sorry i just wanted to clearafie that i ment no negativity bye what i said in the previous posting, i was mearly sharing my feelings
hmmm… anarchy? *which bit did you mean? *Where I said that everything has a tendency to move towards chaos but the addition of new ideas defy this entropy: creating new things all the time. *Or the part that free will is necessary for new ideas?
I would love to hear why you think what you think. *Its much less fun for me if you merely tell me i’m wrong just because of your feelings. *
We have free will in regards to the means but not in regard to the end. It seems that all organisms desire ‘happiness’ or contentment. That is why I go to work, bathe, eat, etc… even philosophize… because afterwards I will be a little ‘happier.’ It is the unviersal goal.
The freedom to reach that goal makes us kind of a universal adapter. We are able to learn culture, language, etc and try to find a way, within the given paradigm, to reach ‘happiness.’
Therefore, I see that we have FREE WILL to do whatever it takes to reach an INNATE goal.
Thanks for reading.
Now time for me to rant…
Free will exists, because we have the ability to choose whatever we wish to do. This ability is limited merely by our imagination, however, there is another factor.
This factor is the principle of self. People are predictable. Everyone has a certain tendency towards certain reactions in certain situations, so technically, if one were to know everyone’s tendencies, the entire future would be predictable. However, this predictability does not discount free will, but merely points out that people prefer to act certain ways. Under certain circumstances, people can be made to act ‘contrary to their nature’, but even that is a function of reaction.
Hypnosis makes things fun - you can order people to do things, but it has a catch. You can’t make someone do something they wouldn’t consider doing normally. So you couldn’t make me run naked through a crowd, but you could make me crawl on the carpet. However, the mind rationalises these actions in their own individual way - an extension of the free will principle.
Oh the youthful thinking. You shouldn’t be asking whether free will exists or whether it doesnt but under what conditions does it exist?
Free will exists if there is a choice. Big mac or cheeseburger? Long johns or leopard underwear? Expensive car or economic car? Marriage or living together?
Whenever starts rambling on about free will, i picture a person in front of a drive through window trying to make a decision on what to eat. There is consumer free will, that is to say you are not forced to buy something. Philosophical free will? Sometimes we do. Obviously our decision making process isn’t sometimes as easy as ‘to go to school or not to go to school?’. Depending on the psychological state of the person in question and the amount of external influences on the person, then you can say whether or not there really is a choice there. True, Sartre showed that we have innate responsibility for our actions and this counted as free will, but is it always this direct? If an earthquake hit new york today and killed my family and dog, was it ultimately my fault because i had the choice of living there or in chicago? Ofcourse not that is ridiculous to think. The decision to live in new york was not one that you openly weighed against natural disasters. True earthquakes can hit at any time on fault lines, but does this mean that you ‘chose’ to live there and should take full responsibility for your actions as you are as much responsible for the death of your family and dog as the earthquake?
Philosophers have oversimplified the question of free will. Some say we are determined and therefore our actions are already preset. How silly is that? That assumes that a being somewhere already knows all the actions that will ever occur. This is contradictory in itself. If all things that will happen have happened, then there is a record of these things somewhere. Otherwise there would be no point in determenism. So this record already says what will happen in the future, but does it record itself as having recorded itself, as having recorded itself, as having recorded itself…etc.? It goes in circles and therefore their logic is faulty.
Lets reconsider this question of free will. Dont romanticize the problem and dont bring in cliches. Be analytic and be skeptic, relative, objective, and subjective in your considerations.
I would love to… But I spent the weekend reading (yet another) article that mapped out my entire life in terms of my hormone secretions. It was utterly depressing. 
How do you know if something is your free will, or just some irrational instinct that you’ll regret later? 
That’s true, sometimes our options are either stupid or biased.