Stat and only Humean, I’m not asking whether you think free will with determinism is true or possible, I’m asking for your opinion on the issue, what you think would be necessary for us to have free will. But never mind it’s clear you don’t have an opinion or you are unable to commit yourself to one, I’ll just take it you are undecided on the issue because of definition issues and leave it at that. I’m not trying to get into a debate over who’s read the most definitions or who thinks what is what in philosophy, we all, I presume, know pretty much who thinks what and some of it is more intriguing than others. What I want to know and hence the poll is what you think. Which you’ve pretty much said by skirting around the issue so job done.
Xunzian I think that compatibilism was nothing more than a way to avoid admitting that determinism and free will are somewhat incompatiblem but that’s religion for you, it’s nothing if not apologetic.
Classical civilisations ie Greece, Rome generally believe only the gods were free and we could not be, for we lived at their whims. Seldom would we be able to escape our fate and only then with the help usually of a god. But that’s by the by, that’s more fate than determinism exactly.
I agree that Christian ideas of what constitutes free will are useless if you are not Christian and somewhat conflicted if you are.
I’m not a Christian though so no problems there, it probably helps to explain why I believe in libertarian free will or nothing too, whether it is ultimately ever provable or not is moot.
Hmmm probably a more scientific approach so I’d go for something probabilistic about the fundamental nature of reality. Not a dualist by any means.
I gave you my opinion on several different definitions. I also explained why I wasn’t avoiding the question (the “James” part). I also asked why you assume your definition of free will actually describes something that exists. And now I’m the one skirting around the issue
“Free will” does not refer to one thing. You are referring to one thing in your question. Which one?
It doesn’t avoid it at all; it states it, assuming you mean “free will” in the incompatibilist sense of some internal prime-motive force. And if that’s what you mean, your OP question is clear.
I foresee a problem… “Something probabilistic” is fairly vague; there’s non-determinate (as in radioactive decay) or indeterminate (quantum indeterminacy). In any case, we have to have an influence on them. If you’re not a dualist, what is the “we” that influences them?
I’d disagree with that. You’ve got numerous cases in the Epics where the gods are bound by fate. There are other instances where the gods control fate. Likewise, you’ve got numerous instances where humans are bound by fate and others where humans control fate. It isn’t a clear-cut matter of freedom vs. determinism. They bleed into each other.
Right, but as a non-Christian, why engage in the discussion of free will, being as it is so hopelessly mired in Christian thought? Hence my description of it as a post-Christian hangover. Libertarian free will only makes sense if we are free from something. If there is nothing to be free from, the question is nonsensical.
If our behavior is not subject to antecedent conditions then how can it possibly be distinguished from blind luck or random occurences. What you propose is a will that pops in and out of existence and has no relation to what we are biologically. You do not make the will free by getting rid of the fact that our behavior is subject to antecedent conditions, you get rid of will altogether. How could we possibly align ourselves with something that is not mechanistic and is not subject to antecedent conditions. Antecedent conditions are how we understand the world, what we use to deliberate and reason, and as a point on it’s own it is a straightforward contradiction in terms to say that we can " choose to do" anything without antecedent conditions playing a role.
Yes, this is a compatibalist definition of free will through and through. All that is required for my will to be free is I have wants, I am capable of acting on those wants, and I acted on those wants because they were mine. If you take away antecedent conditions then wants don’t get to play a role, nor does someone acting because of those wants. It would be impossible to align oneself or identify with your own behavior.
This is an outdated way of formulating the question of free will. This is the question that Descartes and the early moderns were asking, and they were only asking this question because they had to. Because the human body and the mechanisms and forces at work in it had not yet been sufficiently illuminated by science and investigation. Asking this question gets us the pineal gland. Now the question has changed because of advancements in our knowledge of the body and the brain. We no longer ask this ungrounded metaphysical question that results in alienating theories, instead we ask questions like this: “I feel like I have free will, what process within me generates it”. Do you see, we’re going to the source for the answer, not formulating definitions of free will that require us to either abandon it altogether or dedicates us to untenable worldview defying understandings of volition. We are asking a grounded question because we can.
There are “incompatibalist” formulations of free will under this new question, it just happens that they rely on science and how we actually function, rather than positing some speculative system that has no relation to how we actually view ourselves.
