That seems to be one of the arguments Sam Harris uses to deny free will. Isn't that a straw man argument? I haven't heard anyone say that free will means acting without limitations or consequences. That would be omnipotence. I think some of our actions are based upon upbringing and biology, but that we still have the ability to make choices and achieve goals. It doesn't mean everyone uses their free will all the time, but we do have the ability to focus our minds and do so.

@sfvpool I'm the one who said it. It's my view, although I imagine others have thought the same.

Most people, of course, stop short of claiming a desire for omnipotence but that is what free will would have to be, to literally be free will.

Compare the dictionary definition: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." Listen to what that's really saying.

Of course, people generally mean some nebulous thing that's less than literally what free will is defined as, but then they necessarily have difficulty proving there's such a thing because the definition is so squishy.

Freedom of choice on the other hand is the unfettered ability to make any choice you are able to in a particular circumstance or context, from a menu that's pretty limited, practically speaking. In other words right now I could chose to get off the Internet, to eat, to take a walk, or even to slit my throat. In most cases no one would interfere with those choices, so it's fair to say I'm free, at least relatively so, to make them, so long as I accept the trade-offs, consequences and side-effects (anticipated or not), and responsibilities that go with those choices.

Even this is pretty limited, but it's adequate to make us subjectively "feel" like free agents. Usually. If we don't think about it too much.

@mordant I don't think our understanding of human abilities in this respect is too far off. My contention is with those who, like Sam Harris, argue that people, like criminals, are not responsible for their actions. In the moment of the commission of a crime, criminals might not have much control of what they do next, but what they do is a result of a long history of choices and decisions they have made. My immediate family is a good example of this. Both my younger brother and I were brought up with the same terrible, abusive, ignorant parents. My brother became a career criminal because of choices, decisions, and interpretations he made. He spent most of his adult life in prison. I was on a similar path as a teenager, but I eventually chose a different path. That is one reason I fight against those who say we don't have free will.

Another reason I fight against determinism is that I think that all concepts are contextual, and the concept "free will", as it applies to humans, is in the context of human freedom of action. We are not omnipotent, so the "free" part applies to the range of freedom we have. Volition would be a better word, but that is not the word that people like Sam Harris are arguing against. Anyway, that is my two cents, for what it's worth.

@sfvpool Yes, I see many examples similar to you and your sibling. For example, my two stepchildren are only 1 year apart, raised by the same parents, had exactly the same experiences, but one is kind, gentle, respectful and principled, and one is -- well, the technical term is "a nasty little shit" who regularly uses gaslighting and barely deniable cruel cuts, to the point where her mother and I are emotionally disassociated from her because we can't trust her. Some of that could be different brain chemistry and perceptions and thus different responses to / interpretations of experiences. But a lot of it is making different choices and failing to develop good character.

Then there are examples I know of, like adults who are fantastic human beings despite being raised by terrible and even abusive parents, and adults who are demon seeds despite being raised by excellent, emotionally available, attentive, kind parents. There are kids who respond to disadvantage by overcoming it and others who respond to it by being sullen and resentful and acting out. And so forth.

So I'm not in the determinist camp either. Although I do believe when it comes to child development that nature trumps nurture on an overall basis, and people have a tendency not to like to hear that.

On point.

Did you read it? I tend to agree with Sam Harris.

@k2theArma Yes, I read it, after reading Sam Harris' book on Free Will. I thought Harris' argument was fragile. The only scientific evidence he presented were from the Libet and similar experiments, which upon further investigation I found were only accurate about 60% of the time. Even if they were accurate 100% of the time, I wasn't convinced that they disproved free will or volition. His other arguments were more philosophical. He also presented what seemed to be a straw man argument -- that free will would mean unbounded free will, almost omnipotence -- which I have heard no one present as what it means. I found Edwin Locke's book much more convincing. He has a chapter on the Libet and similar experiments, too.