(Sorry 'bout that. Let's try this without the {code} tags. )

Definitions (from The American Heritage College Dictionary – Fourth Edition):
Determinism: “the philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act and decision, is the inevitable result of antecedent states of affairs.”
Free will: “The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by any agency such as fate or divine will.”

As I see it, a belief in determinism necessarily excludes any possibility of free will, whereas a belief in free will does not necessarily exclude the possibility determinism.

In other words, free will only says that some things have free will, whereas determinism says that all things must be deterministic.

Thus, an entity with free will can cause effects within a deterministic system, but that entity is not itself deterministic.

So the question is this:

“Can there exist any thing which is not deterministic?”

Of course there can never be proof either way, by the very nature of the two philosophies, but hey, that never stopped any of the great philosophers.

Free will does not exist(factual basis in actuality), and neither does determinism.

I think the debate itself has no practical use. How can one debate two different and opposing illusions of personal reality?



How are you doin' Sky?

I'm doin' ok Creative, how 'bout you?

I have to confess that I cannot even imagine the logic leading to, or the implications deriving from, your statement. Tell me more.

No thing can exist prior to the individual elements which, when combined, constitute that thing's existence.

In layman terms...

Before one can make a cake, the ingredients must exist.

I just do not believe that those are the only two choices Sky. That notion in and of itself is determinism, is it not?

It does not have to be either one, let alone one or the other.

What if the only place that either one exists is in the mind of the one who believes?

What if neither has a corresponding factual basis in actuality?

That looks to me like a simple rephrasing of the deterministic view. It presupposes that everything must be constituted of at least two elements.

(Interestingly, that has some aspects that sound suspiciously familiar to “agreement-created reality”.)

I don’t see it that way. I see the issue as relating directly to cause and effect. And the question there is simply: Is everything ultimately the effect of everything else, or can there be something that is not the effect of anything?

That would seem to me to be a fairly good argument for the existence of free will.

If that were true, I’d have to admit that “factual basis in actuality” is of no practical use to me personally.

I don't like the definition of "Free will" in this post.

“The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by any agency such as fate or divine will.”

What this definition implies is that divine will and my will are two different wills. Therefore it implies the existence of God and it implies that I am separate from that.

"The Will" is the power of self direction. This "self direction" is the power to make choices in regard to where one places ones attention or what one thinks about or how one might direct their feelings, energy or emotions.

What an individual actually does would depend upon the limitations and restraints of its environment from that point.

You might be bound, gagged, put in a cage, given no freedom, no rights, and have little chance to choose to do anything, but your strength (and freedom) of will is demonstrated by what you choose to think, how you choose to react, where you place your attention, and your attitude about your predicament etc.

Physical restrictions and limitations are only boundaries, they are not eliminating your will. Your will operates within its predicament. How it operates will determine its next predicament.

The will can be weak, or strong, but it is always and forever free. It is only the manifestation of the body and even the mind that can be limited by predicament.

Soul is free, spirit is free, will is free.

jb

Good point Jeannie. Although I personally didin't think that's what it meant, I can see how one could come to that conclusion.

I'm not sure about any of that, but I am determined to make up my own mind about it when I get motivated enough to gather the appropiae data, and then conclude that I should not consider any outside knowledge on the subject. Yep

Good thinking.

No, I dont believe there is anything which is not deterministic.

(lotus position Smiley here) As usual, good early answer Creative! I mainly agree because I can't help it. Reminds me though of some 18th or 19th century--I'm not googlin' it--who was a materialist, but found room for free will in the complexity of the human machine, that is, with so many gears, there would be slippage which would offer us the chance to make a choice now and then. I never gave him much more thought until time passed and I began working more with computers, and helping people with computers. One of the most common things I hear is: "It was working fine yesterday, but today it's different." So that philosopher's point seems to make more sense now. And then there is "spontaneous repair" my favorite computer work.

Flatline

The way you put that may be the key to the whole shebang - the existence or not of a non-deterministic entity/force/whatever is a "belief" as opposed to a "demonstrable fact".

I have deterministic free will

When I decide to do something.

I use that will with determination.

Can I propose a mix? It is evident that a casually connected line of reasoning is desired to describe reality. But could it be possible that the manner that the events are lined up is not written in stone? At each point or event of interaction, there would be some mechanism that lines up what will happen next, some evolution tendency of nature to select what is efficient at the moment.

On the personal level, I think that man is responsible for what environments he places himself in, but not for what happens there. So a guy can decide to go to a drinking party, but once there, he's hardly to blame for his drunkeness.

What??

He is totally responsible for his drunkeness. HE DRANK BY HIS OWN CHOICE.

In fact I will go so far as to say that he is entirely responsible for everything that happens to him.

Well, say he breaks his foot or something, or ruins his bank account, then sure. But is he responsible for being someone who happens to be in an environment where he expresses himself (through drunkeness) in a way that has social consequences. If he was born and shipped to another planet or isolation and disliked his drunkeness, and had some allowance that he used too quickly, he is responsible. But if he alternatively did not experience alcohol in his isolated environment, and did when he was with people on the earth, it is not his fault. It's a bad situation that leads to the drinking.

To put it another way, if the guy can control whether he goes to Mars or stays put and goes to the pub or makes a quick run for some cheap whiskey, then he is responsible. But if he's stuck in the everyday, with no prospects from getting away from the humdum of bad circumstances, and can't leave his environment, he is no more responsible than a grasshopper is for eating old plants in a poor field.

So to say man is responsible for everything is an overestimation of what a person can do. But everyone is responsible for the little they can do. If they can change themselves good, but the quality of people does not always facilitate this, especially as overpopulation makes more poor living conditions and social situations.

I don't believe in determinism. Some people claim that free will is an illusion. I think that is crap. It absolves everyone of all responsibility. Its crap.

I believe that a person is intimately involved in every event and experience he has an is a co-creator of that event and experience.

You may not be conscious of how you are responsible, but you are responsible on the subconscious level. This is where people want to place the blame on something else and claim that it is not their fault. I suppose it makes them feel better.

Here is what I think of Sam Harris's talk on Free will being an illusion:

http://mingle2.com/topic/377043

I totally love ur post jb. ...the soul, spirit, will is always free.