More Determinism = More Free-Will???

[Fairy]

We are free when there are options. If there is only one option then you have to do what you have to do.

Then we'd have to do whatever option most desired out of the many options. So are we ever free from the desire? Is desire constraining to ultimate freedom, or is there no such thing as ultimate freedom for a finite being?

[bahman]

We are free when there are options. If there is only one option then you have to do what you have to do.

Then we'd have to do whatever option most desired out of the many options. So are we ever free from the desire? Is desire constraining to ultimate freedom, or is there no such thing as ultimate freedom for a finite being?

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

[Fairy]

We are free when there are options. If there is only one option then you have to do what you have to do.

Then we'd have to do whatever option most desired out of the many options. So are we ever free from the desire? Is desire constraining to ultimate freedom, or is there no such thing as ultimate freedom for a finite being?

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

And so is true freedom having the choice not to choose anything at all then?

[bahman]

Then we'd have to do whatever option most desired out of the many options. So are we ever free from the desire? Is desire constraining to ultimate freedom, or is there no such thing as ultimate freedom for a finite being?

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

And so is true freedom having the choice not to choose anything at all then?

Yes, that is one option as well.

[Fairy]

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

And so is true freedom having the choice not to choose anything at all then?

Yes, that is one option as well.

[Belinda]

But how can there possibly be actual objective freedom unless it's freedom relative to constraints? I say"freedom" as in freedom to act as agent of change.

Take any machinery------- say the internal combustion engine------ the engine can't move unless the cylinder constricts the piston,
A biological model------ the humerus has no force unless unless it's constricted by its socket in the shoulder blade.
The complex biological system which is us can't be an agent for change unless it's constrained by any of a multitude of factors that exert the opposite force.
The what you call "the framework" must be in place before the change event can happen.
I disagree with BigMike if he is saying that freedom is solely psychological, because I am saying that freedom does exist but that it must relate to the constraints of the causal framework. After all, we know and can only explain events by way of the causal "framework".

By my understanding of BigMike's position, he claims that human experience can never be "free from" Causality, and that Causality is a type of Universal Force or Occurrence. Therefore "Causality" is happening to us, whether we want it to or not, whether we are aware of it or not. In this way, my counter-argument to him is, it's no longer scientific, empirical, or prove-able.

I challenge you to explain any event, say say a football match, without a causal narrative. You can do a narrative that describes but not explains: you can do a narrative that tells how you feel without explaining your feelings: you can do a historical narrative that is no more than a sort of list of battles or football goals and so on . But without determinism you cannot do an explanatory narrative such as e.g. "Why we need a substantial breakfast" or "Why Hitler rose to power" or " Why Dick became Lord Mayor of London" or "What fire storms are likely to happen next" or "Why she decided to rob that bank " or "Why Manchester United won the match".

Do the "rules of football" cause football games? No, but they are the framework which both describe and explain any particular football game. So "frameworks" are the boundaries of causes, by which we set the foundation for "causes" to exist. Frameworks are used to set the parameters of causes, rationalize and justify causes.

"Freedom" therein, is a matter of BOTH the framework, and 'within' the experiences of causes and effects. Freedom applies to both the abstraction (rules and logic) and the experiences (of the football game being played or watched).

There could be no game unless circumstances were such that there were rules of the game. There could be no game unless circumstances were such that there were also players who play within the rules of the game. Circumstances are causes that, taken as a whole, cause all football games and and also cause any specific football game. Nothing happens or happened that is not caused to happen and what does happen necessarily happens.

Freedom to cause any event E relates to causes that precede E, and also to the circumstantial causes that surround E.

[Eodnhoj7]

Wizard22, the claim that "to be free is to be un-determined" raises an important question: what does it actually mean for something to be "un-determined"? If by "un-determined," you mean actions that arise without cause, you’re proposing something that contradicts not only physics but also basic logic. An uncaused action would be completely random—something arising from nowhere, influenced by nothing. How could such randomness ever resemble freedom or intentionality?

What you describe as "freedom in spite of determinism" is more likely a subjective experience—our sense of making choices or taking control. But that feeling doesn’t mean the underlying process is free from causation. Just as the laws of nature govern physical systems, the same principles guide the neural, genetic, and environmental factors that create your experience of agency.

To argue that freedom exists outside of determinism is to assert that actions can happen independently of the causes that give rise to them. If that were true, we would have to abandon the very framework that allows us to understand and predict reality—including the framework that gives us science, technology, and reason itself. That’s a high price to pay for preserving an unprovable notion of freedom.

The real marvel is not that freedom exists independently of determinism, but that the deterministic web of causes produces the rich complexity we experience as choice, creativity, and agency. That’s where human excellence truly shines—not in defiance of causation, but as its extraordinary result.

