Free will and determinism

[Fervent]

It's not why would you. It's why can't you.

I see no reason to suspect that everything that exists is possible to explain or comprehensible to human reasoning.

And you can't because it's blazingly obvious that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever.

Better to have no idea than to accept an astonishingly bad idea just to have an "explanation."

 

[Ana the Ist]

This seems to be the point you and I disagree on, since it seems to me it is primarily a metaphysical thesis that has consequences for human behavior. Universal cogs turn, chemical reactions occur and electrical pulses operate and somehow meat machines sway to music no one can identiify.

I don't even see it as that intellectual....if you read the OP, you'll notice that either on the OP itself or the first few posts is a poorly constructed argument like....

Determinism is true, therefore we should blah blah blah blah.

Which of course, is a real emotional motive for this faith based belief. I'm sure you recall him insisting that even if you were to be convinced....it wouldn't alter your behavior in any way. He's forgotten the reason for his own thread. Not so rational.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This seems to be the point you and I disagree on, since it seems to me it is primarily a metaphysical thesis that has consequences for human behavior. Universal cogs turn, chemical reactions occur and electrical pulses operate and somehow meat machines sway to music no one can identiify.

I don't even see it as that intellectual....if you read the OP, you'll notice that either on the OP itself or the first few posts is a poorly constructed argument like....

Determinism is true, therefore we should blah blah blah blah.

Which of course, is a real emotional motive for this faith based belief. I'm sure you recall him insisting that even if you were to be convinced....it wouldn't alter your behavior in any way. He's forgotten the reason for his own thread. Not so rational.

This is entirely dogmatic and he can't even explain what sort of significant difference exists between cause and effect.

 

[Fervent]

I don't even see it as that intellectual....if you read the OP, you'll notice that either on the OP itself or the first few posts is a poorly constructed argument like....

Certainly, there's a lack of critical self-awareness. But it seems fairly clear to me that OP is relying on a notion(though perhaps not well developed) that the universe works at least to a degree lke the world imagined by Laplace...where if the past conditions were known we would be able to predict with perfect accuracy what "choice" would be made.

Determinism is true, therefore we should blah blah blah blah.

The presence in the ethics section certainly gives a clue that he meant to discuss the ethical impliications rather than peeking under the hood and defining and defending determinism. Clarity of definition is missing through a lot of the thread, to say the least.

Which of course, is a real emotional motive for this faith based belief. I'm sure you recall him insisting that even if you were to be convinced....it wouldn't alter your behavior in any way. He's forgotten the reason for his own thread. Not so rational.

Yeah, I've noticed the sloppiness of a lot of the arguments presented.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Certainly, there's a lack of critical self-awareness. But it seems fairly clear to me that OP is relying on a notion(though perhaps not well developed) that the universe works at least to a degree lke the world imagined by Laplace...where if the past conditions were known we would be able to predict with perfect accuracy what "choice" would be made.

I never would have gone in that direction. I imagine a very superficial and shallow consideration of "cause" and "effect" happening to create this rather unintelligible argument.

Take his tree example. I plant a tree. Cause and effect. What exactly is the effect I caused? Is the tree dependant upon my planting it? Does it's growth depend upon how well I planted it? Does it's ability to turn sunlight and carbon into oxygen something I caused?

By themselves, cause and effect are just two placeholders for anything on a timeline.

It's incredibly stupid what people will conclude without really considering what the words they use actually mean.

The idea that in his lifetime we wouldn't be able to describe entirely new causes and effects related to planting a tree is ridiculous. None of this actually describes behavior and instead obsesses needlessly about cause and effect.

Imagine if he realized this...he would have eventually caused the effect of his own disbelief in determinism....by believing in determinism lol.

The presence in the ethics section certainly gives a clue that he meant to discuss the ethical impliications rather than peeking under the hood and defining and defending determinism.

Agreed. Once he took a second peak and eventually realized no hard determinists really believe in moral judgements and the only value judgements they should make should be provable....I think he stopped trying to defend whatever the point was.

Still clinging to his faith though.

Yeah, I've noticed the sloppiness of a lot of the arguments presented.

It doesn't seem to negate free will at all. Causes precede effects....sure... but since that's arguably the worst way to describe human behavior, what do we need to believe in it for? What's the point?

