Fortunately, the video was only about 5 min long. It could be longer and it would add nothing to the subject, which in my opinion is very simple (see below), even if a lot of ink and saliva has been spilled and a lot of disputes arisen on the subject.

You are asking about "strong" arguments. I don’t know what do you expect from that. A strong argument is just a well-founded argument. Sometimes, even a simple question or example can provide such foundation.

There are a lot of simple ways to show the existence of free will or reject its inexistence, since a lot of people in here and in other philosophical media negate its existence.

First of all, one must bring in the definitions of free will and its opposites, determinism, fate, etc., so that we walk on the same ground.
So, from Oxford LEXICO:
Free will: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion".
Determinism (Philosophy): "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will".
Fate: "The development of events outside a person's control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power".

Now, I can bring in the following questions:
1) What is more realistic (pragmatic) for you?
This is what is of outmost importance, since each one has our own reality and the answer must fit to it, comply with it and be accepted by it.
2) Do you feel responsible for and in control of your actions (except in certain situations)?
Ask yourself this exact moment you are reading this, moving the mouse around, drinking coffee, etc. Are you doing all tthis mechanically and/or are forced to do them in some way?
3) If free will were inexistent and everything in our life were predetermined, how would we know that?
This is similar "How do we know if we live in a dream or simulation?" (Some prefer to use the catchy word "Matrix".). Well, we can't, can we?

Simple arguments are the strongest, sometimes. :smile:

You think you have free will, and you did have to. This is what is meant when one claims that free will is not real. In essence my point is that free will is illusory. I can go on to write a bunch of stuff now, but i think a more efficient course in this case is to share this thought experiment offered by Sam Harris in this video.

Let me know what your thoughts are after watching, and performing the thought experiment.

Sam Harris Free Will Thought Experiment Number 2.

You think you have free will, and you did have to. — punos

I actually do not understand the idea we have no free will. I chose to respond. That is all I mean by free will. Not some metaphysical or psychological notion of having absolute freedom.

I actually do not understand the idea we have no free will. — Jackson

This is the reason why posted the Sam Harris video, to help you understand what is actually being addressed here. Sam Harris gives a pretty thorough explanation of the process you think of as free will or choice. Did you watch it? Take your time, and think about it, there's no hurry.

This is the reason why posted the Sam Harris video, to help you understand what is actually being addressed here. Sam Harris gives a pretty thorough explanation of the process you think of as free will or choice. Did you watch it? Take your time, and think about it, there's no hurry. — punos

I never watch videos. Nothing personal.

Of course.. that's why you don't understand what is even being discussed here. I won't waste your time or mine anymore because you obviously just want to believe what you just want to believe at all costs. That in itself is interesting to me.. human nature got to love it.

Of course.. that's why you don't understand what is even being discussed here. I won't waste your time or mine anymore because you obviously just want to believe what you just want to believe at all costs. That in itself is interesting to me.. human nature got to love it. — punos

You certainly must know many people read philosophy books and journal articles addressing free will.

Information comes in many forms. Text, audio, video, what's the difference?

Information comes in many forms. Text, audio, video, what's the difference? — punos

Passivity. Notice, you only told me to look at the video. You made no argument and did not address my comment.

I said i wasn't going to waste our time if i don't think you're serious. I find it strange that you don't know what i mean by free will is not real. That is fundamental to the discussion. Your motives are suspect. I've dealt with this type of thing many times before, it never reaches any useful conclusion.

You made no argument and did not address my comment. — Jackson

I already made arguments in prior posts, and how did i not address your comment?

In essence my point is that free will is illusory. I — punos

Neither free will nor determinism adequately describes the human situation. Both options in fact cling to kinds of determinism.
Free will metaphysics assumes a self-consciously knowing subject whose choices are determined by this unitary ego. What you are calling determinism makes choices the product of causal laws. In both cases, the autonomous freely willing subject and the determined subject, the determinism is based on a preconceived notion of the self or the world.
Alternatives to the freedom vs determinism
binary assert that while we are determined by our history, both personal , biological and social, these don’t dictate future behavior in a strictly causal way because the future rewrites the past.

determinism is based on a preconceived notion of the self or the world. — Joshs

Please elaborate on this point. Preconceived or not, how is determinism negated, and negated by what?

Alternatives to the freedom vs determinism
binary assert that while we are determined by our history, both personal , biological and social, these don’t dictate future behavior in a strictly causal way. — Joshs

What are these alternatives called? And again what is the basic concept in these alternatives that enable free will? How does that happen, is there an alternative to determinism and indeterminate randomness or chaos? Is there a third or fourth option that i'm not aware of?

