Yes, I think that was the point.
The ‘free’ in “free will” is not possible, for one can never be free of one’s will, as like a mini first cause; so, you are right.
One rather has a ‘fixed will’ at the instant of its usage. The will is dynamic and changes all of the time, and so the ‘fixed will’ of some future instant of usage may differ.
The ‘fixed will’ provides for consistency and so it is a fine thing; the opposite would be a nightmare.
Yes, this is the down to earth resolution of the issue. It can’t be solved in a logical way as you are asking someone to do. Because it is one of those paradox’s that are thrown up by our limited understanding of our existence. Rather like the question of why there is something, rather than nothing, or how can there be a mind in a physical universe, or how can a mind, if it does, generate a physical universe. Having only partial knowledge, we cannot answer these conundrums.
I could argue that we are both unfree and free, entirely determined and able to act freely, aswell. But we already know that and any attempt to limit, or explain this reality using logical arguments will fail.
We can see. With the help of science and logic that our world could be entirely deterministic and people may say, how could it be otherwise? The laws of nature forbid it. But again, it is derived from a partial view.
We feel free, can go outside and breath the air, change the course of history. We know we have these freedoms. People may say, how could this not be so? How could these freedoms we know and experience not be real?
Allas philosophy can’t resolve the issue, we don’t have sufficient information to do it.
I made a post about this many months ago. I think it’s a very central disagreement and as long as people don’t see eye to eye on this, they will inevitably talk past each other. Let me dig up my old thread and link you.
Edit. Oh shit it was on the old site. It’s not in my list of topics anymore 
In short, I said that a huge portion of people in these free will debates believe that either events happen deterministically OR that there’s some randomness mixed in, but those are the two options. I said that I noticed that there are many people in these conversations that don’t think those are the two options, they disagree with the dichotomy. They believe there’s ways for events to happen that are not deterministic but also not random.
I said that these two groups of people are doomed to talk past each other on the topic of free will until they can understand each other on this point.
I personally agree with the dichotomy, that if it’s not deterministic it’s random. It’s a sensible dichotomy to me.
Will is a deeper kind of thing in the realm of consciousness.
We don’t expect others to accept we’re conscious, why would we believe someone has will or lack of?
From what I’ve gathered, the consensus is that some people have an varied type of ‘I’, and others don’t.
What I take from these discussions is, first, there are multiple types of consciousness, and finally, that some people aren’t conscious.
In any case there’s a gap, we need to agree on consciousness before we move on to will.
We don’t? I don’t know about that, maybe YOU don’t but I’m not sure that’s something you should be casually projecting onto everyone else.
I’m not sure. Maybe I’m wrong.
Can we all agree that I’m conscious and have(an amount of) free will? Reason:
I’m telling it as I experience it.
You may experience something similar.
Agree with the OP completely. Choice is an entity with preferences making a decision on the basis of its understanding. It’s inherently a function of antecedents.
The only thing I disagree with really is the title. Because of the typical framing of the free will debate, when we say we don’t have free will that’s normally taken as endorsing fatalism, or saying our conscious decision-making is epiphenomenal or whatever.
I prefer to say that free will, certainly libertarian free will, is “not even wrong” – it doesn’t even coherently define anything.
Free will is the capacity to keep releasing the grip on authorship. It knows that the letting go is neither confirmed nor final, and that the pull back into feeling like the author never actually stops.
Free will is entirely non-causal. It is a difference in presence, not a difference in outcome.
Free will is like a complex bubble.
Around you are a lot of determined options, but you can revolve to a different ultimate outcome.
However, once you’re set, it’s all determined.
The current determined alternative, is possibly changed, and that is free will.
It is serenity of choice; a sense of power where fate is concerned.
The experience of consciousness, the ‘I’.
If you have no free will, you have a specific type of consciousness without free-will.
Technically, if you have no free will, you don’t have an ‘I’.
Your use of ‘I’, with no free will, is as per the crossing of another consciousness, with or without free will.
I gather there are people with and without free will. Try understand these two types being opposites.
(It’s difficult for me to explain this, bridging the gap).
Think of it as a disc playing a game through a console. The game is intrinsic if you have no free will, but explored if you have free will.
I think we all agree each other are conscious (though there could be llms among us), but I don’t think we all agree we have free will. I mean… look around you, that’s literally the context of the conversation. Many people don’t think so. Read the title of the thread.
I would say that there are round-about an equal amount on both sides of the debate.
I have shared previously my arguement; some do, some don’t.
Okay so I guess you know that we can’t all agree to it then lol. You’re so silly
I don’t think you entirely follow the issue here.
I don’t believe we have free will. However, I also think in the next moment I might decide to book a flight to Rio and do a bungee jump. And my conscious thoughts would have made that happen.
I’m as free as any entity could be. It’s just that my mind, my conscious thoughts, are part of this universe. They aren’t external to it (whatever that would mean). My conscious thoughts are going to be a product of what I know and what I like, and both of these are ultimately traceable to antecedents.
Doesn’t this assume that the universe only goes one way, rather than ‘outward-ing in every direction?’
I also said free will is like a complex bubble.
And I also suggested there were conscious types with and without free will.
Can you elaborate? I don’t know what that means.
You assume brain can only possibly go one way, that it’s determined, and you say it’s because we are part of the universe (implying that there is only one way like a current).
Perhaps it is like this for you. However, it’s not like this for me.
I’ve been giving more time to this question before chiming in.
We know the basics around determinism, the subconscious and so on.
-
It seems we need to be in control all the time, even if that means rejecting parts of ourself, like the subconscious where most of will happens.
-
If our subconscious makes most of the choices, why does that have to be a problem, it’s part of our mind, isn’t it still us making the decision in anyway, based on memory, experience and basic instinct ?
It seems like we would reject parts of us for the sake of overated conscious decision. It’s almost like there’s a psychological fobia to some of these parts of ourself, as though we feel alienated by the convenience of automation.
Btw, thinking before making a choice can also be automated in a large way and it would still be part of us.
What’s the problem with automated freewill, the alternative is burnout, exhaustion and pacifism.
I don’t know where you get ‘subconscious is more drive than conscious’, from.