Determinism is happening. That’s a given. Things are the way they are because of the way their causes were, and things become what they become because of the way they are.

But people, at least, in reflection, remove themselves from the causal chain and make decisions. These decisions are essentially giving their consent to the fact of the causal chain.

So we create the conditions for freedom, namely, a position removed from the deterministic causal chain, by reflecting on the objects perceived to be within the causal chain, and then developing a future possible state, selecting one future possible state, and then, now consenting to this state in the selection, rejoining the causal chain to enact a physical and fact or result of one’s choice.

Sounds fantastical. But what is reflection but a view once-removed from the initial “flection” - it’s a reflection, and so removed from the initial stimulus. (Removed from the initial movement.)

We make this reflection in our minds and in this reflection can evaluate and make a “choice”.

So the question then becomes, is anyone in control of when they will stop to reflect and consider the possibility of a making a choice? Is anyone in control of which objects they will conceptualize about and consider as choices?

I think it is difficult to actually be free - one has to be free from oneself as well as the rest of the causal chain in order to be truly removed enough to make a truly free choice, but the mechanism for freedom exists in the mechanism of self-reflection.

And in the end, a free choice is more like consent than it is a development of what someone wants. We think of freedom as arising in a desire or what we want. Like “I want ice cream and so freely choose strawberry because I like strawberry better.” But life is more like this: “whether you like it or lot, whether you want it or not, you are going to eat ice cream and you are going to choose strawberry today - do you consent?”

Basically, we on all on the causal, deterministic roller-coaster ride of life, but we have the ability to reflect on this while we are twisting and turning and looping around the tracks - we can reflect on where we are headed and consent to it, take responsibility for it in our reflection, or we just continue along the ride, leaving all physical effects to their physical causes, never reflecting on it.

Freedom, therefore, goes hand in hand with reason. There is no room for freedom in a world without reflection (reasoning), and there is no space or time for reflection absent a moment or mind where one withholds consent.

My view is close to compatibilism, but I give the free agent, the reflecting mind, enough weight to actually impact the outcome and effect change in the causal chain - to be a cause.

We stop the chain (or remove ourselves from it) by reflecting, and we create a new, uncaused object out of our concepts and choices, then consenting to this choice within our reflecting minds, effect something back in the causal chain but now creating an effect based on our choice in reflection, not an effect based on the physical chain of causes only.

We invent ourselves, invent our choices, identify ourselves with those choices, then consent to our bodies which have physical causes and effects being identical to these choices and identities in reflection thereby closing the loop and rejoining the causal chain.

Really hard to explain and really hard to make a truly free decision. We are all slaves by default. If we can identify biases, physical forces, use reason, we might be able to choose something that is otherwise uncaused by anyone but this reflective process (which is ourselves).

What Do You Believe?
This debate raises fundamental questions about human nature, morality, and the meaning of life itself. — Cadet John Kervensley

We ask those questions all the time, regardless where stand on free will.

Are we truly free, or are we simply following a predetermined path?

Of course we're not 'truly' free. In order to live, we must be constrained by the environment that nurtures us and the demands of at least subsistence. We are limited by our physical and mental capabilities. We are further restrained by the society on which we depend for security and co-operation. Individually, we may also have freedoms curtailed by dependents, family ties, obligations and contracts. At most, we have freedom in a narrow range of available choices.

Is there room for personal responsibility in a deterministic world?

It doesn't matter. We experience life as a series of options and decisions. Whether by fate or intent, we judge, act and arrange our relationshipsas if all parties were free and responsible agents. And if it's predetermined that we so, we cannot change it. If we could stop judging and acting as if we are free, we would actually disprove determinism. There's your paradox.

How do you reconcile the tension between autonomy and external influences in your own life? — Cadet John Kervensley

By accepting my limitations with as much grace as I can muster, and becoming frustrated when I can't muster enough.

There is no absolute freedom. I am limited in various ways, due to the nature of my being. I cannot flap my arms and fly to Hawaii for the weekend. I cannot ingest dirt for nutrition. I cannot bear children. On and on.

I also cannot choose various preferences. I'm the only person I've ever heard of who doesn't like, to put it mildly, beets, watermelon, or cucumbers. I've tried, many times, but nothing I can do about it.

Love Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Chopin, Debussy, Bartok. Nothing I can do about that, and wouldn't want to.

I can choose what I listen to and when, what I have for dessert, and whether or not to murder someone. Those are decisions. Each time I do or don't do one of those things, it was not the one-and-only exact thing I was capable of doing. I literally could have chosen otherwise.

So it's fine to hold criminals accountable for their actions. They didn't have to commit the crime.

Of course, if none of us had the ability to do anything other than we did, and the murderer did not have the option of not murdering, those who hold criminals accountable for their actions can't choose otherwise, either.

