Indeterminism is a tautological mix of random and non-random events.
Since random (uncaused) events and non-random (caused) events are BOTH incompatible with freewill, (and since no clever mix solves either incompatibility) you would simply need to propose some (currently unknown) third option in order to explain how freewill might be logically viable.
Although I really have a proposal, it is not necessary to propose anything new, it is only necessary to remove the obstructions of the truth to be able to see it fully.
It is only necessary to refute determinism and indeterminism, which are human philosophical constructions, in order to see the truth as it is and entirely. That people have free will is naturally obvious.
I am not sure that free will exists.
I know it appears to be there at times. I just don't believe it is.
I am thinking that if free will existed:
face book would not work.
People would not become addicted to games or drugs.
The transference and counter transference would not work.
intermittent conditioning gone
Military, gone
I have spent some time observing people and myself.
I have found that whenever I look deeply into peoples lives and their history, their state of being always makes perfect sense in light of the informational input received from that history (with the exception of genuine psychopathy)
As and example, the two people who are closest to me, appear to be in possession of the most outstanding self control I have ever encountered. In both of them, that level of what appears to be free will or self determinism was instilled in them through fear, and it was done deliberately.
I am still not buying into free will, but I am open to persuasion
Free will exists if there is a possibility of change, if there is movement, and as is evident to the senses, movement exists, therefore there is change, therefore there is free will.
If everything was determined, everything would be static, and everything would cease to move.
Liberty has to do with how capable we are to enjoy our free will, not with whether we have it or not. We are free to the extent that there are no options disabled by our own inner fear/lack of control.
More than a feeling I would say it is a perception. I perceive that I have freedom when I do any action. Being able to feel free or not. I can feel that I have no freedom and still perceive that I have it. We are always free to act as we want, although sometimes we feel that we are tied and that we do not have freedom. As you can see, there is a difference between intuiting and feeling.
Indeterminism is a tautological mix of random and non-random events.
Since random (uncaused) events and non-random (caused) events are BOTH incompatible with freewill, (and since no clever mix solves either incompatibility) you would simply need to propose some (currently unknown) third option in order to explain how freewill might be logically viable.
Although I really have a proposal, it is not necessary to propose anything new, it is only necessary to remove the obstructions of the truth to be able to see it fully.
Please demonstrate.
It is only necessary to refute determinism and indeterminism, which are human philosophical constructions, in order to see the truth as it is and entirely. That people have free will is naturally obvious.
I am not sure that free will exists.
I know it appears to be there at times. I just don't believe it is.
I am thinking that if free will existed:
face book would not work.
People would not become addicted to games or drugs.
The transference and counter transference would not work.
intermittent conditioning gone
Military, gone
how do you see things co-existing with free will?
What you say happens because people don't have self-control and discipline, it is because people don't have liberty, although they do have free will.
I have spent some time observing people and myself.
I have found that whenever I look deeply into peoples lives and their history, their state of being always makes perfect sense in light of the informational input received from that history (with the exception of genuine psychopathy)
As and example, the two people who are closest to me, appear to be in possession of the most outstanding self control I have ever encountered. In both of them, that level of what appears to be free will or self determinism was instilled in them through fear, and it was done deliberately.
I am still not buying into free will, but I am open to persuasion
Free will exists if there is a possibility of change, if there is movement, and as is evident to the senses, movement exists, therefore there is change, therefore there is free will.
If everything was determined, everything would be static, and everything would cease to move.
Liberty has to do with how capable we are to enjoy our free will, not with whether we have it or not. We are free to the extent that there are no options disabled by our own inner fear/lack of control.
In other words, a naked appeal to emotion.
They are not emotions but direct knowledge.
Direct knowledge of your emotions.
Freewill is simply a feeling you get when you make a decision.
In the same exact way, someone could argue that their god (Krishna) is REAL because they can feel Krishna's love in their heart.
I know my god loves me because I experience a feeling of (god's) love.
Would you accept this as "incontrovertible evidence" of the existence of Krishna?
More than a feeling I would say it is a perception. I perceive that I have freedom when I do any action. Being able to feel free or not. I can feel that I have no freedom and still perceive that I have it. We are always free to act as we want, although sometimes we feel that we are tied and that we do not have freedom. As you can see, there is a difference between intuiting and feeling.