Is it possible to empirically prove free will?

Mark Torres14 said:You're dead wrong. Reason is the prerequisite for free will. Without reason, you're just looking at pure determinism. That’s exactly why Kant rejects metaphysics. You can explain everything through determinism except for reason itself.
Maybe free will is just a crude approximation of determinism. Like shadows on the wall in Plato's cave?

But what even is "reason"? Can you actually give me a real-world example of rational versus irrational thinking? At the end of the day, there's just "I would do this" and "I wouldn't do that"—subjective labels humans slapped onto things and called them rational or irrational. I mean, if reason involves processing info and making decisions, doesn't the word "rational" itself point straight back toward determinism? Or better yet, if you have several equally logical choices based on the exact same data, isn't picking one over the others just totally arbitrary... which makes it irrelevant to the concept of "will"?

I could explain reason using determinism by arguing that consciousness is just a byproduct of our brains, and since brains follow deterministic laws—even if I'm not doing that right now, nothing stops me!

Can you honestly tell me where in your own life you've actually felt free will in action? And how would you even recognize the feeling of *not* having it? What's the actual difference that makes us need to add that "free" label in the first place?

Olivia Evans8 said:But what even is "reason"? Can you actually give me a real-world example of rational versus irrational thinking? At the end of the day, there's just "I would do this" and "I wouldn't do that"—subjective labels humans slapped onto things and called them rational or irrational. I mean, if reason involves processing info and making decisions, doesn't the word "rational" itself point straight back toward determinism? Or better yet, if you have several equally logical choices based on the exact same data, isn't picking one over the others just totally arbitrary... which makes it irrelevant to the concept of "will"?

I could explain reason using determinism by arguing that consciousness is just a byproduct of our brains, and since brains follow deterministic laws—even if I'm not doing that right now, nothing stops me!

Can you honestly tell me where in your own life you've actually felt free will in action? And how would you even recognize the feeling of *not* having it? What's the actual difference that makes us need to add that "free" label in the first place?

Look, staying on topic: reason is the phenomenon that lets us step back and look at our own "self" from the outside. You can't even wrap your head around freedom—or by extension, will—without that ability to view your own existence in relation to everything else, both the imaginable and the unthinkable.
We’ve hit on this countless times, and I think we’re mostly on the same page here. Talking about "free will" automatically assumes there's such a thing as "unfree will"—conditioned will—as its equal opposite. It forces us into a binary where we can't imagine anything beyond a simple North vs. South divide.
But we haven't actually tackled the core concept of "will" itself, which is way more complex and vital. In all this, "freedom" is just being treated as an adjective.
Is there such a thing as the negation of will? A "non-will"?

Mark Torres14 said:Look, staying on topic: reason is the phenomenon that lets us step back and look at our own "self" from the outside. You can't even wrap your head around freedom—or by extension, will—without that ability to view your own existence in relation to everything else, both the imaginable and the unthinkable.
We’ve hit on this countless times, and I think we’re mostly on the same page here. Talking about "free will" automatically assumes there's such a thing as "unfree will"—conditioned will—as its equal opposite. It forces us into a binary where we can't imagine anything beyond a simple North vs. South divide.
But we haven't actually tackled the core concept of "will" itself, which is way more complex and vital. In all this, "freedom" is just being treated as an adjective.
Is there such a thing as the negation of will? A "non-will"?

I mean, we deal with unfree will every single day. We head into a Target or a Walmart thinking we're choosing exactly what we want, but most of the time, we're just falling for some clever ad campaign or a subtle suggestion. Our "decision" is really just a reaction to manipulation that we might even be aware of, yet we don't bother fighting back. That’s conditioned will, not free will.

Mark Torres14 said:Look, staying on topic: reason is the phenomenon that lets us step back and look at our own "self" from the outside. You can't even wrap your head around freedom—or by extension, will—without that ability to view your own existence in relation to everything else, both the imaginable and the unthinkable.
We’ve hit on this countless times, and I think we’re mostly on the same page here. Talking about "free will" automatically assumes there's such a thing as "unfree will"—conditioned will—as its equal opposite. It forces us into a binary where we can't imagine anything beyond a simple North vs. South divide.
But we haven't actually tackled the core concept of "will" itself, which is way more complex and vital. In all this, "freedom" is just being treated as an adjective.
Is there such a thing as the negation of will? A "non-will"?

But then again, reason is something we're taught, which suggests it isn't inherently free either. I guess you need a bit of actual free will to want to crack that shell and see what's actually going on underneath the surface.

Jacob Chavez36 said:I mean, we deal with unfree will every single day. We head into a Target or a Walmart thinking we're choosing exactly what we want, but most of the time, we're just falling for some clever ad campaign or a subtle suggestion. Our "decision" is really just a reaction to manipulation that we might even be aware of, yet we don't bother fighting back. That’s conditioned will, not free will.

But then again, reason is something we're taught, which suggests it isn't inherently free either. I guess you need a bit of actual free will to want to crack that shell and see what's actually going on underneath the surface.

Break through what, exactly?

Mark Torres14 said:Look, staying on topic: reason is the phenomenon that lets us step back and look at our own "self" from the outside. You can't even wrap your head around freedom—or by extension, will—without that ability to view your own existence in relation to everything else, both the imaginable and the unthinkable.
We’ve hit on this countless times, and I think we’re mostly on the same page here. Talking about "free will" automatically assumes there's such a thing as "unfree will"—conditioned will—as its equal opposite. It forces us into a binary where we can't imagine anything beyond a simple North vs. South divide.
But we haven't actually tackled the core concept of "will" itself, which is way more complex and vital. In all this, "freedom" is just being treated as an adjective.
Is there such a thing as the negation of will? A "non-will"?

