By the Law of Contradiction, free will cannot be the case, as it would result in a contradiction. At exactly 1pm I can't equally decide to press or not press the letter "T" and decide to press the letter "T" at the same time. — RussellA

It sounds like you decided to contradict your decision and action at 1 pm from your free will. :D

demonstrate to me how introspection revealed to you that free will is an illusion, and you live in a deterministic world, — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe in particular that thoughts can cause themselves, and I don't believe in general in spontaneous self-causation.

One reason for my disbelief in spontaneous self-causation is that it is something I have never observed.

When I see a billiard ball on a billiard table start to move for no reason at all, then I may change my mind.
===============================================================================

No "reason why" is given for that law, it is stated as a descriptive fact — Metaphysician Undercover

Law of nature has more than one meaning.

It can be a description, as Newton's first law. From SEP - Laws of Nature

Science includes many principles at least once thought to be laws of nature: Newton’s law of gravitation, his three laws of motion, the ideal gas laws, Mendel’s laws, the laws of supply and demand, and so on.

It can be an explanation. As you wrote:

A "law of nature" in this sense necessarily precedes the event, because the laws of nature are what makes things act the way that they do. — Metaphysician Undercover

===============================================================================

However, I see no reason to discuss them if they are just proposed as reason to accept the illogical premise of contemporaneousness. — Metaphysician Undercover

One of the reasons I don't believe in free will is that it requires self-causation, where the thought one has is contemporaneous with the decision to have the thought.

I don't believe in particular that thoughts can cause themselves, and I don't believe in general in spontaneous self-causation.

One reason for my disbelief in spontaneous self-causation is that it is something I have never observed.

When I see a billiard ball on a billiard table start to move for no reason at all, then I may change my mind. — RussellA

Haven't you seen parts of your body start to move without being acted on by an external force? If the "reason" for movement is an immaterial "idea", then this is evidence of free will. Isn't it?

Law of nature has more than one meaning. — RussellA

I was the one who used "law of nature", and I gave you the explanation of the sense in which I was using it. It makes no sense for you to say that you want me to have been using it in a different way, because that would better support what you belief in.

One of the reasons I don't believe in free will is that it requires self-causation, where the thought one has is contemporaneous with the decision to have the thought. — RussellA

The concept of "free will" does not involve self-causation. I don't see where you get that idea from. Thoughts are the property of a being with free will, just like arms and legs are. We do not decide to have thoughts, just like we do not decide to have arms and legs, but this doesn't mean that we do not also have a free will.

Haven't you seen parts of your body start to move without being acted on by an external force? If the "reason" for movement is an immaterial "idea", then this is evidence of free will. Isn't it? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Suppose a person has the idea to reach out for a cup of coffee.

On the one hand, assuming free will, a person can have the idea to reach out for a cup of coffee. On the other hand, assuming there is no free will, a person can also have the idea to reach out for a cup of coffee.

Having an idea is nether evidence for or against free will.
===============================================================================

I was the one who used "law of nature" — Metaphysician Undercover

I have never said that I want you to be using the term "law of nature" in a different way.

My point has been that I don't accept that a law of nature precedes an event and makes things act the way they do.

A "law of nature" in this sense necessarily precedes the event, because the laws of nature are what makes things act the way that they do. — Metaphysician Undercover

===============================================================================

The concept of "free will" does not involve self-causation. — Metaphysician Undercover

At 1pm a person has the thought to reach out for a cup of coffee.

Free will means that at 1pm that person could equally have had the thought not to reach out for the cup of coffee.

It is not possible to have two contradictory thoughts contemporaneously, both to reach out and not reach out.

One the one hand, free will is equally free have either of two contradictory thoughts, but on the other hand, free will is equally free to choose to act on one of these thoughts.

It seems that if free will is equally free to act on the thought of reaching out rather than not reaching out, then it is equally free to act of the thought of not reaching out as rather than reaching out.

If free to make any decision, then there would be no reason to make any decision, leading to the inability to be able to make any decision at all.

No. Suppose a person has the idea to reach out for a cup of coffee.

On the one hand, assuming free will, a person can have the idea to reach out for a cup of coffee. On the other hand, assuming there is no free will, a person can also have the idea to reach out for a cup of coffee.

Having an idea is nether evidence for or against free will. — RussellA

I don't see how this is relevant.

My point has been that I don't accept that a law of nature precedes an event and makes things act the way they do. — RussellA

Then you do not accept my explanation.

At 1pm a person has the thought to reach out for a cup of coffee.

