The whole conversation heavily relies on the definition of free will, which tends to vary greatly from person to person. As far as the forces of reality go, while the world is not deterministic (based on the physics definitions and consequences of randomness of quantum events), we don’t have any good evidence to suggest that our brains have a conscious ability to decide anything irrespective of their surroundings or your history. That is to say that any “choice” we make is entirely a result of the inputs to our brains and potentially a bit of quantum randomness, not some independent decision making system. There is what is called a ”compatiblists” definition of free will, which essentially states that a specific person will always make the same decision because that’s who they are. I don’t generally regard that as free will, but some people do. I do agree with them that the classical idea of free will is nonsensical when you think about it; the idea that you could make any imaginable choice given a situation. You could imagine any number of insane ideas that you wouldn’t do, because they’re, well, insane. And some people might try something extreme to prove their free will because they feel challenged by the idea, but that’s not proof of free will, that’s proof of contrarianism. Wanting to do something because someone tells you that you can’t is a well documented human phenomenon. It’s a little like reverse psychology.
If you take the compatibilst’s definition, I’d agree that it exists, but it seems disingenuous to the phrase “free will”. As far as I can see, there isn’t a good argument that the free will to make choices exists. Your choices are always dependent on your inputs. And sure you can argue that maybe you will make the crazy decision because of quantum randomness, but that’s not arguing for free will, that’s arguing for randomness.
The whole conversation heavily relies on the definition of free will, which tends to vary greatly from person to person. As far as the forces of reality go, while the world is not deterministic (based on the physics definitions and consequences of randomness of quantum events), we don’t have any good evidence to suggest that our brains have a conscious ability to decide anything irrespective of their surroundings or your history. That is to say that any “choice” we make is entirely a result of the inputs to our brains and potentially a bit of quantum randomness, not some independent decision making system. There is what is called a ”compatiblists” definition of free will, which essentially states that a specific person will always make the same decision because that’s who they are. I don’t generally regard that as free will, but some people do. I do agree with them that the classical idea of free will is nonsensical when you think about it; the idea that you could make any imaginable choice given a situation. You could imagine any number of insane ideas that you wouldn’t do, because they’re, well, insane. And some people might try something extreme to prove their free will because they feel challenged by the idea, but that’s not proof of free will, that’s proof of contrarianism. Wanting to do something because someone tells you that you can’t is a well documented human phenomenon. It’s a little like reverse psychology.
If you take the compatibilst’s definition, I’d agree that it exists, but it seems disingenuous to the phrase “free will”. As far as I can see, there isn’t a good argument that the free will to make choices exists. Your choices are always dependent on your inputs. And sure you can argue that maybe you will make the crazy decision because of quantum randomness, but that’s not arguing for free will, that’s arguing for randomness.