In the "Can the Secularists be Trusted?" thread, BigMike made the following claim/conclusion upon debating Determinism vs. Free-Will:

The real marvel is not that freedom exists independently of determinism, but that the deterministic web of causes produces the rich complexity we experience as choice, creativity, and agency. That’s where human excellence truly shines—not in defiance of causation, but as its extraordinary result.

To Mike and PN Forum Users:

Do you agree with these claims/conclusions?

Is Freedom (aka. "Free-Will) the 'inevitable' result of "More Determinism"? And if so, how? How does "more determinism" = "more freedom"?

Wizard22, let’s cut through the fog here. You’re throwing terms like “freedom” and “un-determined” around as if they’re self-evident truths, but what you’re really doing is trying to defend a belief system that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The concept of "freedom in spite of determinism" is, frankly, a contradiction in terms. To assert that freedom arises outside of causation is not an argument—it’s a dodge, a retreat into mysticism when confronted with the reality of how the universe operates.

Determinism isn’t a choice, and it’s not something you can wish away because it doesn’t suit your philosophical preferences. It’s the bedrock of reality. Every action, every decision, every so-called "choice" you make is the result of countless interacting causes—your genetics, your environment, your brain chemistry, your experiences. To say otherwise is to deny the very principles that allow us to understand anything at all.

You ask how “more determinism” could mean “more freedom,” but that’s not what I claimed. The freedom you experience—the rich complexity of human thought and creativity—is not something separate from determinism. It’s the emergent result of deterministic processes. The notion that true freedom could exist outside of causation would render it meaningless. A truly uncaused action would be no more intentional or free than a coin flip. Is that the kind of freedom you’re championing? Randomness? Chaos? That’s not freedom; that’s incoherence.

If you’re committed to this idea of “freedom” as being “un-determined,” then prove it. Show me one action, one phenomenon in the entire universe, that arises without cause. If you can’t, then we’re done here. Because determinism isn’t just an idea—it’s reality, and you don’t get to rewrite reality just to feel more comfortable in your worldview.

Given actions require effects, otherwise the action is indistinct through change induced contrast, and actions derived from interior experience are spontaneous, as evidenced by the spontaneity of internal experience, free will and determinism not only go hand in hand but by purely viewing them as concepts one only exists by contrast to another thus a relational dependency occurs.

In simpler terms they may be two sides of the same coin as order spontaneously arises within experience and spontaneity repeats as well within experience.

[Belinda]

We are free when there are options. If there is only one option then you have to do what you have to do.

Then we'd have to do whatever option most desired out of the many options. So are we ever free from the desire? Is desire constraining to ultimate freedom, or is there no such thing as ultimate freedom for a finite being?

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

Desire to empty the bladder, desire to drink when thirsty, desire to breathe, desire to avoid pain, desire to protect your child, desire to press down during labour, desire to eat when hungry, desire to protect oneself against an aggressor, desire for shelter from heat and cold.

How free is a human being?

[Belinda]

Then we'd have to do whatever option most desired out of the many options. So are we ever free from the desire? Is desire constraining to ultimate freedom, or is there no such thing as ultimate freedom for a finite being?

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

And so is true freedom having the choice not to choose anything at all then?

No, because if you don't choose you will suffer and eventually die .

[Wizard22]

There could be no game unless circumstances were such that there were rules of the game. There could be no game unless circumstances were such that there were also players who play within the rules of the game. Circumstances are causes that, taken as a whole, cause all football games and and also cause any specific football game. Nothing happens or happened that is not caused to happen and what does happen necessarily happens.

Freedom to cause any event E relates to causes that precede E, and also to the circumstantial causes that surround E.

The Essence of the game, any Game, is in the desire/will to Play the game, not in the rules of the game itself.

The 'Rules' / Laws / Physics comes second, not first.

Nowadays there are countless games to play, millions in fact easily, so Third comes the Choice about which game you choose to participate in, to play or to watch or to consider.

[Belinda]

What exists is the illusion of freedom: the subjective experience of weighing options and making choices. That experience is real, but it is entirely determined by the physical and causal conditions of your existence.

How is freedom both an "illusion", and the experience (of freedom) is "real", at the same time??

Wizard22, you’re twisting the concept into knots that don’t exist. Let’s untangle it. When I say freedom is an illusion, I’m not saying the experience of freedom doesn’t happen—of course it happens. You feel it. I feel it. We all feel it. But feeling something doesn’t make it objectively true. That’s the key distinction.

Think about a mirage in the desert. You see water shimmering on the horizon. The experience of seeing the mirage is real—you’re perceiving something—but there’s no actual water there. Similarly, the experience of freedom feels real because our brains are wired to process decisions in a way that creates this sense of agency. However, what’s behind that feeling is not some magical, uncaused force of "free will" but rather a complex chain of causes that led you to make that decision.

This is how freedom can be both an illusion and a real experience. The experience of choice—the deliberation, the weighing of options, the sense of control—is genuinely happening in your mind. But the causes behind it? Those are entirely deterministic: your genetics, your upbringing, your environment, the current state of your neurons. You feel free because your brain doesn’t consciously register all those causes in real-time—it just delivers the final product: a decision.

