I’ll explain my standpoint a bit first. On the one hand, I believe human will is part of the causal chain, being determined by previous events and, in turn, determining people’s decisions and actions. On the other, there are objects whose existence is a psychological one, which makes me lean toward the brain/mind dualism as well.
I am a compatibilist, but what I dislike about this concept is that it is regarded as some sort of theoretical manipulation of definitions, when in fact it represents the position of ancient philosophers, who actually coined the term of free will.
Translated as free will, the Latin phrase liberum arbitrium (coined by early European philosophers) literally means independent arbitrator, where the quality of arbitrator points out human beings’ faculty to decide on the worth of anything, whereas that of independent refers to their capacity of self-objectivation. Regarded as Man’s ability to cause his own course of actions by his own means, free will is defined as the control of instinctual and emotional behavior through reason.
I do not believe in “Free Will” as I believe that every action is an inevitable result of earlier actions, back to the Big Bang. However, I also believe that the number of variables is too high for any predictions to be made in anything but the most broad sense. This leads me to conclude that even if “Free Will” is an illusion, it is the only game we have and so we might as well play along as if it existed.
Or I may be missing your point entirely. I slept through my Philosophy classes so many years ago.
They’re not my definitions. “My” definitions are the ones in the OP, in fact the ones given by the very people who coined the phrase free will (yet, not in English, of course).
They call this pre-determinism and ontological holism. I remember that I read David Bohm’s “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” in one day some 15 years ago. And then I read it again the next day. Fascinating, indeed.
It’s not the only game we have. Chess players have chess. Musicians play unheard tunes in their mind on a daily basis. Mathematicians can see numbers and hear the rapports between them. Mental objects are the blue prints of the entire human culture and civilization.
If I relied on what I learned in high school, I would still believe I could reconcile Marx and Smith one day.
“[…] and then you may wonder who gave them your personal information. Actually, it was your own personal computer.” (source: a random course on the laws of security)
However, I say that with a big caveat. From inside your own head, you can do anything you want. I can keep posting, I could go back to work, or I could go on a wild shooting spree. I can choose any of those in the next moment and nothing is stopping me. If an outside observer were running simulations of me, they’d see that I make the same choice every time… but as an internal observer running a sample of one, the “choice” is still mine to make.
I can’t seem to find anything close to that in the definitions I’ve seen so far, and I’ve always seen libertarianism as a political movement that one may or may not subscribe to, not a theory of what must determine human actions.
That is not an argument against the existence of free will. A baby is attracted by the flame and touches it. He gets burned, screams, goes to hospital, etc. and eventually avoids fire when he sees it again - but the decision to avoid fire has already been made: it was made when he got burned the first time. Plus, his twin sister avoids fire now too, although she has never gotten burned, but she remembers her twin brother’s agonizing experience when he touched the flame and was taken to hospital, a moment when she made the decision she would avoid fire in the future. Which she does, and a moth doesn’t. Reasoning allows people to make an active part of the overall cause effect chain and this is what the so called “free will” is all about.
Simply skimming a page won’t do, I guess. One needs to visit all the pages indicated through links too in order to get the whole picture. It’s like reading a treatise on human psychology. I’m not an expert in psychology - I can’t teach it.
You said you can’t find anything and I’ve showed you how to do it. Libertarianism in the free will vs determinism controversy is a common word. I don’t remember exactly where I picked it up first.
Are you going to pull this shit every time someone asks you to back up a claim with a cite-“There’s the internet. Find it yourself”? If so, I see trouble ahead. If you can’t back up your claim with an actual cite, just say so, because what you have done instead-twice, so far-is an insult.
I’m sorry you see things this way. The libertarian view on free will is pretty straightforward in the explanation I posted in the poll choice. I don’t remember a specific source for it (most of my knowledge comes from books whose titles I can no longer remember), but if you find any problem with the explanation I have given, I am ready to discuss it.
I’m pretty much a quantum reality sort of person - everything happens and I am just one of uncountable branches thinking I made some sort of choice to be where I am. Not sure where that view fits so I chose other.