Free Will and Determinism

[Auberean]

For this discussion I will be using a rigid definition of Free Will; "The ability to select a course of action as means towards the fulfillment of a desire." Although there are many different interpretations of the phrase, I will be using that to keep my ideas simple. Determinism is, basically, the idea that "every event is necessitated by previous events and conditions."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're still with me, you may have noticed something; those ideas don't always play nice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my mind, each idea is the complete opposite of the other. Free Will tends to imply that each person is in control of his or her own destiny. There is no such thing as fate, or a Higher Being controlling your actions, only you have the power to influence your own decisions. Determinism throws all notion of free will out the window in saying that you really only have the illusion of a chooice, and really you're following a path which is being forged by your resultant character or psychological state. Or at least, that's what I've gathered in my own mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to have to take the side of Determinism at the moment. I believe that every choice we make is influenced by past events or genetic dispositions. But that's just me, and the idea I've formed after viewing a very small scope of information. What I want to know is - what do you think of all this? Do you believe in free will, or determinism, or fate, or God, or what? There is much more to this topic than what I've brought to the table and I'd encourage anyone who knows a little on the subject to speak up. Try not to be too pushy with your opinion, as I don't believe there's one "correct" answer to everything, but you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise if you'd really like to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And please, don't run around left and right quoting Wikipedia entries, I want to know what you think, not some philosophers.

[knives669]

Very very interesting! :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think we basically act on a mixture of free will and determinism. To put it simply, in my mind, determinism narrows down our choices, and free will allows us to make said choices.

[rocketman089]

A mix of both, Things happen to you that you have NO control over; death, illness, law, whatever. But what you DO have control over is what you do about these situations.

[BlueTear]

As much as I'd like to believ in free will, I always end up thinking like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I had a computer with, hm, a lot of computing power and entered everything about a given person. Not just their conscious thoughts and ideas, but their entire subconscious, every single experience they'd ever had, every thought whether they could consciously remember them or not. And then enter the chemical state of the body throughout the individuals development ever since, say, conception. Wouldn't that computer be able to accurately predict the response of said individual to any given stimuli?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a way, it manages to tie in to some reflections I've had about God. Surely the omnipotent being that willed the universe into existance would have enough of this "computing power" to keep track of the entire universe at once. Every sub-atomic particle. Granted, at that level, the state of the particle becomes a rather elusive concept, but you should still be able to do probability calculations of it. Probability calculations on a scale that would use computing power beyond our imagination, but still.

[Auberean]

A mix of both, Things happen to you that you have NO control over; death, illness, law, whatever. But what you DO have control over is what you do about these situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not exactly what I'm getting at. Sure things happen to people, I'm more interested in the nature of their responses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say that you have control over certain situations, I'll take one of your examples - death. Say someone close to you dies, a grandmother or something. There are different ways you can choose to react - you could go and comfort her widowed husband, you could quitely grieve to yourself, you could do nothing, lots of different choices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I want to understand is, do you really have a choice...in what choice you make? Sure, you can "choose" to "do nothing", but that decision may have been influenced by previous events that would lead you to do it. You might "do nothing" because psychologically, that's where your mind has been led to by what happens. Does what I'm getting at make any sense? I can't explain the exact meaning that well.

[Auberean]

I do like what BlueTear had to say, about how a person is the sum of everything, basically.

[rocketman089]

Hmm, you're making total sense :o

[Adam007]

I agree with the other posters on it being both. Your environment\genetics will shape your personality and your future choices, but you still can make those choices yourself. You're heavily influenced by those but in the end, only you have control over what you do. Most people just won't go against the grain of what they've been brought up with expectations-wise.

[forsaken]

