[achtung]

Yeah, it's a tired old argument.

Yeah, I would to see some discussion about it here.

I would prefer an argument without scary sky beings.

I would argue that we are fully products of our environment, and that we are given only a glimpse of free-will through our wiring. Every decision we make is determined by our experience when we are presented with the choices, or we are pushed to an alternative decision by occasional random interactions with the products of, say, atoms in various states of decay interacting with the smaller structures of our meat. These random interactions are still acting as environmental factors pushing is to a decision, so it's still deterministic, just not as predictable.

I would write more, but I've just been pushed by my environment to write a philosophy paper so I was inspired by an environmental influence, and my previous conditioning pertaining to discussion on this forum, to create this topic.

[Scotty]

Put me in the free will camp, if only because without it, there would be no internal (read: moral/ethical) conflict on whether to undertake a given action.  Even considering that we may be genetically/environmentally pre-determined to favor certain outcomes, there is no guarantee.

[PsychoLandlord]

Free Will here as well. I've never gotten into the biological processes involved in decision making, so I'm sorry if thats the kind of response you expect, but I believe that based on how difficult it can be for a person to make a decision, especially once they begin thinking about more esoteric concepts such as morality and the well being of others, I don't see how a decision can be made the instant the problem becomes apparent simply due to the sum of all of the external stimuli you've experienced.

[achtung]

Free Will here as well. I've never gotten into the biological processes involved in decision making, so I'm sorry if thats the kind of response you expect, but I believe that based on how difficult it can be for a person to make a decision, especially once they begin thinking about more esoteric concepts such as morality and the well being of others, I don't see how a decision can be made the instant the problem becomes apparent simply due to the sum of all of the external stimuli you've experienced.

Yeah instant is poor wording, I think I'll remove that.

[zookeeper]

Both or neither. Compatibilism wins.

[Mefustae]

Both or neither. Cannibalism wins.

Fixed.

[Bobboau]

I'm a Compatibilist as well.

[Ravenholme]

I'm a Compatibilist as well.

Throw me in this camp as well, just looked it up, and it suits what I believe is the case.

[Bobboau]

for the lazy

[General Battuta]

Compatibilist, yes, but I think I'd say free will in the traditional sense of 'thought is acausal' does not exist. I don't think that's depressing, though: we can think of ourselves as RPG characters, with different stats that determine our reactions to situations we face in a unique but still predetermined manner.

[Bobboau]

my main problem with the classical dichotomy is that it reduced the meaning of free will to effectively stochastic random action, that your behavior now is unaffected by previous actions or events and is fully irrational, this does not seem to me to be an appropriate definition for the phrase 'free will'.

[Polpolion]

Doesn't really make a difference. What does make a difference is the fact that we've convinced ourselves that we have free will. This illusion allows our justice system, and really society as a whole, to function in the way that it does. And frankly that's good enough.

[Nuke]

i kinda think choices tend to make themselves. of course im not gonna site any intellectual hooey to prove it.

[Snail]

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter if my choices are predetermined so long as I think I'm the one making them.

[Ghostavo]

I'm for determinism. In fact, I'm for superdeterminism

[General Battuta]

I'm for determinism. In fact, I'm for superdeterminism

Huh! Cool. Here I was thinking strongly deterministic accounts were naive.

[General Battuta]

Put me in the free will camp, if only because without it, there would be no internal (read: moral/ethical) conflict on whether to undertake a given action.  Even considering that we may be genetically/environmentally pre-determined to favor certain outcomes, there is no guarantee.

Arguing how we want things to be for moral reasons seems tangential to describing how things actually are. It might be a nicer world with free will, but that's no evidence for strongly acausal free will.

[Scotty]

Pardon the ramblings of a sleep-deprived mind, but I wasn't trying to argue strongly acausal free will.  Just that our freedom to make choices exists within a framework built and structured out of genetic, environmental, and other learned factors.  That is to say, we are free to make choices, merely that those choices are heavily influenced by many factors to be predisposed toward one decision or another.

EDIT:  For example:  I do not steal things because I think it is wrong, due to the construction of my personal decision making matrix.  However, I could make the conscious choice to steal something.  Similarly, someone else raised in a place where there is no concept of ownership (woohoo, exaggerated examples!) might have no compunctions at all about stealing.  They can still make the choice not to, influenced by their own decision making matrix.

tl;dr, free-will guided by environment and other factors that predispose more likely actions to certain chioces, though alternate choices are entirely possible.

[Ghostavo]

I'm for determinism. In fact, I'm for superdeterminism

Huh! Cool. Here I was thinking strongly deterministic accounts were naive.

Just out of curiosity, why?

I know that quantum mechanics dealt a heavy blow to classic determinism, but why should less rigid deterministic views be any less valid than those using free will?

[General Battuta]

Pardon the ramblings of a sleep-deprived mind, but I wasn't trying to argue strongly acausal free will.  Just that our freedom to make choices exists within a framework built and structured out of genetic, environmental, and other learned factors.  That is to say, we are free to make choices, merely that those choices are heavily influenced by many factors to be predisposed toward one decision or another.

EDIT:  For example:  I do not steal things because I think it is wrong, due to the construction of my personal decision making matrix.  However, I could make the conscious choice to steal something.  Similarly, someone else raised in a place where there is no concept of ownership (woohoo, exaggerated examples!) might have no compunctions at all about stealing.  They can still make the choice not to, influenced by their own decision making matrix.

tl;dr, free-will guided by environment and other factors that predispose more likely actions to certain chioces, though alternate choices are entirely possible.

Well, is it really 'free will' in the classical sense if all actions are causally determined? You're making a good argument for complex contingent causes, mind, and one which I absolutely agree with, but not classical free will.

I'm for determinism. In fact, I'm for superdeterminism

Huh! Cool. Here I was thinking strongly deterministic accounts were naive.

Just out of curiosity, why?

I know that quantum mechanics dealt a heavy blow to classic determinism, but why should less rigid deterministic views be any less valid than those using free will?

I wasn't aware there was any real way to get around the failure of the hidden variables explanation. By no means am I in favor of free will, though, my comment about strong deterministic accounts as naive was more related to physics. Even if the strong deterministic view doesn't work I still don't think there's any such thing as acausal free will.