I'm sorry that you've had such troubles in the past. Learning from past mistakes isn't an example of free will, though.
SwingingTheLamp
This sounds like good news? Putting a cap on the number of nurses isn't the way to reduce understaffing. Or is this a reporter that can't math?
I'm not telling you to do anything, it's all hypothetical: Could you decide that punching yourself in the face—hard—is enjoyable? It seems like if you could decide that right here and now, that'd be a real easy way to make life (as good as it may be) even better.
Cards on the table, I'm pretty sure we all know the answer. No, we cannot decide to improve our lives by cutting off digits or socking ourselves in the nose, because those things are damaging, and we cant simply decide to make them feel good. I feel very confident that I can't convince you to to it. (Thank goodness!)
The things that we can change our emotional reaction to are things that we were conditioned by an external stimulus (tradition or trauma or whatever) to have a certain reaction to. The decision to change is always driven by discomfort with that emotional reaction, another stimulus. Nobody is going to decide that they need to stop enjoying social affirmation, for instance, unless there's some powerful, outside factor driving that decision.
In short, if we all react to the same stimulus in predictable ways, where's the free will?
I figured out recently from Lemmy discussions that people have different concepts of what free will means. Humorously, one of them operates within a deterministic mindset, while the other points out the determinism.
Best analogy that I can think of at the moment is the difference between a drill press and a 4-axis CNC mill. The drill press has one degree of freedom, down and up. It's locked in. The mill has 4 degrees of freedom, and it can run code that makes its behavior highly complex. For some people, that's good enough: The mill has free will while the drill press does not.
The view of free will that recognizes determinism says that humans have innumerable degrees of freedom, so our behavior looks complex, but our conscious choice is just the various competing influences shaking out.
No, I mean you, right now, with your free will.
Can you decide that you'll enjoy cutting off one of your fingers? If so, it seems silly not to, since you'll enjoy it!
The speed you'll drive is the product of innumerable in-born and external influences (which include past experience). Laws would be useless if people had free will, actually. They work because of a deterrent effect; getting pulled over paying fines, and maybe going to jail feels bad. It's the threat of feeling bad that makes laws an effective incentive, and we can't change that emotional response.
If humans had free will, though, we could decide how we emotionally react to anything. We could decide to flip a switch in our minds so that jail is emotionally fulfilling and preferable to freedom. Then there'd be no way to punish anybody, and thus we could have no laws.
Same, but skin hydration / moisturizing. That's 300,000 years of human history without Aveeno. The skincare industry is a scam to sell product, and our skin works fine if you mostly leave it alone.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I believe in due process, so any Republican making a lot of noise about protecting children should in, a just world, at least be probable cause for a search warrant.
It's the New York Post, though. 100% intentional.
Sounds complicated. What if we just banned all ads?
I have to say that I doubt that very much.