As much as I'd like to believ in free will, I always end up thinking like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I had a computer with, hm, a lot of computing power and entered everything about a given person. Not just their conscious thoughts and ideas, but their entire subconscious, every single experience they'd ever had, every thought whether they could consciously remember them or not. And then enter the chemical state of the body throughout the individuals development ever since, say, conception. Wouldn't that computer be able to accurately predict the response of said individual to any given stimuli?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a way, it manages to tie in to some reflections I've had about God. Surely the omnipotent being that willed the universe into existance would have enough of this "computing power" to keep track of the entire universe at once. Every sub-atomic particle. Granted, at that level, the state of the particle becomes a rather elusive concept, but you should still be able to do probability calculations of it. Probability calculations on a scale that would use computing power beyond our imagination, but still.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In response to this, all I can say is that computers are - at least at the moment - unable to follow the set of heuristical rules to which humans abide by. In your example, you set forth a hypothetical situation where a computer has catalogued each and every one of your experiences and then come to the question: "Would it respond in the way the person of which it is based on would?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To that, I answer no. Purely on the basis that although it has past experiences and reactions of a person, it cannot possibly make a decision on its own. For example, what if you were to be exposed to a situation completely out of your experience, some concept or happening that you - or anyone else for that matter - would never had ever even contemplated, your response would be the first of its kind as well as unique to the situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A computer requires programming to map what the variables are, else it can't properly respond to the situation at hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In response to the actual post, I don't see how "followinga path forged by your resultant character or psychological state" is throwing out your free will and just an illusion of a choice?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, your environment and previous experiences play a huge part in who you are - but it doesn't "force" you onto a path. The path is chosen by you, the only thing your resultant character does is advise you - by means of previous experiences - which path taken would be the most advantageous to your situation. You can choose to go against your common sense - for instance, someone may be the most reasonable person you know and do everything meticulously and carefully. But then they might surprise you by going bungee jumping. You wouldn't expect it, it's out of character, but if it happened, you'd accept it. It becomes a small portion of "what they've done" but not necessarily who they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In essence, I think that Determinism [though I hate working with rigid definitions of anything] is just a component of Free Will. What you think of as desirable is directly or indirectly affected by your past events. For instance, you may love icecream, but one day you might discover a rat's tail in it, at which point you decide to stop eating icecream. You stop desiring it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I guess I agree with knives669's definition.

[Auberean]

In response to the actual post, I don't see how "followinga path forged by your resultant character or psychological state" is throwing out your free will and just an illusion of a choice?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, your environment and previous experiences play a huge part in who you are - but it doesn't "force" you onto a path. The path is chosen by you, the only thing your resultant character does is advise you - by means of previous experiences - which path taken would be the most advantageous to your situation. You can choose to go against your common sense - for instance, someone may be the most reasonable person you know and do everything meticulously and carefully. But then they might surprise you by going bungee jumping. You wouldn't expect it, it's out of character, but if it happened, you'd accept it. It becomes a small portion of "what they've done" but not necessarily who they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In essence, I think that Determinism [though I hate working with rigid definitions of anything] is just a component of Free Will. What you think of as desirable is directly or indirectly affected by your past events. For instance, you may love icecream, but one day you might discover a rat's tail in it, at which point you decide to stop eating icecream. You stop desiring it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I guess I agree with knives669's definition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think BlueTear is using a computer as more of a medium for conveying his idea, but I'm sure he'll be able to elaborate on that himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm having trouble making a few connections. In the Ice Cream example I still see you as having explained Determinism being stronger than Free Will. You had the choice to eat ice cream, but because of the discovery of a rat's tail, you no longer want to. That event has gotten in the way of your choice and has essentially controlled your final action.

[Viktorkrum77]

I think it leans strongly towards determinism. For example, if you come from a rich family you will have advantages in life. It's all about advantages. You can pursue what you want as an adult, do what you want. But you have to follow pre-set roads to get there most of the time, like college, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all the time can you make your dream come true either. Some dreams are just impossible based on your status, physical condition, etc. You can work really hard, but some people will beat you to it, because they have the advantage, the talent, the money, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It depends alot on how society works, and uncontrollable things like the status or wealth of your family. This can lead to advantages, advantages are the key to success, alongside hard work.

[forsaken]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think BlueTear is using a computer as more of a medium for conveying his idea, but I'm sure he'll be able to elaborate on that himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm having trouble making a few connections. In the Ice Cream example I still see you as having explained Determinism being stronger than Free Will. You had the choice to eat ice cream, but because of the discovery of a rat's tail, you no longer want to. That event has gotten in the way of your choice and has essentially controlled your final action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How has the event controlled the reaction? The person could have two main reactions to it, they could have deigned to ignore the experience and continued to eat icecream, or in this case, for reasons of their own, found eating icecream not to their taste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is an example of their own free will in the matter - HOW they respond to the situation is entirely up to them and their own values on what makes something desirable or undesirable. You yourself pretty much prove my point, "you no longer want to" It is your want not to eat the icecream. According to your definition of Free Will: "The ability to select a course of action as means towards the fulfillment of a desire." You select a course of action to to satisfy your want of not wanting to eat the ice cream - which is not eating it. [;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And about BlueTear's post - he raised the question of whether he would be able to accurately predict the reactions of a person to any given stimuli if he had a computer with enough processing power. To which i responded in the negative, because personally I believe the computer wouldn't be able to respond to an experience previously undealt with by the, or any, person. :P

