The way English is set up makes it hard to do otherwise.
Then let me amend my statement to say this:
it is useful to regard others as if they possess free will. (This says nothing about whether I myself possess free will.)
We are the sum total of our biology and our experiences. Right? Are some arguing that there is some other factor, other than biology and experience, that affects the outcome? What is that? A soul? Free will seems like a metaphysical concept to me.
It is, but it doesn’t even make sense if we posit a soul. Are souls blank slates, or are there good and bad souls?
This is why I think “We have no free will because the universe is deterministic” is a red herring. In what kind of universe does this kind of free will make sense?
Can we change our character? Can we become “different” in our basic psychological underpinning? Can a cruel man learn to be more gentle? Can a coward learn to be brave?
Even if some kinds of decisions seem to be “built in” to the person, by dint of his character – isn’t it possible for us to make a “meta-change” in that character itself, so that future decisions are “determined” differently? I very strongly believe that it is possible.
(Sigh… In the worst case, you can change your character, powerfully, for the worse, by taking up the use of addictive drugs.)
Forewarning: haven’t read every answer, but I don’t doubt my answer has been already provided.
To me, the notion rings true because the apparatus that lets us take “decisions” is purely meat-based, has been amply demonstrated to be influenced by a wide and sometimes humbling gamut of external stimuli (look up subliminal advertising videos on YouTube for a taste of just what one often chalks up to “imagination”, “intuition” and the like) and of course chemical processes and chemical compounds like hormones and such. If a pill can make me happy, a drink can make me unhappy, 5 drinks can turn me violently unhinged, where’s my will ?
I don’t really buy into predestination per se, in that I don’t think anything or anybody can tell from birth “he’s going to be a criminal” or “he’s going to be a politician” or whatever, the Universe is far too complex and chaotic for that ; but I do think that every thought, choice and rationalization that pops into our minds and informs our thought and decision-making process is a mixture of innate genetic make-up and outside stimuli/circumstances. As such, “free will” is an illusion - whatever choice we make in this or that specific set of circumstances, we were always going to make because the specific equation of brain matter setup+memories+feelings+chemical interactions pointed us that way at that time for these reasons.
Had the exact same choice been presented to us in different circumstances, we might have picked different - but that alternate choice too would have been the fruit of a different albeit specific set of innate+outside circumstances (which in turn would shape the biological decision-making apparatus going forward). IOW, each and every choice we get to make, we make because in a very real sense we “have no other choice”. In an abstract sense or objective sense we do, and we certainly love to ponder and agonize over the what ifs ; but in a realistic and biology-centric sense we don’t.
We only make the choices we were always going to make.
TL:DR - we think we have agency, but IMO we don’t, not really.
So, if you DON’T really have free will, doesn’t it follow that people SMARTER than you have every right to spell out how you should behave, and that you should blithely obey, since your will and your desires don’t deserve to be taken seriously?
Not really, because intelligence is not linear but planar or multi-dimensional. For example, I may be able to calculate the expansion path and material distribution of a supernova ten thousand lightyears away but not be able to fix my carburetor (they still use those, right?) or understand the subtle effects that certain adjustments will have on engine performance, I would probably be best served to let my mechanic make decisions of that sort. Or, if my wife is a really good cook, should I not defer to her experience in selecting the right pork chops, or should I merely declare that my PhD in astrophysics makes me smarter so I should make the choices?
If you don’t really have free will, what does “should” mean? In a deterministic universe, nothing possibly could be other than it actually is.
In this case, “should” = “is it/does it seem like a good idea?”
Sure. But the no-free-will argument is that the person couldn’t have done anything other than make those changes. It may look like a choice, but really it’s just a person’s brain chemicals doing exactly what they do when exposed to the exact sensory stimuli and behaviors and biology that is happening in that moment.
The question is, all things being equal, is behavior predetermined? If you have two people with the exact same life experiences, same biology, a complete duplication of the other’s existence, will those two people diverge at any point? And if so, why? What is causing the difference? I don’t see how the answer could be anything other than supernatural. Ergo, no free will.
Not that it really matters. We think we have free will and that’s enough for most of us, I think.
Why should *their *will and desires deserve to be taken seriously ? 
The idea that free will doesn’t exist is based on a false definition of free will. Free will is not the opposite of determinism. Free will does not mean that will is without origin or cause, it just means there is not another will superseding yours.
Determinism implies that if we had enough information about initial conditions, we could predict all your decisions, however if we ever had access to this technology, it would change the very initial conditions it was based on. You would have to to reinput the results back into the algorithm, creating a feedback loop.
This is not really any different than how things already are, except that it is a more extreme form. We already make choices based on expected outcomes and prior knowledge. There is already a feedback loop, it is just imperfect, incomplete, and not omniscient.
Hang on a moment though, the notion of uncaused causes is not entirely alien to science - stuff like quantum fluctuations and particle decay events, at the individual level, happen without cause (and as I understand it, this is not just because the cause is obscure or unknown).
I’m not saying this represents a basis for ‘proper’ free will, only that, if there are such things as uncaused events, we cannot use ‘there is no uncaused cause’ as a universal dismissal of freewill.
Yeah, if we define free will as not being subject to another person’s will, then free will often exists.
But I don’t think that’s what people are talking about when they say free will. I don’t know what exactly they are talking about because the idea just doesn’t make any sense as it is commonly presented, as pointed out numerous times in this thread.
Free will is usually simply defined as “being able to choose your own actions,” but scientifically and empirically what does this mean? If your choices are all based on inputs into your choice-making system, and could be predicted with sufficiently advanced technology, does that still satisfy the definition? Or, on the other hand, what if it is shown that choices can NEVER be predicted theoretically? Does this prove we have free will or does it just mean that our choices are random/non-causal?
There’s just no scientific way to define and then test the idea of “free will” so it is just a silly concept to me and always will be.
What people are talking about, is the notion that they, as the person inhabiting their body, originated an idea or action, entirely of their own accord, not beholden to any control other than their own volition.
I get that this doesn’t stand as a scientific description, but that’s what people mean - the ability to be original.
And so I asked my wife; “do I have free will?”
And she said to me “is the pope a catholic - put the bins out”
And of my own free will, I did.
Enjoying this thread, and liked this post (and **Half Man Half Wit’s ** overview of FW, too.
But for me, this whole topic, while fascinating as an exercise, ultimately doesn’t satisfy. I imagine figuring out a way to arrive at an answer - then what? I/We still have the burden (and opportunities) of being a human in this world. What value is there in the question from that POV?
Please note that I am not trying to shit on the thread; I am asking a sincere question. Would it resolve the God question? Help us live our lives different ways? Lead to a different understanding of the universe, quantum theory, etc, that we don’t already have?
Thanks.
Something bothers me about this argument, but I’m not quite sure what it is or how to phrase it.
Here’s my best attempt for now: if both of these hypothetical peoples’ lives are absolutely, positively, 100% identical (which would include everybody around them, and every little variance of chance, assuming you believe in that kind of thing), what reason would one have to exercise his/her free will differently from the other? In what way would this be different from saying “if I flip a coin twice, and every single environmental and acting variable is the same, it obviously comes up heads both times, therefore randomness does not exist”?
The reason we want it to be different is that when we say “what the hell, I’ll have strawberry instead of chocolate today!”, we want to think that we (that is, the homunculi riding around inside our heads) were the ultimate originator of that idea, not that we are constrained to follow a script.
That’s why this is an emotive topic. It feels like we’re in control, that we’re the originators of ideas, actions, thoughts; that we cause, not just that we are an effect.