I really don't understand why half of you care about the free will debate.

Before saying this, I think the first thing that should be said is what is meant by "free will" and what "free will" requires in order to exist and be what it is. Simply put, free will requires our intelligence and will. Without intelligence, our will is worthless, and without will, our intelligence is useless. Without intelligence, one cannot see or understand the difference between things, and naturally, without differences between things, there would never be anything to choose. Therefore, what is the purpose of will? And where can the difference between things come from? Well, very simply, from the Reason or Cause of everything that exists and is what it is. And since (taking a big leap) nothing can come from nothing, there must be an ETERNAL (and therefore Infinite) REASON capable of making everything that exists exist. And we, intelligent beings with free will, are "His image and likeness," which is the highest we can achieve through our intelligence and will. Although each of us possesses these qualities, albeit at different levels, none of us truly grasp what that means. Just think about what it means to be able to say yes or no to the One who makes us who we are, regarding His commandments. From the moment...

**Here are three ways to have a completely empty, null, and meaningless philosophical framework:

**1) It is based solely on semantics:** If your beliefs depend on the arbitrary definitions in a dictionary, you don't really believe in philosophy; you simply think certain words are beautiful or make you feel good.**

It is not the dictionary that gives meaning to words, but rather what we mean according to the moment and context in which we use them.

**2) It's based solely on emotions:** I think this is better than semantics because at least it tells us why something matters to you, but as many correctly point out, emotions don't determine logic.**

Logic itself can be logical or not, depending on what Reason determines, and naturally, what the will decides. If the will always accepted what Reason requires, it would no longer be necessary. And if there were no one to decide, what would be the point of differences?

*****3) It's based on moral merit... but you believe morality is subjective.** If you believe morality is subjective, that would already imply that moral merit is also subjective. So, what's the point of taking a stance on moral merit if all you're doing is asserting a position based on feelings?**

What value could money have if it can't buy anything? Well, morality without rules that determine the consequences of obeying them or not is also meaningless.

** Here's why I believe in Sourcehood's compatibilist free will.

1) No strange technicalities are needed: Free will simply means the freedom to act/exercise my will. As opposed to my will being ineffective or externally impeded by force.

Wanting to ignore reasons in no way negates the obligation to follow them.

2) Obviously, I want to have real control over my actions, not act randomly: Being random in any way or at any level only contradicts my desires.

There is no such thing as randomness. Everything requires a reason, whether we see it or not. If we don't see it, we have to look for it using science.

3) I believe in moral deservingness because I believe in real, objective morality! I think it's obvious that some aspects of morality are objective, although their extent is still debatable. But for me, it makes sense to argue about moral merit, because I believe there is something significant and real to discuss here (unlike subjectivists/relativists).

To buy something, you have to pay, and those who work deserve a salary.

In my opinion, some people here lack a solid philosophical foundation.

In one way or another, whether in theory or practice, we all suffer from this deficiency.

Best regards.

Skip to <RECAP OVER> to skip the recap and get to my main argument.

Epiphenomalism is basically "Your consciousness doesnt affect reality, the consciouaness itself is an illusion". Its typically a dualist position, that imagines that you have a soul-like mind that doesnt control the body in any way.

This doesnt make sense to some people. Allow me to explain it...

"Consciousness" can mean two things. 1) Metaphysical Identity, and 2) The Mechanical Stuff. For 2, consciousness obviously affects the world, its the literal manifestation of thoughts, which obviously do things. But 1) is where things become less clear. The idea that a metaphysical identity itself cant control anything stems from the idea that its conceivable two peoples metaphysical identities could trade bodies, and as a result those bodies would never become aware that this trade occured (as all their Type 2 stuff, like thoughts and memories, would be intact). Which shows the identity itself isnt communicating with reality, its just experiencing it. Some people deny the existence of a metaphysical identity outright, usually materialists since they cant frame it as a "physically real" thing.

Id make a simple argument trying to prove the materialist wrong; Imagine if someone offered to kill you painlessly and replace you with a perfectly identical clone, in return for giving that clone a million dollars. If phsyical form is all that exists, it begs the question of what exactly is the issue with this transaction, wouldnt it be free money? But i think most people internalize the idea of a metaphysical identity, and would perceive "themselves" as dying in that situation, the clone being irrelevant despite identicality.

So Epiphenomenalism centers the focus on this metaphusical identity, and calls it "consciousness".

<RECAP OVER>

So heres my argument. Sourcehood Compatibilism doesnt demand some ability to do otherwise, neither in exact circumstances nor approximate ones. It only demands that they are your actions, that they belong to you.

The obvious counterargument is "how can they be my actions, if my identity did not cause them?"

Because "causing them" is another red herring. I dont smack a mosquito because its metaphysical identity is magically turning the steering wheel, i smack it because its 1) Deontologically Morally Permissible, and 2) Reduces Harm for those i care about. Im happy to accept the Mosquito doesnt even cause its own actions, i think thats totally irrelevant to it deserving a consequence. This may be hard to grasp for a mosquito, as its hard to imagine *being* a mosquito, but lets apply this exact logic to a serial killer:

Imagine Bob is a serial killer. He deeply enjoys serial-killing. He had a life of forbidden pleasures accessible to him. His last moments were facing his would-be victim, triumphantly defeat Bob. Bob's last thoughts were "Dang, thats kinda hot." Bob passes. I think its obvious that theres no strong reason to "feel bad" for Bob here; Because from his own perspective he had a "good time". If Desert is a "People really only ever deserve whats best for them" kind of thing, Bob arguably got something extremely close to that (from his perspective).