[Auberean]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How has the event controlled the reaction? The person could have two main reactions to it, they could have deigned to ignore the experience and continued to eat icecream, or in this case, for reasons of their own, found eating icecream not to their taste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is an example of their own free will in the matter - HOW they respond to the situation is entirely up to them and their own values on what makes something desirable or undesirable. You yourself pretty much prove my point, "you no longer want to" It is your want not to eat the icecream. According to your definition of Free Will: "The ability to select a course of action as means towards the fulfillment of a desire." You select a course of action to to satisfy your want of not wanting to eat the ice cream - which is not eating it. [;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've got me on the definition of Free Will I provided, I may have given myself less room to wiggle by using that wording.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But bear with me here, we may just be interpreting the same idea in our own ways. I think that by not eating the ice cream due to the rat's tail, that event has shaped your opinion in a major way. Sure, you make the choice to not eat the ice cream, but you only made that choice in relation to what has happened to you. If there was no rat's tail, you would have continued on and eaten the ice cream. Doesn't that show that your Free Will is really dependent on other events, and not on itself?

[forsaken]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've got me on the definition of Free Will I provided, I may have given myself less room to wiggle by using that wording.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But bear with me here, we may just be interpreting the same idea in our own ways. I think that by not eating the ice cream due to the rat's tail, that event has shaped your opinion in a major way. Sure, you make the choice to not eat the ice cream, but you only made that choice in relation to what has happened to you. If there was no rat's tail, you would have continued on and eaten the ice cream. Doesn't that show that your Free Will is really dependent on other events, and not on itself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're saying that the actual event of the rats tail has effected the resulting decision made not to eat it, then I'd have to agree, of course it has. Indeed it does influence what I choose to do, but that's where I draw the distinction. All it does is influence, at the very last, it's your own choice - your "free will - that determines what you end up doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this case, we aren't forced not to eat the icecream as a result of the event, we choose not to. That's what remains as the important distinguishment for me. Regardless of what events happen [within the realms of reasonability of course, if I lose the use of my legs, I'm not going to disregard that and start miraculously walking] we end up choosing what we do. In this case, what the person sees as a logical or favourable course of action is to not eat icecream. But on the very same note, the person could disregard what they think is good for them and eat the icecream. For example, people who know smoking is bad, but continue to do so. :P

[FuBai]

I find that the debate is of little practical import. If we have no free will, then whatever we do is pre-destined to happen. Thus any changes that we make in our justice system would not be as a product of knowing that we don't have free will, but rather that we had no other option but to do that. If we have free will then nothing needs changing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Always act and imagine that you have free will, because if you don't, what have you lost?

[Auberean]

If you're saying that the actual event of the rats tail has effected the resulting decision made not to eat it, then I'd have to agree, of course it has. Indeed it does influence what I choose to do, but that's where I draw the distinction. All it does is influence, at the very last, it's your own choice - your "free will - that determines what you end up doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this case, we aren't forced not to eat the icecream as a result of the event, we choose not to. That's what remains as the important distinguishment for me. Regardless of what events happen [within the realms of reasonability of course, if I lose the use of my legs, I'm not going to disregard that and start miraculously walking] we end up choosing what we do. In this case, what the person sees as a logical or favourable course of action is to not eat icecream. But on the very same note, the person could disregard what they think is good for them and eat the icecream. For example, people who know smoking is bad, but continue to do so. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good, good. I understand exactly what you're saying now, and I agree for the most part and I think I've discovered our fundamental difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that we don't have the ability to just "disregard". You could see the ice cream, see the rat's tail, and say "Screw it, I'll eat it anyways", but there would have to be an underlying reason why you decided to do what you did. Basically something would have to push you towards disregarding what you normally would do, and that would show that Free Will is indeed circumstantial.

[Auberean]

I find that the debate is of little practical import. If we have no free will, then whatever we do is pre-destined to happen. Thus any changes that we make in our justice system would not be as a product of knowing that we don't have free will, but rather that we had no other option but to do that. If we have free will then nothing needs changing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Always act and imagine that you have free will, because if you don't, what have you lost?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I really arguing in favor of Fate, or Destiny? It does sound that way sometimes. I really need to think about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mostly I just brought this up because topics like this interest me.

