I have been told that freewill is the ability to act on my preferences. If that is the definition, then I agree that we have freewill. Every action I have ever taken is because I prefer the expected outcomes of that action over the expected outcomes from taking any other action. That definition does not entail freedom of choice, i.e. libertarian freewill. I agree that every mental state I have is a subset of the state of the universe, and the state of the universe right now is causally linked to all previous states going back to at least the Big Bang, if not prior to that.
If you agree that every mental state is caused by the state of the universe, then even your preferences are due to those uncontrolled circumstances. You didn’t decide your preferences, or what neurons fired to cause them. You don’t control the dopamine levels produced by a favorable outcome. Your preferences were determined by a nigh infinite number of circumstances, events, and factors in the universe that influenced and indeed formed them. When you really consider it deeper, you had almost nothing to do with your own preferences either. Acting on them, is merely a natural path of least resistance. I think going against your own preferences is better consideration for free will because it is not merely the path of least resistance. However, I don’t think acting against your preferences is a very compelling argument for free will either.
According to your position, you only believe what you do because you were predetermined to believe it. Therefore your position is not reliable. According to our position, we applied reason to decide that we have free will. The Free Will position is more reliable by comparison.
I do agree. I don't see that we choose our preferences. The definition for freewill that was argued didn't address where preferences come from, simply that freewill is the freedom to act on them. I made the same point you did because I would consider it a hobbled version of free will, but it is at least a version of free will that I can agree exists. It certainly isn't libertarian free will, which, in my experience, is what most people think of when they say free will.
I have been told that freewill is the ability to act on my preferences. If that is the definition, then I agree that we have freewill. Every action I have ever taken is because I prefer the expected outcomes of that action over the expected outcomes from taking any other action. That definition does not entail freedom of choice, i.e. libertarian freewill. I agree that every mental state I have is a subset of the state of the universe, and the state of the universe right now is causally linked to all previous states going back to at least the Big Bang, if not prior to that.
If you agree that every mental state is caused by the state of the universe, then even your preferences are due to those uncontrolled circumstances. You didn’t decide your preferences, or what neurons fired to cause them. You don’t control the dopamine levels produced by a favorable outcome. Your preferences were determined by a nigh infinite number of circumstances, events, and factors in the universe that influenced and indeed formed them. When you really consider it deeper, you had almost nothing to do with your own preferences either. Acting on them, is merely a natural path of least resistance. I think going against your own preferences is better consideration for free will because it is not merely the path of least resistance. However, I don’t think acting against your preferences is a very compelling argument for free will either.
According to your position, you only believe what you do because you were predetermined to believe it. Therefore your position is not reliable.
According to our position, we applied reason to decide that we have free will.
The Free Will position is more reliable by comparison.
I do agree. I don't see that we choose our preferences. The definition for freewill that was argued didn't address where preferences come from, simply that freewill is the freedom to act on them.
I made the same point you did because I would consider it a hobbled version of free will, but it is at least a version of free will that I can agree exists.
It certainly isn't libertarian free will, which, in my experience, is what most people think of when they say free will.
can one choose whether to choose or not?