In a previous thread @Elixir and I mentioned the concept of 'free will' being a semantic construct, and I think I've figured out a good way to express this idea.
If the term 'free will' doesn't actually correspond to any real, objective thing or phenomena in the known universe then we can't not have it, and we can't have it either, because it's not a real thing. It's a human, imaginary semantic construct. A person can have brown hair, a heart, a car, because these things correspond to real aspects of the known universe. Where 'free will' is a completely imagined construct. You can't not have something that doesn't exist.
Basically, free will is an irrelevant way of describing or not describing human behavior. We need to rely on other constructs that actually exist.
So in this thread I challenge others to provide a scientific definition of what free will is and it's referent in the known universe. If we can't, then the entire conversation on free will makes no sense, because you can't not have something that doesn't exist.
If the term 'free will' doesn't actually correspond to any real, objective thing or phenomena in the known universe then we can't not have it, and we can't have it either, because it's not a real thing. It's a human, imaginary semantic construct. A person can have brown hair, a heart, a car, because these things correspond to real aspects of the known universe. Where 'free will' is a completely imagined construct. You can't not have something that doesn't exist.
Basically, free will is an irrelevant way of describing or not describing human behavior. We need to rely on other constructs that actually exist.
So in this thread I challenge others to provide a scientific definition of what free will is and it's referent in the known universe. If we can't, then the entire conversation on free will makes no sense, because you can't not have something that doesn't exist.