In this thread, I would like to discuss when we need an argument to agree on something, and when we can say we don’t need an argument because the thing is true. But first, I would like to define an argument, the truth, and free will. An argument is a sequence of valid statements derived from the truth that establishes that a statement is true. The truth is a set of true statements about reality. Free will is the ability of an agent to choose between two options when the agent does not have any reason to prefer one option over another.
To discuss things further, I provide a set of statements from those that are obviously true to the one that becomes a little tricky: 1) I experience, 2) I experience an apple and a pear on the table, 3) I experience two identical objects on the table, 4) I can choose between an apple and a pear, and always choose the apple because I like it more, 5) I can choose one of the identical objects on the table since I have free will. 1 is evidently true. We can always set up situations in which 2 and 3 are also true. 4 is a little tricky, but I can always justify that it is true just by choosing the apple and grabbing it. I have to say that the decision here is not free since I prefer the apple over the pear. I certainly do not need to provide an argument for my ability to choose an apple over a pear. How about 5? Can we say the same things that we said about 4 for 5? Sure, we can. I can choose and pick up one of the identical objects. Therefore, I have free will.
That is not obviously true and it sidesteps the whole question of sourcehood.
You couldn’t have made this more begging the question. So basically “I have free will since I have free will”. You are presupposing the very question we are asking.
Are any of these “obviously true” statements supposed to be questioned?
The sourcehood problem is relevant in the discussion of free will. I am not discussing free will in item 4 but 5, so I don’t understand what your objection is.
I am not providing an argument here. I am just saying that free will is evidently true. It is a mistake to try to provide an argument for something that evidently is true. You doubt it? Provide the suggested setup, two identical objects on the table, and try it yourself. You can choose one of the objects. This means that you have free will.
It’s relevant for free will precisely because item 4 is not necessarily true.
Your statement begins with “since I have free will”.
So basically you are not making any argument. You are just saying “all these statements are true”, including “I have free will”. What are other people supposed to say here?
Item 4 has nothing to do with free will. Even a computer can choose between two options, one is more preferable over the other.
I am saying that free will is evidently true, given that everyone can try the suggested setup. So, one should try another worldview, rather than physicalism, to accommodate free will.
5 presupposes free will (“. . . since I have free will.”) So you can’t derive from 5 that “therefore, I have free will.” It’s part of the premise, not a conclusion.
This is so evident that I’m sure you must have meant to say something else. Maybe try to rephrase?
5 is just a statement that is true. I am not trying to make any argument in favor of free will. I, however, suggest a setup in which every individual can try to check that she/he is free.
That is true given the definition of free will: “Free will is the ability of an agent to choose between two options when the agent does not have any reason to prefer one option over another.”
But this assumes I do have the ability to choose freely. Merely making a choice doesn’t demonstrate this.
In any case, I’m not sold on your definition of free will. Many of the most potent arguments against this kind of free will are precisely about this question of “reasons.” An agent may not think they have a reason, or be consciously aware of one, but un- or subconscious factors, or sociological conditions, may make the decision unfree. This may sound unlikely in the innocent case of choosing between two identical objects, but I can think of several possible defeaters for the argument that this must therefore be an unforced choice.
A choice is made in the computer, that doesn’t mean the source of the choice is the computer. The source could be a program given some inputs, or randomness, but it’s not the computer itself.
That’s what sourcehood means.
But it isn’t.
That’s precisely what I thought. I was almost certain he meant to say “therefore I have free will”. But you can deduce a lot by the way people speak.
You defined “argument” in your first paragraph. It’s also in your title.
If you are not making an argument in favor of free will, then what is your “argument”?
You either have a reason to choose one option over another, or you don’t. This is a valid dichotomy. Your decision is based on a reason, such as a like, dislike, preference, etc., in the first case, hence your decision is not free. So we are left with one definition for free will, which is given in the OP.
At the start of my thread, I clearly mentioned that the aim of this thread is to see when an argument is needed and when an argument is not needed. We don’t argue things that are evidently true.
We cannot accept that God is true based on your testimony only. If all individuals have the same experience, then God is evidently true. I am suggesting a setup that everybody can check that she/he is free, though.
A person can claim “it’s evidently true that the Earth is flat”, does that mean the Earth is flat? No, this is nonsense masquerading as reason.
And that’s precisely why we do argue things that are “evidently true”, because throughout history many things that seemed “evidently true” turned out to be false.