Free will and determinism

[Neogaia777]

That doesn't make it significant, it's just your attempt to explain away the basic fact that making free will decisions is our direct experience. And it is far more likely that you are a victim of bad reasoning leading you to reject your direct experiences as illusion than that direct experience is so misleading that what appears to be a genuine capacity is not actually a genuine capacity. Any premise that leads to the conclusion that free will is an illusion is less secure than the premise that I am making my own decisions.

You go on believing that, ok.

God Bless.

 

[TGGIL]

SHOWING You How Free Will Exists (Not Just Arguing It)
I’ll give you three demonstrations, each one grounded in structural truth — not mysticism, not randomness, not “uncaused magic.”
Each one shows free will in action.

1️⃣ The Deliberation Demonstration
This is the simplest and most devastating.
Right now, you can do this:
• Raise your left hand
• Or raise your right hand
• Or raise neither
You can mentally simulate each option.
You can weigh each option.
You can choose one.
And here’s the key:
❗ Your brain does not know which one you will pick until you decide.
Neuroscience shows this clearly:
• You generate multiple possible actions
• You evaluate them
• You select one based on reasons
That is reason‑responsive agency.
A deterministic machine cannot do this.
A rock cannot do this.
A river cannot do this.
Only an agent can.
This is free will.

2️⃣ The Moral Override Demonstration
This one is even stronger.
Imagine:
You’re angry.
Your emotions push you toward one action.
Your conscience pushes you toward another.
You feel the tension.
You evaluate.
You override the impulse.
That override is free will.
Because:
• impulses are caused
• emotions are caused
• instincts are caused
…but you can override them with:
• values
• principles
• commitments
• identity
A deterministic system cannot override its own programming.
A free agent can.
This is free will.

3️⃣ The Counterfactual Demonstration
This is the one determinists cannot escape.
Think of a moment in your life where you made a choice that changed your trajectory.
Now ask:
“If I had valued X more than Y at that moment, would I have chosen differently?”
The answer is yes.
And that proves free will, because:
• your reasons matter
• your values matter
• your deliberation matters
• your identity matters
If changing your reasons changes your action, then you are the causal center.
Not inevitability.
Not randomness.
Not external forces.
This is free will.

 

[Fervent]

SHOWING You How Free Will Exists (Not Just Arguing It)
I’ll give you three demonstrations, each one grounded in structural truth — not mysticism, not randomness, not “uncaused magic.”
Each one shows free will in action.

1️⃣ The Deliberation Demonstration
This is the simplest and most devastating.
Right now, you can do this:
• Raise your left hand
• Or raise your right hand
• Or raise neither
You can mentally simulate each option.
You can weigh each option.
You can choose one.
And here’s the key:
❗ Your brain does not know which one you will pick until you decide.
Neuroscience shows this clearly:
• You generate multiple possible actions
• You evaluate them
• You select one based on reasons
That is reason‑responsive agency.
A deterministic machine cannot do this.
A rock cannot do this.
A river cannot do this.
Only an agent can.
This is free will.

2️⃣ The Moral Override Demonstration
This one is even stronger.
Imagine:
You’re angry.
Your emotions push you toward one action.
Your conscience pushes you toward another.
You feel the tension.
You evaluate.
You override the impulse.
That override is free will.
Because:
• impulses are caused
• emotions are caused
• instincts are caused
…but you can override them with:
• values
• principles
• commitments
• identity
A deterministic system cannot override its own programming.
A free agent can.
This is free will.

3️⃣ The Counterfactual Demonstration
This is the one determinists cannot escape.
Think of a moment in your life where you made a choice that changed your trajectory.
Now ask:
“If I had valued X more than Y at that moment, would I have chosen differently?”
The answer is yes.
And that proves free will, because:
• your reasons matter
• your values matter
• your deliberation matters
• your identity matters
If changing your reasons changes your action, then you are the causal center.
Not inevitability.
Not randomness.
Not external forces.
This is free will.

Yes, and it's clear that no one who claims to believe free will is an illusion actually does since they still behave as if they have it...which makes it obvious that it is doubts about free will that are the illusion. The real question is, what motivates the denial?

