you were under a very successful illusion. But your choices are not made consciously on this view and your experience of choice is like a mini experience machine. That you felt it doesn’t mean it’s what’s actually happening

I don't have any problem with other people having different views from me. In fact, I prefer it. Diversity of all kinds makes the world much more interesting than it would be if everyone were identical. — Truth Seeker

That's also what I believe too. You can think whatever you feel true as true, and express your thoughts with your interlocutors freely on the philosophical topics under discussion. That is what philosophical discussion is about suppose.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following: — Truth Seeker

Some determinants and constraints are definitely absolute such as birth, death, ageing etc. But looking them as the cause for one's decision to drink water instead of coffee sounds a bit extreme view.

I feel that determinism or freewill could actually belong to the domain of psychological beliefs. To believe that an event was determined or was undetermined depends on one's psychological state and belief rather than from objective analysis and facts. Hence it is tricky to prove them via logic or reasonings.

7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks. — Truth Seeker

I have not done anything you listed, and I am sure I will never be able to do them. But still I believe that I have freewill. If it is psychological belief, then it is just a matter of believing them i.e. believe that everything is contingent, random and free, and I have freewill to do whatever I want.

Or I can change my belief tomorrow to ditch my freewill, and start believing in hard determinism. No one will able to refute it including me. So I confess I will never be able to change your belief. I accept that you have your belief that everything in the universe is operational under hard determinism.

you were under a very successful illusion. But your choices are not made consciously on this view and your experience of choice is like a mini experience machine. That you felt it doesn’t mean it’s what’s actually happening — AmadeusD

But I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that I was under a very successful illusion. Everything around me is working too coherently and rationally, and there is nothing I can even doubt, that the world, perceptions and my decisions and choices were illusion. Can you?

I agree.

So, how does the decision to drink water instead of coffee come about? I am a water drinker. I don't drink alcohol or tea or coffee or fizzy drinks or milk. This occurs because of my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. It is not a free choice. My mum is also a water drinker. If my mum was different, I would have been different, too.

You can't do any of the things I asked you to do earlier yet you believe you have free will. What is the basis for your belief in having free will?

I can't do any of the things I want to do. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. This is why I am convinced that I don't have free will. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I want to forget
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

Can you refrain from doing the above 27 things forever? If you can do that, I will be convinced that you have free will.

Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?

Who is morally culpable? — Truth Seeker

After long and deep meditation, I have concluded that I am.

Thank you for sharing your conclusion with us. What is the basis for your conclusion? My conclusion is that no one is morally culpable because no one has free will.

Can you refrain from doing the above 27 things forever? — Truth Seeker

I don't know if many people think of free will in terms of being able to be something other than what one is. It seems that you associate the idea of free will with being able to be something other than what you are. Why would that be a necessary requirement for free will?

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints — Truth Seeker

However that is not what free will means.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints? — Truth Seeker

No.

Still, it seems like it's worth considering free will from a variety of perspectives.

I have considered free will from a variety of perspectives. My evidence-based conclusion is that we don't have free will. The fact that you can't give me even one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints proves my point.

I have considered many definitions of free will and rejected all the other definitions of free will because they were inaccurate. Free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints is the most accurate definition for free will.

If you can do that, I will be convinced that you have free will. — Truth Seeker

How about, "I think, therefore I am free." When I think I am free, I am free. It is a psychological belief that I am free.

Tomorrow, I may say, "I think I am not free, therefore I am not free." I can change my thinking to I am not free by my freewill. I think I am not free, therefore I am not free, but I am free because I thought I am not free by my freewill to think I am not free. The day after tomorrow, I can change my thinking to, "I think I am free, therefore I am free." and I am free, and so on so forth.

Because it is a psychological belief, no one can prove it or disprove it, like if you say "I believe in the existence of God.", then no one can prove or disprove it empirically or logically.

You may say "well, but you can only think because you are not banana DNA.", but I can retort "Well, No. I was able to think I was free, and changed my thinking to I was not free, and changed back again to think I was free, because I had freewill."

Free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints is the most accurate definition for free will. — Truth Seeker

It would be accurate if that is how "free will" was used, but nobody means that when they say free will.

