Philosophy Now Forum

Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t
By Dennis Overbye at the New York Times

Having just lived through another New Year’s Eve, many of you have just resolved to be better, wiser, stronger and richer in the coming months and years. After all, we’re free humans, not slaves, robots or animals doomed to repeat the same boring mistakes over and over again.

See how it works? By and large? You come to an assessment and a conclusion regarding human autonomy based on what you believe "here and now" is true philosophically about it "in your head". But then the part where philosophers take it to those folks who ever and always engage "the scientific method" while exploring it, and are able to confirm what the philosophers believe.

That might well work for me. So, by all means, link me to what you deem to be the optimal assessment...one in which both philosophers and scientists are of one mind.

As William James wrote in 1890, the whole “sting and excitement” of life comes from “our sense that in it things are really being decided from one moment to another, and that it is not the dull rattling of a chain that was forged innumerable ages ago.”

His sense, my sense, your sense, their sense. Then what? At least until philosophers and scientists are able to establish the optimal manner in which to encompass the human brain when behaviors are chosen.

Get over it, Dr. James. Go get yourself fitted for a new chain-mail vest. A bevy of experiments in recent years suggest that the conscious mind is like a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control.

And, really, what are the odds our own virtual reality here is the exception to the rule? The naked ape riding whatever a full understanding of both the subconscious and unconscious mind actually means for all practical purposes when, say, posting? Though even our frantically making up stories to wrest control of our reality from the "deep state" brain may well be wholly determined as well.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:47 pm Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t
By Dennis Overbye at the New York Times

Having just lived through another New Year’s Eve, many of you have just resolved to be better, wiser, stronger and richer in the coming months and years. After all, we’re free humans, not slaves, robots or animals doomed to repeat the same boring mistakes over and over again.

See how it works? By and large? You come to an assessment and a conclusion regarding human autonomy based on what you believe "here and now" is true philosophically about it "in your head". But then the part where philosophers take it to those folks who ever and always engage "the scientific method" while exploring it, and are able to confirm what the philosophers believe.

That might well work for me. So, by all means, link me to what you deem to be the optimal assessment...one in which both philosophers and scientists are of one mind.

As William James wrote in 1890, the whole “sting and excitement” of life comes from “our sense that in it things are really being decided from one moment to another, and that it is not the dull rattling of a chain that was forged innumerable ages ago.”

His sense, my sense, your sense, their sense. Then what? At least until philosophers and scientists are able to establish the optimal manner in which to encompass the human brain when behaviors are chosen.

Get over it, Dr. James. Go get yourself fitted for a new chain-mail vest. A bevy of experiments in recent years suggest that the conscious mind is like a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control.

And, really, what are the odds our own virtual reality here is the exception to the rule? The naked ape riding whatever a full understanding of both the subconscious and unconscious mind actually means for all practical purposes when, say, posting? Though even our frantically making up stories to wrest control of our reality from the "deep state" brain may well be wholly determined as well.

The best approach is pragmatic and medical.
When subconscious activity is deathly or painful we apply therapy. Therapy is often a learning experience. Also therapy may be painful in which case it's the lesser of two evils.

Then the part where the hardcore determinists

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm   Again, who are the "hardcore" determinists? Those who take determinism seriously like me, so, the determinists?
That's what hardcore means to me, I ran it by an AI and it also guessed that that's what a hardcore determinist could mean.

Here's what I got running it by AI:

"A hard determinist believes that all events, including human actions, are causally predetermined and that free will is an illusion. They hold that every event is necessitated by prior events, and thus, no one could have acted otherwise than they did. This position is considered an extreme form of determinism because it asserts that free will is incompatible with determinism". 

In other words, as I understand this [rightly or admittedly wrongly], everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do is inherently/necessarily a manifestation of the only possible reality.

So, sure, if you need to scrap the "core" part that may well be only because you were never able not to.

Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm If by "compelled" you just mean "determined", than just say "determined". Being "compelled" sounds like being forced somehow, but determinists aren't forced, they are determined.

Actually, from my frame of mind, compelled would seem to be the more appropriate choice of words. If we cannot freely think, feel, intuit, say and do anything at all then what does compel this? How about a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter? How about a brain able to sustain a psychological assessment that seems to convey free will? The psychological illusion of free will.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm If you mean something else by "compelled" then you're wrong.

Unless, of course, I meant only that which my brain requires of me to mean in order for hard determinism to reflect the laws of matter. What we mean here [philosophically] isn't the point, in my view, it's the evidence we have accumulated enabling us to demonstrate [even to ourselves] that the human brain somehow did acquire volition when somehow matter became biological. And [so far] all the way up to us "here and now". Somehow.

Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm That's the opposite of what determinists would insist on. Either it's determined that they'll point out something, or it's determined that they won't point out that something.

This is always the tricky part for those of my ilk who, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, have managed to think themselves into believing they were never able to opt freely to think any other way. What if someone does believe what they point out here but could never have not pointed it out...?

Sure, we can squabble endlessly regarding how the human brain functions when interacting with other brains, but that doesn't make many of our own conclusions here anything more than a "world of words". Including mine. I merely point out it gets all the more problematic when we acknowledge the gaps between what we think we know about the human brain and all that there is to know about it going back to the staggering mystery of why anything exists at all. Let alone why it exists as it does and not some other way.  

Why on Earth do you suppose mere mortals keep creating Gods? The one size fits all explanation for everything. Well, as long as you keep insisting only your own denomination reflects the One True Path.

Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm  Determinism has nothing to do with subjective judgments of brilliance and imperfection. A determinist too can easily say that a book is brilliant or imperfect.

Unless, perhaps, it has everything to do with it. In other words, from my frame of mind, hard determinists are no less in the same boat we are all in. They judge any number of things, just as we all do, but they have no capacity to demonstrate that their own judgments were in fact wholly determined by brains entirely in sync with the laws of matter. 

Then those who claim to be determinists when posting here but "somehow" their own arguments are always deemed [by them] to be the most brilliant and perfect. What, nature picked them to get it right? And that will bring us around to understanding the universe in a No God world in regard to...teleology?

Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect. Unless, perhaps, you are someone who claims that even though you were, are and always will be inherently and necessarily both,

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm  How can a human be a brilliant and imperfect book? Humans aren't books. (Maybe my English is bad.)

Again, if the laws of matter are applicable to all matter [biological and otherwise] this would include the human brain. But science is how close to or how far away from grasping the extent to which the human brain is matter like no other matter?

Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect. Unless, perhaps, you are someone who claims that even though you were, are and always will be inherently and necessarily both, that’s still “compatible” with being responsible. Morally and otherwise.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm  What do subjective judgments of brilliance and imperfection about a book have to do with responsibility? So how does the "unless" come in?

Unless will always be a component here, in my view, as long as there are variables embedded in the human condition we still do not fully understand. The brain itself being the most mysterious matter of all.

Watched Jimmy McGovern's highest set bar to date, last night, Unforgivable. In which free will is utterly, risibly, insultingly meaningless.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 10:07 am Watched Jimmy McGovern's highest set bar to date, last night, Unforgivable. In which free will is utterly, risibly, insultingly meaningless.

I had to look up Chat for him.

o according to McGovern:

He wholeheartedly supports the idea that characters (and by extension people) exercise free will.

He deliberately resists narrative shortcuts that override a character’s autonomy.

In his words: “she’s got her free will... she will not stop until she … wants to stop” — even if that makes the story more challenging to write

But voluntarism does not refute absolute Free Will. Absolute Free Will can veto what the subject prefers to do.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 11:05 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 10:07 am Watched Jimmy McGovern's highest set bar to date, last night, Unforgivable. In which free will is utterly, risibly, insultingly meaningless.

I had to look up Chat for him.

o according to McGovern:

He wholeheartedly supports the idea that characters (and by extension people) exercise free will.

He deliberately resists narrative shortcuts that override a character’s autonomy.

In his words: “she’s got her free will... she will not stop until she … wants to stop” — even if that makes the story more challenging to write

But voluntarism does not refute absolute Free Will. Absolute Free Will can veto what the subject prefers to do.

My beholder's share of his peerless work is that it never arises, it cannot be pointed to.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:21 am Here's what I got running it by AI:

"A hard determinist believes that all events, including human actions, are causally predetermined and that free will is an illusion. They hold that every event is necessitated by prior events, and thus, no one could have acted otherwise than they did. This position is considered an extreme form of determinism because it asserts that free will is incompatible with determinism". 

No, you didn't run it by an AI. That's HARD determinism, not HARDCORE determinism. Fucking hell. You've been at this determinism shit for decades and still can't even get something like this right.

In other words, as I understand this [rightly or admittedly wrongly], everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do is inherently/necessarily a manifestation of the only possible reality.

So, sure, if you need to scrap the "core" part that may well be only because you were never able not to.

There was no mention of an "only possible reality" what the fuck. And that's NOT what the difference between hard vs soft determinism is about. I won't even read the rest of your comment I can't deal with this level of retardedness right now.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:09 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:21 am Here's what I got running it by AI:

"A hard determinist believes that all events, including human actions, are causally predetermined and that free will is an illusion. They hold that every event is necessitated by prior events, and thus, no one could have acted otherwise than they did. This position is considered an extreme form of determinism because it asserts that free will is incompatible with determinism". 