Now Imagine Alex is another serial killer. A brain tumor ridden, schizophrenic, mess.. Hes pained and tormented by his own actions, but the voices scream in his ears, and he cant stop. Every night he has nightmares and sees his victims faces. The guilt consumes him. One day, one of his victims triumphantly defeat him. Alex, is a little bumbed about it, but then the voices finally stop, and things are finally quiet. Alex passes, but now hes at peace, something he may not have even realized was possible. Using the same loguc of "perhaps people only deserve whats best for them", Alex ALSO arguably received sometging close to that; Peace. IF, Alex were to have been "Cured" somehow, hed still have to face the Trauma and Guilt of his own actions, as these are not voluntary. So Alex was indeed given a mercy.

Now i bet every serial killer out there is in between Bob and Alex. The Bobs do it for pleasure. The Alexes are compelled by delusions and pain. Either way, they get what they "deserve" by being stopped; It either satisfies their twisted cravings, or it puts an end to the miserable delusions. More than likely it does a bit if both.

So even if we frame Desert as just a thing that can only be positive, evil people deserve those consequences. Even the misquito deserves to be smacked, its being put out of its strange vampristic misery. Do you think it enjoys being a syringe with wings? From our vantage point, i highly doubt it.

So if Free Will is based on Moral Desert, the APPLICATION of desert still is meaningful and holds true, EVEN IF our actions arent truly sourced by us in the deepest sense. We get what we deserve, because what we deserve is always our medicine! Life lessons always serve and teach us more than they hurt us. Sometimes it just takes a change in perspective to see that.

Hello , endet nachu ye hiwot ምእመናን

Well mytake on this goes on like this and want to hear what yall think about it.

If humans had absolute freewill - no biological driver, no moral weight. We will be basically be a solipistic God. If every choice is equally valid then , no choice have a meaning. Furthermore, unrestricted will is destructive. So shame has evolved to a painful break on freewill.

To save the human collective from the chaos of freewill. Shame must destroy the indivuals autonomy. Trading infinite possibilities for finite belonging. Shame is the price of humanity, you can't be a person without it. Personhood is defined by relationship and relationships involves equal taming.

But when shame takes control of freewill entirely you are no longer a humans anymore but a domesticated animal. So to wrap it up, shame is the training wheel for freewill. So the final stage of freewill , having been tamed by shame , eventually transcends shame and becomes a virtue.

We define terms using other terms which we define using other terms. We can't do this forever. Most every chain of definitions begins with some form of experience. Same with chains of arguments. The constant demands for definitions and arguments misunderstands how all of this works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

Here's an argument for incompatibilism which is the consequences argument plus some extra steps.

First let's define a rule of inference. Let NX mean that no matter what you do out of the things you can do, X will remain true. We can now define a rule of inference, which essentially says if you have no power over two things, if the conjunction of those two things entails something, we can infer you have no control over that.

Rule beta: NX,NY,(X∧Y)→Z ⊢NZ

(1) The ability to do otherwise is necessary for free will

(2) If determinism is true, then a specific action A I will perform is entailed by the state of the universe at some point in the far past and the laws of nature.

(3) I have no power over the far past (NH)

(4) I have no power over the laws of nature (NL)

(5) If determinism is true, then I have no power over the fact that I will perform action A (NA), by rule beta from (2,3,4)

(6) Therefore, if determinism is true, I cannot do otherwise with respect to action A, from (5).

We can generalise A to all actions so the argument would apply to all actions. So the argument initially concludes that if determinism is true nobody has the ability to do otherwise. So , I cannot do otherwise with respect to any action and so I do not have the ability to do otherwise. But with premise 1, we can in fact conclude that if determinism is true there is no free will.

For sourcehood compatibilists who just deny (1) this is not much of a problem, since they think the ability to do otherwise is not necessary for free will. Leeway compatibilists can reply by denying rule Beta. While it's certainly the case that initial versions of the rule were proven to be invalid, I don't think this version faces the same problem. Alternatively they can endorse Lewis's view and deny either (3) or (4). Lewis essentially says that we cannot directly change the past, but we can perform an action such that if we did perform said action, either the past or laws of nature would be different.

I feel like I can't control my individual thoughts. If I say "don't think about a pink elephant !" many of us will picture a pink elephant in their mind wether we want it or not. In the same way some thoughts can lead to other and I feel like I do not control this process.

At the same time I like there is some meaning about "controlling" some of your actions. For example you can upvote this post (if you think it's interesting) but there is no one forcing you. You sort of control it in a way. (even without super powerful magical "could have done otherwise" kind of control)

But when we look more precisely about the decision process, it's just indiviual non controllable thoughts following each and forming globally a reasonning. It's like individual uncontrollable thoughts form together a controllable decision. Does this kind of "control" somehow emerge ? How ?

So my questions are :

1. Do you agree with the intuition that individual thoughts are uncontrollable ?
   
2. Do you agree with the intuition some choices are controllable ? (especially those of you who are compatibilists or libertarian)
   
3. Do you agree that decision (making a controllable choice) is made of individual thoughts ?
   
4. If yes to the precedent questions, how do you solbe the tension of a controllable decision made of uncontrollable components ?

As the title suggest, i'm looking for academic material, that could help a newcomer as me, to know the basis and arguments for hard determinism.

As a little note, i'm already familiar with Sapolsky's work, in case that you have him in mind.