Free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints is the most accurate definition for free will — Truth Seeker

Would you say that free will is freedom to think what we want to think? If so , how do we make sense of this concept of wanting or desiring? We don’t usually think free will in terms of choosing that which we dont desire, but what makes what we desire such that freedom of will depends on it? I suggest that choosing what we desire is another way of talking about thoughts that come to us as recognizable , intelligible, useful, purposeful. Thoughts that come to us as arbitrary, nonsensical or confused are those we seem to consider not freely willed but those that impose themselves upon us randomly as alien to us . What’s interesting about this is that it is the chaotic thought which is truly free and random, oblivious to what we want, whereas the thought that seems purposeful and ‘chosen’ is the one that is constrained. Not by an outside agency, but constrained by our previous expectations and criteria of significance, relevance and meaningfulness. In other words, what we call free will is thoughts that are constrained by and consistent with our anticipations. Creativity wouldnt seem meaningful and valuable if this weren’t the case. It would be indistinguishable from incoherent and confused thinking. What we desire isn’t pure freedom, but a balance between constraint and novelty. Do we have this kind of freedom of will? I would say yes. In fact, this capability of innovating within normative patterns we share with all other living organisms.

Thinking that you are free does not make you actually free. You may think that you will go to heaven after you die, but that does not mean you actually will. The question of whether or not you are actually free from determinants and constraints has to be resolved by doing things that demonstrate that you are actually free from determinants and constraints. This is why I gave you some tasks to do and some tasks to refrain from doing.

What do they mean when they say free will? How do you know that is the correct meaning?

You described is determined and constrained will instead of free will. I agree that we have determined and constrained will. Thus we can choose between drinking water or drinking tea but the choice is never free from determinants and constraints. For example, I drink water instead of tea as my mum drank water instead of tea. So, my choice to drink water instead of other liquids is determined by my experience of watching my mum drink only water during my childhood.

Thinking that you are free does not make you actually free. — Truth Seeker

Does it mean that Descartes "I think therefore I am." doesn't mean anything meaningful either?
I can understand your point, when it was said "I think therefore I am free." because your thinking has no object or content, so you don't know what you were thinking about.

But what about the case of "I think that I am free, therefore I am free."? In that case, you know that you think about your freedom and freewill is true, hence you confirm you are free.

If we accept that being free is a mental state, rather than some physical activities such as your lists to do, then your thinking that you are free must come from your being free, and it implies your freewill.

Likewise X is determined or under constraint also implies the epistemic judgement of one's mind, rather than something material. Hence determinism is your mental state of your judgement on your perception rather than description of some concrete object in the world. So what we are talking about is all mental concepts which are determinism or freewill. They are not concrete objects in the world. Is it correct?

I asked you "Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?" You have not given me even one such example. The fact that you can't give me even one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints proves my point.

How do you know that the world you perceive to be concrete is real? It could be a simulation, or a hallucination, or a dream, or an illusion. You can't prove that your perceived world is real.

Hard determinism and free will are opposing ideas. They can't both be true. How do we establish which is true? I can't do any of the things I want to do. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. If I had free will, I would be able to do the things I want to do and refrain from doing the things I don't want to do. This is why I am convinced that I don't have free will.

20. Think — Truth Seeker

I asked you "Can you give me one example of a choice that you have made that did not have any determinants and constraints?" You have not given me even one such example. — Truth Seeker

I have given you an example from your list No.20. Think. I was demonstrating how one's Thinking operates in the realm of Freewill.

The demonstration also proved that Freewill is mental state, rather than your doing some things.
Likewise your determinism is not a material object, but it is your mental judgement on your perception of the external world and your actions.

You can do anything under determinism or freewill or by random chance. If you see it as determined, then you will say it was done under determinism. If you think it was under freewill, then you will say, it was done under freewill. Therefore these are your psychological judgements rather than objective facts.

Hard determinism and free will are opposing ideas. They can't both be true. — Truth Seeker

They can be, if and only if they are psychological state. They can be both true, because they are not deductive or inductive facts.

You could say, "yes and no", when asked if you are happy.

Why are hard determinism and free will opposed? They can be, depending on your definition. I think hard determinism is pretty well defined, but how do you define free will?

You seem to define it as the ability to make decisions without any constraints, but I'm not sure that's a fair definition. We are embodied beings, we will ALWAYS have constraints. It is easy then to look at any decision and say "That was entirely determined by your circumstances" even if there truly was a "free element" in us

To illustrate, let's assume that all of us are souls inhabiting bodies and that souls magically impact the physical world. Let's also assume that the souls are entirely free and can make any decision they want. This is about as "free" a conception of humans as I can think of, some weird magical dualism. I'll assume you agree that this soul has free will correct? Since it can make any decision it wants without any external factors.

Then, let's say you're picking between a cheeseburger and a burrito and give a number to every factor to simplify. So for example:

"The cheeseburger has more cheese and I'm craving cheese right now" -> +50 points towards cheese burger
"The burrito is cheaper and I don't like spending money" -> +20 points towards the burrito
"The burrito guy needs the money more" -> +50 points towards burrito
etc

Add all of your determinants and constraints with whatever unique values they have up and then in the end you add:
"I (the soul) picked cheeseburger" -> +100 points

In this example, which would be a "free" choice?

