Free Will vs Determinism

[thedoc]

If a person makes one choice in their lifetime, that is made freely, that is enough to prove that they have free will. A person might have free will and just not exercise it, but that does not prove that that person does not have free will.

But, Doc, just how free is your will at any given time? Are you not caused to make certain choices by your moral code, your state of health, your friends influencing you, how much money you have, the season of the year, the day of the week, the state of your memory etc etc?

Certainly, but which of those influences negates free will, all of them will influence my decision, but where do you draw the line of which influence is freely accepted and which determine our decision.

[Belinda]

The Doc wrote:

Certainly, but which of those influences negates free will, all of them will influence my decision, but where do you draw the line of which influence is freely accepted and which determine our decision.

I draw no line; I believe in absolute necessity which is to say that whatever did happen must have happened . Within this huge constraint there is a measure of freedom. We are saved from fatalism and despair by not knowing the future, and by reason and knowledge. The future doesn't exist. I speculate that existence itself will not stop.The details of what events will exist are up for grabs, and the more a man reasons and knows the more they are a free agent.

So freedom, therefore, is not randomly acausal but is a spectrum of power.

Reason and knowledge increase the number of future choices. Reason and knowledge increase the power of each man to influence the future.

[thedoc]

The Doc wrote:

Certainly, but which of those influences negates free will, all of them will influence my decision, but where do you draw the line of which influence is freely accepted and which determine our decision.

I draw no line; I believe in absolute necessity which is to say that whatever did happen must have happened . Within this huge constraint there is a measure of freedom. We are saved from fatalism and despair by not knowing the future, and by reason and knowledge. The future doesn't exist. I speculate that existence itself will not stop.The details of what events will exist are up for grabs, and the more a man reasons and knows the more they are a free agent.

So freedom, therefore, is not randomly acausal but is a spectrum of power.

Reason and knowledge increase the number of future choices. Reason and knowledge increase the power of each man to influence the future.

I agree, except that I don't believe that events in the past "must" have happened that way, only that they did and can't be changed now. It seems that you believe that people have free will, FYI, I was posting to oppose the idea that everything is determined and that man does not have free will. My reference to a line is to delineate that some influences will determine some action, but other influences are not so deterministic, and a free choice can be made either because of or in spite of these influences. Some people will argue that all influences mean that life is deterministic but I contend that not all influences are so, and there will be some influences that only sway the decision but do not determine it.

[RickLewis]

There's some interesting and nuanced discussion in this thread. I'm almost embarrassed to intrude to point out that we're currently running a basic opinion poll about free will and determinism on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/PhilosophyNow/statu ... 5464221697

The question is:

Do we freely choose our actions or are they predetermined by chains of cause & effect stretching back to the dawn of time?

So far with 552 votes cast, the results are:

22% We have free will
18% Determinism is true
47% Both are true
13% Neither are true

[Belinda]

The Doc, obviously I've not made my opinion clear to you. I don't believe in Free Will.

[thedoc]

There's some interesting and nuanced discussion in this thread. I'm almost embarrassed to intrude to point out that we're currently running a basic opinion poll about free will and determinism on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/PhilosophyNow/statu ... 5464221697

The question is:

Do we freely choose our actions or are they predetermined by chains of cause & effect stretching back to the dawn of time?

So far with 552 votes cast, the results are:

22% We have free will
18% Determinism is true
47% Both are true
13% Neither are true

I don't have a Twitter account so I can't vote on your poll, but I will state my opinion here. I would say that we do have free will so that would be the first choice, however I admit that many of our actions are a Knee-jerk reaction to the accumulated influences, but there are a few cases where we are free to contemplate and choose what action to follow. It is my understanding that determinism states that all actions are determined by the influences so in that sense it is incorrect because not all actions are determined.

[thedoc]

The Doc, obviously I've not made my opinion clear to you. I don't believe in Free Will.

Thank you for the clarification, from your posts it seemed like you believed in free will, but obviously I was wrong.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Freewill exists within the framework of determinism.

Tell me, do you want a strawberry cone or a vanilla?
Do you want a steak or lobster?
Do you want to watch a horror film or a romantic comedy?
On our hike do you want to take the left or right path at the fork, no neither has a sign as to points of interest.
Of the decisions above that effect both you and I, do you insist you get to choose or allow me?

Freewill exists within the framework of determinism.

[Belinda]

Freewill exists within the framework of determinism.