 

[Neogaia777]

SHOWING You How Free Will Exists (Not Just Arguing It)
I’ll give you three demonstrations, each one grounded in structural truth — not mysticism, not randomness, not “uncaused magic.”
Each one shows free will in action.

1️⃣ The Deliberation Demonstration
This is the simplest and most devastating.
Right now, you can do this:
• Raise your left hand
• Or raise your right hand
• Or raise neither
You can mentally simulate each option.
You can weigh each option.
You can choose one.
And here’s the key:
❗ Your brain does not know which one you will pick until you decide.
Neuroscience shows this clearly:
• You generate multiple possible actions
• You evaluate them
• You select one based on reasons
That is reason‑responsive agency.
A deterministic machine cannot do this.
A rock cannot do this.
A river cannot do this.
Only an agent can.
This is free will.

2️⃣ The Moral Override Demonstration
This one is even stronger.
Imagine:
You’re angry.
Your emotions push you toward one action.
Your conscience pushes you toward another.
You feel the tension.
You evaluate.
You override the impulse.
That override is free will.
Because:
• impulses are caused
• emotions are caused
• instincts are caused
…but you can override them with:
• values
• principles
• commitments
• identity
A deterministic system cannot override its own programming.
A free agent can.
This is free will.

3️⃣ The Counterfactual Demonstration
This is the one determinists cannot escape.
Think of a moment in your life where you made a choice that changed your trajectory.
Now ask:
“If I had valued X more than Y at that moment, would I have chosen differently?”
The answer is yes.
And that proves free will, because:
• your reasons matter
• your values matter
• your deliberation matters
• your identity matters
If changing your reasons changes your action, then you are the causal center.
Not inevitability.
Not randomness.
Not external forces.
This is free will.

All caused.

 

[TGGIL]

All caused.

“Caused by what?”
Because there are only two possible answers:

1️⃣ Caused by something outside the person
If the cause is external — physics, neurons, prior events — then:
• the action is not the person’s
• the person is not an agent
• the person is not responsible
• the person is not reasoning
• the person is not choosing
This collapses:
• morality
• responsibility
• rationality
• persuasion
• argument
• identity
Because if everything is caused from the outside, then the person is just a conduit.
No “choice,” no “preference,” no “decision.”
Just unfolding inevitability.

2️⃣ Caused by something inside the person
If the cause is internal — values, reasoning, conscience, identity — then:
• the person is the cause
• the action is theirs
• the deliberation is theirs
• the responsibility is theirs
And that is free will.
Because free will is not “uncaused.”
Free will is self‑caused.

 

[Neogaia777]

“Caused by what?”
Because there are only two possible answers:

1️⃣ Caused by something outside the person
If the cause is external — physics, neurons, prior events — then:
• the action is not the person’s
• the person is not an agent
• the person is not responsible
• the person is not reasoning
• the person is not choosing
This collapses:
• morality
• responsibility
• rationality
• persuasion
• argument
• identity
Because if everything is caused from the outside, then the person is just a conduit.
No “choice,” no “preference,” no “decision.”
Just unfolding inevitability.

2️⃣ Caused by something inside the person
If the cause is internal — values, reasoning, conscience, identity — then:
• the person is the cause
• the action is theirs
• the deliberation is theirs
• the responsibility is theirs
And that is free will.
Because free will is not “uncaused.”
Free will is self‑caused.

Internal/external doesn't make one bit of difference of whether a thing is caused/shaped/programmed by prior events/interactions/causes/programming or not. Cause it all still is, etc. Just because something is very, very complex or not doesn't make one bit of difference either, etc

 

[Mark Quayle]

You’re mixing two different claims and treating them as the same:
1. Determinism is true.
2. Choice exists, but it is caused.
Those are not the same position.

They are indeed two points of view, or two different angles, but the definition of each implies the other. They do not oppose each other. They both hold to the Law of Causation, and to deny either one is to deny Cause-and-Effect.

And you can’t defend one by borrowing language from the other.
You say determinism “follows logically,” and yet you also say:
• “We admit to choice.”
• “Computers choose.”
• “Dogs choose.”
• “Choice is influenced by evaluation, reasoning, and persuasion.”
But under total determinism, none of those things qualify as “choice.”

Or so you assert. You see, you assume a definition of "choice" that necessarily involves a philosophical notion of Non-Determinism.

They are simply outputs of prior causes.

