I don't know where you're getting your definition from, but I'd recheck it. None of the eight on-line dictionaries I checked suggested it was only a human act or that it excluded other animals.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to exclude animals. (Actually, I didn't exclude them, but it's recognizably debatable.)
I'm stating a fact of association. In order for function to have any meaning it has to be in the context of some thing.
Okay, but "free will" isn't a function. It's not something we do. It's the fact of "us, doing things of our own volition." (Technically, the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses
personal choice.)
An act of free will is an act that I've chosen to do.
The tautology aside, I can go along with idea that ownership can be assigned to an action,
I agree that the "my" signifies possession, but as for responsibility, which implies accountability, I'm not all that sure.
Good. If an action is "personal," it is possessed by someone. There's no "my action" without a "me," and there is no accountability without someone whose account is being assessed.
And this is where the paucity of our language sometimes lets us down. While I have used "choice" and "choosing" as if such things actually existed, as a determinist they only represent an act that has the illusion of freedom. There is no such thing as choice and choosing that is not directly controlled and determined by all the causes that led up to it. An entity can only do what antecedent events (causes) lead up to. So a choice considered free is merely the outcome of numerous causes that led up to its existence.
And this is how it's typically regarded, particularly when contrasted to things like fate.
Illusions exist. If they didn't they could have no effect; as they do have an effect, they have a cause. I get that many people indulge the idea of "free will" as the ghost in the machine, but philosophically and realistically, it is simply the taking of ownership of actions. It is that single thought that reaches out, grabs an act, and brings it in and takes possession of it, makes it "mine." It is "free and independent choice" in that it is "my" choice. If it was anyone else's choice, or fate's choice, or determined by outside forces, then there's no opportunity to take possession of it. We don't
own it, so there would be a "cost" (in belief, in rationalization, in realization) to take possession of it.
That there is an "in" to bring things vs. "no in" to bring it is the image of dualism vs. monism. Possession, though, with either paradigm, can still take place.
Then either you agree with me, or if you're talking about a will free of cause, good, because I'd like someone to demonstrate it in a world ruled by cause and effect.
I was just being poetic.