Free will means that at 1pm that person could equally have had the thought not to reach out for the cup of coffee. — RussellA

Free will is not about the thoughts, it concerns the acts.

It is not possible to have two contradictory thoughts contemporaneously, both to reach out and not reach out. — RussellA

Yes it is possible, and your example demonstrates this. The person, at 1Pm, entertains both, the thought of reaching out for a coffee, and the thought of not reaching out for a coffee. That's what choice and deliberation is all about, having contradictory thoughts at the same time. From this condition, a choice is made. And because it is possible for the person to choose either of the two contradictory ways of acting, we conclude that the will is free. It is not forced by any cause, in one direction or another. There is a cause of the act, which is the will itself, but the will is not caused to choose one or the other.

It seems that if free will is equally free to act on the thought of reaching out rather than not reaching out, then it is equally free to act of the thought of not reaching out as rather than reaching out. — RussellA

Right, doesn't your own personal experience demonstrate the truth of free will to you? You are equally free to reach out for the coffee, or to not reach out for the coffee. You are free to choose.

An argument against Free Will
At 1pm exactly I have the idea to pick up a cup of coffee.

Assuming free will, at T seconds prior to 1pm, it hasn't been determined whether at 1pm I will have the idea to pick up the cup of coffee or not to pick up the cup of coffee.

Suppose T is 1 second. If it has been determined at 1 second before 1pm that I have the idea at 1pm to pick up the cup of coffee then this is no longer free will.

Suppose T is ${10^{-100}}$ seconds. If it has been determined at ${10^{-100}}$ second before 1pm that I have the idea at 1pm to pick up the cup of coffee then this is no longer free will.

"T" can be any number

Therefore, free will only applies if I choose between picking up the cup of coffee and not picking up the cup of coffee at 1pm exactly.

But this means that at 1pm I have two contradictory ideas in my mind at exactly the same time. But this is impossible, meaning that free will cannot be a valid theory.

I have seen evidence that a person can have two contradictory ideas consecutively, but I have never seen any evidence that a person can have two contradictory ideas at the same time.
===============================================================================

I don't see how this is relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Having an idea is not evidence for free will if ideas have been causally determined in a causally determined world.
===============================================================================

Then you do not accept my explanation. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have described a world where things obey the laws of nature, but I don't see where you have explained why things obey the laws of nature.
===============================================================================

Free will is not about the thoughts, it concerns the acts. — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought free will referred to our being free to have whatever thoughts we wanted

This sounds more like instinct, in that I look at a bright light and instinctively close my eyes.
===============================================================================

That's what choice and deliberation is all about, having contradictory thoughts at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that a person can have two contradictory thoughts consecutively, but it would be impossible for a person to have two contradictory thoughts contemporaneously.
===============================================================================

You are equally free to reach out for the coffee, or to not reach out for the coffee. You are free to choose. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you know that we are free to choose?

How do you know that we don't live in a causally determined world, where our actions have been causally determined?

Why does something being determined mean that the person has no control? Perhaps it's just predictable behaviour.

Why does something being determined mean that the person has no control? Perhaps it's just predictable behaviour. — Barkon

If Determinism is true, then all our thoughts and actions are determined by causes external to our will. Our future is already written, and all our thoughts and actions are a consequence of preceding events.

In that sense, if all our thoughts and actions are determined, then it is true that we have no control.

However, in ordinary language, we do say things like "he was determined not to waste a single minute of his time" and "she was weak and the pain was excruciating, but she was determined to go home."

But the fact that a person is determined to do something, does not mean that their determination cannot be explained within Determinism.

If Determinism determines all our thoughts and actions, our being determined is just one of these thoughts, meaning that it is Determinism that determines our being determined to do something.

At 1pm a person has the thought to reach out for a cup of coffee.

Free will means that at 1pm that person could equally have had the thought not to reach out for the cup of coffee.
— RussellA

Free will is not about the thoughts, it concerns the acts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Free will means, regardless of what actually happened, whether the cup of coffee was picked up or not, it could have gone the other way. Unlike a pool table, where, once in motion, the balls can only end up in one exact arrangement, due to the laws of physics. The same with all the air molecules in a room. We know statistically how they will behave. But we can't calculate even one molecule's position one minute into the future, because there are more factors involved than we are capable of keeping track of. But all of those factors determine where each molecule will be in one minute, and there is no possibility that they can be anywhere else.

There can be thoughts not resulting in acts.

For example, I may think that Monet's "Water-lilies" is aesthetic or I may think that it is not aesthetic. Neither thought requires me to act on the thought.