Of course they are the results of causes.

Calling a predetermined output a “choice” is just relabeling a reflex.

Like I asked before, can you prove that "choice" is not a reflex?

If determinism is total, then:
• Evaluation is caused.
• Reasoning is caused.
• Persuasion is caused.
• Acceptance or rejection of evidence is caused.
• Belief is caused.
And if all of that is caused, then none of it is chosen.

How not?

It is simply what the system was always going to do.
So when you say I have “vacated my denial of choice,” you’re missing the point:
I’m denying the meaningful sense of choice that your argument keeps assuming.

You're assuming "choice" necessarily implies spontaneous motivation, just to write this. Myriad causes are involved in every choice.

You’re using the word “choice” as if it implies agency, deliberation, or selection between alternatives.
But then you insist that all outcomes are fixed by prior causes.

Right you are! And what's the problem with that?

You can’t have both.

Says who?

Either:
• Choice is real, in which case the agent can select between alternatives,
or
• Determinism is total, in which case the agent cannot select between alternatives.

In total determinism the agent indeed selects between alternatives. Nobody is showing that "alternatives" implies actually available possibilities. Only that they appear to be possible to choose. But, only one is. They do choose between options, supposing themselves above their causes. Even that supposition is part of the causes. We end up choosing even when we know what we prefer and have a pretty good idea why we prefer it. And if we deliberate, it too is part of the causes. The agent, himself caused, is part of what determines his choices. It is all determined.

Your question about “uncaused events” doesn’t solve the contradiction.
I’m not claiming choices are uncaused.

Then they are not "free" in the sense the OP means it.

I’m saying if determinism is total, then “choice” becomes nothing more than a predetermined output—
which means it isn’t choice at all.

Only by your definition, or better, by your use, of 'predetermined'.

So the fork remains:
• If determinism is total, then reasoning, evaluation, persuasion, and choice are illusions.
• If reasoning, evaluation, persuasion, and choice are real, then determinism is not total.
You can’t defend determinism by using the very categories determinism eliminates.

You can't defend non-determinism by using the very categories you assume determinism to eliminate.

In effect, what you have done here is lay down a long-winded tautology, drawn circularly on the assumption that determinism eliminates choice. At best, you are misusing the term, determinism. Below I will give three views/drawn from definitions and encyclopedic articles on the term, "determinism".

According to Wikipedia:
Determinism is the metaphysical view that all events within the universe can occur only in one possible way. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations.

— (I disagree with Wikipedia as far as Det. being a metaphysical view. It may be an abstract concept, but a metaphysical view is irrelevant in the concept. It is a naturalistic view, whether metaphysics is considered or not. That is, even in metaphysics, determinism prevails. (Although, it is curious to me, in interactions with those metaphysicists who insist that "God is good" —whatever they mean by that— who otherwise would agree with me on the chains of causation, when I bring into the question of determinism the fact of GOD being the beginning (as First Cause) of all the chains, the protests begin, yet they can't seem to bridge the gap but by the self-contradictory claim that God caused them to be able to choose uncaused.))​

​

Merriam-Webster:
: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws.

—I disagree with Webster to the extent that, IF God exists, diving intervention can also be causative, and not just "natural law". The Law of Causation only says that all effects are caused, and not that God is an effect. If he is God, he is not an effect. Therefore, determinism prevails whether or not there is God.​

Britannica:
determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.... Determinism in this sense is usually understood to be incompatible with free will, or the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

—There, in all three, you see the inevitable (haha!) incompatibility of determinism, (as they define it), and free will, (as they define it). There is no mention of whether or not they can deliberate, cogitate, or elaborate, nor does it even mention whether choices can be made, but only whether these can happen independently of any prior event or state of the universe.​

​

You lay a presupposition (whether you realize it or not) that determinism is a strange overlap of mere fate, with (apparently) antagonism toward the will of the human agent. But there is no incompatibility.

 

[Fervent]

They are indeed two points of view, or two different angles, but the definition of each implies the other. They do not oppose each other. They both hold to the Law of Causation, and to deny either one is to deny Cause-and-Effect.

And what model of cause-and-effect do you subscribe to that you call it "law of causation"? It seems to me you're imposing on reality to fit your ability to understand, rather than taking it as it presents itself even if it is difficult to make sense of.

