Thanks.

Yes but the point is, that their thoughts may be just as determined by physics as the movement of a bus.

@Fernapple
If there is a bolder too heavy for a person to physically move with their muscular capabilities, would you say that they do not have free will because they cannot physically move the boulder? Even thought they had a thought to place their hands on boulder and tried pushing?

yes, i am trying to be more concise about the physics of thought, or mind.

We could very well look at the "logos" Greek for: thought, word. speech and reasoning in context of the physics of information.

The action of decision is a physical process. Cognition itself is a physically observable thing in the sense that it appears to be carring self awareness capabilities in kinetic energy form of chemical reactions and brain waves.

The marble or trolly going down a slope doesn't have the physical forces capabilities that cognition based on chemical reactions and brain waves gives a "person".

"Will" being the capabilities to assert a force of thought to amplify it thru the body to move muscles and so on transfering the kinetic energy and amplified momentum based on a cognated decision is something that can be viewed as the decision mechanism using its avaliable force capabilities to change the motion of something.

When the motion of something has changed, it has been accelerated(or deaccelerated).

Si, "will" from thought force of transfering or causing acceleration of another thing is at least limited by the application capabilities connected to the decision mind mechanism.

So, is the ability to force by decision of a "will" by causing an acceleration to a thing to change its "once in motion" a "free will" choice to apply the force to make the change or to choose to not make the acceleration change?

@Fernapple I look to think of it in a "P or not P" decision application or applying a force to cause acceleration or a not so to not apply force and the trolly or marble continuing on their course with no changes or acceleration.

P = capabilities to apply force(decision) to change or accelerate. Not P = does NOT have force (decision) capabilities to cause change or accelerate.

The trolly or marble. in and of themselves does not have the capacity to make a change of acceleration. They cannot make a decision which is a causation for change in moment, velocity or change in direction. The marble or trolly has no free will capabilities to accelerate [or deaccelerate] but has a lack of capabilities to have the will to change or accelerate.

Thinking of physics, if you put a marble on an incline ramp, does it have freewill-force capabilities to stop itself om rolling down the ramp?

Whereas, a person going down some slide, would they have freewill-force capabilities to defy the laws of "once in motion always in motion" unless some other force is applied.

As to absolute free will-force capabilities, a person halfway down a large theme park water slide would not have means to stop their motion.

Whereas. Given some park slides, a person could perhaps use their force capabilities to change their momentum.

If given we have cognition thinging capabilities which does allow for us to think about applying forces, to change "once in motion " thru thought to such as muscles, gives for some ideal that there is not an absolute lack of free will in that scope.

In view of a scope of start and ending of life as we know it, none had free will force capabilities to not exist in the first place. Aside from the force of thought decision of suicide, we are limited in our life expectancy by the forces that bring about aging to the point of physical demise.

In the grand view of ultimate free will in life, no. It would not seem we have ultimate free will-force capabilities in view of the grand scheme of things.

I may have to be IGnostic here - I don’t think any productive discussion on free will can proceed until there is a consensus on what the term even means. And so far, I have not been able to detect that consensus, or grasp it if it does exist. It just looks like a linguistics problem to me.

Yes!

Such people are only subjugating their free will in order to avoid taking responsibility for their own shit choices

It doesn’t seem quite right to compare someone with strong philosophical or psychological objections to the notion of free will to unthinking Trump supporters. Egads. Arguably those with a strong belief in libertarian free will come from the religiously minded side of the spectrum. That wouldn’t mean free will libertarians are necessarily Trump supporters.

I’m more free will agnostic myself. Some compatibilists like Dennett make a good case, but I’ve seen strong arguments against it (like Daniel Wegner’s The Illusion of Conscious Will ).

@Scott321 I think I misread the original post. Sorry. I was referring to people have can't exercise their "free will" without someone telling them how to think.

@LenHazell53 Some start from responsibility and push free will as an excuse for their own impulses of righteous indignation and retributive justice. Those impulses may have loci outside awareness and result in being too quick to judge and in ignoring the crappy circumstances that impose shit choices.