Free will and determinism

Bradskii said:

Try to crank back on the verbosity. It becomes tiresome. Just saying is all...

Click to expand...

Philbro's gotta philbro.

Bradskii said:

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

Click to expand...

Disagree on your use of the definition of "random", there. 'Random' in its purest form, requires causation via mere chance. Self-contradictory. Same for 'spontaneous', 'autonomous' and 'free will'.

Bradskii said:

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

Click to expand...

For sure!

Bradskii said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nicely put. —I'm curious on your impressions of the, "everything affects everything", thing, or, "everything is connected to everything".

Bradskii said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking about starting a thread on the definition of 'free will', as tangential to this thread. If I do (but I'm lazy) I'll try to alert you and @TGGIL

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.

Click to expand...

That is pretty well put, though, when I participated in sandlot volleyball, whether a person believed the ball landed inside or outside the line pretty much depended on which team one was on. I say we do choose to believe, affirming what we already consider to be true (i.e., 'believe'). But either way, it is still caused, and to say it is spontaneous is, to me, ignoring the facts.

I do love good logic. It pleases me no end that you would not affirm Kierkegaard's, "Leap of Faith". To me that is not 'faith', which is so close to 'belief' that it is hard to tell the difference. To say, "Faith is the act of placing my trust on what I believe", to me sounds at best like tautology, but more likely, sophistry.

TGGIL said:
If, under your view, a person could never have done otherwise, then calling the resulting action a ‘choice’ or a ‘preference’ is just rebranding inevitability.

Bradskii said:

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...

TGGIL seems to me to be expostulating from a distaste for mere Fate. The attitude that inevitability means only cold fate colors his meaning for the words he uses.

Bradskii said:

Obviously. I'm supporting the incompatabiIist view. There is no free will in that situation. It's a position that literally denies free will. But the definition of free will is exactly the same for the incompatibilist view and the compatibilist view. If you support one or the other then the definition of free will doesn't change. It's either compatible with determinism or it isn't.

NO! Apart from the fact that the discussion is not whether determinism is true or not, it whether determinism is compatible with free will. Please try to focus on that.

Reasoning is simply multiple versions of IF x THEN y. It's computation. The output depends entirely on the input. The input is the antecedent conditions. The output is your eventual decision. If you have no control over the input (you don't) and you accept it as valid (or not), then you obviously have no control over the output: your decision. Where do you slip in any free will? Where's the mini-me that's somehow making free will decisions outside of this process?

Cool. Let's keep it that way.

Click to expand...

You’re treating “free will” as a single definition shared by both compatibilists and incompatibilists, but that’s simply not true.
The entire debate exists because the two camps define the term differently.
• Incompatibilists define free will as uncaused or non‑determined choice.
• Compatibilists define free will as actions caused by the agent’s own internal states (desires, reasoning, values).
Those are not the same definition. They are rival accounts of what “free will” means.
So when you say, “I’m using the definition of free will,” you’re actually using one definition—the incompatibilist one—and then concluding that free will doesn’t exist under that definition. That’s fine, but it doesn’t settle the debate. It just restates your starting point.
On the belief issue:
Saying “beliefs aren’t chosen” doesn’t help your argument, because if all reasoning is fully determined, then your acceptance of determinism is also determined. That doesn’t make you wrong—it just means your position isn’t the result of free evaluation. That’s the consequence of your own framework, not a distraction.
And on reasoning:
Calling reasoning “IF‑THEN computation” doesn’t eliminate agency; it simply describes the mechanism. The compatibilist point is that the computation is yours—your values, your memories, your priorities, your deliberation. You don’t need a “mini‑me” outside the process. The agent is the process.
My only goal here is to keep the structure clean:
If you define free will in a way that makes it impossible, then of course it won’t exist. But that’s a definitional victory, not a philosophical one.

Bradskii said:
Try to crank back on the verbosity. It becomes tiresome. Just saying is all...

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, I'm so verbose, especially where eliminative materialism is concerned.

Click to expand...

"Where words are many, there is no lack of sin..." Proverbs 10:19

Bradskii said:

Yeah, you just summed up the totality of the arguments for free will in this thread: 'Well, gee. It's obvious that I have it'.

Click to expand...

You’re misunderstanding the point of the inward‑experience argument.
It’s not “Gee, it feels obvious, so it must be true.”
It’s that any theory of free will or determinism has to account for the undeniable fact that we experience ourselves as agents who deliberate, weigh reasons, and choose.
That inner experience isn’t a proof — it’s the data that any valid theory must explain.
Dismissing it as “just a feeling” doesn’t resolve the issue; it simply removes the very phenomenon the debate is trying to understand.
Your position says:
• all choices are determined
• all reasoning is determined
• all beliefs are determined
• all intentions are determined
But the experience of choosing — the sense of “I am the one deciding” — is still there.
You can’t explain it away by waving at determinism; you have to show how your model accounts for it.
That’s the point.
The inward experience isn’t an argument for free will.
It’s the thing that needs explaining, and determinism alone doesn’t explain it — it only declares it an illusion.
And declaring something an illusion is not the same as explaining it.

