Plus I think free will originally just meant that a guy can do as he pleases.
“No free will for women!” - God
Doing stuff of his own free will - it is sooner a legal issue than a metaphysical one?
Because it seems to me that to be will is necessarily to have freedom.
Consciousness is binary code, neurons are only ever fired or not. It’s just complicated.
I was trying to say that perspectives are limited (“asymmetrical”), but only if one doesn’t apply reason to the fact that everything is causal. Consciousness can and does constitute reality, the only problem is that other people are understood to give different accounts, and when incorporating their accounts into a kind of “socially enhanced perspective”, we get better predictive power unto what the one determined outcome will be. That’s not to say that your perspective is wrong and not as good as some reality that’s independent of your perspective (to which nobody ever had access in order to claim the existence thereof anyway), it’s just that reason enhances an otherwise limited perspective that might otherwise believe in an illusion like free will.
Yeah, if it just means “intentional”, that’s fine - it’s just a bad synonym. Only, it isn’t exactly someone’s fault if they “intend” to do something - it was determined to be that way.
Free will never meant to be omnipotent, I think you’re attributing an impossible definition to free will, also something that it never meant.
I’m not trying to give it an impossible definition, I was just saying that the only one that wouldn’t be impossible would have to involve some kind of omnipotence - like you suggested it wasn’t “supposed” to be. The implication of course being that if it wasn’t meant to be omnipotent then it’s an impossible concept that therefore cannot exist (for reasons that I already explained).
In your 3 one-liner posts you’ve not made it any clearer as to where you think the definition of free will is supposed to lie such that it isn’t covered by my arguments and is in fact valid.
If you’re trying to claim that all it is is just not being restricted by other people, other people’s restrictions on you are all entirely determined by their genetics and initial environment (neither of which they chose) - everything that they come to think of as their “free will” is incrementally determined from those unfree foundations and onward, so they are functionally equivalent to any other non-human restriction on you like not being able to fly or walk through walls. It’s just that the same causal restrictions that you never chose are working “through” other people when people happen to be involved.
Not to mention, all the while this very same determinism has been working through you since you were born into an environment you didn’t choose to parents whom you didn’t choose. You aren’t able to choose otherwise given every setup you come across because of this causal nature of the universe that is governing everyone’s free will, no matter how easy it might seem for you to choose otherwise. You are given all these choices in a “free” society, but you are unfree to choose any others than the one you are determined to pick. Whether or not you seem restricted by others with regard to all the choices you have, you are only ever going to choose the one you were determined to choose.
So where is this “free will” definition “meant” to be such that it is both valid and exempt from my argument as I have just summarised and previously expanded upon?
Binary code is a basic form presented to us by our consciousness. Which is why we perceive our consciousness in turn as resulting from binary code. Its the terms our consciousness forces on us - if we aren’t a bit more clever than to just trust the spontaneously engendered forms that present themselves “to us” (in us, as us) …
Thats the point I was making - you can’t see the ground to consciousness using your consciousness. You can only see the efforts of your consciousness trying to see its own ground.