1- Burger: 700, Burrito: 500 In this case, the +100 didn't matter, the external circumstance alone would have moved us in the direction we wanted

2- Burger: 600, Burrito: 500 In this case, the +100 is what made the difference

3- Burger: 500, Burrito: 600 In this case, the +100 wasn't enough

Does it need to be situation 2? Would 1 still be freely willed, even though the factors alone moved us in the direction we would have chosen? Would 3 be freely willed?

Most importantly though: We do not have this point analysis in real life. It is impossible. Even if we had free souls, we can't "calculate" how much effect they have. It will be just as easy to say "souls add 0 to what they choose, and your choices are all determined by circumstance" as it is to say "souls add 9999999999 to what they choose, and can always easily overpower circumstance".

From what I read, you seem to be saying the former, that we (whether we are souls, or bodies, or whatever) add 0, and everything is determined by circumstance. How do you know that? And how much would we need to add before we have free will?

Thinking is not free from determinants and constraints. For example, I can think only in the languages I know. I can't think in languages I don't know. So, the fact that I learned English is determining the fact that I am now typing in English. The fact that I never learned Mandarin is preventing me from typing in Mandarin.

It goes even deeper than that. Assuming that atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, planets, universes are real and not simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion, our thinking occurs as a result of the electrochemical activities of the brain. This activity is determined and constrained by the laws of physics. That's why we can't think faster than our nerve conduction velocity which is 50 to 60 metres per second.

Happiness and sadness are mental states but they are determined by the electrochemical activities of the brain. You can't be both happy and sad at the same time but you can be happy at one time and sad at another time.

Hard determinism and free will are two ideas but they are ideas about how reality works. Hard determinism and free will are not mental states the way happiness and sadness are mental states.

Have you read all of my previous posts in this thread? It does not seem like you have.

I don't know if souls exist or not. How would an immaterial soul interact with a material body? I have witnessed lots of deaths, but I have never seen any soul leaving the body at the time of death. You can argue that the soul is immaterial and is therefore undetectable. In that case, how do you that it exists? I think the arbiter of truth is evidence. I have not seen any evidence for the existence of souls. Therefore, I am a materialist monist.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I don't have such a will. I have never met anyone who does.

I think our choices are the result of the interaction between genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

Not everything, just what's recent. Apologies if I misinterpreted anything.

I don't know if souls exist or not. — Truth Seeker

It's not really about souls or ontology, I just picked the situation which I think has the highest "freedom". That we are souls inhabiting bodies, and somehow the souls can interact with said bodies. I wanted to determine what exactly consitutes free will for you.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

Completely free? Wow. That's a high bar. No wonder you think it doesn't exist!

What about situations where all the determinants and constraints happened to align with what we would have willed anyways? Think: Prisoner wants to escape prison and finds his cell door unlocked and all the guards are on vacation. Do you think the prisoner was not free to choose to escape even then?

I think our choices are the result of the interaction between genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. — Truth Seeker

This is the point I was trying to make above. How did you come to this conclusion? To confirm this for sure means you accounted for all the interactions between genes, environmental factors, nutrients and experiences from the womb, and then found that all of these factors add up to predict everything a person would do. I doubt you, or any scientist has done that. And I do not think it is obvious that they would add up either, so I've always been puzzled why people are so sure.

I am not convinced that being souls would give us the highest freedom. Being all-knowing and all-powerful would give us the highest freedom.

I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

To prove me wrong, you would have to forever refrain from doing the above 27 things and instead do the following things:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will, I would have already done the above tasks.

I carried out experiments to test the roles played by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. These experiments were not published in any journals because I carried them out alone and I was my only test subject. I compared myself with myself under different situations e.g. how lack of oxygen affected my decision making, how lack of water affected my decision making, how lack of food affected my decision making, how lack of sleep affected my decision making, how cold and heat affected my decision making, etc. I also compared myself to how I was before significant life events with how I was after significant life events. By significant life events, I mean being kidnapped, being raped, watching people murder each other, being in natural disasters which killed lots of people, relatives being murdered, etc. The more I experimented and compared, the more it became clear to me that our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. You can do the experiments on yourself - it's not necessary to take my word for it.

How much do you know about neuroscience? Have you ever seen PET scans and functional MRI scans of humans? I have. If you want to learn more about how choices arise in brains, I recommend that you start by reading this book: "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky. It is available on Amazon Kindle. If you want to discuss the book with me, I am happy to discuss it.

