So I'm about to conclude the Spring semester in a few days. I've been taking a Philosophy course & one of the topics that we covered was determinism v. free will. I was quite intrigued about it & the whole notion/argument regarding incompatibilism v. compatibilism. I had to write my final essay on the topic & I enjoyed doing so. I was wondering what others here thought about it (if you've taken any course on the subject), considering that there are many genius minds floating around this place. Discuss...

Here's a YouTube video related to free will & determinism that I watched on my Philosophy class blog. It's interesting.

Here is also a lecture on the Guerrilla Radio Show on the subject that I had to listen to. One of the professors, Sean Choi, on the panel is my professor. Guerrilla Radio is in Santa Barbara, CA.

It's interesting academic fodder, with lots to chew over, especially if encouraged by a glass of wine or two - but the discussion is based on a false dichotomy. There does not need to be determinism or free-will, and nothing else. The world is much messier than that - and more wondereful. We are influenced by environment, surroundings, up-bringing, culture - and we have the ability to exert some amount of free-will, more-or-less determined by our degree of awareness and education.

What was your point of view?

Nat

I agree that free will & determinism are neither compatible nor incompatible. Rather, they are 2 separate entities that should be addressed on their own playing field. There are a few issues related to this topic, but here are some scenarios that would help you understand why I consider them separate notions. I will take direct quotes from my paper (since I'm busy like crazy w/ finals):

It appears that there are some things we have no power over and thus free will is not involved. For example, stopping the earth from rotating around the sun, needing oxygen to live, interrupting the flow and time of a 24-hour cycle, stopping an earthquake from occurring, etc. These are obviously deterministic scenarios that one has no choice over, which are fully in control within and by the laws of nature.

There seems to be choices that although at the surface level appear to be made by one’s free will (e.g. accepting a new job, having surgery to save one’s life that has a 60% chance of success versus certainly dieing without the surgery, taking medication for a chronic illness to stay alive, deciding to marry person "y," saving the life of my own baby in a burning home), in reality with time and retrospect those choices do become inevitable or the most obvious choices that one would have made. Using the philosophical analogy of the "Rollback" argument [literally rolling back time say 1 million times & playing it back again that same amount of time], it is highly likely that I would make the same choice at a higher percentage over my other alternatives. Over a long period, these types of scenarios would entail a sense of “what was best for me at the time (‘survival of the fittest’)” or “what was best for the other at the time (altruism).” So are these state of affairs deterministic or are they simply one’s free will? On the surface level they appear to be free will at work. How about what the role of morality plays in these types of choices? It appears that there may be two issues at stake: choices made because of one’s “moral makeup” and other choices made because what’s in the best interest for me down the road. However, what’s in best interest for me down the road can also be evaluated from the best short-term interest and/or the best long-term interest. It appears that most humans make important choices—whether they involve one’s moral responsibility or not—based upon deduction. In other words, one looks at a scenario and looks at the various choices and outcomes that will result from them. As one deduces the various options, then one’s choice becomes “clearer.” If the choice, however, involves some time to think about, again it appears that ultimately the choice that best suits the agent still will “win out.”

There also seems to be choices that are made completely out of one's free will. For example, if one had the opportunity to win a prize by choosing between boxes 1, 2, or 3, and only one of the boxes has a winning prize attached to it. Let us also say that the boxes are equal in size, color, and shape and that one does not adhere to the superstitious idea of a “lucky number” or in the way a box is positioned. With this in mind and if we were to apply the “Rollback” argument, the chances of one picking one particular box over the other two consistently seems to not hold. Another example would be if one goes on a hiking trial simply for pleasure and one faces a fork on the road with 3 alternatives. In addition, let us also assume that one knows in advance that all three forks take me to the same destination, and are equal in length [to walk], “difficulty” and “beauty.” Again, using the “Rollback” argument, it is highly unlikely that one would chose one forked road at a greater percentage over the other two.

I know it's long, but that was the shortest way of explaining my position. Also, these are simply snippets of the paper I wrote and they're actually part of the draft that I'm still waiting for my professor to give his input on so that I can revise it for the final draft.