Tell me, do you want a strawberry cone or a vanilla?
Do you want a steak or lobster?
Do you want to watch a horror film or a romantic comedy?
On our hike do you want to take the left or right path at the fork, no neither has a sign as to points of interest.
Of the decisions above that effect both you and I, do you insist you get to choose or allow me?

Freewill exists within the framework of determinism.

But some choices are random. Random is not free.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Freewill exists within the framework of determinism.

Tell me, do you want a strawberry cone or a vanilla?
Do you want a steak or lobster?
Do you want to watch a horror film or a romantic comedy?
On our hike do you want to take the left or right path at the fork, no neither has a sign as to points of interest.
Of the decisions above that effect both you and I, do you insist you get to choose or allow me?

Freewill exists within the framework of determinism.

But some choices are random. Random is not free.

Give me an example?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Tell with what you make a choice, and I'll show you what determinism means.

I make my choices based on the influences, internal or external.

Now you will claim that any action that is the result of an influence is determined, that is nonsense. Some actions are the result of influences that are freely chosen as to how much weight is applied to each influence. Just because there is an influence, does not negate free will, some actions are freely chosen based on the influences.

"Free" in what way?
Let's imagine that you could replicate EXACTLY the same moment, influences and situation. Would you be able to make the same choice, or would have make a different one; could you make a different one?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Freewill exists within the framework of determinism.

Tell me, do you want a strawberry cone or a vanilla?
Do you want a steak or lobster?
Do you want to watch a horror film or a romantic comedy?
On our hike do you want to take the left or right path at the fork, no neither has a sign as to points of interest.
Of the decisions above that effect both you and I, do you insist you get to choose or allow me?

Freewill exists within the framework of determinism.

But some choices are random. Random is not free.

Random just means unpredictable, not indeterminate.
There is no such thing as random.
From the moment a dice leaves your hand, the number that will fall is determined. As we cannot measure the speed the rotation, the bounce as it hits the table we cannot easily predict the fall of the dice, yet all these factors are given by immutable laws of nature to make the dice fall where is must.

But even if there was such a thing as a random event; what use is this to 'free will"?

[thedoc]

Tell with what you make a choice, and I'll show you what determinism means.

I make my choices based on the influences, internal or external.

Now you will claim that any action that is the result of an influence is determined, that is nonsense. Some actions are the result of influences that are freely chosen as to how much weight is applied to each influence. Just because there is an influence, does not negate free will, some actions are freely chosen based on the influences.

"Free" in what way?
Let's imagine that you could replicate EXACTLY the same moment, influences and situation. Would you be able to make the same choice, or would have make a different one; could you make a different one?

I would probably make the same decision, but it doesn't matter. If my choice was made freely the first time, it would be freely made the second time, even with exactly the same conditions. That I would make the same decision does not disprove free will, in fact it reinforces it, if the choice was free the first time it would be free the second. Free will does not state that a choice has to be different to be freely made.

[thedoc]

"Free" in what way?

Free in the fact that "I" made the choice and not someone else. I was free to assign weight to each influence and was free to make a decision accordingly. Right now I have 3 or more choices in front of me, I can go and let the dog in, play the piano, or stay at the computer, I think it's too dark to split any firewood.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I make my choices based on the influences, internal or external.

Now you will claim that any action that is the result of an influence is determined, that is nonsense. Some actions are the result of influences that are freely chosen as to how much weight is applied to each influence. Just because there is an influence, does not negate free will, some actions are freely chosen based on the influences.

"Free" in what way?
Let's imagine that you could replicate EXACTLY the same moment, influences and situation. Would you be able to make the same choice, or would have make a different one; could you make a different one?

I would probably make the same decision, but it doesn't matter. If my choice was made freely the first time, it would be freely made the second time, even with exactly the same conditions. That I would make the same decision does not disprove free will, in fact it reinforces it, if the choice was free the first time it would be free the second. Free will does not state that a choice has to be different to be freely made.

The point is that for your decision to be meaningful (given the same conditions) you would have to make the say decision again and again as an eternal recurrence. Any deviation would invalidate the value of your choice.
Now for any given moment you choice is set by all antecedent conditions; free-will has no real meaning. Making a decision wilfully requires that determinism is TRUE.
In an infinite series of parallel worlds given the same conditions, all outcomes are also the same including all freely made decisions and choices.

Free in the fact that "I" made the choice and not someone else. I was free to assign weight to each influence and was free to make a decision accordingly. Right now I have 3 or more choices in front of me, I can go and let the dog in, play the piano, or stay at the computer, I think it's too dark to split any firewood.

You have expressed a preference for compatibilism, a branch of determinism.