Xris wrote:What's free will Belinda? (...)

We can choose to do what we want, but can we choose what we want?

Will cannot be free, if by "free" we mean "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance". Will is influenced by several factors and - considering our current knowledge - is chained to the physical complex phenomena from which it arises.

Xris wrote:I understand your objection Belinda but I still see it as a human condition. To say we have not, you must define what is free will. I think that is an impossible task.

If we cannot define a thing, it seems useless to discuss about it, to affirm its existence and to declare that someone has got it.

Still I believe that "free will" has several meaning and we should just choose which one we are talking about.

Xris wrote:(…) you must define what is free will. I think that is an impossible task.

Xris wrote:(…) calls it free to choose , thats what I call free will. (…)

Your statements seem incoherent.

Anyway, if it's your definition I believe that you should answer to the previous post:

Ludwig von Drake wrote:We can choose to do what we want, but can we choose what we want?

Will cannot be free, if by "free" we mean "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance". Will is influenced by several factors and - considering our current knowledge - is chained to the physical complex phenomena from which it arises.

Xris wrote:You have a conflicting view. I never said we could choose what we want and I have never said we are not limited by our circumstance or ability.

I never said you did.

I asked you a question about it.

Xris wrote:(…) You want me to argue about your description, a description that is inconceivable in reality or in theory. Free will is a human concept do you want me to invent a creature or a machine that fullfills your concept? (…)

No. I'd like to receive an answer to my question.

Ludwig von Drake wrote:We can choose to do what we want, but can we choose what we want?

According to what you said, I think that you agree with the following paragrapgh:

Ludwig von Drake wrote:Will cannot be free, if by "free" we mean "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance". Will is influenced by several factors and - considering our current knowledge - is chained to the physical complex phenomena from which it arises.

"The brain, an orchestra without conductor".

Xris, I've red your posts. I have never asked you "what free will is".

You are telling me just now (not before) that by free will you mean "the ability to decide within the conditions and circumstances".

Finally, you agree with me that the relative "free" it's just an illusion.

Xris wrote:(...) This I accept but I still maintain that this is the human concept of free will. (...)

Therefore is Hoderich (that defines differently "free will") not human?

Is our dictionary that defines "free" also as "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance" a non-human dictionary?

I'm not talking about determinism or quantum laws, I'm saying that: if though is a product of brain and if brain is submitted to natural laws than though is not the product of an independent mind but a natural event as the motion of the planets. Is the motion of the planets free?

Xris wrote:(...) No the planets have a path that is beyond their ability to alter but I can sure change my path by logic and reason. (...)

Therefore, is your brain not subject to the law of nature?

If your brain is submitted to those laws and your thought come from your brain, you are free to think as a planet is free to move: your freedom is just an illusion.

Freedom: "The condition of being free of restraints".

Does that freedom exist in our universe?

I don't think so.

In our world, freedom exists only in a relative form.

We perceive our will as free, but it's not: determinism or quantum theories POV don't change the fact.

A different point of view should be just the one of someone who believes that thought come from a mind loosed from the laws of nature.

Xris wrote:

Ludwig von Drake wrote:Freedom: "The condition of being free of restraints".

So if freedom is a word that has no meaning why does it exist?

"The condition of being free of restraints" should have been the meaning.

Wooden shoe wrote:If we follow your line of thought there should never be an original human thought at all because we all have the same constraints on our mind.

Different brains, nervous systems, stress and stimulus (and other variables) = different thought.

Wooden shoe wrote:(...) I think we are dealing here with the glass half full or half empty.
Even though I accept that we live in a largely determined world we just do not experience life that way. In its absolute sense there is no such thing as an original thought, but we do not experience those absolutes.(...)

Technically speaking, normally the glass is always full (1/2 water and 1/2 air).

You will perceive it as half full or half empty, but there will still be the air.

Our world may be deterministic or probabilistic, but (with reference to our actual knowledge) you won't be freer than Janossy's photons.