Free will thread

I agree that all of those are relevant, but not even that has been provided. People can disagree with my “scientism”, but why not contribute anyway and see how it interacts with the position offered initially?

Because your original position explicitly said that those other points are not what you consider free will, so the discussion instead turned to how stupid your definition is.

You're missing the point of the argument entirely.

Which other points? The supernatural? Why would it be a stupid definition just because it excludes the implied supernatural elements of other definitions?

As an absolute rule, it obviously is a giant leap, but if you have the choice between a natural and supernatural explanation, and have a wealth of natural explanations that were previously supernatural, it would seem more pragmatic to bet on new phenomena being natural

>The user you are arguing with is being rude, but he is also completely right.
He's completely autistic, and so are you. Neck yourself.

You seem to want to define free will without it representing a locus of control separate from biological and natural laws. This doesn't make sense to me, and instead of making an argument about why it is convincing your argument for that definition seems to be, "because it fits into my already established category of things I can easily study." I just don't find that acceptable rationale, especially from a supposedly scientific attitude.

This is a different argument entirely. And sure, you could have that hypothesis that we will eventually uncover natural correlates for every supernatural theory, but at most it's a working hypothesis and it doesn't WORK as such if it means you start excluding and dismissing data that doesn't support it.

Not an argument, you smelly butthurt fuckwad.

Not necesarily biological. The AND biological part is not required. Just natural laws is enough. And it is not because it fits into an already stablished category of things I can easily study, but rather because those things are the only things that we can scientifically study (the natural laws of the universe). Also exactly which data is being dismissed? I see none suggested in this thread.

Although it would be more precise to talk about free will in humans, at least for the definition given. I see no reason why no other substrate could have free will.

But I define free will as something that IS separate from the influence of natural laws (otherwise it is not free, but simply part of the naturally determined reactivity of objects). So by my definition, you could not study the thing in itself empirically.

But if you dismiss that definition, you dismiss information produced from (not my own) metaphysical philosophy that provides an idea of what free will would really mean, and also the reported lived experience of nearly everyone on a day to day basis. THAT is what your perspective dismisses, all of that information.