I don't see how this changes anything in determinism, or the notion of it,

Many neurobiologists conclude from premises X, Y, Z to the conclusion that our will is unfree. But that means that their very argument is based on unfree reasoning, i.e. having no alternatives, undermining any confidence or justification in that process and therefore in the conclusion. If you have no choice what to think it's basically circular reasoning: you can just hope your one way is right, no other chance since no other way. — Pippen

Unfree reasoning doesn't entail a conclusion being false, this notion that determinism defeats every action is quite false, it doesn't, you still have the illusion of your own will,
and also now you've created a paradox, either neurobiologists prove determinism with their free will, disproving it, but they also already proved determinism, so this stops making sense,
or they prove determinism and are determined to prove it, so they do, it wouldn't be circular reasoning, since proving its existence in an argument doesn't have "I was determined to" as a premise.
and it wouldn't be self refuting, its the same as saying I exist in the universe.

But from your (3) it also follows that you can't control your very argument, so how can you believe in it? That's exactly my problem. — Pippen

you have the illusion of so,
so when you believe in it, you didn't truly will to, does that mean its incorrect? no
it just means that you didn't get to choose to believe it, like everything else, and if everyone can logically reach the same conclusion we can assume its correct, that's truly what it boils down to.

Unfree reasoning doesn't entail a conclusion being false, this notion that determinism defeats every action is quite false, it doesn't, you still have the illusion of your own will, — Augustusea

There’s no reason for the will to be an illusion, even in determinism. Determinism and underterminism are both compatible with taking the mind seriously, as an agent. It’s called ‘compatibilism’.

There’s no reason for the will to be an illusion, even in determinism. Determinism and underterminism are both compatible with taking the mind seriously, as an agent. It’s called ‘compatibilism’. — Olivier5

Ignoratio elenchi, I know what compatibilism is lol.

You mention that belief in determinism is self refuting. I don't see it. Your belief is determined, just like anything else. Yes, their argument would be determined. Yes, their conclusion would be determined.

What else beyond oneself determines the belief? If nothing else determines the belief, oneself has determined it.

@NOS4A2 I agree! See,if you say the individual determines or controls his actions then freewill is proven.
The rest is nonsense and dodgy semantics. How folks make a case for refuting their own sphere of personal control is bizarro!

So why do you think your own mind is an illusion?

I'm a physicalist, and I believe life and consciousness are processes and not something out of the physical world

Many neurobiologists conclude from premises X, Y, Z to the conclusion that our will is unfree. But that means that their very argument is based on unfree reasoning, i.e. having no alternatives, undermining any confidence or justification in that process and therefore in the conclusion. If you have no choice what to think it's basically circular reasoning: you can just hope your one way is right, no other chance since no other way. — Pippen

So math is circular reasoning all along, undermining any confidence or justification in that process and therefore in the conclusion.

I believe life and consciousness are processes and not something out of the physical world — Augustusea

I agree, but illusions are not part of the physical world, by definition. Ergo consciousness is no illusion.

I would agree, my wording may have been a bit off/incorrect, I apologize
Consciousness is a process, free will is an illusion.

Consciousness is a process, free will is an illusion. — Augustusea

Free will is a poor concept. It falls apart under examination. Agency is a better one in my view, and I don’t see why it would be an illusion.

I would agree free will as a concept doesn't apply to living beings.

It doesn’t apply, period. Even a god cannot freely will what he wants to will. But we do have, I believe, the capacity to make choices, with a certain degree of freedom.

It's seems to me that free will either is real or its not. It must be discrete. There may be levels of existence in objects and we can debate all day what pure potentiality is. But the Kant and Fitche in me says you guys are wrong when you say "we are free, kinda". It appears to be black and white imo

@Gregory Walking to the shops today a bird flew near me. Right there I thought so people are Really saying that was fate or the bird and I had no choice but to both be there at that exact time!!! Determinism is ludicrous. 100% we have free will. And the slightest perusal of a life emphasises and proves that. In fact,if not for academic philosophy and materialism it would never even be a question.

It doesn’t apply, period. Even a god cannot freely will what he wants to will. But we do have, I believe, the capacity to make choices, with a certain degree of freedom. — Olivier5

but every choice either warrents a want or is influenced by what happened before it

for example lets say you like chocolate cake,
I offered you either chocolate cake or pancakes, you will either choose the chocolate based on preferences which never were your choice,
now lets assume you don't care about either you just want to eat

in order to do something you either are forced to do it or want to do it,

lets say you wanted chocolate cake and took it, if we went back in time, could you want pancakes? you would have to not want to want chocolate cake, and then want to want pancakes, and it would lead you down an infinite path of wants this way, which is illogical, the simple explanation is you cannot control your wants therefore you cannot control your doings

the simple explanation is you cannot control your wants therefore you cannot control your doings — Augustusea

You choose between different wants which have different strengths. Even if compatibilism is true and you choose the strongest want every time, you would still be free

In fact,if not for academic philosophy and materialism it would never even be a question. — Asif

People's thinking on this in the modern world is weird. In physics they tried to get away (I think unsuccessfully) with spooks such as action from a distance when it comes to gravity. But the brain, however, is made of determinism and randomness. So free will turns out to be a spook of the brain, a power that emerges from it. I am working on my materialistic tendencies by reading Hegel's logics

You choose between different wants which have different strengths. Even if compatibilism is true and you choose the strongest want every time, you would still be free — Gregory

but in order to choose you must want to choose,
randomness can be present, in the form of quantum indeterminacy, but I doubt this even applies to human beings, and if it did, then you can't control what this particle turns into, which would defeat the point
compatibilism and physicalism don't go hand in hand,
anywho that doesn't mean the choices aren't ours, it just means we didn't get as a self to make them

but every choice either warrents a want or is influenced by what happened before it — Augustusea

Of course we take into consideration what happened to us before, and what our desires are. That’d be why we have memory and desires, I suppose. To take them into account when making choices.

Of course we take into consideration what happened to us before, and what our desires are. That’d be why we have memory and desires, I suppose. To take them into account when making choices. — Olivier5

exactly, then it wouldn't be your choice, because it comes from something, something is influencing/forcing it, so defies free will ultimately.

Just because we can take stuff into consideration when making a choice, does not imply we’re not making a choice...

Just because we can choose, this does not imply our choices spring from nothing

I guess I'm being ambiguous there. I was thinking even if materialism is true and free will is an emergent spook of matter, this doesn't mean choses made come from nothing (ex nihilo). It's a faculty exercising its power.

Most things are predetermined. From our physical features, to the place we live (Earth), even to our proclivities (I like to consume oxygen, water and certain amino acids and proteins). However, I want to consume Helium only, and I want it to give me as much pleasure as consuming chocolate or steak, and I want it to make me so healthy that I live in bliss for one million years. Determinism says that is not going to work; but my free will says that regardless of what works or not, I want it and desire it: thus a Will that desires exists, and this desire is an example, albeit one of the few examples, of free will. Even if the mechanical movement of particles "causes" me to have this desire, the particles and molecules which cause me to experience thought are collectively, "me."