 

[Bradskii]

I see no reason to suspect that everything that exists is possible to explain or comprehensible to human reasoning.

Better to have no idea than to accept an astonishingly bad idea just to have an "explanation."

Well, at last...some honesty. I commend you for that at least. Bit late in the day, but nevertheless...

But can I commend you for admitting that you support a position which you now admit you have absolutely no idea how it works? You say that my position is wrong and your position is correct, yet it is simply incomprehensible to you. I have an explanation for my position and you reject it. Yet you have no explanation for yours. You say that you are right, not by putting forward any evidence for your position, but simply by denying someone else's.

This is, honestly, a first for me. It's the first time I have had someone claim 'I am right. But I have no idea why'.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Certainly, there's a lack of critical self-awareness. But it seems fairly clear to me that OP is relying on a notion(though perhaps not well developed) that the universe works at least to a degree lke the world imagined by Laplace...where if the past conditions were known we would be able to predict with perfect accuracy what "choice" would be made.

The presence in the ethics section certainly gives a clue that he meant to discuss the ethical impliications rather than peeking under the hood and defining and defending determinism. Clarity of definition is missing through a lot of the thread, to say the least.

Yeah, I've noticed the sloppiness of a lot of the arguments presented.

It's probably worth noting that I think he might have me on ignore lol.

If you'd like to just copy paste anything I said that you'd like to see an answer for....feel free to present it as your own.

I don't lay claim to ideas.

 

[Fervent]

I never would have gone in that direction. I imagine a very superficial and shallow consideration of "cause" and "effect" happening to create this rather unintelligible argument.

Take his tree example. I plant a tree. Cause and effect. What exactly is the effect I caused? Is the tree dependant upon my planting it? Does it's growth depend upon how well I planted it? Does it's ability to turn sunlight and carbon into oxygen something I caused?

By themselves, cause and effect are just two placeholders for anything on a timeline.

It's incredibly stupid what people will conclude without really considering what the words they use actually mean.

The idea that in his lifetime we wouldn't be able to describe entirely new causes and effects related to planting a tree is ridiculous. None of this actually describes behavior and instead obsesses needlessly about cause and effect.

Imagine if he realized this...he would have eventually caused the effect of his own disbelief in determinism....by believing in determinism lol.

Yeah, it's quite a convoluted attempt at oversimplification.

Agreed. Once he took a second peak and eventually realized no hard determinists really believe in moral judgements and the only value judgements they should make should be provable....I think he stopped trying to defend whatever the point was.

Certainly seems that way.

Still clinging to his faith though.




It doesn't seem to negate free will at all. Causes precede effects....sure... but since that's arguably the worst way to describe human behavior, what do we need to believe in it for? What's the point?

As causal structures(whatever it is that is responsible for the order in the unverse) actually operate, no it doesn't seem to. The trouble is we tend to deal with idealizations rather than actual facts, Facts are messy and complex, providing no simple answers or clearly identifiable comprehensiive conceptual system. Few people seem to be capable of the sort of loose hold on concepts to not get caught up in some false belief that decreases the explanatory power of descriptions. IMO, the problem boils down to overconfidence in what little we can say with a fair amount of certainty because many of the things we assume prior to our investigations go unrecognized and we get emotionally attached to the sense that we possess knowledge.

IME wisdom is far better than knowledge.

 

[Fervent]

Well, at last...some honesty. I commend you for that at least. Bit late in the day, but nevertheless...

But can I commend you for admitting that you support a position which you now admit you have absolutely no idea how it works? You say that my position is wrong and your position is correct, yet it is simply incomprehensible to you. I have an explanation for my position and you reject it. Yet you have no explanation for yours. You say that you are right, not by putting forward any evidence for your position, but simply by denying someone else's.

I don't need to know how my car works to know that when I press the petal it moves. I know I have free will because I exercise free will. It's that simple, and I see no reason to entertain claims that I don't any more than I would entertain someone asking me how I know I'm not in some sort of matrix or a brain in a vat. I might make a model of free will if I decided to be interested in how it operates, what its limits are, and those sorts of questions. But I have been presented no compelling arguments to question the basic fact of free will. Making sense of it is secondary to whether or not it is a genuine phenomenon.

This is, honestly, a first for me. It's the first time I have had someone claim 'I am right. But I have no idea why'.

