people have free will

"A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings"- Sam Harris I'm still seeing choices that are made by reacting to conditions. Free will implies no constraints. Meaning if you are going to be judged for your free will it would imply that you made the choice from a grounded perspective without the path of least resistance making that choice for you! I have imagined many times having free will. Then I thought: If people really do have "free will".. They are doing it wrong! So wrong in fact we have to bury our heads in the sand to forget what "free will" has brought us. Free will is an ambiguous concept. That is why Sam Harris leads off with "I believe this is what people are thinking when they say Free will. Went on to give his definition and then explained why that concept of free will is an illusion. Free will gives too much ground to be free. It is obvious that many if not all choices are a part of a chain of events. To say you have free will would mean that you made that choice while seeing the "Big Picture" Your CEO analogy will help me explain what I mean. The CEO does not see the big picture (nor could he) So each choice that was made came from a process of judgement's that caused him to hire whomever. If he knew that so and so alcoholic would be showing up to work drunk he may have not hired him in such a hurry! Unless it said ALCOHOLIC on his resume or came in to the interview hung over. He could not know whether or not he would cause problems. The CEO did make the choice but it was from ignorance (which is normal) To call it free will takes it too far. Maybe in this case an omniscient CEO could get the job done with free will but if the CEO thought he was using "free will" to make a choice he was delusional! He wouldn't even have free will enough to decide which hand to raise let alone run a company! "Although these choices can be influenced by outside factors such as manipulation by other people, these decisions are mostly our own." Instead of "can be influenced by outside factors" I think you should say "are influenced by outside factors." Not trying to be rude. Just piggybacked your argument to show a point! I cannot think of a choice made without previous causes that actually made the choice for you. Like wanting to go to the gas station. Did you choose out of free will or out of convenience (path of least resistance) Or choosing to get in a fight: Free will or manipulation of your body chemistry to cause malice? (or instinct of survival). Give me an example of free will. "a person's outcome in life is determined by the choices that person makes, and not by fate." I agree that choosing exists but it more than likely came from a preconceived notion or agenda than any kind of free will" I think the word we are looking for is discipline! In order for a drug addict to choose to quit drugs he has to be compelled. However if he indeed had free will, he would not be addicted. He would do drugs as often as he see fits regardless of the consequences (Free will to self destruct) No mammal with survival instincts would use "free will" to implode on itself Nor do we have free will when it comes to deciding a favorite football team, religion, or even being born! I will take that further and say that your parents acted on biological instincts that are tantamount to our existence. That is why you were born.. not free will to have a child! Some people might weigh the consequences with having children.. but again their information comes from a path already chosen over and over and over.. I think the concept of free will is like the idea of "Sin". I keep hearing about it.. but I never see it. Unless you consider nature sinful. I bring this up to show why I accepted this debate. I keep hearing people talk about free will and sin, but it is mostly just parroting the bible! You were told you have free will and are sinners. It made sense from a perspective. But not any evidence to actually support it . In fact arguing free will is like arguing the existence of God. You go around in circles with the illusion of progress! It is possible we both are right (or wrong) depending on critical thinking (not majority rules).. BTW F the majority jk I will borough from Sam Harris. He addressed Dennett's compatblism argument for free will. Where free will is compatible with the truth of determinism. His example was if a murderer kills purely from his desire to kill and not influenced by a hijacker. Then that is all the free will you need. But from a moral and scientific point of view it seems to miss the point. Where is the freedom in a desire that has been molded through events that he is completely unaware of! "People identify with a certain channel of information within our conscious minds. They feel that they are in control and they are the source. This is an illusion!" "this does not mean that we did not make the decision freely." It also does not mean that we do. It simply illustrates the chain of causes that you were merely witness to. Before "you" made the decision! "The subject really chooses to take part in the experiment, and really chooses to lift a finger to please the researcher, but is completely oblivious to which of the two fingers is lifted. Also, if the subject had the same information as the researchers, then the subject could have easily changed the finger at the last moment, making it impossible for the researchers to predict." Chooses, yes. but freely?... each choice was simply one of many paths your mind can process the information. Like I said you are merely interpreting the information in your brain as it dictates your motor function. You were merely witness to the chain of events! If you had witnessed the information the scientists had to determine which fingers you would raise. Switching fingers would only be another chain of events to perceive and your choice to switch fingers was then dictated by the course of actions; you seeing the information and subsequently switching your decision will also show up and both you and the scientist will see the brain activity (If you were a robot you would never raise a hand because you would be stuck in a loop of changing fingers) :) My primary reason for denying free will comes from the understanding of free will by which Christians interpret their bible. The concept of free will in the bible is the explanation for evil and suffering in the world while also being the determining factor of whether you will be doomed to eternal suffering or not! So are you defending your argument with the idea of free will in the bible, or is it your own observations that compels you to believe you have free will?