Ok Humean I’m quite certain you don’t want to explain your own opinion exactly so fair enough. I was really looking for more of a, I think that x is necessary for free will to exist because of y sort of thing. But if you want to make it a what is free will and does it exist rather than as intended what do you think, please vote or post sort of thing so be it.
To be frank past conditions are so complex its impossible to imagine how the brain could take account of them in a fashion that wasn’t prone to some sort of random chance occurences, and also the sheer number of things that can happen that are not determined also makes the idea that everything is causal and mundane somewhat old fashioned. And in fact the way the brain appears to operate is very close to chaos at all times, being as this state is the most able to adapt, it is not chaos, rather organised “randomness.”
No frankly Stittkleit I think you’re getting bogged down in things that are pretty much superfluous, when I say what would it take to have free will I don’t mean what would it take in 1497 but now, you’re not really answering anything, just dancing around like Humean and refusing to commit. If that’s what you are saying then so be it you have no opinion, I get it.
However you want to phrase the question I’m pretty sure you know exactly what I mean and are just avoiding answering it, if that’s what you want to do then fine. The question is what would it take to have free will and what is your, ie what you think about the subject, ie your opinion.
They influence us and we them. An observer and the system are part of the same process of measurement.
Also please note I had two conditions in the op:
The ability to realise multiple outcomes for any action, and not be prohibited by constraints other than your own.
The ability to theoretically travel back in time and lead a completely different life according to which choices you make.
So it’s not just being free of prohibition by constraints, it’s having more than one outcome possible from a set of initial conditions on which we choose, of course in a causally deterministic system this is impossible a follows b, whether we are aware of that or not cause leads to effect. Ie libertarian free will is completely dismissive of the idea of determinism and it’s starting point is determinism must not be a strict part of the laws of nature, for us to be free at least part of the conditions involved in the process of choice must involve chance of some kind. Be it a probabilistic event of some kind at the level of the very small, ie a neurone or a series of neurones or even the even smaller interconnections between neurones, or something that is effected at our normal scale level by such occurrences.
What does “brain take into account” mean? The brain is part of the antecedent conditions. How it is organized, what neural pathways are active, ect., these are an important part of the antecedent conditions. You don’t make sense here.
Determined and not determined? I’m not dealing in determinations and neither are any of the contemporary accounts of free will, what we are dealing in is weather behavior is subject to antecedent conditions such that if you change the antecedent conditions you will change the behavior. If changing the antecedent conditions do not change the behavior, as you propose, then I cannot identify with the behavior because there was no reason for it.
I got the soda because I was thirsty, I knew the soda would quench the thirst, the soda was what I wanted to quench my thirst, and I acted in accordance with all these motivations of mine. Not, I got the soda because my “will” popped into existence without reference to my prior states and ‘determined’ me to do so, if such a formulation of the will could even be considered “mine” to begin with.
Huh, what are you talking about. The point was that the question you were asking is outdated because it is posing the problem in a convoluted and unnecessary way that asks us to speculate about what is metaphysically necessary for free will. It is a non started question because we don’t have to speculate anymore, we know enough about how we work that we can look to ourselves to discover what we mean by free will.
Put it this way, I either think that I experience free will or I don’t. If I ask your question, and I think I experience free will, then my response can and probably will be some sort of metaphysical stuff about a super ambiguous will, which will then dedicate me to thinking ridiculous stuff about myself. Stuff which defies all other knowledge I have about how I work, and doesn’t fit into a coherent worldview. I will, like everyone asking this question, define free will as a level of control that human beings are not capable of, which will result in me either defining free will as something that is impossible, which is pointless and counterproductive, or it will result in me attributing to humans some sort of metaphysical entity that there is no reason to have in the first place.
However, if I think there is free will, and I ask a grounded question such as “oh there’s free will, which part of me is it”, then I’m actually investigating something about myself that doesn’t end up dedicating me to some theory which defies the rest of my worldview.
No guy, I already answered it: All that is required for my will to be free is I have wants, I am capable of acting on those wants, and I acted on those wants because they were mine.
Plainly if it is organised or functions in a way that is not deterministic but somewhat probabalistic only in a small part of the process then determinism is false as regards brain function, the sheer complexity is merely something which would make chance occurrences more likely to happen; if it’s possible to go back in time run the brain again and see it make a different choice.
I’m not really interested in what terms you think I should use cause and effect or determined, or whatever to be honest. I think you know full well what I mean and this is getting rather tiresome.