So no, it’s not contradictory to say that the experience of freedom is real while the idea of freedom as some uncaused, independent force is illusory. Your brain is an incredibly complex system, capable of simulating what feels like autonomy. But peel back the layers, and you’ll find nothing but a deterministic process chugging along, as it always has. That’s the reality we’re working with.

I agree with Big Mike. However I do want to endorse hope within the deterministic process
Hope is compatible with causal determinism because the future is unmade and unformed chaos. We can hope that some entirely unexpected event may happen that stops exponential evil from happening. For instance we can hope for some advance in technology that will enable us to stop man -made climate change. For another instance, an individual may hope to learn from her experience what is her best way to live her life.
The best way to deal with hope is to temper it with common sense so one does not tell oneself fairy tales or believe in false prophets. However even the most pessimistic among us may still hope.

[BigMike]

How is freedom both an "illusion", and the experience (of freedom) is "real", at the same time??

Wizard22, you’re twisting the concept into knots that don’t exist. Let’s untangle it. When I say freedom is an illusion, I’m not saying the experience of freedom doesn’t happen—of course it happens. You feel it. I feel it. We all feel it. But feeling something doesn’t make it objectively true. That’s the key distinction.

Think about a mirage in the desert. You see water shimmering on the horizon. The experience of seeing the mirage is real—you’re perceiving something—but there’s no actual water there. Similarly, the experience of freedom feels real because our brains are wired to process decisions in a way that creates this sense of agency. However, what’s behind that feeling is not some magical, uncaused force of "free will" but rather a complex chain of causes that led you to make that decision.

This is how freedom can be both an illusion and a real experience. The experience of choice—the deliberation, the weighing of options, the sense of control—is genuinely happening in your mind. But the causes behind it? Those are entirely deterministic: your genetics, your upbringing, your environment, the current state of your neurons. You feel free because your brain doesn’t consciously register all those causes in real-time—it just delivers the final product: a decision.

So no, it’s not contradictory to say that the experience of freedom is real while the idea of freedom as some uncaused, independent force is illusory. Your brain is an incredibly complex system, capable of simulating what feels like autonomy. But peel back the layers, and you’ll find nothing but a deterministic process chugging along, as it always has. That’s the reality we’re working with.

I agree with Big Mike. However I do want to endorse hope within the deterministic process
Hope is compatible with causal determinism because the future is unmade and unformed chaos. We can hope that some entirely unexpected event may happen that stops exponential evil from happening. For instance we can hope for some advance in technology that will enable us to stop man -made climate change. For another instance, an individual may hope to learn from her experience what is her best way to live her life.
The best way to deal with hope is to temper it with common sense so one does not tell oneself fairy tales or believe in false prophets. However even the most pessimistic among us may still hope.

Belinda, I think you’ve captured something essential about hope—it’s a motivator, a spark that drives us to act even when the odds seem insurmountable. But here’s where it gets really interesting within the deterministic framework we’ve been discussing. For hope to actually lead to better outcomes, it isn’t enough for it to exist in isolation; it has to occur to someone, and that occurrence is itself determined by external influences.

Those of us who recognize the deterministic web of causes and effects have a unique responsibility. If hope is just one more part of the chain—a cause that can lead to productive actions—then we, as agents within that framework, must take up the role of being someone else’s cause. Think of it like this: in a six-degrees-of-separation kind of way, the influence we exert on others ripples outward. Whether through a conversation, an example we set, or the ideas we share, we become part of the chain that motivates others to take action.

This isn’t just abstract philosophy; it’s how real change happens. If the right message reaches the right person—maybe someone with the means or knowledge to push back against climate change, inequality, or whatever challenges we face—they might, in turn, inspire others. This cascading effect is entirely deterministic, but it relies on those of us who “get it” to step into the role of deliberate influencers within this system.

Hope, tempered by common sense as you wisely point out, isn’t some mystical force; it’s a practical tool, a lever within the machinery of cause and effect. The future might be unformed chaos in one sense, but it’s a chaos shaped by countless interconnected factors. And when we understand our place in that system, we can inject the hope that drives action, creating a ripple that pushes the world toward better outcomes.

[Gary Childress]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYiv790TfzI

[Wizard22]

and that occurrence is itself determined by external influences.

What?! How is hope "determined by external influences"??? Explain yourself, BigMike!

Hope, tempered by common sense as you wisely point out, isn’t some mystical force; it’s a practical tool, a lever within the machinery of cause and effect. The future might be unformed chaos in one sense, but it’s a chaos shaped by countless interconnected factors. And when we understand our place in that system, we can inject the hope that drives action, creating a ripple that pushes the world toward better outcomes.

Hope is not a "tool".

[Wizard22]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYiv790TfzI

And what's your take on all this, Gary?