I didn't say I have no idea why. I've been quite clear about why I believe I have free will. I exercise my free will and make decisions. If, as you seem to argue, free will is incompatible with determinism(however you understand it) then that's cause to discard determinism since determinism is a derivative proposition while free will is a basic fact drawn from experience.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It still depends on our experiences to interpret it

We are using our experiences to interpret data, sure....but that data is about something we haven't directly experienced.

I thought this was what you were asking for an example of...a means of understanding something we don't directly experience.

It's not a matter of not understanding, it's that what you have stated isn't sensible. It provides no explanation at all.

That's a possibility. Can you explain specifically what you didn't understand? Maybe I can restate it.

You give far too much credit to AI...all they are is flipping switches.

Uh huh...but that is still a rather impressive feat.

Somehow, some way brains are able to escape physical determinism...so what's the secret?

What's "physical determinism"? a physical model of behavior that insists we cannot make choices?

Through conversation,

What does God say to you?

I am sincerely asking what god says to you audibly. You describe engaging in conversation with God. That's a valid question. Don't ignore it.

through followng His lead in my liife,

Let's skip this for now.

through sitting in His presence.

What does he look like?

Same as the question about conversation. Describe his presence. Don't get shy now. These are your truths.

God's communication with me has been visual, rather than audiitory. I see things that others don't.

Everyone sees things others don't. That's the nature of perception.

So you aren't having conversations with God?

Surely you understand why this makes me think perhaps you aren't exactly shooting straight with me.

I'm trying to get at what you project onto "objective reality" beyond simply accepting that it exists.

Are you asking about other assumptions? Or would my words here count as something "projected onto reality"?

When it comes to mind-body "emergent" is just a buzz word that provides no real explanation other than to insiist that it is the brain that iis responsible.

I'm not a biology book. If you're interested in learning how a configuration of atoms can do things once configured that the atoms couldn't do by themselves....I can recommend some basic chemistry books to start.

It may look like magic but you can probably understand the processes if you try.

I wonder why.

No need to wonder....just ask. I told you about the problem of criterion. You start with an assumption at some point.

Anything else?

Seems you assume more than just that objective reality exists. So what else do you project onto objective reality?

I'm assuming my mind is also real and in some degree experiencing reality.

Yes, God is sovereign over death.

I suppose that's ultimately why he chooses morality then huh? Might makes right. He who need not fear punishment need not consider the morality of anyone else.

Seems you're making a whole lot out of an anomaly

We've got multiple examples of this anomaly. It appears to be consistently true....unlike claims of conversing with god.

Aren't we speaking of people whose claim to fame is their ability to make predictions?

No. It's a thought experiment. I thought that was clear. Regular people.

Just the opposite, what I'm saying is that there are two conditions for stating something is true.

Just two?

Necessity and sufficiency, and while the accuracy of the theories is a necessary condition iit is wholly insufficient unless some explicit tye to the assumptions can be demonstrated.

There's a pizza shop in town I like...that's 100% true btw. I don't know what necessity or sufficiency have to do with it. Seems unnecessary and rather insufficient....yet no less than 100% true.

My aim was not to arrive at an explanation of a tree, but to discover what it is you believe about trees and their existence.

Again, I'm not a biology book.

Not at all, unless we assume that inspiration involves direct control.

If we're talking about a book created through inspiration, then we aren't talking about people with direct experience are we?

God never said we can use our senses to accurately recreate history(in fact the Bible says the opposite).

Right.

And it's not God who is evil,

That's your opinion.

He sets the standard for good. What is evil is us appointing ourselves judge.

And we do. It's clear that you've judged him good. I've judged him bad.

Let's not pretend we aren't making judgements.

Nope, faith is often mischaracterized as a matter of belief. It's not.

Well I think we've established it isn't direct experience.

If we are honestly and consistently skeptical, we can't even establish the truth of skepticism. We end up without knowledge of any sort, not simply emotionally but intellectually as well. Our choice is to either jump in midstream and refuse to question the things we assume about "objective reality"

What do you assume I've been refusing to question about objective reality?

I've considered multiple other possibilities, I promise. They simply aren't in of themselves convincing and require more assumptions.

or we become nihlistic and insist that we are free to believe whatever we want because all "truths" are equally false.

I don't want you to be nihilistic. Keep your faith.

Free will that magically comes out(emergence?) of physically determined systems.