What flavour, did someone already drink all the sodas, did that leave you with no soda, or did you go out and buy them. Given the same situation again would you make the same choice, given a much more complex situation involving millions of variables would one small change be enough even at the neuronal level to change the whole future. This is what I was driving at.
I don’t think that is an answer, I could have wants, but I could still be an automaton doomed to do nothing but that which my programmes algorithms allowed me to do within the parameters, it’s not an answer it’s a compatibilist cop out. Compatibilists say that even if we are nothing but biological machines preprogrammed by causality we are free. It’s nonsense and no one would accept freedom under those conditions unless they enjoyed being a slave to their DNA.
I don’t care what you think about its relevance, read into what I meant what you will I’m getting bored of this whole you mean this or that thing, it’s a waste of my time so if your done , goodbye. Making up what I meant for me; hence you don’t really need me to be here do you, I’m sure just endlessly repeating strawmen only requires yourself. I’d of appreciated if you’d stop fannying around and just simply stated what you believe and why, it is after all the thread topic. And explained what it would take to make you free in your opinion, whether in highly technical scientific terms or not, but I can see that is not going to happen. Good luck with rewriting this to mean whatever it is you think it does. I’m not a big fan of analytically trite nonsense for the sake of it. If you want to do that by all means, but you could just ask me what I mean instead of making meaningless assumptions as if it in any way reflects what I’m talking about even slightly. I didn’t write:
Do you believe in free will by which I mean the modern interpretation of the issue and not according to some numb nuts from the past, If so could you explain in either scientific or philosophical terms what you think it would take to agree with what you think is a viable definition of free will as in the 21st century rather than the past.
For the very reason that anyone with any sense already knows what it is I was talking about in the OP. I didn’t want to get bogged down in technicalities because I just wanted to ask peoples opinions.
You believe that compatibilism is true, and that to have free will having an actual choice which could realise different outcomes whether we are aware of it or not, is irrelevant. In other words, it is unnecessary for us to have a future that is anything but dependant on the past and will proceed from A to Z with regularity no matter how many times we replay the tape. At least you answered the question clearly, finally even if it is the usual compatibilist free will equals nothing like free will. This is another reason why I think libertarian free will is the only viable alternative to being nothing more than a set of genetic codes that dictate everything we are or will do from birth to death. Compatibilism is depressing and answers nothing about what most people who are not philosophers would take freedom to mean.
But it can’t control the choice. Unless you’re a dualist and the choice is soms spiritual thing; the choice is simply a roll of the dice rather than predetermined.
Perhaps the number of people who “don’t get it” is an indication of the question. If it’s a simple, straightforward question that everyone should understand, why can’t you explain it in a simple, straightforward way? It’s a sign that you don’t really know what you mean yourself. Not clearly. I may be wrong, and would be delighted to be proved so.
What is the modern interpretation of free will? Help me out here, I may be lost in the old arguments and unable to see what you mean. What is it you are assuming the existence of?
So if it is a roll of the dice then predeterminism is false, that’s what I said. The very fact that an event unfolded unpredictably means you had a choice, and by chance and by design you made it. Unless you are suggesting that any choice that relies on a partially chancy system must be totally random, or not involve any decision making process, my brain might throw up the random idea that I should throw myself off a bridge and I might do it or not, but usually my survival instincts would dismiss this random suicidal impulse as silly. Inspiration may well be an example of ideas seemingly coming from nowhere, or the rather chancy nature of the unconscious. It’s just not possible to know for sure thus belief.
My conditions are the future has multiple realisable events. And that we are not constrained in our choice which kind of follows from that.
No it’s a sign of you boring me and me not being willing to explain it beyond what is something people already know, and or you giving me my argument in lieu of an actual argument. Like I said I’m asking you what you think free will is I don’t need to define what it is because that’s what you are meant to do. I defined it and you’re free to pick holes in it, but I see no reason to indulge in mindless semantics when people know what the terms mean and how to explain them in “modern” terms.
I have no idea or really any will to continue any more all this going round in circles definition crap has left me feeling that analytical philosophy is ultimately pointless. But there we go.
I think analysing peoples ideas to the point of redundancy and making rather odd tangential conjectures as to meaning is pointless personally but hell knock yourself out. Sometimes just asking what someone means saves hours of wasted and rather pointless discussion about nothing.