 

[Mark Quayle]

“Caused by what?”
Because there are only two possible answers:

1️⃣ Caused by something outside the person
If the cause is external — physics, neurons, prior events — then:
• the action is not the person’s
• the person is not an agent
• the person is not responsible
• the person is not reasoning
• the person is not choosing
This collapses:
• morality
• responsibility
• rationality
• persuasion
• argument
• identity
Because if everything is caused from the outside, then the person is just a conduit.
No “choice,” no “preference,” no “decision.”
Just unfolding inevitability.

2️⃣ Caused by something inside the person
If the cause is internal — values, reasoning, conscience, identity — then:
• the person is the cause
• the action is theirs
• the deliberation is theirs
• the responsibility is theirs
And that is free will.
Because free will is not “uncaused.”
Free will is self‑caused.

Will is self-caused and externally caused, since the existence of the willed agent is caused. Why bother with the word, "free"? What is caused by something inside the person is by definition internal. Thus, yes, the person is one of the causes, and what they want is a cause, and the many other things that result in what springs from them as willed. All of which are long chain results of causes from before that person was even conceived. The responsibility is indeed theirs, then.

I note that governments generally, though they try to take into account the causes behind the acts of evil men, still hold men responsible for what they do, whether or not their momma's hatred of them was causal of the motives for that deed.

You will be unable to show that motives are not caused both by outside and inside the person. The same is true of values, reasoning, conscience and identity. Thus, choice, preference and decision are caused.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You Reformed believe in "secondary causes," which the Bible never directly says. This is just my version of that.

Reason requires secondary causes, whatever you might call them. God uses means to accomplish his purposes. Call it natural, call it miracle, I don't care.

Also, not everything is reducible.

By us, no, but we don't know all the causes. We do know that all things are caused to be. John 1:3

I believe in God's complete foreknowledge.

And in Scripture's use of the term, "foreknowledge" is full of God's purposes, it is not just accounting, accumulating a library of fact.

 

[Neogaia777]

Just a couple of notes related to some of my prior posts just a little bit ago.

Take our interactions on here for example.

Our interactions on here become a part of future causes, even seconds or minutes into the future, and none of knows what all those ever are, or was, or is or were, or how it's already been decided to affect us in the very next moments, etc, and what brought/brings us to these present interactions/moments, was all caused by prior causes and/or events, etc, which were all also then caused by prior causes/events before that, etc, going way, way back, etc.

Not just only a single cause mind you, but a whole bunch of them all playing out at once, in minutes and in microseconds even, and they have already for ordained/determined/predetermined/ decided for us already next sets of future causes or events, etc, that will then decide/dictate next sets of causes or events after that, etc, going all the way into the future, or to the very, very end, etc. This is our reality here, etc.

But because this is more complicated than even our most advanced computer brains can ever handle, by a long, long, long shot still, let alone a human brain, nobody knows anything right now currently, or how the future is supposed to be, but it has already been decided by the things I just discussed/mentioned to happen a certain way, etc.

Now, because we don't know how anything is supposed to happen a certain way, from our perspective of not knowing that specifically, it's still open to us from our perspective, and the very next moments could be different, or can be changed, but that's only due to our not knowing how anything is supposed to go or be, etc.

No one can say to you or me or anyone else, and nor can we ever say to anybody, I know for 100% certain for you that this is the way a certain thing is supposed to go or happen or be, because none of us can say that, even if that's still the way it really is in reality, etc. Our ignorance still makes us think there are other possibilities, etc, and truth be told, there still kind of is, etc, but that's only due to our not knowing, not even in the very next seconds or moments, how anything is supposed to go or happen or be with 100% certainty, even if that's the way it really is in reality, etc.

Anyway, I'm going to stop there for now, and just simply say that I hope this is making sense, ok.

God Bless.

Oh, and an additional note to add to my previous posts:

As for the God of the universe, who has always been all-knowing, or omniscient from the beginning, etc. He needed another overarching being of this creation/world/reality that would still be in the position of thinking it had total and complete power or dominance or control over this reality, and other beings in this reality, but that also would at some point learn it didn't always really, by a certain event that it would try to do at a certain point in this reality, etc, and that also wouldn't be completely omniscient also from the very beginning, in order to show us himself, or his heart/emotions/feelings about both himself and us in this reality, etc, because it would be the one and only thing that One wouldn't be able to do with the knowledge he had, and having already for ordained/determined everything from the very beginning, and so, that's why we have them, etc.