In order to answer the question of whether we are truly free we first have to know or define what freedom is. If freedom is the choice to live and make decisions freely without negatively impacting the freedom, property rights and wellbeing of others as protected by law then we are free as long as we don’t overstep the mark in terms of the effects it will have on others. Though I may be free to steal someone’s car I must live with consequence of this decision which is the removal of my freedom/liberty upon being caught and found guilty of this crime.

Freedom to do as one pleases within the realm of possibility is freedom enough as long as we operate within the laws of the land which don’t necessarily restrict freedom by having imperatives and consequences on certain choice actions such as murder, theft etc.

I’m truly free when I’m not bound by the causality of actions leading to a choice, in this respect I have free will, as long as I can make acausal choices or decisions.

There is no absolute freedom. I am limited in various ways, due to the nature of my being. I cannot flap my arms and fly to Hawaii for the weekend. I cannot ingest dirt for nutrition. I cannot bear children. On and on. — Patterner

You’re restricted by the physical limitations of being human, would a bird capable of flying to Hawaii have more freedom than you in this scenario? The limitation can easily be overcome if you had your own private jet to fly to Hawaii whenever you pleased.

Freedom is not absolute in this sense because of the physical limitations imposed by the universe, for example we can’t (at least yet) go faster than light. Do such physical restrictions matter to you or would unlimited freedom only apply to a being such as God?

It pleases us - me, anyway - to believe that we have some limited freedom to choose within the given restrictions of physics, biology, environment and social organization. We operate on that assumption, and it mostly works. Since we have no other option, we might as well be pleased.

I believe we have free will when it comes to our decisions, and if you don't you are opening up to arguing that if people do not have free will, then everyone is not responsible for their actions, which we are. Obviously there are factors, and I wouldn't disagree that the environment you are brought up in/ are in, affects how you would approach certain decisions along with many other factors such as:

Health, (both mental and physical)
financials,
personality,
morals,
religion,
family,

You could use these factors and the data that comes along with it to predict what certain people may or may not do in a situation however, if you get it right it doesn't mean free will doesn't exist, or your a god, it just means you have predicted and analysed the situation correctly.

My main issue with the argument of no free will would be the fact that if you believed in that you would have to argue that murderers and other heinous crimes are justified because the perpetrator simply had no choice, he HAD to kill those people, its not his fault.

Throughout writing this, I have argued to myself that you could punch someone in the face at any point in the day if you wanted to, but you don't because you don't want to. Maybe that's because you aren't aggressive or you are scared of the repercussions, it could be anything, but maybe that "not wanting" to do something even though you could do it at any point, takes away part of that free will. But even then with that thought it would still argue that free will is real, it just gets hindered.

I recall something Krishnamurti said. Krishnamurti, in case you don’t know, was an Indian spiritual teacher who lived from the late 19th c until 1983 or so, giving talks to audiences all over the world. When asked if the will was free, he would usually answer ‘of course not, as will is the instrument of desire’.

Food for thought.

Do you lean more toward free will or determinism? — Cadet John Kervensley

Like most professional philosophers, I'm a compatibilist.

My main issue with the argument of no free will would be the fact that if you believed in that you would have to argue that murderers and other heinous crimes are justified because the perpetrator simply had no choice, he HAD to kill those people, its not his fault. — Samlw

Is that really a necessary conclusion though? Responsibility, guilt, justification are not ontological categories but ultimately human judgements. Free will is not logically necessary for these categories to function, it's just how they're mostly used.

Throughout writing this, I have argued to myself that you could punch someone in the face at any point in the day if you wanted to, but you don't because you don't want to. Maybe that's because you aren't aggressive or you are scared of the repercussions, it could be anything, but maybe that "not wanting" to do something even though you could do it at any point, takes away part of that free will. But even then with that thought it would still argue that free will is real, it just gets hindered. — Samlw

"Freedom" needs a definition. It's not something which can simply be measured empirically. That definition needs to account for reasons, for a decision without reasons is contradictory. Freedom should be distinguishable from randomness. If that's the case, then it would seem that freedom must refer to a specific kind of reasons.

According to hard determinism, everything in the universe, including human behavior, follows a chain of cause and effect. If this is true, then our sense of free will is merely an illusion. — Cadet John Kervensley

I have always thought that the use of the term illusion presupposes a conclusion that's not supported by the premises. An illusion is specifically a phenomenon which appears to be one thing but is really another. But the premise of determinism does not supply the "other". Under determinism, effect follows cause, but this doesn't explain what a decision is. Determinism cannot replace will just as will cannot replace determinism.

They believe that while our actions may be influenced by external forces, we still possess a degree of freedom within those constraints. — Cadet John Kervensley

This is far from the only compatibilist stance. As I outlined above, it's not obvious why freedom and determinism must conflict given that very few people would assume that "freedom" describes a metaphysical principle which would entirely replace determinism.

