irony meter.

If you think otherwise as you propose without any further information, rather lazy of you, then what or who does?

This is not a question of math where there is an answer and a proof. This is a question where I'm asking you to consider that changing one's point of view in the middle of a sentence does not yield a good result, and that's what happens when "Does George have free will?" gets discussed. The 'what "George" is' question is key.

You have not responded to this beyond ad hominum.

I pointed you in the direction of two relevant threads right here, one click away. Did you read them? Do you have anything to say about the points of view expressed therein?

Jose

[SecondTalon]

At this point I can only believe it's intentional. To force me in to following my programming or make a choice on banning as I already stated that as penalty.

As well as, y'know, just ignoring the point I was making of it being shitty to demand others justify their posts without justifying your own.

Is this a ploy to create Bestest I Are and complain about fascist nazi mods? Is this a test of whether or not I'll follow through?

Tell me, Mr I Am, what good is a Forum if you are unable to post?