The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)
- Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
- Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
- No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.
Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
Why do you limit yourself, brother?
You can decide right now whether or not you want to reply to this. You have this experience. Why convince yourself with words that you have no control over your existence? Why convince yourself there is no God or Creator? You have painted for yourself an awfully grey existence. Why not throw a bit of colour on there?
I fear that you underestimate the boldness of your third point. Such a statement seems out of place in a godless world.
If an action is willed, if an action is intentional, then it has a goal.
If your actions are intentional, you are taking action for a REASOn.
That REASOn CAUSES your intentional action.
Therefore, your action is not FREE.
You do not choose your desires (your will serves your desires).
You do not choose your beliefs (you only believe what you are CONVINCED of).
I don't believe in freewill because I'm not CONVINCED it's logically coherent.
Please save your post-hoc emotional appeals (bit of colour) for another occasion.
That was quite the harangue. To whom do you think it was truly aimed?
I am going to make this my last comment to you on this matter because I intend to post about my current concept of free will rather soon.
If the reason is your choice, the action is free. But, I don't even know why we are using words such as action or reason. This is an over complication of a simple concept. Free will, is "the freedom to choose." We don't have to say "the freedom to choose a reason so that we can have an action that is free." It's just.. too many useless words which can then be used to confuse the issue.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by our will serves our desires. But I know that my will conflicts my desires. It seems to me, someone can have only one will, but many desires, and often their desires serve as a mere consolation prize for not realising their will.
I also disagree that you cannot choose your beliefs. We have a tool named logic that we use for exactly this purpose; to convince ourselves of whatever it is we want to believe. Some of us are better logicians than others. And some of us are just better at lying to ourselves, and don't even hold a reasonable narrative for our beliefs. But, ultimately, we are all constantly choosing our beliefs.
I see not what you consider emotional, but I care not either. I always say what I want to say, that won't change. My comment about colour was suggesting that you use this magnificent gift - the ability to choose what you believe, to add more colour to your world. In a symbolic sense of course. I mean only that you've reduced your reality to the least you can convince yourself it is. Why?
The whole point is that you don't choose your desires.
YOu also don't choose your circumstances.
Of course, because you have a hierarchy of desires. You desire some short term comfort and some long term comfort. You don't "choose" which desire you "want more", but your will manifests your most powerful subconscious desire.
You can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus, can you?
You can only believe what you are convinced of.
Logic is a tool to find critical errors in systems. It is not a tool for manufacturing false beliefs.
Here's an example, "why do you hate Santa Claus so much? If you believed in Santa Claus, you're life would be so much happier (and filled with colourz)!!
"You must be soooo depressed without Santa Claus in your life!! (you poor sad little lost soul)."
Anyway, do you see the "appeal to emotion" now?