Though I may be free to steal someone’s car I must live with consequence of this decision which is the removal of my freedom/liberty upon being caught and found guilty of this crime. — kindred

That's not the consequence, that's a punishment. A consequence would be that you live in a world where people may take your stuff.

I’m truly free when I’m not bound by the causality of actions leading to a choice, in this respect I have free will, as long as I can make acausal choices or decisions. — kindred

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. When is a decision "causal" and when is it not?

Free will is only a (creative or illusory) justification for the outcomes of actions that are the exercise of power.
Free will is not the or a source of power.
Free will can not confer the power to act.
And any decision to act is pointless without the power to act.

a smile by any other name is still the contraction of the same facial muscles.

Sorry, didn't mean hyjack/side rail the discussion.
apologetic smile

Is that really a necessary conclusion though? Responsibility, guilt, justification are not ontological categories but ultimately human judgements. Free will is not logically necessary for these categories to function, it's just how they're mostly used. — Echarmion

You are right in saying free will is not necessary for these categories to function. however, if you were to say, murder someone and free will doesn't exist then what are those categories even for?

Responsibility - That person isn't responsible for that murder, they didn't freely choose to kill that person, it was always going to happen. People would be just be charged for manslaughter at most.

Guilt - Why would you feel guilty if you believe there is no free will? It isn't your fault that happened it was always going to happen,

Justification - The justification would be that there is no free will, so this one can remain as normal.

I think we all subscribe to our way of life, we understand that if we do something bad we get imprisoned or fined and we choose not to do that due to the consequences, (or you just don't want to do it). In my opinion that is free will. If you were a victim to an attack you would want that person to be jailed or have some justice, but if there is no free will you would have to forgive that person and be angry at the stars,

"Freedom" needs a definition. It's not something which can simply be measured empirically. That definition needs to account for reasons, for a decision without reasons is contradictory. Freedom should be distinguishable from randomness. If that's the case, then it would seem that freedom must refer to a specific kind of reasons — Echarmion

I agree that freedom needs a definition, and was going to include that in my original post however, I didn't want it to be too long.

I agree that it needs to account for reasons also. However, just because there is reasoning behind actions doesn't mean there is no free will.

"freedom should be distinguishable from randomness" is interesting... In my eyes randomness is caused by freedom. The reason you can't know exactly what is going to happen when you wake up in the morning is the fact there is so many millions of factors in your day that literally anything could happen. Every day is randomised by the freedom of everything.

Guilt - Why would you feel guilty if you believe there is no free will? It isn't your fault that happened it was always going to happen, — Samlw

I agree. I'm not sure how guilt even exists in such a scenario.

Responsibility - That person isn't responsible for that murder, they didn't freely choose to kill that person, it was always going to happen. People would be just be charged for manslaughter at most. — Samlw

It's true that there would be no responsibility in such a scenario. However, the knowledge that there would be consequences for committing a murder would become part of the mix of a physically deterministic reality. Just as it is in our world of free will. So punishments should stay. (Although ending a life that is nothing but physical interactions of it's constituents and the environment wouldn't be any different from "killing" a robot.)

I agree. I'm not sure how guilt even exists in such a scenario. — Patterner

Evolved social instincts, conducive to success as a member of a social group.

That makes sense for behavior. Behave this way, and you have success. Behave that way, and you fail. But it doesn't explain the subjective feeling of guilt. The fact that guilt can make people rethink their future plans, and increase their success, doesn't explain how it exists at all.

I certainly can't explain details of what happened in evolution to result in our propensity to feel guilt. I can only point out that we evolved as a social species, and it is reasonable to think that a capacity for feeling guilt is an aspect of what maintains our ability to function as a social species.

I understand that. I'm asking literally how does it exist. I'm referring to the HPoC. Always looking for how such things can exist in a physically deterministic reality.

I wonder which pretty species feel guilty. Our pets certainly seem to. Catch them in the act of eating something they shouldn't have, and they definitely look more guilty than they do anything else. But I wonder about in the wild. I don't think a wolf that takes a weaker pack member's food feels guilt over it. Or an alpha male of whatever species that kills the offspring of other males. I wonder if guilt exists outside the human sphere. If not, then can we say it evolved? Or did it come into being with us, along with our other unique mental abilities/thinking.

I understand that. I'm asking literally how does it exist. I'm referring to the HPoC. Always looking for how such things can exist in a physically deterministic reality. — Patterner

Ok, let's give neuroscience another couple hundred years, and maybe we'll find a better answer.

I find comfort in soft determinism. As for what is ultimately true, that's something beyond our comprehension. Or worse, it's subjective and vulnerable to personal opinion. Soft determinism suggests that:
Our choices are influenced by prior causes, yet we still possess agency.
Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Human decisions are shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including environment, genetics, and experience.
.