Middleground between Fate and Free Will

I have always been an advocate of free will. However, I also understand that all events are physically caused by previous events, meaning even our actions and decisions must be predestined. For a long time I had no clue which of these I thought was more correct. Now, I realize that both can be right. I believe that all of my decisions are at least predestined in probabilities. It is more probable that I will finish typing this sentence than it is that I will decide to bust my head through the computer screen, or that I might decide to do a billion other outcomes. If it is probability, then I can overcome all odds and decide to do something very improbable. If fate has less to do with probability, and the outcomes are inevitable as the ONLY possible outcomes, then I still have free will. I still can make decisions with free will because I do not know the destined outcomes. My ignorance of the future gives me the equivalent of free will. Basically, the predestined nature of my life does not matter to me, has no affect on my process of making decisions or make my choices any less meaningful.

I know there are many things that are out of my control, and that lots of factors are probabilistic, predestined, or unchangeable. But within these limitations, I have an illusion of freedom of choice caused by my own ignorance. That is good enough for me.

Science says the future is “already there”, so the dice have already been rolled for those probabilities you mention.

Science may say it, but science certainly can’t prove it.

Yet it seems justifiable to think so. While the opposite belief is guided by hope and exists in the gaps of ignorance. It seems reasonable to me to assume that man is as capable of self-determination as everything else made up of the same stuff as him. I’m not asking for the opposition to prove a negative, just to show that there’s something fundamentally different about man. Failing that, I think my assumption is a good.

Alot of computation goes into you making a choice and taking action. What your aware of is a decision, but your not aware of what makes you do the decision. Can freedom be about things your not aware of?

Alot of computation goes into you making a choice and taking action. What your aware of is a decision, but your not aware of what makes you do the decision. Can freedom be about things your not aware of?
[/quote]
I’m certainly aware of some of the things, even if I’m not aware of all of them. I may not be aware of the neurobiology behind my decision to get a degree in philosophy from school x, but I know some of the other reasons I chose that major (a passion for the subject) at that school (hot girls, top ranked, etc.)

Again, I know that there are many things that are predestined, that many factors (including neurobiological events) cause my decisions, or at least create a most probable list of decisions. This falls into my belief that all events have a cause. BUT my ignorance of these factors gives me the illusion of freedom of choice. While I might have an idea of what the future holds, I do not know it with certainty, and can very easily be wrong about it, which allows my mind the illusion of being in control.

Yes of course, The future is unknown and is able to bring about newness. I also believe each individual to a large extent is self regulating but not in the absolute sense. Something needs to come from outside. The nervous system is mainly informed by the internal coherances, meaning your choices have more to do with your structure how you are made than what gets into your brain through your senses. In this way I feel free, to a certain extent.

I have just thought of this analogy or model or whatever you want to call it, so this may not be entirely un flawed
But I think this may prove that there is a middle ground
Say you are on a road and there is a dead end, but a turn off to your left and right, basically forming a T shape
You have a decision to make, left or right
You have free will, and can choose whichever direction, whether you actualy like turning that way or not
But FATE, has determined that you WILL go in a direction
So what Im saying is that fate creates options, but as much as there are options, there is still a way of making go to one outcome, which is to do something
Free will allowed you to choose left or right, but fate created these options, and regardless of which direction you go, fate make sure it will ultimately have one result, the result being that you WILL turn, no matter if it is left or right

Free will also states you can choose not to go anywhere and merely sit down in the middle of the street.

My bad

THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN FREEWILL IN THIS SOCIETY I BELIEVE WOULD BE THE IDEA OF SUICIDE NOT TO BE MISTAKEN WITH MARTYRDOM OR SACRIFICE. HUMANS ARE THE ONLY ENTITIES CURRENTLY THAT CAN HURT THEMSELVES- FREEWILL IS TO END THE WILL OF YOUR OWN EXISTENCE BUT NO MATTER WHERE YOU RUN (UNTIL YOU KILL YOURSELF) YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CHAIN REACTION OF LOVE OR WHAT OTHERS REFER TO AS EXISTENCE :evilfun: LOL- ACTUALLY THIS CHAIN REACTION IS THE GREATEST GIFT WE KNOW! HOPE THAT HELPS IN YOUR QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE- GOD BLESS! if you do understand what i have said you will most likely have more questions- feel free to message me if so :slight_smile:

yes this guy is correct. You have already made the ultimate choice, but still have the ability to make smaller, less significant choices within the confinements you have chosen

You’re on to something here. I like the possibility/actuality distinction. But I wouldn’t say that this is satisfying as an explanation.

First of all, some of your terms are vague. Granted, your intuitive reasoning is the merit of your scenario here, but I still appreciate the value of defining terms. You throw around “predestined,” “destined,” “fate,” “free will,” etc. without explicitly explaining what is meant by them. For example, does “predestined” imply some kind of action on the part of a divine being? The term is usually reserved for theological discourse in the sense of the “elect” of God. But you seem to be using it to denote a physical determinism.

Second, you don’t actually save free will by the explanation: you attempt to destroy it. You conclude that the phenomenological experience of free will is there, but it does not correspond to what is actually the case. But determinists would say the same thing. Certainly determinists would not deny the experience of free will, would they?