28

Most academic philosophers (around 60%, according to the PhilPapers survey) lean toward compatibilism: the view that determinism (which is what you are getting at, more or less) is compatible with free will. Think of it this way: even if every decision is determined (in the "determinism" sense of the word), it's still useful to distinguish between what you ...


16

Schiphol's answer is correct, in that you need to first say what kind of free will you're talking about. I'm going to answer your question assuming that you're talking about libertarian free will. It's the "real", pre-philosophical kind of free will that most people think that have. Ted Wrigley's answer is also correct, in that free will seems like something ...


10

We believe in free will because — aside from a few people with particular psychological conditions — we experience ourselves as beings capable of making choices and exercising free will. When someone brews a cup of coffee and drinks it, they do not generally think: That was not an action any agent took, but an event predestined since the beginning of ...


7

Short Answer There is no short and easy answer which is uncontroversial. Metaphysical presumptions lead to different answers with different levels of sophistication of theory based on such perspectives as compatibilists and non-compatibilists and variants thereof. The nature of causality and events is also controversial. Long Answer Take a step back and ...


6

I think this problem is actually a physical problem, not a statistical or philosophical problem. And I think you’ll get better answers than mine if you post this problem on Physics SE. All pro golfers, and all golfers who have a good form alike, always follow through after hitting the ball because that’s both the most effective way and the least injury-...


4

Once you be precise about what each of those terms mean, you would not be asking this question. Standard notions of determinism state that everything is determined, not just that some things are determined... For a better example than Ramsey's theorem, notice that whether you have free will or not, it always is the case in our world that something exists.


3

"We could have free will. Yet we are also bound to causality which makes the world determined. There is no reason to believe that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive" Good observation- At first it sounds like an outright contradiction in terms to place, free and determinism together. But Spinoza maintained that freedom and necessity ...


3

There are at the moment I'm writing this five six answers to this question. I'm not going to give you yet a sixth seventh guy's opinion... I think that's a bit useless (and you'll probably get at least a seventh an eighth); rather, I'm going to make an attempt to specifically address your concerns here. So let's start here. 1. The problem of determinism ...


3

I would say that any definition of free will would require a conscious beeing and that any object considered to posess a free will would have to be considered conscious. If we follow the opinion that consciousness is strongly emergent (which is a popular opinion) i would say this would allow for actual free will. If we follow the opinion that consciousness ...


2

Nietzsche's eternal return is a view that there are certain inevitable highs and lows in life that happen no matter how many times life is lived. As Emrys Westacott writes, the "heavy responsibility "(?) is to take a positive attitude to this predicament. the ultimate expression of a life-affirming attitude: to want this life, with all its pain and ...


2

Your position is one of the three sectarian views that lead to inaction that the Buddha declared 2500 years ago, in Anguttara Nikaya 3.61. That is the logical moral argument anyways.. The issue with the position that 'only the past affects the present and the future', is that it denies active choice in the present outright. But active choice (life) is shown ...


2

Here is an example of an argument against determinism and in favour of free will. In a deterministic universe the past, the present, and the future are all fully determined. This means that the total information content of the universe remains constant over time. For example, Laplace's demon would know everything about the future state of the universe, so ...


2

Reproducibility I think the other answers cover the more philosophical and logical aspects of the argument quite well. I would like to consider in more depth a particular claim that you made: If you would upload a brain to a computer and run it it would make the same decisions as the human version. The problem with this claim is that it is utter ...


2

If you define free will as the generation of decisions from nothing then you have begged the question as to free will's nonexistence, if you are also presuming that every event is generated from some prior event. When other respondents invoke quantum mechanics they are essentially attacking the latter point, i.e. determinism - that every event is generated ...


2

Even given: physicalism / existence monism; computationalism; and determinism, free will can still be shown to exist. (Relaxing these constraints should preserve the conclusion, though this is left as an exercise for the reader.) The argument goes like this: You have a brain. The process going on in your brain is what makes you you. The process going on ...


2

If an argument from Kant is old enough to count (this is implicitly from the Critique of Practical Reason): suppose that you ought not to do something S. Then, if, "You ought to X," implies, "It is possible for you to X," then it is possible for you to not do S. But suppose you end up S'ing. Since actuality implies possibility, it is ...


1

Two aspects of free will: Predictability of our brain computation: Our future behaviour can be computed all the way to our death, so in theory, someone can really look at us from the side, knowing what we will do next. In practice however, except for experiments with artificial brains inside artificial worlds, this is not, and will never be possible, due to ...


1

Your question falls apart with "you are free to choose whatever color you want,". This is basically an assumption of free will. You go on to point out all coloring schemes are constrained by your example to always have a blue or red triangle. Such examples are endless. If you have five balls to put in six boxes you will always have a box without a ...


1

Just because there are philosophical problems with freewill and determinism together, it does not mean there are problems with non-determinism and no freewill together. Non-determinism and no freewill don't have the same compatibility issues as freewill and determinism. Try to imagine a situation where some being doesn't have freewill. All its actions are ...


1

No, at least with reasonable definitions. Here's the problem: Causes are either deterministic or stochastic. Here are my definitions. Determinism is the notion that every specific effect has a sufficient antecedent cause Stochasticism is the notion that events are fundamentally unpredictable (what this means exactly can be discussed, but this is the ...


1

Your suggestion is that "whether to follow through or not" is causally inert, in that how hard and in what direction one hits the ball is the causal factor, not the specific psychological manner in which one translates the wish to putt into physical actions. That would imply that the reason, therefore, shouldn't be considered a cause if we're being ...


1

If someone is a true determinist, then they hold for some variant of eternalism, the future is no different to the present and the past, modifying it is meaningless. That does not imply they act without self-motivation or agency, the external in your question assumes they are separate from the rest of the univers, you can solve that by understanding they are ...


1

You have kind of answered the question yourself, you can't do any if the things you propose in order to prove that free will doesn't exist, therefore you have no objective way to prove your premise is correct, so you have no basis to make the claim in the first place


1

Assume everything is deterministic as proposed except for me. Then your proposal is predestined rather than being a result of genuine reasoning, as are the opinions of everyone who disagrees. The exception is necessary for me to figure this out instead of being predestined.


1

EDIT 2019-12-22 If C is a cause in a non-deterministic system leading to mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive outcomes Y and Z, and at time T, C causes Y, to answer the question why Y and not Z will inevitably be a function of the context. That is to say, your example of a causal system is an abstraction, and the only answer in the abstract sense is ...


1

Let's start with a reference, then think things through indepenently: Leibniz presents the Principle of Sufficient Reason as holding universally within the created world. He gives us various formulations of it; examples are 'Nothing is without a reason', and 'Nothing takes place without a sufficient reason, that is, nothing happens without ...


1

(I am an incompatibilist - libertarian free will and not determinism. ) Let me rephrase the arguments using modal logic. (If an action is a contingent action then it is possible that it occurred and possible that it not occurred. If an action is necessary then it is impossible that it did not occur.) Premise 1: If one acts out of one's free will, then one's ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible