Free will and determinism

TGGIL said:

You’ve changed the definition of “choice” in order to keep determinism intact.
You’re now saying:
• We always choose what we “prefer.”
• Our preferences are determined by antecedent conditions.
• Therefore, our choices are determined.

Click to expand...

I see the op as presenting a subjective meaning of a free will. This topic typically involves semantics; Choice/option gets conflated with choice/decision, and choice/option, as an antecedent event, is deterministic. Subsequently, the terminology of a "free will" cannot be evaluated as substantive while under the definition of --> The capacity to make a choice/decision; It needs more qualifiers. In typical psycholinguistics, the expression 'Free will" usually conveys self-determinism.
.

Bradskii said:

Perhaps you're in the wrong thread. Free will was defined in the very first post of this thread.

Click to expand...

Someone gave their opinion on free will, just as we have men who give their opinion on how may genders exist in humans in this world. Nevertheless, just because someone defined free will, or gender doesn't mean that we should all accept their opinion. And I have free will to believe what they said, or not.

Bradskii said:

Whut?

All decisions that you make are influenced by conditions and events over which you have no control.

Click to expand...

Yes, all "Choices" a man makes are influenced by the conditions and events which we have no control over. We have no control over the circumstance and events, but we do have control over our own thoughts. For instance, you could insult me, and I could choose to feed the emotion of anger, or when the anger starts to grow, I could choose to rule over it and not respond with anger. But if I didn't choose to rule over it, and feed the emotion of anger, thereby responding with anger, it would be a lie for me to say, "You made me angry". Because I have free will, I have "the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events". I have no choice in determining or controlling the insult, but I do have a choice in what thoughts I dwell on that determine how I respond. And how I respond is what matters.

At least this has been my experience.

Bradskii said:

If you are thinking about stealing something then there will be a lot "that will determine your actions".

Click to expand...

Yes. And I am free to choose between the many thoughts that come into my mind, thoughts that are shaped by the circumstances and events that I have experienced, that I had no control over, that will determine how I respond. That's the whole purpose of Free Will, isn't it? To "Choose" sometimes to turn the other cheek because we have "the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events"?

Bradskii said:

One of the conditions will be that it's against the law and you risk a punishment if caught. Another might be your innate honesty. Either way, you will choose the action that you prefer. That's a given. It's effectively a tautology. And some condition or set of conditions will prompt you to make that choice, that will lead you to that choice, that will determine that choice.

Click to expand...

Yes, a man "submits himself", of his own free will, to a standard that was made known to him through a set of circumstances and events that he has no control over. And through this standard, chooses which thoughts to cast down and bring into captivity, and which thoughts to direct actions.

Bradskii said:

This is not a discussion about God.

Click to expand...

It seems like the Holy Scriptures certainly qualifies as consideration when discussing human nature, if for no other reason because of it's age. I referenced HIM because of examples given in one of the oldest Books of Philosophy ever written. Cambridge professors are chosen by some, there are a lot of sources concerning these things, that exist in the world you and I find ourselves in. We have free will to choose which ones we let influence our lives, and which ones we don't.

I posted one of the oldest examples free will that I believe was ever written. And I chose to allow it to influence my thoughts over the teaching of, say Richard Dawkins. And in my experience and understanding, it hasn't changed even a little.

Bradskii said:

No, of course not. He may prefer to obey the law. Or not. It will depend on those antecedent conditions. Which, as I have just said, will determine his choice.

Click to expand...

Yes, he may choose, of his own free will to "Yield Himself" to the Law. Or not, because he has "the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events".

Bradskii 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.

Click to expand...

I'm still not convinced, but that happens when people merely use words for descriptive purposes that are always up for revision through further research and deep reflection.

Bradskii said:

Raising one hand or the other is entirely a random choice. Free will doesn't live there.

Your conscience is one of the antecedent conditions that determines your choice.

Nonsense. Your experiences change you throughout your life. What you read, what you see, what you listen to, the places you go to, the people you meet, their opinions. Literally everything has some effect on the person you become. And you can't decide on what effect it will all have, no more than you could walk out in the rain and not get wet.

I don't expect you to read the whole (checks post count...) 3800+ posts in the thread to see what's previously been discussed. But I would expect you to read the OP itself to see what the discussion is actually about. In that OP you will find this:

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

That's the same definition as the Cambridge dictionary: 'the ability to act and make choices independent of any outside influence'

And the OP discusses whether free will is compatible with determinism. So free will, as per the op does indeed require uncaused causes. It is a waste of your time, and more importantly - mine, in trying to redefine what has been accepted for said 3800+ posts. That's not going to happen. So if you want to continue a discussion with me about the topic at hand, as defined in the very first post, then you can address that topic directly.

Suggesting that you have dismantled a 'no free will argument' because...well, because you have redefined the term that was specified in the very first post cuts no ice with me.