Even if there was no conscious part of a chancy process like the decision process it still makes libertarian free will viable under my criteria. That said as I said in my edit I really don’t think thought is purely random. I think it is a feedback set of processes based on examining several possibilities before we even become aware of them, and then taking time to think about such events even then. If any of these processes are chancy then there is a chance that it will be caught in one step of the process and analysed; this in itself opening up different possibilities and ideas than a simple deterministic process.
For some part of the process it might be pretty much determined, but for some parts of the process their could be a random element that iteratively lead to millions of possibilities for consideration, more than would if there were just deterministic option. Ultimately this would end up in a several conscious decisions and one action. This means that there are parts of the process where the initial thought is dependant on experience at a subconscious level, and part of the process usually but not entirely consciously where the current situation is analysed. There is a choice at all stages because it is not a linear process, but a process that iteratively leads to a decision, that may take a few decisions into a account or hundreds, both at the conscious and subconscious level. By the way I don’t think there’s any real physical distinction between conscious and subconscious it’s more of a term denoting what we are aware of and not aware of, it’s all part of the same overall process.
Think of one of those loop algorithms where the end is a decision and the beginning is an event requiring a freely willed choice. Each step is one stage of your life or choice event.
I don’t expect anything but an answer from you about what you think, so we’re done anyway.
What does “somewhat probabilistic” mean, and what reasons are there to think this is how it works. How could it work, where is this probability introduced. What does “go back in time and run the brain again” even mean. You’re introducing unexplained term after unexplained term into the discussion, without any reasoning for their use or telling me what they are supposed to mean. You’re just sort of throwing ideas out there, and I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
You could mean by “somewhat probabalistic” that free will is introduced by quantum uncertainty, like contemporary incompatabilitists hold, but these accounts are highly mechanistic such that any abberations are built into an otherwise mechanistic account. Such accounts will hold that the quantum uncertainty is a product of the system itself, so in a sense the uncertainty itself a result of how the system works at a mechanistic level. Or rather, mechanistic processes are not wholey mechanistic and have elements of uncertainty in them, and this element is what we call free will. What is important here is that any uncertainty is built into the processes that make you up such that you can identify and align yourself with them.
For example, if I’m angry and hit a table, there are quantum fluctuations in energy at work such that even though I didn’t intend to hit the table with enough force to break it, and normally I wouldn’t, a spike in energy resulted in me breaking the table. The question then is, was it my fault that I broke the table, or did forces outside my control intervene leaving me innocent in the act. From the standpoint of an observer I am responsible, and without getting over complicated I could not convince them that it wasn’t my fault. The fact is that I would align myself with the act of breaking the table because the spike up in energy was a part of the act itself. That I didn’t mean to break the table doesn’t change the fact that I was the one who hit it, and I was the one who broke it.
Now, if I cross apply this case to the process in my brain, it could be the case that quantum uncertainty works in a functionally equivalent way. Two competing pathways light up that will eventually result in my behavior, and which one wins out is produced, so to speak, but a quantum fluctuation. But the important part once again is that both these competing behaviors are things that I want to do, things that issue from who I am and my antecedent conditions, and whichever one wins out is still something that I want to do and issues from me despite the fact that it won out because of quantum uncertainties.
On the other hand, and this is how you are coming off, “somewhat probabilistic” could simply mean that you think there is free will, and you also think that free will is incompatible with antecedent conditions, so you want to unify the two beliefs by introducing undeveloped concepts. This plays in will with your insistence on using “determined”, and your overall attitude.
This is not a case of me simply preferring one term over another. Saying that our behavior is determined is a very different thing than saying it is subject to antecedent conditions. One is an anthropomorphism that requires serious assumptions about how nature works, and the other is a description.
You’re driving at nothing here. Yes, the account is far more complex that I made it out to be, but listing every variable for any given circumstance is unnecessary. The point to be made is that me getting the soda was subject to antecedent conditions that influenced me getting that soda. If there are millions, then there are millions, if you change one of those millions and that one was relevant then my behavior changes.
Saying we are slaves to DNA is like saying we are slaves to who and what we are. It does not make sense, and demands a level of control that only exists in metaphysics. I already predicted this as the result of how you ask the question. You are forced to posit untenable concepts.