What are these alternatives called? And again what is the basic concept in these alternatives that enable free will? How does that happen, is there an alternative to determinism and indeterminate randomness or chaos? Is there a third or fourth option that i'm not aware of? — punos

I’m thinking of such approaches as enactivism, phenomenology, postmodern perspectives like poststructuralism and hermeneutics.
Determinisms accept empirical models of causation based on determined characteristics or properties of objects. The post-deterministic approaches are radically interactional, meaning that there can be no such properties of objects that remain self-identical.

“Although modernists in psychology have attempted to cast the free will/determinism dilemma as either settled or irrelevant, it continues to enfeeble theory, therapy, and practice. The primary reason for this continuing enfeeblement is the modern dualistic framework for this dilemma: Either the will (choices, decisions, motives) is dependent on antecedent conditions and thus is determined or the will is independent of antecedent conditions and thus is free. This framework, however, is not supported by current research and practical experience, indicating that the will is inextricably connected to the past but is not determined by it.”

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022167800401008

I’m thinking of such approaches as enactivism, phenomenology, postmodern perspectives like poststructuralism and hermeneutics. — Joshs

Quantum mechanics refutes the deterministic model of classical physics.

I guess it does , but doesnt it substitute probabilistic for deterministic measurement?
— Joshs

Yes. Which is always how I've lived my life. The deterministic model never made sense to — Jackson

Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will? According to this article, physicists are split on the issue.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mechanics-rule-out-free-will/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20quantum%20mechanics%2C%E2%80%9D%20she,Superdeterminism%20returns%20us%20to%20determinism.%E2%80%9D

I guess it does , but doesnt it substitute probabilistic for deterministic measurement? — Joshs

Yes. Which is always how I've lived my life. The deterministic model never made sense to me.

Yes. Which is always how I've lived my life. The deterministic model never made sense to — Jackson

If free will exists , then does evil exist?

If free will exists , then does evil exist? — Joshs

Evil is a theological concept.

Newton stated that God caused the physical laws of science. It is not a casual association of deterministic science and Christian theology.

If free will exists , then does evil exist?
— Joshs

Evil is a theological concept. — Jackson

So is free will. Advocates of free will generally believe in some form of evil. Exceptions include
Daniel Dennett, but his notion of freedom, as laid out in his book Freedom Evolves, is compatible with that of many determinists and incompatible with that of typical free will advocates.

So is free will. — Joshs

Which is why I do not find debates about free will very enlightening.

So is free will.
— Joshs

Which is why I do not find debates about free will very enlightening. — Jackson

Me either. I like the approach of my favorite psychologist, George Kelly:

“…determination and freedom are two complementary aspects of structure. They cannot exist without each other any more than up can exist without down or right without left. Neither freedom nor determination are absolutes. A thing is free with respect to something; it is determined with respect to something else.
The solution proposed for the problem of determinism and free will provides us with the pattern for understanding how persons can vary and still be considered as lawful phenomena of nature. A person’s construction system is composed of complementary superordinate and subordinate relationships. The subordinate systems are determined by the superordinate systems into whose jurisdiction they are placed. The superordinate systems, in turn, are free to invoke new arrangements among the systems which are subordinate to them.
This is precisely what provides for freedom and determination in one’s personal construct system. The changes that take place, as one moves towards creating a more suitable system for anticipating events, can be seen as falling under the control of that person’s superordinating system. In his role identifying him with his superordinating system, the person is free with respect to subordinate changes he attempts to make. In his role as the follower of his own fundamental principles, he finds his life determined by them. Just as in governmental circles instructions can be changed only within the framework of fixed directives, and directives can be changed only within the framework of fixed statutes, and statutes can be changed only within the framework of fixed constitutions, so can one’s personal constructs be changed only within subsystems of constructs and subsystems changed only within more comprehensive systems.”

Perhaps i should outline my picture of the chain of cause and effect from the very beginning to show why i think there is no room for free will... this will be ultra-simplified for brevity.

All there is in this or any universe is energy and information. Information is generated as pattern from the chaos of the quantum foam (indeterminate, symmetric). These patterns manifest and rise from the quantum fluctuations (breaking symmetry) as what we call fundamental particle / anti-particle pairs like quarks, electrons and positrons.

At this point these particles are now determined by emergent laws that aim to bring everything back to neutrality (symmetry). This is why particles annihilate when they meet their perfect anti-partner. This represents the shift from an indeterministic system to a deterministic one. So both are the case where one produces new patterns (matter) and the other just processes the patterns in strictly deterministic ways.

