Free will does not exist

How can people who are significantly limited by their psychopathology be said to have free will?

free will exists but is not universal

Interesting, do you argue that only humans have free will?

I echo that, please further your argument

I do think he means universal in that sense

Do yourself a favor and define what you mean by free will before you start asking if it exists or not

If a car were coming towards me I'd step aside instead of just standing there like a rock. There we go free will very nice

i would define free will as the ability to make meaningful changes to the future

Why I think this is an appropriate definition is because I think it is based on the idea that time exists, and I'm not so convinced that it does.

therefore, free will does not exist

Wouldn't you have to know the future in order to change it? You can change your behavior, and make a reasonable assumption that that change will change what would otherwise have been your future, but it (the future you want) won't come about as though it were logically necessary. You could still end up in the situation you were trying to avoid.

sure, that's why i predicated the idea on time, because time isn't measurable in any meaningful way, it's all subjective.

It seems like you're creating a description that suits your opinion. What if I disagreed and said that free will is the ability to consciously amend one's behavior? Then the idea wouldn't rest on some certain belief in future events.

Time itself as an absolute is nothing, in fact, everything as an absolute substantive thing is nothing.
Time is extension of the actions, by this i mean that actions explain time and not viceversa. Then, we can say that time exist. And of course its not lineal 1892 doesn't necessarily go before 1893.
Meaninful changes to the "future" are made almost everytime a decision is made. Look at technology, politics, science, even daily life. If you're dropping the "but did you make that decision by your own unmediated force of will?" meme you can go away.

>limited by their psychopathology
wtf are you even trying to say

Go back to pol

Top ten weirdest arguments ever.
Reminds me of Weil, good job.

>I don't have an argument and everyone who questions me is from /pol/

turns out determinists are stupid
how surreal

Huh?
Psychopathology is autist for mental disease.

I know what the word means, but how does a mental disease contradicts the idea of free will??

He's probably talking about grades of "dependence". Which is pretty retarded as even "normal" or "mentally healthy" are dependent in the same grade but it a different way.

Free-will is a meme, it exists to strenghten the idea of ego, simply a feel-good idea for individualists.

Of course it's the same for everyone, OP is pointing it out to at least make you question if free-will exists for the retarded or the ignorant.

>at least make you question if free-will exists for the retarded or the ignorant.
why wouldn't it exist?

Kant makes a solid case for free-will given his metaphysics.When we come to understand that we have a divide of how things are as they appear to us vs the objective world, the question of what the objective reality is behind our free-will is an unanswerable question.

The problem with the free will debate is the centrality of intentionality we have inherited from phenomenologysts. Intentionality as the ability of human beings to pursue particular goals and to state them explicitly doesn't have more value than the pursue goals of any other entities. Intentionality explains nothing, intentionality is explained by the interactions betwen humans and nonhumans as intentionality is formed by a network of things that diffuse goals all the time. A microbe can have a goal (invade living bodies to proliferate) and pursue it as long as it finds no obstacles in the same way a farmer can have it's own goal (grow cows to eat them) as long as it doesn't find obstacles (the microbe kills the cow).

Kants writting should be burnt for the damage they've done to continental philosophy and the aknowledgement of reality.

There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

There are those who think that
They've been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren't born in Lotus-Land

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt
That's far too fleet

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will

In what sense is time subjective? It's literally a feature of the "fabric" of our universe - spacetime. Fuethermore, we have extremely accurate means of measuring time since we know that certain things happen at extremely regular imterval, e.g. Radioactive decay of one element into another via loss of protons or the interval in which a beam or light travels some particular distance. You also should be careful not to ignore the fact that time is a fundamental theoretical component of most accurate and universal scientifoc theories, e.g. Newtownian mechanics and relativity.
Metaphysically speaking, time is also intimately related to causality (hence the aformentioned ubiquitous implementation in scientific theories) and change. If you mean that we can't measure time in itself, I suppose this is true, but I'm not entirely sure we can measure space in itself without the exiatence of extended bodies (objects). That being said, time can be rigorously defined by means of equivalence classes of certain causal processes, e.g. a given duration such as a day can be defined by the equivalence class of all processes or sequences of processes that take a day (so, for example one rotation of the earth about its axis, how long it take forblight to travel x km, how long it takes for me to walk from my house to somewhere relatively far, etc.).

Wowowiwowi. I see highschool has been very productive for someone. How does time as an "active force" or as an "agent" serve as a explanation for anything? Does time have it's own effect over other things? Is it time that makes the earth globe rotate or is it the action of multiple material entities affecting each other? If you don't walk, cells don't oxidize, and wind doesn't blow, what does time do?

Adding to that, does time pass in the same way for stones, humans, wars and laboratories?

shut up snowblower

Why would you have to "know" the future to make a meaningful change on it? First of all, if this is how we're going to define "free will", then I think it would be sufficient to have a plausible beliwf about future events, engage in intentional action on the basis of those beliefs with the desire to produce some outcome, and then,it being the case that thos outcome does indeed materialize. Moreover, if we accept the standard dedinition of knowledge as "justified true belief" (which actually I dont, since this definition has some obvious problems, namely with the "justified" part, but I bring it up simply for arguments sake) than there are many things I can know about the future. For example, assuming I don't in fact die by tomorrow, then at the moment, I do indeed know that I'm going to wake up in the morning. Thus I can reasonably act on the basis of this belief (which is potentially knowledge) in order to inentionally affect a change in the course of future event, for example by preparing my outfit tonight before I go to bed.
In this case then, I'd say I have free will.

However if by "free will" we mean the claim that my choices and actions are not subject to predetermination by the deterministic causal forces of the physical universe (which is a very strong claim, and one that I think fails to address our intuitive concept of free will), then I would say free will in nonexistent.

On another note, it's interesting how today's discussion of free will is so different from the one that cropped up the other day is a Sam Harris thread. Everyone in that thread seemed to fully support complete free will over and above determinism. Of course they were unable to really support their claims, and seemed to believe in free will because they wanted it to be real, rather than because of compelling evidence.

Becaise many traditional arguments have advanced free will on the basis of the capacoty to engage in rational thought and action.

They can only be said to have free will in relation to other organisms that lack control more severely than they do. Free will is relative.

they have the capacity to deliberate and choose between competing desires and can change their behaviour in response to reasons

Why can't we make a Cartesian argument for the existence of free will? To my knowledge, nobody has, but you could say that free will is a psychologocal category, i.e. It is determined by psychological facts. Furthermore, we feel as if we have free will, and our internal awareness of internal states is incorrigble and cannot be mistaken (e.g. if you feel like you're in pain, then you are in pain). Therefore, we must in fact have free will.

Now I don't actually agree with this argument or its conclusion, but I think it's perhaps interesting and potentially instructive.

because few would agree that the mere feeling of having free will is sufficient for the existence of moral responsibility

he's talking about niggers being incapable of anything but violence because of their limited brain capacity

How much of a brainlet do you have to be to not understand the question?

Is that you, fui?