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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

I agree.

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. Have you carried out experiments to test the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences on living things? I have. The arbiter of truth is evidence. My conclusion follows from the evidence.

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:

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.

In a way, everything is pointless. I have never asked anyone to agree with me about anything and I never will. I have my thoughts and you have yours. If you had my genes, my environments from conception to the present, my nutrients from conception to the present, and my experiences from the womb to the present you would be typing these words where and when I am typing these words. If I had your genes, your environments from conception to the present, your nutrients from conception to the present, and your experiences from the womb to the present, I would be doing what you are doing in the present. The same goes for everyone else. We are all puppets controlled by the strings of variables.

To incontrovertibly prove that hard determinism is true, I would need to create a universe that has identical starting conditions and laws of physics and let it run for as long as the universe we are in has run to see if events unfold exactly as they did in this universe. As I can't create an identical universe or access data from another universe, I can't prove it incontrovertibly. However, I am almost certain that it is true - as my conclusion is based on experiments and observations carried out in this universe.

We make choices every second. Some of the choices are unconscious e.g. the heart rate, and some of the choices are conscious e.g. choosing to cheat or not cheat on a partner. All of the choices are determined and constrained by the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are never free from the variables that determine and constrain our choices. I don't assign culpability to anyone because no one is actually culpable. This is why I chose the "No one" option on the "Who is morally culpable?" poll in the first post in this thread. We are born inevitably, we live inevitable lives, and then we die inevitable deaths. Everything is proceeding in the only way it can.

You did not provide evidence for your claim - that's why I don't belive you.

I agree.

I agree.

Yes, we have conscious volition, but this volition is not free from determinants and constraints. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints.

I agree.

I disagree because it's a domino effect starting from the beginning of the universe to the present. If you remove any of the dominos from the trail of dominos the chain of causation breaks.

I agree.

Our choices are determined by the effects of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are never free from these groups of variables. If you had the genes of a banana tree would you be posting messages in this forum? If your zygote was baked in an oven instead of being nurtured in your mother's womb would you be reading these words? If your zygote was deprived of all the nutrients from your time in the womb to the present day, would you have come this far? If you didn't experience learning English, would you be able to read these sentences? No. You would not. Your present is the result of your past.

Allegedly, this happened in 1976. The experiencer was hit by a car and was left in the morgue for three days. He became a pastor after his NDE.

He woke up as soon as the first incision was being made on his abdomen. No video of the event is shown. It's just someone narrating the story. I don't know if they were telling the truth or not. So sorry about the crane operator's injuries and pain.

Thank you Corvus. Even drinking coffee instead of tea or reading instead of going for a walk is not free from hard determinism. Our preferences and the resultant choices are products of hard determinism.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed your question until now as I am suffering from depression and CPTSD and consequently my concentration is poor. The answer to your question is: no, I would not. I let my kidnapper, my rapist, the thieves who stole our belongings, and the murderers of my relatives and my best friend get away with their crimes. I think what all living things did in the past, what all living things are doing in the present and what all living things will do in the future are all according to hard determinism.

Thank you.

I don't think anything can turn our subjectivity into objectivity. When two people see the same thing e.g. a rose, and confirm to each other that they are both seeing the rose, then they may think that their perceived rose is part of an objective reality but it is not necessarily so. They could both be plugged into the same simulation which has a rose in it!

Thank you for letting me know. Now, I know something about your subjectivity - the fact that you agree with me about it.

I know my own subjective experience of being me. Just as you know your own subjective experience of being you. We can share our experiences - that way we can know about each other's subjectivity. For example, I have nightmares every night. Now you all know the fact that I have nightmares. Something you did not know until I shared it.

I didn't say that objective moral values exist. I said that morality does not have to be objective to be valid. How can we possibly know about anything objectively? Everything we know is subjective. Our sensory perceptions are subjective. Our thoughts and emotions are subjective. Our values are subjective. There is exclusive subjectivity e.g. only I know my thoughts and dreams and hallucinations, etc. There is shared subjectivity e.g. many people can know what this post says.

No, we can still have moral values. Morality does not have to be objective to be valid. For example, I am a vegan egalitarian. I think being a vegan is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore. I think being an egalitarian is more ethical than being an elitist ableist misogynist racist speciesist plutocrat. If the world ran according to my wishes, there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. All living things would be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. We would all be forever happy.

I agree.

I thought demons were evil spirits - according to the Bible, Jesus cast out lots of demons. Christians still do exorcisms of demons to heal people. I have witnessed several exorcisms but did not see any demons.

I agree.

How do you know that demons exist?

There are two levels of explanation for this. The social-level explanation is that most people believe that people have free will and are actually culpable even though they are not actually culpable. The molecular-level explanation is that all behaviour occurs according to hard determinism, including believing that hard determinism is false even though it is true, which leads to assigning culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

We assign culpability to people who are not actually culpable.

I think hard determinism is true.

I am conflicted about whether to accept anecdotes as evidence. It's not always possible to have concrete evidence. This video is an anecdote of a man who woke up in a morgue during his autopsy. I don't know if this story is true or not. I don't have any way to assess the claims. The narrator claims that the story has been medically verified but does not present any evidence of the verification.

As far as I know, morality is made up by humans. This is why it varies across time and place. Morality is a matter of subjective opinions. People ascribe morality to various deities who allegedly communicated with us through religious books. I have read many religious books and I am not convinced that any of them were authored by one or more deities.

I understand what you mean. In the video, the doctor said that the patient was able to read the doctor's thoughts even though he never verbalised the thoughts. How could this have happened? Assuming the doctor is telling the truth, doesn't that count as evidence for something extraordinary?

Did you watch the video and read the research paper in the first post on this thread? Are you saying that they don't count as evidence? If so, why don't they count as evidence?