addiction to evil limits our freedom of choice. Only the truth can set us free.

well, if you make a square with the options of us being robots/ being not robots and believing we are robots/believing we are not robots, any combination leads us to understand that it's most sensible to act in the same way; as if we are not robots and believe we are not robots.

And so does everyone else. We all presume, presuppose and behave like "free will" (the ability to do otherwise) is true. Except when one is playing word games or mind games, free will is presupposed in the practice of living and no one denies it except in theory.

yeah, I mean, even if we are robots, but believe we are not, it makes sense to go with the flow in that case and follow the program ( believing we are not robots ), as we have no choice anyway ( being robots, after all).

And so does everyone else. We all presume, presuppose and behave like "free will" (the ability to do otherwise) is true. Except when one is playing word games or mind games, free will is presupposed in the practice of living and no one denies it except in theory.

This is not true. We excuse people who had the ability to do otherwise quite often, or at least blame them to varying degrees.

It is clearly different from assumptions about mind independent external reality.

Give an example of what you mean, and why it would indicate we do not accept free will in practice?

The relationship between free will and mind independent reality is only that both are presupposed in living; in practice. In conducting your life do you consider free will false and the external world not to exist independent of your mind and your actions? The burden of proof would be on those who deny these common sense assumptions about the nature of reality of of human existence. They are as some one remarked "existentially true", presupposed in practice.

we all know that a smokers ability to not smoke is different than our ability to not smoke. What would you say to someone who didn't acknowledge that?

Locus of control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems relevant here.

The "Free" in free will is a misnomer as our actions are always constrained and influenced. The question more directly relates to determinism. Is there the "ability to do otherwise" do I have more than one possible action and more than one possible future which is dependent upon choice and "will". In this I think everyone believes and behaves as though they do have choices (the ability to do otherwise) and that those choices matter (result in alternative futures).

Did someone say we all have the same or equal choices? It may be harder for an addict to quit drugs, or a smoker (a form of addiction) to stop smoking or an obese sedentary person to lose weight. No one would deny this but to accept that it is harder does not mean that it is not "possible" for them to do "otherwise". The addict who heats the heroin, draws it into the syringe, injects it into his vein may be responding to or giving into his craving, his addiction and he may find it hard or difficult to stop but most of us assume that he could in fact do "otherwise", that his actions are not fixed "determined" by the laws of nature.

Our entire system of laws, justice and punishments and notions of morality and values are based on the notion of "free" will. In fact our entire behavior and notions of the future are based on the presumption of choices (truth) and consequences (alternative futures). You can verbally deny this but it would be hard to live without that notion of both choice and consequences. Why deny (especially without overwhelming evidence) that which you must presuppose in practice? Of what practical value is the denial of the notion of "free will"?

Are fat people fat because they are lazy? Are poor people poor because they are lazy? When someone tries to quit smoking and fails is it because they are weak? If your sole measuring stick is "could they do otherwise" (as it is for some people) how would you judge those people?

To say that no one completely denies free will is to say very little. On the other hand, acknowledging the truth of cause and effect increases our understanding of human nature and human behavior.

Are fat people fat because they are lazy? Are poor people poor because they are lazy? When someone tries to quit smoking and fails is it because they are weak? If your sole measuring stick is "could they do otherwise" (as it is for some people) how would you judge those people?

Our understanding of cause and effect does increase our understanding of the world, and of human beings. But the assertion of cause and effect is not only consistent with free will, but is a necessary condition of any free will worth having. Some people are fat because they are lazy, and don't get enough exercise, and some are poor because they don't work hard enough, and some who try to quit smoking don't try hard enough. Why deny it?

That sounded surprisingly like we were on the same side of that issue.:flowers:

At least the appearnce of agreement.

Your right, it probably is an illusion of sorts, like "free will", eh?