As patterns (particles) are attracted and repelled by other particles they begin to combine and fall into more complex patterns. While complexification continues; emergent levels of organization begin to form such as the atomic level of organization, which in turn engender the emergence of molecular systems with new affordances and possibilities unavailable at lower levels of emergence. All this is strictly governed by natural laws that are perpetually seeking to annihilation matter.

Eventually from molecules we arrive at the cellular or biological, which complexify even further to form emergent structures like tissues that form organs that form systems and finally intelligent organisms like humans. Again all this is ruled by natural law, non of these particles or structures have free will.
Now the type of organization that occurs in the brain is not fundamentally different than what goes on at the lower levels (no free will just natural law). There is no place in this whole story where free will can be found, so why would it happen in the brain, or in our consciousness which is itself an emergent property of the brain? (rhetorical).

The feeling of free will is a manifestation or product of what i call "causal reflection", in which the bottom-up trajectory of causation is reflected back down from the highest level of causal organization in the body namely consciousness, looping back on itself yielding the effect of self awareness. Within this self-awareness we experience the feeling of free will, but it is still caused by the chain of cause and effect that came up all the way from the quantum foam itself. We are the repositories of information history on this planet.

At any point in this chain had free will agents emerged then it would have disrupted the entire enterprise of higher order complexification. Things would deviate from the main pattern of evolution and fall into eventual catastrophic failure. Evolution is still doing it's work on us and we are not the final product, we are still larval at this stage, and any free will interference would compound into abnormal and imbalanced systems.

At any point in this chain had free will agents emerged then it would have disrupted the entire enterprise of higher order complexification. Things would deviate from the main pattern of evolution and fall into eventual catastrophic failure. Evolution is still doing it's work on us and we are not the final product, we are still larval at this stage, and any free will interference would compound into abnormal and imbalanced systems. — punos

Can this process of biological and cultural complexification be modeled in terms of the deterministically causal motions of objects in space (evolutionary arrangement and rearrangement of molecular patterns)?

Can this process of biological and cultural complexification be modeled in terms of the deterministically causal motions of objects in space (evolutionary arrangement and rearrangement of molecular patterns)? — Joshs

Yes, anything above the quantum level is classical and deterministic. At least that's how i see it.

Yes, anything above the quantum level is classical and deterministic. At least that's how i see it. — punos

It has been argued that classical determinism is an arbitrary scheme which doesn’t allow for any true change or novelty. If evolutionary transformations are just outcomes of a template that could be run on a computer, they don’t address the nature of novelty. Insteadthey turn it into data spit out by a machine.

The level of complexification we are in right now is forming the next level of emergence. We are the ones building it through our cultural and technological systems that will culminate in a global cybernetic conscious system that AI is the head of. We are building it but not by our free will, but by the biological, and psychological drives in all of us (conscious and unconscious). It is just like how cells got together to form tissues, they don't know they are making tissues that will make organs. They just do what they are driven to do by their nature and local influences. We are no different.

The apparent novelty that we see develop in macro states of organization was determined at the moment the seed pattern emerged from chaos. All the implications are inherent in that original pattern. All it takes is time to develop or evolve through pattern mutation and environmental selection.

In the context or system that i'm describing i like to think of the word "will" as what a thing will do. What a thing does is contingent on its function, and its function is contingent on its shape, form, or structure pattern (form follows function). So a thing WILL do what it does by virtue of how its pattern can interact with other patterns in it's local environment. Free will is to say that a thing can do what ever regardless of its function or inherent pattern. Consistent patterns will fail to form, things will loose their necessary functions within a system. Structures that do their own thing would resemble cancer cells in a biological organism. Not to say that certain circumstances can't cause abnormalities in a structure, but it wouldn't be because of free will. The mechanism for free will is not possible.

I'm a computer programmer, and i have for some years now programmed simulation experiments that follow what i've outlined (in parts not in whole). I've been able to produce novel forms that can interact with each other, and complexify. At this time i'm trying to produce self created emergent laws along with patterns that can produce new emergent levels. I'm looking into how Marchov chains can be used and incorporated to produce better simulations of this kind, along with simple neural networks that self assemble (self-organization).

Are you sure it is binary? Either free will or determinism? Doesn't determinism imply that that exact end state of the universe needs to be a particular way and thus a particular trajectory is needed?

Doesn't determinism imply that that exact end state of the universe needs to be a particular way and thus a particular trajectory is needed? — TiredThinker

Agree. Good point.