See above.

See above.

See above.

I find myself repeating the same things constantly. You cannot choose a belief. You can only choose to accept or reject evidence. I have (eventually) come to accept the evidence for there being no free will, therefore my belief in that automatically follows. I could no more choose to believe it as you can choose not to.

You say that free will exists in which case you do not have to choose that which you prefer. That makes zero sense to me. And I really mean none whatsoever. Maybe you can give us an example of a time you said 'Hmm. I prefer to do X, but I'll choose to do Y'. Bearing in mind the distinction between preferring something and wanting something that I made earlier. And noting the rather obvious point that whatever you choose, it is the option, by definition, which you prefer.

Click to expand...

You’re not defending determinism — you’re defending a definition that makes your conclusion true by definition. If you define free will as “uncaused,” then of course it doesn’t exist. That’s circular, not philosophical.

Compatibilism is a major position in the free‑will debate, and you don’t get to erase it by declaring the definition off‑limits. You’re arguing from a rule you wrote, not from reality.

And your own view collapses under its weight: if every belief is determined, then your belief in determinism wasn’t chosen, wasn’t reasoned, and isn’t “true” — it’s just the output your brain was caused to produce. You can’t use reasoning to defend a worldview that says reasoning is an illusion.

Until you can defend determinism without relying on a definition that predetermines the outcome, you’re not arguing a position — you’re enforcing a premise.

Bradskii said:

Your existing belief in anything is inevitable if you reject (or ignore) the evidence against it. That stands whether there is free will or not.

If you are the type of person that is open or closed to arguments, then yes.

It's your nature. Just like being a cheerfully glass-half-full kinda guy or Mr. Grumpy.

Has someone criticised you? I kinda did when I berated you for trying to redefine the terms already agreed upon literally thousands of posts ago. But I oportion no blame. If you accept the definitions, listen to the arguments and reject them for whatever reason (hopefully rational ones) then so be it. You'll be in the same position I was a few years ago when I strongly believed we had free will. But I read more about it and my viewpoint gradually changed. I accepted the evidence. I now have no choice (literally) to believe it doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

You keep saying my beliefs are “inevitable” because of my nature — but that is the point. If determinism is true, then my openness, closed‑mindedness, receptivity to evidence, resistance to evidence, and every shift in belief are all predetermined. That means you cannot credit yourself for “accepting evidence,” nor criticize anyone else for not doing so. Both outcomes are equally inevitable.

Once you say a person’s intellectual character is fixed by prior causes, you eliminate the very distinction you’re trying to use — the distinction between someone who “accepts evidence” and someone who “ignores it.” Under your view, neither is a choice, so neither has epistemic merit.

And that’s the contradiction you still haven’t addressed: if determinism is true, then your belief in determinism wasn’t reached by evaluating evidence — it was simply the belief you were caused to have. You can describe it, but you can’t claim it’s rationally justified.

Until you can explain how a belief can be both predetermined and rationally chosen, your position defeats itself.

All Becomes New said:

Agent causation is literally LFW. That is a metaphysical claim.

Click to expand...

Calling the agent a “causal center” is not libertarian metaphysics. It’s compatibilism. Compatibilists hold that actions are caused — just not externally determined. Internal causation is not the same as uncaused causation.

You’re collapsing two different concepts:
• Libertarian agent‑causation = uncaused choice
• Compatibilist agent‑causation = internally caused choice

I’m defending the second, not the first.
If your argument only works by redefining my view into the first, then you’re not addressing my position — you’re addressing a version you invented.

Bradskii said:

I find myself repeating the same things constantly. You cannot choose a belief. You can only choose to accept or reject evidence. I have (eventually) come to accept the evidence for there being no free will, therefore my belief in that automatically follows. I could no more choose to believe it as you can choose not to.

You say that free will exists in which case you do not have to choose that which you prefer. That makes zero sense to me. And I really mean none whatsoever. Maybe you can give us an example of a time you said 'Hmm. I prefer to do X, but I'll choose to do Y'. Bearing in mind the distinction between preferring something and wanting something that I made earlier. And noting the rather obvious point that whatever you choose, it is the option, by definition, which you prefer.

Click to expand...

You’re trying to preserve rational evaluation while denying the agency required for it. If determinism is true, then “accepting evidence” is just as predetermined as “ignoring evidence,” so you can’t claim epistemic credit for your belief in determinism. It wasn’t chosen — it was inevitable.

And your “you always choose what you prefer” claim only works because you redefine ‘preference’ to mean ‘whatever you ended up doing.’ That erases the real distinction between impulse‑preference and value‑preference — the distinction that explains self‑control, sacrifice, discipline, and conscience.