Therefore, free will only applies if I choose between picking up the cup of coffee and not picking up the cup of coffee at 1pm exactly. — RussellA

This is a faulty argument because your designated time of "1pm" is completely arbitrary, and not representative of the true nature of time. As indicated by the relativity of simultaneity a precise designation of "what time it is", is frame of reference dependent.

But this means that at 1pm I have two contradictory ideas in my mind at exactly the same time. But this is impossible, meaning that free will cannot be a valid theory.

I have seen evidence that a person can have two contradictory ideas consecutively, but I have never seen any evidence that a person can have two contradictory ideas at the same time. — RussellA

As I explained in my last post, having two contradictory ideas at the same time is exactly what deliberation consists of. "Should I stay or should I go". The Clash, a fitting name.

"Critical thinking", and philosophy in general, is all about comparing contradictory ideas. A philosopher holds these contradictory ideas within one's mind, at the same time. It is the judgement, the choice to act on one or the other, consequently the physical action itself, that results from the judgement, which cannot be both. Furthermore, denying that people can hold contradictory ideas at the same time, denies the reality of much human misunderstanding.

The problem here, is that you are treating a human subject as if one is a material object, to which the fundamental laws of logic (identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle), apply. This is a mistake of sophistry which Aristotle keenly exposed, and he demonstrated the misunderstanding which this sophistry propagates, thousands of years ago. The reality, as shown by Aristotle, is that if we adhere to the three fundamental laws of logic in cases involving human decisions, sophists can logically prove absurdities. The "sea battle tomorrow" is his famous example, of why the fundamental laws cannot be applied to subjects. In more recent times, C.S. Peirce has done considerable work on this issue.

You have described a world where things obey the laws of nature, but I don't see where you have explained why things obey the laws of nature. — RussellA

Why would I even try to do that? What I explained, is that some people use "laws of nature" to explain why things behave in a consistent way, describable by the laws of physics. This is a sort of governance, similar to the governance of "God". What's the point to even asking why matter obeys God, if you do not even believe that matter obeys God. That would be a ridiculous question to ask. You'd be asking why does Y follow X, when you do not even believe that Y does follow X. Any one who tried to answer you would be engaged in an exercise in futility.

I thought free will referred to our being free to have whatever thoughts we wanted — RussellA

Free will is the ability to choose freely.

I agree that a person can have two contradictory thoughts consecutively, but it would be impossible for a person to have two contradictory thoughts contemporaneously. — RussellA

Do you agree, that by the special theory of relativity, event A could be prior to event B from one frame of reference, and posterior from another frame of reference? Since a human being is composed of many different parts, moving in many different ways, many different frames of reference are available within one human body. Therefore your stipulation of "contemporaneously" is completely unwarranted, and nothing but an arbitrary, fictional condition, imposed for the sake of your argument, when it's not a truthful representation of reality in any way.

How do you know that we are free to choose?

How do you know that we don't live in a causally determined world, where our actions have been causally determined? — RussellA

I know that I am free to choose, from introspection, analysis of my own experience.

Here's a simple experiment you can try yourself, in the comfort of your own home. Hold a small, soft object in your fingers, extended at arms length, and decide that you will drop it at some random time in the near future. Hold it for a short time, and notice that you can decide to drop it at any random time, without any causal influence, just a freely willed choice to let it go.

Unlike a pool table, where, once in motion, the balls can only end up in one exact arrangement, due to the laws of physics. — Patterner

However, someone can at any moment, reach in and stop the balls from moving in that predetermined way. And this demonstrates that free will has superiority over determinism, a phenomenon known as "the hand of God", which renders "miracles" as other than impossible.

If determinism is true that's that all our actions are determined. That's all. It doesn't mean it's determined by causes external to our will. If it's determined that I will write this, then all that means is that it was probable that I would, thus it was determinable prior to the act. If in the beginning of the universe, everything was determined, all it means is that something powerful enough has collected all the information and decided that evidence points to a certain conclusion. I don't know where determinists are getting the idea of no control from - having consciousness and a mind certifies control.

This is what you are saying: it was determined since the beginning, thus I have no control. That's false. What's true is that if it was determined since the beginning, it's probable that the acts that follow are the determined ones.

If it's to be argued that determinism means something else, it can be dismissed as pure fantasy and delusion that a consciousness, with a mind, is out of control of its own actions, due to some higher force. It equates God belief. You literally believe all your actions are guided by some force other than yourself.

Edit: I think you're confusing determinism with impossiblism.