You don’t understand do you, when I say that X if free will I literally mean X is free will. I don’t mean I’ve settled for X because I couldn’t achieve the level of metaphysical control that you want, I mean all that is necessary for free will to exist is that I want something, and I’m capable of acting in accordance with those wants, and I do act in accordance with those wants in order to obtain the thing. That puts free will in the domain of what humans are and what they are capable of. What this means, and this is what I tried to explain to you with the way you posed the question, is that I literally think you are just making shit up that has no relation to reality. You are forcing yourself to assume that free will is either impossible or that humans fit some ridiculous definition of control becaues of the way you ask the question.
…and this is why you remain disappointed by the answers you are reading. That is an absurd question, even if for no other reason than you literally giving guidelines as to how we should be answering. However, if you want a formulaic answer, I’ve got an easy one for you:
I think that complete absence of the concepts of “will” and “freedom” is necessary for free will to exist because the idea associated with the combination of the two terms already means nothing.
That is not to say free will = nothing or null, but rather that the concept in itself is both fictional and meaningless. The idea of “free will” is primarily a means by which to measure our susceptibility to influence, regardless of how you define the source(s) of that influence. In other words, the concept is a standard by which we may compare and evaluate the manner/degree of oppression in our lives - that’s it.
“Free will” is like the idea of ‘infinity’. By no means do we have any real knowledge of the concept. We just use it as a fixture to measure our perceived distance from it.
At any point you have a range of options; you choose one, neglect the rest. I took your hypothesis as saying that when you have several choices of similar value, the one you pick is random. However, you nuance it here - the chance of taking a consideration into account is random, once the considerations are assembled there is a (presumably deterministic) evaluation process that guides you. Do I understand you correctly?
Nonlinearity and iteration are still deterministic steps, though. They might be so chaotic that we can say nothing in specific cases, of course, but that’s not the point in question. If you zoom in on exactly the same point of a Mandelbrot set you’ll get exactly the same swirly pattern. Snowflakes in storms follow chaotic but deterministic paths.
The question for free will as you present it is “is the choice determined by the initial conditions?” Even if it’s an iterative, nonlinear, discontinuous process it is still determinate. Unless there is a random element that is not dependent on the initial conditions, you don’t get indeterminacy.
Pragmatically, what does it matter to you if free will is determinate? What benefit do you gain from considering yourself to behave randomly rather than determinately (yet chaotically)?
That doesn’t help, I’m afraid, as you’ve put “a freely willed choice” in there
That’s, um, kind of the point of discussion, isn’t it?
No I’m attacking compatibilism, incompatibilism is fine by me. I see so you’re also a hypocrite it’s fine to attack my version of free will but I can’t attack yours.
I didn’t want it like this anyway, I just wanted people to discuss what they believed, and perhaps have a discussion about why they are flawed, not it to devolve into a bit of a patronising mess from people who are just, if you ask me, messing around to try and avoid answering anything or further muddy everything so it becomes a pointless mess for their own personal amusement. And most people realise compatibilism is merely shifting the goal posts so that you can score regardless to be honest, it becomes logical only if you restrict what free actually means to most people.
You created a thread like this it really is not my problem and I really don’t care any more. Good luck and you’re welcome to it. Analytical philosophy is fine up to a point but let’s face it who the hell cares what you think I mean when you are just mostly giving me my arguments as if somehow I meant anything at all like that, which grinds the whole discussion down to one long mess of arm waving about what you think I mean and me saying strawman, how pointless is that, kinda gets boring? Sad that this is considered reasoned in modern philosophy, I’m sure you think this is derrigeur and the correct way to suppose an argument by breaking it down to semantic arguments, but I think we can dispense with a few concerns and take them as axioms. It seems to me your method is: don’t answer anything just tie everything up in semantic nonsense and pretend you are being clever.
Anyway:
If the first step was freely willed there was a random element and then the last step was to evaluate the freely willed first step from the perspective of the random part and the initial thought according to a feedback loop with past experience, then that has both a random element and is freely willed.
At no point was anything truly random nor was it either truly deterministic. No matter how much you want to believe it is. Even if the initial idea subconsciously sprang from a real world event modified by experience and had some form of randomness to what options would be presented, none the less if other options that are deterministic are still presented also then the evaluation process at the conscious level is a dynamic feedback process between two systems, where one is constantly feeding backwards and forwards new suggestions as the thought process progresses, some of which are randomly selected and some of which are the results of experience or neurones that are interconnected in some way.