I don't think magic is involved anymore than it's involved in photosynthesis or nuclear fusion.

It seems to me that there is a pretty signifiicant explanatory gap.

Well I didn't claim to have solved the problem of "hard consciousness". I tend not to throw out guesses without a significant degree of consideration but here we go anyway....

Consciousness appears to be a synthesis of both sensory experience, our brain's ability to form memories, language, emotions, and capacity for abstraction, and basic pattern recognition. This allows us to both consider we experience directly and whatever might be within our grasp to consider.

That's just a first pass guess though.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, it's quite a convoluted attempt at oversimplification.

Certainly seems that way.

As causal structures(whatever it is that is responsible for the order in the unverse) actually operate, no it doesn't seem to. The trouble is we tend to deal with idealizations rather than actual facts, Facts are messy and complex, providing no simple answers or clearly identifiable comprehensiive conceptual system. Few people seem to be capable of the sort of loose hold on concepts to not get caught up in some false belief that decreases the explanatory power of descriptions. IMO, the problem boils down to overconfidence in what little we can say with a fair amount of certainty because many of the things we assume prior to our investigations go unrecognized and we get emotionally attached to the sense that we possess knowledge.

IME wisdom is far better than knowledge.

Well we're all making assumptions at the bottom of that rabbit hole you mentioned. I suppose that it depends upon what assumptions one makes.

I'd agree though...wisdom is better.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The reasons are what determines your choice.

And reasons are unique to us since we are possessing brains capable of reasoning (some of us anyway)....

Yet the reasons don't exist apart from our brains....so our brains literally create unique causes when considering distinct choices.

Ta-da....a description of free will.

 

[Bradskii]

I didn't say I have no idea why. I've been quite clear about why I believe I have free will. I exercise my free will and make decisions.

Yeah, you keep saying that you believe that you have it. That's all you've got though. 'Hey, I make decisions, so I must have it'. That's it. That is literally your argument. But you have absolutely no idea how it could work without determinism. None at all. And you have said that you have no idea at all. This is exactly what you said:

'I see no reason to suspect that everything that exists is possible to explain or comprehensible to human reasoning.'

You are admitting that you can't explain it. That it's not possible to explain. So don't tell me that you didn't say that you have no idea. You just admitted that your position is incomprehensible to you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences. There has been an effectively infinite chain of events which has resulted in me sitting here writing this sentence. They have all led to this point.

Wow....all of them? I would have thought those causes led to other effects but I guess not lol.

Just you huh? All causes ultimately only resulted in you. No universe, no stars, no planets....just you.

Remarkable. Must be annoying that others appear to exist.

From the major events - I was born at a specific time and place,

Did you just describe your own birth as a major event?

to the minor ones - it's raining today, to the seemingly inconsequential - I broke a string on my guitar last night.

The rain is way more major than your birth. If a genie popped out of a lamp and made me choose between no more rain and no more you ...I'm keeping rain. Major and minor events my foot.

There is no way that existence cannot be described other than determined.

If you were correct about that, you wouldn't be on here arguing about determinism and free will.

The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else.

See? You did it again. You can't push aside the idea that you are a free will agent.

But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events

By whom? Determinists?

I don't respect the views of determinists and I certainly don't allow them the definition of concepts. Let's see how Google AI describes it....

Free will is the ability to choose between different options or actions, and is often linked to concepts like moral responsibility. It's the idea that people can make their own choices, even when influenced by their environment, instincts, or inherited traits.

Far better description.

and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different.

Unless causes have multiple effects.

Or you know, it's all about you as you indicated above.

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

If free will is an illusion, then morality is as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Very insightful! Since causality determines the outcome of every unfolding event,

"Causality" and "event" seem a little vague.

Could you clear up which causes aren't events? Why do they only unfold now....never in the past....never in the future....only now.

then everything that will ever occur is exactly how it should be.

As long as you keep defining things you don't understand as causes....and things you don't know will occur as events....sure.

But the description is entirely useless.

I see no reason for it except to simplify things for emotional satisfaction. You don't know what you don't know.

Free will is illusory on many levels,

Or a property of reasoning.

including on this idea of causality.

No clue what this means.

Our biological response

It's a demonstrably provable error that you think we are having the same biological responses lol.

If we were....everyone here would agree.

to certain circumstances also has a hand in our decision-making

Certain circumstances or all of them?