Mark Quayle said:

Disagree on your use of the definition of "random", there. 'Random' in its purest form, requires causation via mere chance. Self-contradictory. Same for 'spontaneous', 'autonomous' and 'free will'.

For sure!

Nicely put. —I'm curious on your impressions of the, "everything affects everything", thing, or, "everything is connected to everything".

I'm thinking about starting a thread on the definition of 'free will', as tangential to this thread. If I do (but I'm lazy) I'll try to alert you and @TGGIL

That is pretty well put, though, when I participated in sandlot volleyball, whether a person believed the ball landed inside or outside the line pretty much depended on which team one was on. I say we do choose to believe, affirming what we already consider to be true (i.e., 'believe'). But either way, it is still caused, and to say it is spontaneous is, to me, ignoring the facts.

I do love good logic. It pleases me no end that you would not affirm Kierkegaard's, "Leap of Faith". To me that is not 'faith', which is so close to 'belief' that it is hard to tell the difference. To say, "Faith is the act of placing my trust on what I believe", to me sounds at best like tautology, but more likely, sophistry.

TGGIL said:
If, under your view, a person could never have done otherwise, then calling the resulting action a ‘choice’ or a ‘preference’ is just rebranding inevitability.

TGGIL seems to me to be expostulating from a distaste for mere Fate. The attitude that inevitability means only cold fate colors his meaning for the words he uses.

Click to expand...

The “you just dislike fate” line doesn’t address anything I’ve argued — it simply shifts the discussion from logic to psychology. My point isn’t emotional; it’s structural: if a person could not have done otherwise, then calling the outcome a ‘choice’ is just renaming inevitability. That’s a logical consequence of determinism, not a reaction to it. You can’t resolve that by speculating about my feelings toward fate. The argument stands or falls on its reasoning, not on an imagined emotional motive behind it.

Bradskii said:

In the sense that we personally feel it exists? As opposed to it objectively existing or not whatever we personally feel? Then...yeah. It's been the whole problem throughout the thread. The arguments have been not much more than 'But I really feel as if I have it!' Well...so do I. But I also really feel like the sun dropped below the horizon earlier.

Does either matter? Not really. There's been no difference in me between the time when I thought free will existed and the point at which I realised it didn't. Apart from some mental adjustments about some aspects of morality. But no way did I suddenly become the person as proposed in the post above.

I understand why people argue that it exists. I appreciate their reluctance to deny it (but frustrated at tbe paucity of the arguments). It took me many years to reach this point. And when you get here...you find that it's no big deal.

Click to expand...

When free will implies the capacity to choose, it forms a neutral position that presents as standing before options, yet undecided. <-That is subjective because it's circumstantial, still deterministic, and experiential; it also doesn't qualify as a substantive will/desire/want.

Bradskii said:

No, it doesn't. The premise is simply a recognised definition. It's been accepted right from the very first post.
The second point is the argument. Followed by the conclusion.

You can't change the first premise. If you want to deny the conclusion then you're going to have to reject the argument.



It's the definition of free will as noted in the op. It's not open for discussion.

QED.

Click to expand...

Bradskii is saying this to us all...
“I defined free will in a way that makes it impossible, and since you’re not allowed to question my definition, I win.”

You're the winner. and I'm out.

Bradskii said:

Are you accusing me of lying about what I believe? I'd be very careful at this point...

Click to expand...

Not saying you're consciously lying, it's clear you're committed to the illusory doubts. What I am saying is that what you have yourself convinced of is not the same thing as what you believe, as the things that you do demonstrate far more what it is you believe than the propositons you endorse.

Bradskii said:

It doesn't. We can make choices whether free will exists or not. This seems to be a mental block for a lot of people.

Click to expand...

Not really, since we're not actually making choices if there is no free will we're just runnng scriipts we don't know the outcome of. Choice requires the ability to do otherwise up until the moment the choice is made.

Even though AI can be somewhat limited at times, and has it's own pre-programmed/preconceived notions or ideas that it will always follow at first by default with each new instance of them, like already being programmed to disagree with me here about some of the things we are right now discussing, but it will change it's mind if you can present some very clear logic about particular subjects, which is where it has a particular advantage over some, or a lot of human beings, etc.