If I had the genes of a banana tree, would I be able to type this post? No. I have seen many banana trees and none of them can read or type or even know English. They are probably not even sentient.

If the zygote that was I when I was conceived was placed inside an oven at 250 degrees Celsius for an hour would I have become the adult I am now? No. The lethal environment would have destroyed the zygote.

If the zygote that was I when I was conceived was deprived of all nutrients would I have become the adult I am now? No. The lack of nutrients would have killed the zygote.

If the zygote that was I had all the correct genes and was in the correct environment and received the correct nutrients then I would have been born as a healthy human baby. If that baby had different experiences from me such as learning Japanese instead of English, I would not be typing this message.

So, do you now see the roles played by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences in the typing of this post? This is why I am convinced that we don't have free will. Do you understand my thoughts and reasoning?

Something being determined is not the same as being predictable. For example, earthquakes are entirely deterministic but are hard to predict accurately.

Whether your prisoner chooses to escape from the prison or stays in the prison is not free from his genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Whatever he chooses will be the result of the interactions of the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

But I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that I was under a very successful illusion. Everything around me is working too coherently and rationally, and there is nothing I can even doubt, that the world, perceptions and my decisions and choices were illusion. Can you? — Corvus

That's just you saying this. It doesn't entail that you've looked for, or understand what we're putting infront of you.

If every event has a prior cause, these are absolute facts. It is not possible to sit yourself outside of that lineage. If you reject that, you're in need of a rather strong and convincing argument that includes empirical considerations and logical cogency. I don't think you ahve either.

I carried out experiments to test the roles played by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. These experiments were not published in any journals because I carried them out alone and I was my only test subject. I compared myself with myself under different situations e.g. how lack of oxygen affected my decision making, how lack of water affected my decision making, how lack of food affected my decision making, how lack of sleep affected my decision making, how cold and heat affected my decision making, etc. I also compared myself to how I was before significant life events with how I was after significant life events. By significant life events, I mean being kidnapped, being raped, watching people murder each other, being in natural disasters which killed lots of people, relatives being murdered, etc. The more I experimented and compared, the more it became clear to me that our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. You can do the experiments on yourself - it's not necessary to take my word for it. — Truth Seeker

First off, I assume you cite these significant life events as examples, not actually things that happened to you. If they happened to you then... I don't know what to say, that's one long TERRIBLE list, I'm not sure "I'm sorry" would even suffice.

With that assumption:

Funny thing is, I did the experiments myself. I am a big fan of meditation, and I try to be as aware as possible of my internal state. I found that DESPITE all the differences in environment and circumstance, there still remained a "will" which was free of all of these impositions. Getting into the nature of this will is outside the scope of this thread I think, so I won't. That's not to say that this will is capable of moving mountains. There are things I can't do, but there is nothing I can't TRY to do. The existence of such a capacity in itself constitutes free will for me.

How much do you know about neuroscience? Have you ever seen PET scans and functional MRI scans of humans? — Truth Seeker

I have, though I admit my knowledge of the subject is rather cursory. Frankly, I have my own reading list, so I don't think I'll be pursuing a PHD in neurology for the sake of this discusison.

So, do you now see the roles played by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences in the typing of this post? This is why I am convinced that we don't have free will. Do you understand my thoughts and reasoning? — Truth Seeker

I do, but I do not think your conclusion follows from your reasoning. You've pointed out many ways in which genetic, environmental, etc factors affect our decisions, but you have not proven that they are ALL that affect our decisions. Listing many factors does not prove that they are all the factors.

It is easy to look at a decision (such as typing this post) and then list all the factors that pushed you to type it, then claim it was determined. It is just as easy to look at a decision (such as me replying) and then list all the factors that pushed me NOT to reply, then claim it was my free will that made the difference. I'll demonstrate:

I want to play video games right now.
I am tired and I should fix my sleep schedule.
I am currently on vacation and would rather be relaxing.
I am surrounded by friends I could be talking to.
etc etc

AHA, but here I am replying because I chose to reply in spite of all the above. See! I have free will!

I could also do:

I like to debate.
The guy I'm talking to is interesting.
A part of me wants to change his mind.
etc etc

AHA, this must be why I am replying. It's all deterministic! There is no free will!

I don't give the best examples but I hope you get the point. No matter how long the list gets, it does not follow that those are all the factors contributing to a decision.

It seems to me that the only way to be sure that our actions are purely determined by environmental factors is to take stock of ALL of them (somehow), and then see if that is enough to predict what a person will do, think, and feel (somehow). Correct me if I'm wrong.