It's all of them, right?

So anyway infinite set of causes describing events that are just causes.

I'd need to eat paint chips to think this is a good description of anything.

. We are conscious of the unfolding of creation, while seemingly participating in the experience of it. We are the witness of the Universe unraveling itself. It can seem incredible, terrifying, and exciting all at the same time.

There's that irrational emotional response I mentioned earlier.

If it gives you a warm fuzzy...keep it. No determinist should ever have a reason for convincing anyone though. That could only come from more irrational desire for confirmation and validation. That undermines the whole concept.

Edit-at least your constantly unfolding now appears to be to forward version of the previous description I gave wherein you pick the earliest imaginable starting point and do something like....

Cause, effect, effect, effect, effect, effect.....but that is as bad and useless as the inverse.

I haven't considered trying to dumb this down further than it already is....but if anyone is struggling to follow along....here's a super simplification of determinism.....ready?

Everything changes.

In two words I've managed to describe everything as well as determinism could ever possibly hope to.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let me put it this way....

A friend or loved one comes to you seeking advice. She's been making decisions that haven't been turning out well for her and she's asking for help.

Would you....

1. Explain that she shouldn't be so concerned, her choices are illusions, and as everything is merely a chain of causal events, there's no meaning, moral, or value which can be considered rational.

Or...

2. Treat her as a free will agent, try to understand her reasoning, and see if you can find some sort of perceptual patterns that she's stuck in before trying to explain a way out of that pattern of behavior?

One of these descriptions of human behavior seems very useful and also....accurate....the other, devoid of anything other than mechanistic cause and effect.

So, what's the problem? Why must the truth be seen as an impediment to good advice? We do choose, and our choices have real (and in my opinion, eternal) consequences. That does not preclude that they are all determined by antecedent causes. My advice might even be a strong influence in that decision.

You propose two choices, as though your (1) represents what I would tell her. I would not tell her that she shouldn't be so concerned. I would tell her she needs to make the best choice.

But what I don't understand here is why you insist on your thesis, as though this discussion is about the best way to speak of human behavior, rather than the truth of determinism. Read the OP again.

You don't believe what you're saying, otherwise you wouldn't bother trying to argue...because if what you are saying is true, there's no point to argue because the beliefs involved were set prior to your birth. It's impossible to behave as if free will is simply an appearance, so why would you insist upon such a thing rather than taking what you see of it at face value? What is the point of insisting something is true that is impossible to liive consistent with such a belief?

Ha! Clever. That's kinda like me telling an atheist that they don't believe there is no God, since their philosophy has no basis for the morality that they espouse.

But, that's poor reasoning. The fact that we do (whatever we do) is obvious. But it doesn't preclude that what we do was set in stone from the beginning. Consider a truism: "We do so because it is so."

The point of the whole matter, to me, is that the truth is always good, even if not always fun, particularly when one who espouses truth recognizes that the whole matter is not yet known. I love pursuit of truth, and anything less is not satisfying enough to me. But it is more than just that; for you and I, who both claim to believe in God, the credit for every good thing goes to God, who from the beginning had the whole matter worked out, including what we choose. (It is a simple logic that if God is God, then everything else that is true or exists is by his INTENTION and for his purposes. It follows then, that we do so because it is already established.

If someone's definition of free will means that one's choices are uncaused, and that outcomes are not sure, then they are assuming the pervasiveness of chance, which is logically self-contradictory. Simple as that. And to say that what we do is ONLY time-dependent is to limit God to time-dependent RE-action rather than extra-temporal action. That is not God. And that god, I cannot honor as God.

Finally, the focus of what I mean to teach is not on man, but on God. It is not we who do good, but God who does good within and/or through us. God gets the credit. And the fact that one may recognize this no less impels them to do what is right; because, (at least), recognition of who God is, DRIVES one to do what is right. He owns us; we are his. Here for HIS purposes. Nothing random about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, what's the problem?

Can you think of a problem where it matters?

Are you seriously suggesting that you would go with option #1?

If so...don't ever offer advice.

You propose two choices, as though your (1) represents what I would tell her.

#1 is how a determinist sees the world and human behavior as well.

But what I don't understand here is why you insist on your thesis, as though this discussion is about the best way to speak of human behavior, rather than the truth of determinism.

If it's not about human behavior then why does it insist anything about human behavior and free will?