This is a faulty argument because your designated time of "1pm" is completely arbitrary, and not representative of the true nature of time. As indicated by the relativity of simultaneity a precise designation of "what time it is", is frame of reference dependent.........................Do you agree, that by the special theory of relativity, event A could be prior to event B from one frame of reference, and posterior from another frame of reference? — Metaphysician Undercover

In my location, 1pm is simultaneous with my picking up a cup of coffee.
===============================================================================

As I explained in my last post, having two contradictory ideas at the same time is exactly what deliberation consists of. "Should I stay or should I go". — Metaphysician Undercover

This is why the words in the proposition "should I stay or should I go" are sequential. First one asks "should I stay" and then at a later time one asks "should I go".

Propositions, in that they mirror thoughts, are sequential.
===============================================================================

The problem here, is that you are treating a human subject as if one is a material object, to which the fundamental laws of logic (identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle), apply. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the case in a Deterministic world.
===============================================================================

What's the point to even asking why matter obeys God, if you do not even believe that matter obeys God. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not only a question of whether or not matter obeys God, it is also the question of is there a God.
===============================================================================

I know that I am free to choose, from introspection, analysis of my own experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

If Determinism is the case, and determines all our thoughts and actions, then your thought that you are free to choose is just another of those thoughts that have already been determined.

your last paragraph sounds like word salad, it's completely nonsensical:

If determinism is true, and (it; who? What?) determines all our thoughts and actions, then...

If determinism is true that all our actions are determined. That's all. It doesn't mean it's determined by causes external to our will. If it's determined that I will write this, then all that means is that it was probable that I would, thus it was determinable prior to the act. — Barkon

My understanding of Determinism is that your writing your post was inevitable, not probable.

From Wikipedia Determinism

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable

From SEP - Causal Determinism

In order to get started we can begin with a loose and (nearly) all-encompassing definition as follows:
Determinism: Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

then it should be called inevitablism, not determinism. Having determined something will happen is not the same as it being inevitable.

Let's say it's determined that I will go to do something and then deny that action because I want to test if it is inevitable. That's a determinable thing if someone has enough information about me. However, it doesn't mean that it is inevitable that I will do it. It just means that it's probable.

If determinism is true, and (it; who? What?) determines all our thoughts and actions — Barkon

OK. If Determinism is the case, and all our thoughts and actions are already determined, then your thought that you are free to choose is just another of those thoughts that have already been determined.

Determined by the nature of the Universe.

then it should be called inevitablism, not determinism. Having determined something will happen is not the same as it being inevitable. — Barkon

Determinism seems to encompass more than Inevitabilism, and includes the concept of inevitability.

From Wikipedia Determinism

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable

Wiktionary - Inevitabilism

The belief that certain developments are impossible to avoid; determinism.

Wiktionary - Determinism

The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.

fine. Then I concede. However it seems like a poor choice of words.

This is why the words in the proposition "should I stay or should I go" are sequential. First one asks "should I stay" and then at a later time one asks "should I go". — RussellA

Speaking is a physical act, and that requires a choice to say one or the other first, as I said. However, the fact that they cannot both be said by the person at the same time does not imply that the person cannot have both ideas within one's mind at the same time.

Clearly people multitask, so they are thinking different ideas at the same time, required to do a number of different things at the same time, even though they cannot say everything that they are doing, all at the same time. S o why can they not have contradictory ideas at the same time?

The fact that people have many different ideas in their minds at the same time (required for multitasking) demonstrates that the subject matter of your criticism is just a limitation on the physical capacity of speaking, not a limitation on the capacity of thinking. How do you account for a person having many different ideas, in one's memory, all at the same time, which one cannot all say at the same time? Not being able to say everything which one has in one's memory, all at the same time, does not imply that the person doesn't have all those ideas in one's memory, all at the same time.

If Determinism is the case, and determines all our thoughts and actions, then your thought that you are free to choose is just another of those thoughts that have already been determined. — RussellA

Sure, you can state irrelevant conditionals, just like I can say that if I was not born yet, I would not be writing this right now, but such conditionals are not relevant to reality.

The question was, how does introspection reveal to you that determinism is the case, and free will is an illusion. Your if/then statement reveals nothing more than "if I was not born yet I would not be writing this right now" reveals. How do I get from this to believing that I was not born yet? And how do you get from your if/then statement to believing that determinism is the case?

This is what you are saying: it was determined since the beginning, thus I have no control. That's false. What's true is that if it was determined since the beginning, it's probable that the acts that follow are the determined ones. — Barkon

In this form of determinism, how do you account for acts which fall outside of being probable, the acts that occur which were not probable? These would not be deterministic, and there would be a whole lot of acts which follow from each improbable act, all not determined from the beginning.