No, you didn't run it by an AI. That's HARD determinism, not HARDCORE determinism. Fucking hell.

In his defense, chat gpt does seem pretty comfortable using "hardcore" in the place of "hard", for some reaosn.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6887852f-05e0 ... 12b6a94ec7

I think it's an awkward term too though Atla. Hardcore, lol. What about Biker Gang Determinists? What about KPop determinists?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:13 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:09 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:21 am Here's what I got running it by AI:

"A hard determinist believes that all events, including human actions, are causally predetermined and that free will is an illusion. They hold that every event is necessitated by prior events, and thus, no one could have acted otherwise than they did. This position is considered an extreme form of determinism because it asserts that free will is incompatible with determinism". 

No, you didn't run it by an AI. That's HARD determinism, not HARDCORE determinism. Fucking hell.

In his defense, chat gpt does seem pretty comfortable using "hardcore" in the place of "hard", for some reaosn.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6887852f-05e0 ... 12b6a94ec7

I think it's an awkward term too though Atla. Hardcore, lol. What about Biker Gang Determinists? What about KPop determinists?

It's not just awkward, it's backwards imo. Why would a truly "hardcore" determinist, someone who takes determinism very seriously and always sees it in everything, subscribe to all this childish metaphysical hogwash of "hard" determinism?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:28 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:13 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:09 pm
No, you didn't run it by an AI. That's HARD determinism, not HARDCORE determinism. Fucking hell.

In his defense, chat gpt does seem pretty comfortable using "hardcore" in the place of "hard", for some reaosn.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6887852f-05e0 ... 12b6a94ec7

I think it's an awkward term too though Atla. Hardcore, lol. What about Biker Gang Determinists? What about KPop determinists?

It's not just awkward, it's backwards imo. Why would a truly "hardcore" determinist, someone who takes determinism very seriously and always sees it in everything, subscribe to all this childish metaphysical hogwash of "hard" determinism?

Why wouldn't they?

Seems to me like serious people believe the full range of possible beliefs about anything.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:30 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:28 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:13 pm

In his defense, chat gpt does seem pretty comfortable using "hardcore" in the place of "hard", for some reaosn.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6887852f-05e0 ... 12b6a94ec7

I think it's an awkward term too though Atla. Hardcore, lol. What about Biker Gang Determinists? What about KPop determinists?

It's not just awkward, it's backwards imo. Why would a truly "hardcore" determinist, someone who takes determinism very seriously and always sees it in everything, subscribe to all this childish metaphysical hogwash of "hard" determinism?

Why wouldn't they?

Seems to me like serious people believe the full range of possible beliefs about anything.

Because hard detreminism views like no moral responsibility, don't follow from determinism.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:34 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:30 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:28 pm
It's not just awkward, it's backwards imo. Why would a truly "hardcore" determinist, someone who takes determinism very seriously and always sees it in everything, subscribe to all this childish metaphysical hogwash of "hard" determinism?

Why wouldn't they?

Seems to me like serious people believe the full range of possible beliefs about anything.

Because hard detreminism views like no moral responsibility, don't follow from determinism.

Well obviously that's what some hard determinists disagree with

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 11:36 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 11:05 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 10:07 am Watched Jimmy McGovern's highest set bar to date, last night, Unforgivable. In which free will is utterly, risibly, insultingly meaningless.

I had to look up Chat for him.

o according to McGovern:

He wholeheartedly supports the idea that characters (and by extension people) exercise free will.

He deliberately resists narrative shortcuts that override a character’s autonomy.

In his words: “she’s got her free will... she will not stop until she … wants to stop” — even if that makes the story more challenging to write

But voluntarism does not refute absolute Free Will. Absolute Free Will can veto what the subject prefers to do.

My beholder's share of his peerless work is that it never arises, it cannot be pointed to.

It cannot be pointed to because there is no event or entity that is a material correlate of it . In other words, it does not exist , except as a religious mystery.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:38 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:34 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:30 pm

Why wouldn't they?

Seems to me like serious people believe the full range of possible beliefs about anything.

Because hard detreminism views like no moral responsibility, don't follow from determinism.

Well obviously that's what some hard determinists disagree with

Yeah and they're wrong, so what?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:39 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:38 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:34 pm
Because hard detreminism views like no moral responsibility, don't follow from determinism.

Well obviously that's what some hard determinists disagree with

Yeah and they're wrong, so what?

Well so you said serious determinists wouldn't do that. Serious determinists can be wrong about things. So some serious determinists would do that.