It's your lack of understanding of physics along with your lack of understanding of human behavior.

For what it's worth....it's my lack of understanding regarding those things as well. I just hope you understand that maybe, just maybe, I know slightly more....not enough to be certain, not even enough to be extremely confident, just enough to see a few problems with what you are saying. For example....

How to Prove the Universe Is Not Locally Real

Elegant experiments with entangled light have laid bare a profound mystery at the heart of reality

www.scientificamerican.com

This is theoretical. It's not as if they can show it. But apparently, the math seems to prove it as a possibility. I hate to dump this on you...but apparently, in theory, at the quantum level....something could happen on the other side of the universe and effect something right here....instantly. It really screws with everything you imagine you know about cause and effect. Is that a good example? Want another?

Light goes backwards in time

Physicists today claim that they reached 300 times the speed of light. But don't write off Einstein, and don't hold your breath for a time-travelling Star Trek universe, warns Paul Davies

www.theguardian.com

Maybe sorta in certain circumstances light travels backwards in time.

Fun.

Now, don't try and rewrite this beautiful model you got there. You don't have any PhD in physics and neither do I. We can admit that, can't we?

But the idea that you can reasonably write off free will choices as "impossible" is pretty dumb. The idea is
....not you. You don't know nearly enough about cause and effect, nor do you know enough about the human mind. Neither do I.

These are vague descriptions.

Free will....true or not....simply works far far far better than cause and effect.

Ha! Clever. That's kinda like me telling an atheist that they don't believe there is no God

Please check your ego. This isn't about god or the lack of a god. Nobody is going to convince anyone on that either.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, what's the problem? Why must the truth be seen as an impediment to good advice? We do choose, and our choices have real (and in my opinion, eternal) consequences. That does not preclude that they are all determined by antecedent causes. My advice might even be a strong influence in that decision.

You propose two choices, as though your (1) represents what I would tell her. I would not tell her that she shouldn't be so concerned. I would tell her she needs to make the best choice.

But what I don't understand here is why you insist on your thesis, as though this discussion is about the best way to speak of human behavior, rather than the truth of determinism. Read the OP again.

The OP doesn't understand determinism and has changed his position multiple times.

1. He keeps insisting that moral views or judgments are in any way valid.

2. You don't seem to understand that he's saying that you're choices are determined before you ever have any chance to consider them. This means you never make any choices.

What does this say about your belief in Jesus Christ? You didn't choose it. You never had a chance of ever having a different belief. Satan holds absolutely no power....no sway at all....and god is the source of all evil and good, and he seems abjectly evil if he would burn me for eternity for simply being as he designed and I hope you enjoy your enternity with this vicious disgusting vile entity. I have a suspicious feeling you won't.

 

[CoreyD]

I agree with all of that.

Thanks.

Of course. The reasons are what determines your choice.

In other words... I want to build muscles, and that determines I go to the gym?
Say I do not go to the gym, but I choose to jog, do squats, pushups, pull ups, etc.

I have plenty of options, don't I, and the freedom to make one choice or other - free will.
The reason has not determined the choice I made. The reason only gave me options - choices. None of which I have to make.

However, because I want to... it is what I prefer, over the choice to not bother, because I feel lazy.
Making the choice I made allows me to reach my objective / goal.... depending, on the choice I freely make.

Do you disagree?

Sure. You might have a motive to lose weight. But you decide to have an extra helping of pizza anyway. Because it's what you prefer at that moment.

Exactly.
I have the freedom to choose to get fat, and that is not determined by my motive, or desire.
It's the result of the choice I freely made... however bad... or good.

Determinism means that every act is caused by antecedent conditions. The reasons why you make a decision are what determines that decision. Rather obviously.

I got up this morning with a plan to make fries.
I decided to open a can of tuna, and make a couple of tuna sandwiches.
What preceded, and determined my choice to make tuna sandwiches? Do you know the reason?
I had choices, and I was free to make one... which I did.

No. I wasn't coerced.
In you OP, you said.

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences. There has been an effectively infinite chain of events which has resulted in me sitting here writing this sentence. They have all led to this point. From the major events - I was born at a specific time and place, to the minor ones - it's raining today, to the seemingly inconsequential - I broke a string on my guitar last night.

There is no way that existence cannot be described other than determined.

The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different.

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

I don't want to make the mistake of thinking you are not consistent, and neither do I want to make the mistake of not being clear on what you are saying exactly. So, let's be clear.
Determinism

1. The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
2. The doctrine that the will is not free, but is inevitably and invincibly determined by motives, preceding events, and natural laws.
3. The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.
4. The property of having behavior determined only by initial state and input.
5. (philosophy) a philosophical theory holding that all events are inevitable consequences of antecedent sufficient causes; often understood as denying the possibility of free will.

So, is that to say that my deciding to do something other than what I intended to do, if determined by my thought processes that may weigh options, that one way or other is not determined by what is present or past, but future, or even initialized momentarily, eliminates free choice, or freewill?

Please be as clear as you possibly can.

You also said...
If we have no control over a decision then it obviously cannot be described as free will. The vast majority of the decisions 'we' make are made subconsciously. Just consider exactly what you are doing at this instant.

Are you claiming that no one has control over a decision they make?
So, the decision serve God, for example, is not one made with any control over that decision?
Please explain how you determine that to be true.

Of the girl who made a decision because of thinking of her future, and the future of her unborn child, you said...
If she is not coerced. In which case what she chooses will be what she prefers to do.

Is that to say, that a person can make a free-willed choice, if they are not coerced into making the decision, but made the choice, based on rational thought?
Please be as clear as you possibly can. I don't want to be confused.

The reasons you plant the tree are what determines your action. So, why did you plant it?

Did you mean what determines my choice?

Maybe you have somewhere you'd like to go that you haven't been to. Now you can change your mind about whether you go there or not. Maybe you haven't the time, or the money. Maybe transport is a problem. They're all antecedent conditions that will go to determine your choice. But you can't change your mind about wanting to go there. That would be as if you liked pizza but decided not to like it. It's not possible. So that's one of the antecedent conditions as well.

Maybe my future goals are what determined my decision, because I want to preach in the territory there.

Of course. She's not going to do something she doesn't prefer.

Now think of something that you'd rather do instead of going to work tomorrow. Can you then decide that you'd rather not do it?

Been there, done that. So, yes. It has been done, time and time again, by many people.

That makes no sense at all. You can decide whether to actually do it, but that's another matter which we'll get to in a moment. But you can't decide not to want to do it. Again, it would be the same as liking pizza and then deciding to not like it. It ain't possible.

Huh? That make no sense.
I can decide not to go to work, and I can decide to work.
As regards deciding not to want to do something, that has no relation to whether free will exists or not.
I can have free will - the freedom to choose to do something, and not like what I chose to do.

For, example, I may be terrified of preaching in a certain neighborhood - I may not like it, but I may choose to do it.
It is my choice to do so, even tough I am uncomfortable doing it. That is what will is, and the freedom to exercise it.

I think you are conflating two different things, though.

Now, there's a difference between doing something because you want to do it. And doing something because you prefer to do it. You actually may not want to do something, but you prefer to do it. You may not want to go to the gym as opposed to the pub because going to the pub is a lot more enjoyable. But you are determined (there's that word again) to lose some weight, so you prefer to go to the gym. So you always do what you prefer. You can't change that.

How can one prefer to do something they do not want to do?
how does that work?

No, you do not always do what you prefer.
Sometimes we do things because duty calls.

Do you think those firefighters in L.A. prefer to be in the het of things?
Do, soldiers prefer to be out their on the battle field, facing tanks and bombs?
Do cops prefer to be in a firefight, or to have to raid the house of a dangerous group?

So you want to do that something as opposed to go to work tomorrow. But you think that for umpteen reasons you'd better go to work instead. It's your preference. And you can't change that.

I am not seeing the logic in your reasoning.

So the girl in your example has a preference. For all sorts of reasons - and we can make up a few to examine if you like. But she will always do what she prefers to do. She can't change that.

No. Not from the many examples I used, and that girl may chose to have the baby, and give it up for adoption... not because she prefers to do that, rather than keep it, but because she thinks it is the better choice, for everyone involved.
She could also make a decision to terminate the life, not because it's what she prefers to do, but because she isn't thinking straight at the time... and she later regrets it, as is the case with millions of girls, and women living today.

 

[CoreyD]

The OP doesn't understand determinism and has changed his position multiple times.

I thought I was mistaken. It's good to know that I am not alone in seeing this.