[FuBai]

 

I find that the debate is of little practical import. If we have no free will, then whatever we do is pre-destined to happen. Thus any changes that we make in our justice system would not be as a product of knowing that we don't have free will, but rather that we had no other option but to do that. If we have free will then nothing needs changing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Always act and imagine that you have free will, because if you don't, what have you lost?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I really arguing in favor of Fate, or Destiny? It does sound that way sometimes. I really need to think about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mostly I just brought this up because topics like this interest me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fate and destiny naturaly seem to imply a supernatural force working upon them. The argument I see most rationaly presented is that we live in a universe of cause and effect - a never-ending chain of consequence. So why should it be that humans are able to evade this omni-present law? It is interesting, but it can drvie you made. One person spent weeks just flexing his hand and wondering if he had had the choice not too. Until he went mad of course. So if you are of unstable mental condition, then find away around it like I do, rather than through it. :)

[Auberean]

 

 

I find that the debate is of little practical import. If we have no free will, then whatever we do is pre-destined to happen. Thus any changes that we make in our justice system would not be as a product of knowing that we don't have free will, but rather that we had no other option but to do that. If we have free will then nothing needs changing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Always act and imagine that you have free will, because if you don't, what have you lost?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I really arguing in favor of Fate, or Destiny? It does sound that way sometimes. I really need to think about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mostly I just brought this up because topics like this interest me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fate and destiny naturaly seem to imply a supernatural force working upon them. The argument I see most rationaly presented is that we live in a universe of cause and effect - a never-ending chain of consequence. So why should it be that humans are able to evade this omni-present law? It is interesting, but it can drvie you made. One person spent weeks just flexing his hand and wondering if he had had the choice not too. Until he went mad of course. So if you are of unstable mental condition, then find away around it like I do, rather than through it. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not maddening to me so much as it is interesting, for some reason. I can see people easily getting lost, of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I don't think that the absence of free will implies that all events are pre-destined.

[FuBai]

 

 

 

I find that the debate is of little practical import. If we have no free will, then whatever we do is pre-destined to happen. Thus any changes that we make in our justice system would not be as a product of knowing that we don't have free will, but rather that we had no other option but to do that. If we have free will then nothing needs changing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Always act and imagine that you have free will, because if you don't, what have you lost?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I really arguing in favor of Fate, or Destiny? It does sound that way sometimes. I really need to think about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mostly I just brought this up because topics like this interest me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fate and destiny naturaly seem to imply a supernatural force working upon them. The argument I see most rationaly presented is that we live in a universe of cause and effect - a never-ending chain of consequence. So why should it be that humans are able to evade this omni-present law? It is interesting, but it can drvie you made. One person spent weeks just flexing his hand and wondering if he had had the choice not too. Until he went mad of course. So if you are of unstable mental condition, then find away around it like I do, rather than through it. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not maddening to me so much as it is interesting, for some reason. I can see people easily getting lost, of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I don't think that the absence of free will implies that all events are pre-destined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are three schools of thought here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existentialism - "Existentialism maintains that in man, and in man alone, existence preceded essence. This simply means that man first is, and only subsequently is this or that. In a word, man must create his own essence: it is in throwing himself into the world, suffering there, struggling there, that he gradually defines himself. And the definition always remains open ended: we cannot say what this man is before he dies, or what mankind is before it has disappeared." Jean Paul Sartre

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compatibalism - "Liberty and Necesity or consistent" Thomas Hobbes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Determinism - "There are a lot of myths which make the human race cruel and barbarous and unkind. Good and Evil, Sin and Crime, Free Will and the like delusions made to excuse God for damning men and to excuse men for crucifying each other." Clarence Darrow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats usualy how the argument splits. So what other suggestion were you forwarding?

[Auberean]

There are three schools of thought here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existentialism - "Existentialism maintains that in man, and in man alone, existence preceded essence. This simply means that man first is, and only subsequently is this or that. In a word, man must create his own essence: it is in throwing himself into the world, suffering there, struggling there, that he gradually defines himself. And the definition always remains open ended: we cannot say what this man is before he dies, or what mankind is before it has disappeared." Jean Paul Sartre

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compatibalism - "Liberty and Necesity or consistent" Thomas Hobbes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Determinism - "There are a lot of myths which make the human race cruel and barbarous and unkind. Good and Evil, Sin and Crime, Free Will and the like delusions made to excuse God for damning men and to excuse men for crucifying each other." Clarence Darrow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats usualy how the argument splits. So what other suggestion were you forwarding?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm...those people seem more interested in explaining man's actions and the morality behind them. I'm looking for a solution to the problem of Free Will that I can personally agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had another suggestion?