People override their immediate preferences constantly: the dieter who refuses the cake, the addict who chooses sobriety, the parent who wakes at 3 AM, the believer who obeys conscience over desire. These are not cases of “doing what you prefer” unless you redefine the word to make your conclusion true by definition.

If your argument depends on redefining both ‘preference’ and ‘choice’ so that no alternative is ever possible, then you’re not describing human psychology — you’re just enforcing a tautology.

childeye 2 said:

I see the op as presenting a subjective meaning of a free will. This topic typically involves semantics; Choice/option gets conflated with choice/decision, and choice/option, as an antecedent event, is deterministic. Subsequently, the terminology of a "free will" cannot be evaluated as substantive while under the definition of --> The capacity to make a choice/decision; It needs more qualifiers. In typical psycholinguistics, the expression 'Free will" usually conveys self-determinism.
.

Click to expand...

You’re describing exactly the problem I pointed out. The OP’s definition is incompatibilist, but your own description of free will (“self‑determinism”) is compatibilist. Those are two different frameworks.

My critique wasn’t semantic — it was structural. If determinism is true, then accepting evidence, rejecting evidence, being open‑minded, being closed‑minded, and forming beliefs are all predetermined. That eliminates the epistemic distinction he keeps trying to rely on.

If we use the OP’s definition, free will is impossible by definition. If we use the compatibilist definition you just invoked (“self‑determinism”), then free will is coherent. But what you can’t do is switch between definitions mid‑argument to avoid the contradiction.

TGGIL said:

You’re not defending determinism — you’re defending a definition that makes your conclusion true by definition. If you define free will as “uncaused,” then of course it doesn’t exist. That’s circular, not philosophical.

Compatibilism is a major position in the free‑will debate, and you don’t get to erase it by declaring the definition off‑limits. You’re arguing from a rule you wrote, not from reality.

And your own view collapses under its weight: if every belief is determined, then your belief in determinism wasn’t chosen, wasn’t reasoned, and isn’t “true” — it’s just the output your brain was caused to produce. You can’t use reasoning to defend a worldview that says reasoning is an illusion.

Until you can defend determinism without relying on a definition that predetermines the outcome, you’re not arguing a position — you’re enforcing a premise.

Click to expand...

It's not Bradski's fault the debate gets framed this way; it's an objective definition of determinism, but it's a subjective view of free will.

Bradskii said:

That fails right there, at the first premise. You can't choose to believe anything. You can only choose to accept or reject evidence. Belief, or disbelief, automatically follows. You can counter that by giving us an example where you have rejected evidence for any matter yet still believe it (or vice versa).

Click to expand...

That's not a premise, it's a modus ponens. You say I can't choose to believe things, but then how can I deliberate and shift my beliefs if there isn't choice involved at some level? So your objection only kicks the issue down a level, but it remains the case that in order to dispute the premise you have to accept the conclusion that my beliefs are within my control and I have the power to choose otherwise.

Bradskii said:

Feel free to do further research and engage in some deep reflection.

Click to expand...

Just as soon as the final authority on who determines the full meaning of 'determine' shows up and offers an absolute, especially comprehensive denotation that doesn't run afoul of the epistemic speed bumps of 'Provisional Truth,' then I'll do a full workup on it.

Until then................................................ anyone's guess about the compatibility of Determinism and Free Will is as vulnerable to expansive critique as is another. As far as I'm concerned, the term 'determine' doesn't seem to carry with it much more specificity in enabling us to clearly identify causation within an all too generalized discussion than do other synonyms we might rely upon and use instead for our general descriptive purposes.

Bradskii said:

Indeed it is.

Click to expand...

Then there's no point in fighting it.

Bradskii said:

If you never consider arguments against any position you hold, then you will never change your mind. Once you decide on a position it will never alter. Now I'm not saying that you're intransigent...it's you that is suggesting it.

Click to expand...

It's not that I never consider arguments, it's that the arguments clearly rest on premises that are less secure than the premise that I have free will. Would you consider arguments about how reason is untrustworthy, or would you simpy write them off as illusory doubts? Same with arguments against free will, because nobody who claims to believe free will is an illusion lives as if free will is an illusion I can only conclude that it is the doubts that are an illusion.

All Becomes New said:

Choosing the path of least resistance is hard to call a "preference." I'd sooner call it a weakness.

Click to expand...

The point is that, weakness or not, a person always chooses what he prefers at that moment of decision. Doesn't matter if he chooses whatever he might have otherwise chosen or not—it doesn't change the fact that he chose what he preferred at that moment.

The armed robbery is a good example, that I heard from RC Sproul. You might prefer to not give your money up, for justice and fairness sake, not to mention that it is YOUR money. If you weren't weak, you might have stood up to the robber and tried to take his gun. But at the moment you decide, it is apparent that you preferred to avoid the risk of dying and losing your money anyway.