determinism vs free will

it seems that most of my thoughts if not all, are based on the idea that everything is predictable and looking at some sources the only source of of disagreement seems to be free will.

i would say that this is like the god vs science quarrel each of them are unable to be verified but i predict that determinism will prevail as the line of thought between academics.

why? it is a necessary attribute of the human being or any intelligent organism to try and control its environment but this is impossible to do if the human cannot predict what an outcome will be upon doing something.

what would you be if you could never predict something accurately? water is going to quench my thirst, if i move my feet like this ill get over there, if i move my mouth and exale air in this way the other person will react this way. (understand what you say).

“the function of every animal is to control its environment”

now i would also argue that we are genetically designed to see patterns and to see patterns between this patterns, this is because of asociative learning. in essence we give meaning to relations not the the individual stimuli perceived.

logic is also derived from genetics and it is the reason determinism has risen.

but like everything else logic like maths is a tool to predict nature.

“logic and maths are free willers biggest enemies”

this op is not really to discuss the validity of determinism over free will but rather to discuss whether we are designed to persue determinism.

anyway do you believe determinism will prevail over free will?

If by “free-will”, you are referring to a will that is free from causation (and I assume that you are), then even though such a thing cannot and does not exist, the idea of it throughout society will be promoted by religious decree even within Science and philosophy.

There is a rather constant war between rationality (logic) and religious decree. That war is entirely one of domination by one party using every conceivable trick to get the masses to forget about thinking rationally/logically so that those people can then be manipulated, extorted, and fed upon. This war of domination has been going on for thousands of years.

As to who will win, it is a matter of social momentum and strategies. Because it is always easier to confuse an issue than clarify it, the irrationality promoters have the upper hand. Because it has been going on for so long, evolution has produced a great many people who are more easily persuaded by irrational thought than those persuaded by rational thought, thus again, the irrationality party has the upper hand merely due to the number of people, the masses to assist in their momentum.

In the long run, this contest ends with the end of homosapian as a species.“Irrationality” wins.

So who has really won?

You’re implying that if determinism is true then free will is false and that if free will is true then determinism is false. This is nonsensical because in a random universe free will is as much of a logical impossibility as in a deterministic universe. I wish people would get this once and for all.

And yes, it is true that we are a pattern-seeking species. That’s why we tend to see agency everywhere. Nothing new there.

Everything that happens is due either to the necessity or to the chance.

The chance is insuppressible, because even if we exclude it in the present, we find again it as origin: we are by chance here…
The chance, the sheer chance that will never be bridled by the probability, is however totally incomprehensible.
Therefore our world seems governed by the necessity (being the chance deliberately ignored).

The necessity is the conditional one, while free will is the unconditional one par excellence!
(While the change doesn’t have anything to do neither with the conditioned one neither on the unconditional one…)

Reflecting deeply around the free will and its impossibility we come in a limit-situation, where our essence is at stake. There, the Existence can turn up affirming: "I am! Against any evidence. And I am because I am free!”

This way making, the Existence breaks ours “being here” and it casts a glance at her Transcendence.

It’s not exactly random, since the perception of the non-random is perfectly possible.

Yes, it is possible to understand things as free just as much as it is possible to understand things as determined, but things are likewise no more random or non-random than free or determined.

It’s correct to challenge the assumption that there is a single truth that is either one way or the other, simply because truths can always be turned on their head with a simple reversal of values - and with a little usefulness they can even become believed in.

Determinism is currently the most useful to intellectuals, so it is not surprising that it is dominant amongst them.
By contrast, free will is the most useful to creative and/or simple folk who either prefer to avoid the complexities of intellectual pursuits or do not wish to be bound by them.

I think a mixture of each of these types is optimal or at least realistic, so I don’t think one will prevail over the other - not without the kind of forced mental cleansing that James would seem to support.

I wish someone could make sense of it. :-k

I think what he might be saying is that free will is inconsistent with an absolutely casual world, as much as in a world where contingent events seem to allow for the illusion of free-will.

I’m either too tired to understand what you just said or this post has very little actual content.

Deterministic universe = determined will
Random universe - random will


Well it isn’t the latter, so presumably it’s the former.

The “actual content” was simple content, however. I was just describing how the world isn’t “this” or “that”, it is just possible to think of it as “this” or “that” in order to understand it. Which one you choose is up to your value set.

Free universe - Free will.

…I’m still not getting your point. :-s

Are you arguing that there is no such thing as objectivity ?

“Free universe” ?
Ok James. I’m for sure taking you seriously now.

My point was that I still have no idea what you intended to say.

But obviously the universe is far from being random, so I don’t see how “random universe” ever got into this.

I prefer the determined view, but it’s more likely both. I don’t see much of absolute anything conceptually. Since nothing is proven on this topic, they are both still dead end concepts.

Do I think logic will win? Yes. At the price of emotional loss. When man becomes more machine. Victory? Yet, to be seen.


Our only access to supposed “objects” is as part of our subjective perception (that cannot have any access to anything but itself). The way in which we understand objects is through our subjective sensory faculties (and logical faculties ONLY given our subjective sensory faculties to apply logic to).
To then propose objectivity is to turn this on its head and say that since we have an idea of objects as part of our subjectivity, then objects must exist independently of our subjectivity! Because y’know, our subjective perception of objects is still similar enough to our subjective memory if we look away and look back, and our subjective social instinct to value our subjective perception of someone saying “I still perceive it” when we do not must override our own logic that our sole access to any “truth” originates in our subjective perception that in this case “does not still perceive it”. The use and simplicity in being social rather than logical is no grounds to override the origin of being able to do this at all. But then there’s no objective imperative to base things on logic - that’s just my subjective preference.

You’re probably too tired to make much sense of that too.

Basically, from this, we can conclude that there is no objective existence of “free will” or “determinism”, only the subjective possibility to choose either interpretation according to what use you want to get out of it, either intentionally or not.

So therefore, to counter nano-bug, it’s more likely neither, not both.

Same thing.

What I said was pretty self-evident so I’m not buying that.

It got into this because people think determinism is the number one enemy of free will as if the other alternatives (randomness or a mix of determinism and randomness) changed anything.

Do you get it now or do I have to make some sort of sign language video for you ? :-k

Well, then I’m not interested in anything else you have to say. No offense.

so basically free will is illogical, regardless of the premise, why is this so?

although your piece is contradictory it seems, you say its nonsensical but then you say it is impossible in a deterministic world. that it is also impossible in a random world does not make the statement nonsensical, it just means that there are other conditions that render it impossible.

for example a human living without oxygen is as much as an impossiblity as living without water.

this does not make any of them false please explain.