Oh, it definitely exists! Just look at instinct, a reflex, or even just basic physical movement. The only thing special about "will" is that it feels subjective, but that doesn't mean it's fundamentally different from those other things.

The experience of being "you" never actually involves free will, just... will. Like, I might want to head to the kitchen for a drink, but whether I actually have the *will* to get up and do it... that's a different story...

Olivia Evans8 said:Oh, it definitely exists! Just look at instinct, a reflex, or even just basic physical movement. The only thing special about "will" is that it feels subjective, but that doesn't mean it's fundamentally different from those other things.

The experience of being "you" never actually involves free will, just... will. Like, I might want to head to the kitchen for a drink, but whether I actually have the *will* to get up and do it... that's a different story...

It’s not instinct, it’s not a reflex, and it’s definitely not just "matter in motion." We aren't talking about free will here—we're talking about *will*. Non-will would be absolute stillness. Everything else falls under the umbrella of will, including reflexes. Unless you're talking about a ball bouncing off a wall. That isn't will; that's just a consequence.

The experience of self never involves free will, just... will. I want to go grab a drink in the kitchen, but whether I actually have the will to do it... that depends.

Exactly the opposite. The experience of self always includes the experience of free will. The problem is that when we try to analyze *why* we did something, we run into causality (determinism). The ultimate cause is transcendent, which is why Kant denies that metaphysics is even possible. Everything has a cause, except for that final one—the abstract mind that defines us.
If we wanted to look at this through symmetry, we'd say everything has its own symmetry except for the human mind, which is, get this, singular and unique.
Why is there only one of those, while everything else—all other things, beings, and phenomena—exists in multiples?

Mark Torres14 said:It’s not instinct, it’s not a reflex, and it’s definitely not just "matter in motion." We aren't talking about free will here—we're talking about *will*. Non-will would be absolute stillness. Everything else falls under the umbrella of will, including reflexes. Unless you're talking about a ball bouncing off a wall. That isn't will; that's just a consequence.

The experience of self never involves free will, just... will. I want to go grab a drink in the kitchen, but whether I actually have the will to do it... that depends.

Exactly the opposite. The experience of self always includes the experience of free will. The problem is that when we try to analyze *why* we did something, we run into causality (determinism). The ultimate cause is transcendent, which is why Kant denies that metaphysics is even possible. Everything has a cause, except for that final one—the abstract mind that defines us.
If we wanted to look at this through symmetry, we'd say everything has its own symmetry except for the human mind, which is, get this, singular and unique.
Why is there only one of those, while everything else—all other things, beings, and phenomena—exists in multiples?

I totally disagree, mostly because my reflexes AREN'T my will. Like, if someone snaps their fingers right in front of my face, I blink automatically. That's not me choosing to do anything!

Actually, it's the opposite. Any experience of "self" inherently includes the experience of free will.

So why don't I feel that sense of freedom then? Is it just because I'm not any different from everyone else?

The issue is that once we start digging into *why* we did something, we run straight into causality (determinism). That ultimate cause is transcendent, which is exactly why Kant denies that metaphysics is even possible. Everything has a cause except for that final one—that abstract mind that makes us who we are.
If we wanted to make this symmetrical, we'd say everything has its own symmetry except for the human mind, which is—get this—singular and unique.
Why is there only one of those, while everything else, every creature and phenomenon, exists in multiples?

But honestly? I refuse to call that "will." I'm calling it what it actually is—pure randomness.

Olivia Evans8 said:I totally disagree, mostly because my reflexes AREN'T my will. Like, if someone snaps their fingers right in front of my face, I blink automatically. That's not me choosing to do anything!

Actually, it's the opposite. Any experience of "self" inherently includes the experience of free will.

So why don't I feel that sense of freedom then? Is it just because I'm not any different from everyone else?

The issue is that once we start digging into *why* we did something, we run straight into causality (determinism). That ultimate cause is transcendent, which is exactly why Kant denies that metaphysics is even possible. Everything has a cause except for that final one—that abstract mind that makes us who we are.
If we wanted to make this symmetrical, we'd say everything has its own symmetry except for the human mind, which is—get this—singular and unique.
Why is there only one of those, while everything else, every creature and phenomenon, exists in multiples?

But honestly? I refuse to call that "will." I'm calling it what it actually is—pure randomness.

But your reflex *is* your will. Your brain makes the call in a fraction of a second. Or do you honestly think every single "free will" move requires a conscious, deliberate thought process?
Does dreaming count as free will then?

In that case, I refuse to call that "will." I'll call it what it actually is—randomness.

So basically, will doesn't exist. It's just something that happens the moment a change occurs. Everything before that is just randomness. But then what even is randomness?

Mark Torres14 said:But your reflex *is* your will. Your brain makes the call in a fraction of a second. Or do you honestly think every single "free will" move requires a conscious, deliberate thought process?
Does dreaming count as free will then?

In that case, I refuse to call that "will." I'll call it what it actually is—randomness.

So basically, will doesn't exist. It's just something that happens the moment a change occurs. Everything before that is just randomness. But then what even is randomness?

Is dreaming part of that stuff I think doesn't even exist? Because that’s the whole point of this debate... 🤔 Will is strictly about conscious choices, not the unconscious stuff. At least, that's my take.

So you're saying will doesn't actually exist, and instead it just pops into being whenever there's a change? Everything before that moment is just randomness. But then what even is randomness?

Total chaos.

How on earth are you supposed to prove free will actually exists when we can't even agree if it’s a real thing to begin with?
And seriously, how does free will even function if it's just a slave to the laws of physics?
I'm talking about those fundamental physical laws that basically force us all to follow the script, whether we like it or not.