I don’t see this as either a deterministic system nor a full probabilistic one.
I’m kinda bored by this and it’s going nowhere fast, kinda stymied by the A patrol. I’ll leave you to it I’m sure you can find some semantic reason why a partly deterministic and partly probabilistic system is really deterministic, if you try hard enough. But the fact remains even if it was just chance then according to my definition of free will, you are free, all it requires is for determinism to be false and for any action to be multi realisable if we go back in time. So that’s that really.
Kinda bored now I’ll leave you to your semantics. Have fun.
Also if anyone actually wants to answer the OP question feel free.
Ie. what do you believe free will is in the 21st century as a modern concern not the past, and not anything about Hume, Kant or any of those old dudes, right. So if we take it as red that you have an opinion, and are capable of expressing it simply or in as complicated a fashion as you wish what is it? Of course implicit in this question is the idea that before you go onto attacking anyone’s suppositions it might be nice, although not required for you to tell us what you think and why and perhaps vote on the poll. If not then it defeats the purpose of the thread and makes it a bit of a derail or this might as well be merged with the 700 festivals of the unknown AKA known as does free will exist threads . But meh stuff happens then you get you get killed by the crossfire in a gang war. Redundancy, there’s nothing more redundant than it sort of by definition, note the example of redundancy for your own reference.
EDIT: oh and feel free to attack the OP, although that really isn’t the point of the thread either. Might make a nice change of pace.
The point is that “free will” is whatever you want it to be; you can justify it however you see fit – it all depends upon your grounding.
This is not a debate over semantics. In order to consider the existence of “free will” possible, one must presuppose certain conditions to be true. Namely that “freedom” exists, the “will” as we understand it exists, reality is as we perceive it (as it pertains to these concepts at least), and the particular set of conditions needed for the will to be free is a logical possibility.
Well, which “axioms” would you like readers to adopt for the sake of this discussion?
The problem in this case is not dialectic, it seems like a general lack of understanding in regards to what you are presupposing and why. I hardly understand the OP simply because I fail to see any logical backing to your “definitions”.
Once again presupposing conditions that don’t exist as if you really know what I am thinking or saying, like someone who actually has omniscience.
Stop prejudging people you’ll live longer sometimes it’s a means to an end. Judge me and I’ll ad hominem you.
No it is you missed the point. it’s a debate over opinions or beliefs, or it was meant to be.
None that’s the point and it’s now been made at least half a dozen times. But if you want to discuss definitions feel free. The Op Was set up with minimum information so as not to presuppose an analysis based on definitions that were agreed on. The axioms are that, that we can agree to what certain things meant, ie that I was talking about the here and now in my definition not Aristotle’s views.
The point was I wanted to know what you thought, not what you read. But never mind, I guess you missed that.
Chester just summed it up beautifully, I’m not interested in what you know about the issue but what you think about the issue given what you know. And you’ve pretty much said that.
I’m perfectly relaxed, but prodding analytical philosophers who spend all their time with definitions is kinda fun. They are missing the point of this thread, but hell they are funny.
It’s like the whole continental analytical debate, as if it actually matters, chose what you will from whom you will, there are some fine analytical philosophers and some bad ones, just as there are some fine continental ones and bad ones. This whole idea that you have to just be one or the other is frankly nonsense. Sometimes people get too caught up in semantics and miss the point. I think you have.
I don’t care what you think of my definition just what you know besides, we already agree randomness = free will under my definition so not really an issue.
We know this but why you insist on stating the obvious over and over again I somewhat have lost the reasoning behind since it’s been said several times already by both of us in one way or another.
I notice you never attacked my points. Not that it matters they are construed, so if they are true then it follows free will exists, in a random system or otherwise under my initial conditions.
I still would like you to justify why compatibilism is reasoned given that most people would disagree with the premise: freed will is only being able to chose without coercion, but that is for the other threads.
Not that I want to make a fallacy on the popularity argument but here it is relevant; I can’t see how compatibilism works, you’re pretty much a slave to your deterministic universe, you just don’t know it or care, for you that is enough one step after another to your inevitable conclusion, seeing choice and thinking you have it, but all you ever are is deterministically following your DNA or your path from a to z not a to x. Sure the issue is if you think that is enough but if you told someone, almost anyone that from the moment they were born to the moment they die, everything is causally just so and you cannot change it, do you think they would consider themselves free at all?
