Free Will Can't Be Proved

[Hatuey]

What is the point in discussing free will within the confines of religious debate? Neither free will nor determinism can be demonstrated as accurate viewpoints, so why bring either up as if it is a point in favor of your position? Doesn't it just become a separate debate that detracts from the discussion?

[instantc]

[Replying to post 129 by instantc]

In essence, someone is telling you they don't like to watch football, and you're upset because that person won't tell you a team that they dislike watching.

It's quite clear to everybody what football is. I, on the other hand, don't have any idea what you are talking about when you say "free will" cannot be proved, for it implies that there is a coherent concept called free will, and that it's existence cannot be proved.

Free will can't be proved. Pick a definition you're particularly fond of, and prove it.

I have done this already. Free will exists as a matter of experience. This is to say that my subjective experience of free will exists.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 131 by instantc]

And Ive allowed ANY standard definition of free will. There goes your football rebuttal.

ANYTHING can be believed as a matter of personal subjective experience, aliens and imaginary friends of lunatics included. And yep, those people claim their beliefs as "true" for the same reason you have provided.

You got anything else, or are we done?

[cnorman19]

When someone can show me a PRACTICAL APPLICATION of the nonexistence of free will, I'll consider it. Till then, I guess I'll go on thinking that I have to choose what to eat for breakfast, and then thinking that I'm doing it. For now, I think I'll choose to consider this "debate" a waste of everyone's time; but YOUR free will may allow you to choose differently.

Carry on.

[Danmark]

Exactly! These 'free will' discussions are a complete waste of time. I can only see two possible purposes for them.
1. They may show off someone's creativity and intellect by demonstrating how everything could be pre determined if you want to take the argument to an extreme, and...
2. That some choices may not be quite as absolutely 'free' as one might think.

At any rate, the discussion provides a bottomless sinkhole for mental masturbation.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 133 by cnorman19]

Are you saying that it's reasonable to assume free will exists for the purpose of debate on other topics...perhaps even a "deciding" point?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 134 by Danmark]

Same question as above.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 131 by instantc]

And Ive allowed ANY standard definition of free will. There goes your football rebuttal.

No you have made a claim regarding every definition of the words "free will", which is obviously a nonsensical claim, since you cannot possibly have heard of every definition of free will ever made.

ANYTHING can be believed as a matter of personal subjective experience, aliens and imaginary friends of lunatics included.

Quite the contrary, not everything exists as a matter of anybody's subjective experience, why would you think that?

What sets free will apart form all the other things that merely exist as a matter of someone's experience is that the only meaningful way free will could possibly exist is as a matter of experience. There is no other coherent definition for that concept.

Thus, all kinds of free will that could possibly exist also do exist.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 133 by cnorman19]

Are you saying that it's reasonable to assume free will exists for the purpose of debate on other topics...perhaps even a "deciding" point?

No. I just think it's an insoluble dilemma and not worth discussing as a general topic.
Certainly, in a specific situation, the degree to which one's "free will" has become encumbered will always be an issue.

For example, it is a defense to a criminal prosecution that the defendant could not appreciate the consequences of his acts, or that he could not tell right from wrong due to a mental disorder.

"... 64 percent of local jail inmates, 56 percent of state prisoners and 45 percent of federal prisoners have symptoms of serious mental illnesses...."
http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Secti ... ntID=38174
We've known for many decades that the odds someone ending up in prison are much greater if the person has a mental illness, has a low IQ, grew up in poverty, had no meaningful father figure in his life, or is 'black.' Frequently inmates have many or all of these characteristics.
Should we therefore act as if there is complete free will? No. Should we assume those in prison are not responsible for their acts? No.

[instantc]

For example, it is a defense to a criminal prosecution that the defendant could not appreciate the consequences of his acts, or that he could not tell right from wrong due to a mental disorder.

There are also instances where free will has been invoked in criminal law as such.

A mentally ill person lacks the capacity to appreciate his actions and may thus excuse himself. On the other hand, a person who commits a crime while being asleep has no need to invoke a defense, for he did not act freely to begin with.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 137 by instantc]

I'm not going to waste my time discussing a claim with you that you have judged "nonsensical." I do not judge the claim nonsensical and you have not convinced me that it is. Unlike you, I would not argue with someone who declared he did not like the game of football for the absurd reason that he does not have knowledge of every football league and their particular rules. I would accept that he doesn't like football based on the idea that we both share a fairly accurate idea of what the gam consists of.

When you are ready to present evidence for free will beyond your subjective opinion that any lunatic could offer for space aliens or imaginary friends, I will evaluate it for myself. As of now, you claim to experience free will, and I don't deny that you strongly feel that it seems real. I also do not deny that the lunatic strongly feels that he is visited by space aliens or has an imaginary friend because he experiences them and remains as convinced as you are of free will. However neither the lunatic's nor your conviction is convincing to me.