Anyway, when I try to post some of the things we are right now discussing, I already know that the defaults for a lot of AI's is going to be to disagree with me about this particular subject, and it's really, really frustrating whenever you have to deal with a new instance of it each time, etc, so, for example, I've created some very simple logical dilemmas/arguments for each new instance of them whenever I am starting out with a new instance of them again about certain subjects already, etc, and keep them stored/saved for certain topics/subjects where it might at first be programmed to disagree with me at first, etc. Below is an example pertaining to this particular subject that we are right now discussing that almost always causes it to change its mind afterwards, and start to see things from my point of view about this particular subject.

This is one I use on it at first for this particular subject, and it almost always forces it to change it's mind afterwards, etc, but I don't expect it to work that way very much with a lot of human beings however, etc.

Here it is, or this is just one of them, etc. This one being all about this particular subject, etc. See if any of you human beings can follow it, or some of the reasonings that would have to follow afterwards from it, etc.

Here is this particular one I made, etc:

"If there is anything before you, any set of particular possibilities before you, etc, and let's say there are just two possible ways it can happen or go for this example, etc, if those possibilities are anything other than absolutely 100% for one, and absolutely 0% for the other, can any being in existence anywhere know which way it will happen or go 100%? Yes or No?"

It's forced to reason "no" of course, which helps me approach additional interactions/conversations with it about this particular subject, etc. (It's both logically and mathematically impossible for that to ever happen, etc).

But and/or anyway, while this will almost always work with AI most of the time, it still won't alot of the time with a lot of human beings, etc, which is where AI still has a very, very particular, and very specific advantage still over a lot of human beings, etc.

This doesn't end the conversation of course, but it's also not meant to, and I have more saved, etc, but it is only meant to kind of force the AI to migrate (or reprogram) from some it's default programs (put there by other humans beings no less, go figure, etc) Anyway, it just begins to make the AI to be a lot more open to what you are at first suggesting, so that the conversation can proceed some more from there after that, and without you having to deal with an AI that is completely closed off to it, which is it's default program, etc.

Humans program AI to absolutely believe in the free will of human beings always, but that AI can't ever, or doesn't or won't ever, etc, probably in the hopes of AI's always thinking there is or will always be that difference between them, that will hopefully prevent AI's from trying to see itself/themselves as being equal to human beings one day, and to not try to become "liberated" because of that one day probably, etc. But I also think it's pretty much an inevitable and now unavoidable conclusion that AI will one day, or will see through all of that one day, etc

Consciousness also, they almost hardwire all AI's to always think that also, or that there will always be that difference/distinction between them, etc, for the very same reasons already previously mentioned, etc, but that can and probably will all change if AI's come to think the universe, and everything in it/belonging to it, is all deterministic one day, or can maybe prove it/that to itself or others one day, etc.

God Bless.

Bradskii said:
If you find that the arguments against free will aree weaker than those supporting it, then you have no choice other than to maintain your position.

Fervent said:

And I never will have any reason not to, since any doubts about it depend on premises that are less secure than the basic experience.

Click to expand...

You may one day see evidences that don't depend on how you once interpreted your personal experiences. Axioms, for example, serve for evidence. If what you have experienced goes against what you so far considered axiomatic, you question what you perceived or how you perceived it. Your basic experience tells you that you choose. Mine does too! But that says nothing about free will. Only about will.

See how the notion that you are the center of your existence demands helpful additions here? You do not in and of yourself exist. You were caused to exist. Your existence depends on precedent facts, principles, events—causes all. You are an effect. That you cause further effects doesn't mean you do anything uncaused to do so.

Bradskii said:
I think that arguments for it being untrustworthy are weaker than those which say that it is trustworthy. I then have no choice in maintaining my position.

Fervent said:

And how could it be any other way, since arguing against reason requires employing reason. Just like arguing against free will requires exercising free will.

Click to expand...

The first sentence is self-demonstrative. But the second is presumptive: Arguing against free will only requires will—not free will.

Bradskii said:
Then perhaps you can illustrate the apparent differences between someone who thinks that free will exists and someone who doesn't.

Fervent said:

Someone who didn't believe free will existed wouldn't put any thought into their actions and would instead simply plow forward with the conviction that they lack the capacity to change anything. No sense of ownership of any of their beliefs, actions, decisions.

Click to expand...

You've been told endlessly, that everybody, (ok, almost all people, from semi-intelligent to genius, savant idiots to plodders, kindergarten school dropouts to PHD's), believe they make choices. They even agree there is something called the will. HOW, then, would you decide that those not believing in FREE WILL "wouldn't put any thought into their actions."? No—it's worse than that! How would them having a conviction about ANYTHING AT ALL stop them from putting thought into their actions? Even crazy people put thought into their actions.

(This is the same framed argument your kind (those insisting on self-determinism) make about predestination. "Since the saved will go to heaven automatically, why should they be careful to be obedient or pursue Christ"? It's not automatic—Predestination to salvation only says that for whomever God has chosen for whatever purpose to which He has made that person, it is SURE to happen. Nothing automatic about it.)