[BlueTear]

In response to this, all I can say is that computers are - at least at the moment - unable to follow the set of heuristical rules to which humans abide by. In your example, you set forth a hypothetical situation where a computer has catalogued each and every one of your experiences and then come to the question: "Would it respond in the way the person of which it is based on would?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To that, I answer no. Purely on the basis that although it has past experiences and reactions of a person, it cannot possibly make a decision on its own. For example, what if you were to be exposed to a situation completely out of your experience, some concept or happening that you - or anyone else for that matter - would never had ever even contemplated, your response would be the first of its kind as well as unique to the situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'll argue that said response, no matter how unique the stimuli is, will always be based on person responding. Taking a being and exposing it to a new and unique situation cannot illicit a response that is not based on a framework of past experiences, genetics and current chemical state of the body. When a child is born, it does not scream because of the nature of the stimuli, it screams because the stimuli illicits an insitictive, genetically based, response. In theory, yes, it's possible to expose an individual to a situation so beyond the scope of its framework that the response is unpredictable. In practice, the being would have to be lacking a chemical state, a genetic structure and a physical body to lack a framework that could not, would not, be used as a basis for the response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, your environment and previous experiences play a huge part in who you are - but it doesn't "force" you onto a path. The path is chosen by you, the only thing your resultant character does is advise you - by means of previous experiences - which path taken would be the most advantageous to your situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, we chose the path most appealing to us, not advantageous. In a lot of situations the two are the same, but there's still a distinction. And what we find appealing is decided by, once again, genetics, past experiences and chemicals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can choose to go against your common sense - for instance, someone may be the most reasonable person you know and do everything meticulously and carefully. But then they might surprise you by going bungee jumping. You wouldn't expect it, it's out of character, but if it happened, you'd accept it. It becomes a small portion of "what they've done" but not necessarily who they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it is who they are, and the only reason it's percieved as out of character is because it's physically impossible for us to know another person fully. Simply put, we're not equipped to know everything there is to know, and our definitions of another's character is based on our observations on their behaviour. Which is merely a tip of the iceberg shaped by ever single experience and private - conscious or unconscious - thought the person has ever had, whether we are there to observe it or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for a practical use... We lack the capabilities to overcome determinism. We don't have the computing power, nor the ability to extract the neccesary information required to simulate a person. Simply put, there's no point in living your life by determinism because you will never know yourself or others enough. For all practical purposes, you might as well life as if you had a free will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if it's only an illusion brought on by our lack of abilities.

[issy2]

Great topic! =D>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have to say, free will is bollocks. Can you ever imagine making any decisions without any external influence? Some things are more personal than others, but you can never make a choice which is purely 100% yours. At least, I never have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for determinism... I don't get it.

[BlueLancer]

While totally free will, free of any external influences, can be sometimes difficult to achieve, determinism definitely can't play a role outside of behavioral genetics. It's just something for the masses that hope their life was pre-destined to be something. I don't believe it. Your life is what you make of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bluetear has the best point. If you take two entirely different persons, they will almost always respond differently to stimuli. Make them both watch clips from a horror movie, the other one will start crying and leave, and the other one will just shrug and regard the clips as 'boring'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It depends on what they have experienced before, not on their conscious behavior, so maybe in that sense you can't have totally 'free will'. Who would really "want" to be a coward? That's right, nobody. You've had bad experiences in your childhood or became scared of something, and it still affects your decisions today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But determinism in a large scale, as in dictating your job, family, everything that happens to you etc. is ridiculous. It is very random and you have full control of what decisions you make, if you have at least a bit of a brain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Everything happens for a reason" is the biggest load of bs, and even the TV series 'Lost' uses it as a tagline. I guess that's what the masses of people want to believe. But no, everything does not happen for a reason. A child who gets beaten up and is stolen into slavery and eventually dies because of malnutrition at age 8 did not end up so because of "fate", he ended up that way because a greedy bastard stole his life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's just one example. There are things in life that happen for no reason at all, just because another person wanted it to happen. There are 6.5 billion people, what are the chances of about anything happening? Very possible. Think if only 20,000 people existed? Nothing interesting would happen. People make the world and society into what it is, not the other way around. There's really nothing 'mythical' to it.

[insane]

I think that free will of any sort presupposes God's existence. If you believe in materialism, then humans are nothing more than atoms and molecules in a perpetual series of cause and effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if God exists, and humans are not purely material beings, then of course, we can have free will. I lean towards free will, but obviously external things affect our decisions hardcore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think hard determinism is something that is difficult to think about/grasp. Think about a court case. A criminal is presented before a judge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question: Why punish him if he didn't have a choice in the murder?

 

 

 

Answer: The judge didn't have a choice not to punish him. What a stupid question. But of course, is it really a stupid question, if they were predestined to ask it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dunno, hard determinism just seems to cross the line and violate basic beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course Death_by_Pod will come and argue that since we can never truly know the location of an electron based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we only have probabilities of an action being performed. However this is irrelevant to us making choices - all it means is that we can never truly know what a person will "not choose" ahead of time. The person cannot control where his electrons will end up.