And he did this so that it would be or become possible for us to know Him, etc. Full and total and complete knowledge from the very beginning, or knowing absolutely everything from beginning to ending, and everything in-between with absolute 100% certainty, makes that 100% impossible in all actually, or in any actually, etc. We needed entities that could grow with us in order to see how that One is, etc. And in order to have that, they couldn't be fully omniscient at the very beginning, but maybe only close to the ending, etc.

And I also hope this makes some sense, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

by a certain event that it would try to do at a certain point in this reality, etc.

Can you guess that event?

Because it's very telling not only about that particular entity/being, but also our own selves, and also the One that wasn't knowable without him, etc. It's the story of all of us really, etc.

We are all probably very, very greatful for it really, but probably also wonder why that is always the story of all of us, or why it always has to happen that way, etc

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii
The course of action that you take will be the one that you prefer. It will be the one that you select. I'm not sure how you could possibly describe that as anything but you choosing that course of action. You deciding that it is your preference.

TGGIL
Under your view, could a person ever have done otherwise than what they did?

Could you please use the quote function by clicking the 'Reply' button? It will make your posts easier to read.

The point I am making is that you will always choose that which you prefer. Can you agree with that?

 

[Bradskii]

You keep assuming that if a decision is influenced by circumstances, then it must be determined in a way that eliminates agency.

No. Agency is simply the ability to make the choice.

Until you answer whether a person could have done otherwise, we’re not talking about the same thing.

You cannot, by the very definition of the word, choose to do something that is not your preference. Whatever you choose is, by definition, your preference. And you'll be able to nominate the reasons why you chose it. Those reasons will be the antecedent conditions prevelant at the time.

 

[Neogaia777]

Can you guess that event?

Because it's very telling not only about that particular entity/being, but also our own selves, and also the One that wasn't knowable without him, etc. It's the story of all of us really, etc.

We are all probably very, very greatful for it really, but probably also wonder why that is always the story of all of us, or why it always has to happen that way, etc

God Bless.

I had to spell it out for ChatGPT, and then realized I might have to for some of you maybe also, etc.

What I told ChatGPT about the "event", etc:

The "event" is/was/always is, when first making beings "in your own likeness and image", etc. Tells the story of all of us, etc. The fall of all beings is pride, etc. But we're still all very grateful for it, because without it, we probably wouldn't be, etc. Humans are right now creating AI, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

If free will is an illusion, then there is zero reason to punish or reward anyone for anything because we are just meat robots.

It definitely has an effect on our perception of punishment. But...if someone is determined (in the free will sense) to continually break the law then we still have a duty to protect society from that person. So we'd take that person out of society for a period of time. That punishment then becomes one of the antecedent conditions that will hopefully help him or her change their decision to re-offend. Likewise, their punishment is a deterrent to others.

We do this anyway. And we also allow for extenuating circumstances when determining the punishment. Allowing for the fact that some antecedent conditions that the perpetrator could not control were instrumental in him committing the crime. I'm sure I don't have to give examples.

That said, punishment as retribution makes no sense in the absence of free will.

 

[stone]

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.

Feynman disagreed with your premise.

 

[Bradskii]

Our predictions of what a perfect being is like are going to be wrong a huge portion of the time. That is why we have the Bible and not only Thomas Aquinas.

You'd know that Aquinas uses the exact same premise to prove God as the first cause as I am using. That is, everything has a cause. Everything you do has been caused to happen by the previous conditions.

 

[Bradskii]

It's still funny to me how hard determinists fight to argue that their choices are all inevitable. I intimated this argument before, but I've structured it more appropriately in the following way:

MP: If I can choose to believe I have free will, then I have free will.

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).

 

[Bradskii]

Feynman disagreed with your premise.

I'm familiar enough with Feynman (say hello to my avatar) to know that he was talking about quantum physics. Which is not applicable waaay up here in the macro world where decisions are made. In any case, if someone wants to claim that existence is probabilistic or even random using quantum mechanics then that is the exact opposite of free will.