NationStates Jolt Archive

I recall a while ago there was a similar thread and thought it was time to broach the subject again: determinism.

Does anybody have free will? We all have to make decisions everyday, but are we actually free when making the choice? I say no. Why? Well, lazily copying and pasting from the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism): every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

Ever since we were conceived we have been affected by external stimuli which determines precisely how we think and how we act.

An extremely over-simplified and probably irrelevant example: the lottery. All the balls fall out of the slots into the machine and are blown around before randomly being picked out. But is it really random? No. Though it'd be pretty much impossible to calculate which balls are going to be picked out, we can appreciate that factors such as gravity, the height the balls are dropped from, how powerfully they are blown into the air and a whole range of other physicy things I have no understanding of determine which ones are eventually picked as one of the winning numbers.

Extrapolating this to a more relevant example, how about a man trying to decide whether to ask his girlfriend to marry him. He might ask himself if he truly loves her and if he can imagine spending the rest of his life with her. This might seem like a simple enough example of being free to make a decision independently, but how does he actually make the decision? What sort of thought process does he use? For example he might imagine what it would be like having to be around her for the rest of his life and whether they might start to get on each other's nerves or grow apart etc. However it is he decides has actually been constructed by external influences which determined his personality, creativity, intelligence etc and thus the decision he makes is actually not his own, as it is merely a result of other effects.

So what do you think? A valid theory? I personally believe it is and can't see how any alternative would be possible... I'm sure somebody here will prove me wrong but.

I sincerely hope that made sense. If it didn't but it isn't my fault.

Poll coming...

This thread makes me think. I do not approve.:mad:

i either have free will or the determinism is so amazingly complicated that it is as if i do.

either way, if i win $141million in the powerball lottery tonight, it its predetermined that i will not share any of it with you.

i either have free will or the determinism is so amazingly complicated that it is as if i do.

either way, if i win $141million in the powerball lottery tonight, it its predetermined that i will not share any of it with you.

Well that means it was predetermined* that YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE!

*I actually think predeterminism has something to do with God's free will to create the universe or something... Wiki it.

Well that means it was predetermined* that YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE!

*I actually think predeterminism has something to do with God's free will to create the universe or something... Wiki it.

lol

HEY. its not that im an asshole, its that i have no free will....

An extremely over-simplified and probably irrelevant example: the lottery. All the balls fall out of the slots into the machine and are blown around before randomly being picked out. But is it really random? No. Though it'd be pretty much impossible to calculate which balls are going to be picked out, we can appreciate that factors such as gravity, the height the balls are dropped from, how powerfully they are blown into the air and a whole range of other physicy things I have no understanding of determine which ones are eventually picked as one of the winning numbers.

I'm not sure if that works, because there are some things which are completely random, like the movement of electrons, and computers can generate completely random numbers (right?). Even if you had every single little bit of information about say the movement of the lottery balls you might not be able to predict their motion 100% of the time. 99.9999999% of the time, maybe, but not all the time.

I haven't researched this, so I'm just pulling stuff out of nowhere, but the random movement of electrons sounds significant. Or something.

lol

HEY. its not that im an asshole, its that i have no free will....
How did you know? I have already predetermined that you will give $1 million to me, and $1 million to your dog, and as for the rest, the government will tax it away from you.

I'm not sure if that works, because there are some things which are completely random, like the movement of electrons, and computers can generate completely random numbers (right?). Even if you had every single little bit of information about say the movement of the lottery balls you might not be able to predict their motion 100% of the time. 99.9999999% of the time, maybe, but not all the time.

I haven't researched this, so I'm just pulling stuff out of nowhere, but the random movement of electrons sounds significant. Or something.

I was afraid somebody would mention that; somebody I proposed this theory to before, even though they agreed in principle, did remind me of that. Three things:


Would such miniature movements actually have a practical effect on the outcome of the lottery draw?
Similarly, I don't think this changes the validity of the main argument; that our actions are determined by other factors.
Are they actually random? Or is it possible they are moving how they move for a specific reason which we can't identify? I honestly don't know and would love if someone with knowledge on the subject could expand on this.

Determinism though does not equal lack of free will. It just shows how our mids have been moulded to what they are.

Once again try the sandwich experiment.

Go to the kitchen, make two differant types of sandwhich, choose which one to eat, and then eat the other.

I actuly read a piece on this very subject the other day which broke free will down to a quantum level.

It suggested that we may not be free to decide wether to throw the cup of coffee at the wife or wether to drink it. Determinism says that this choice is an illusion (not that I agree with this, but lets just for a second agree that this is the case) that in fact we have no choice and are already programed into taking the action that we shall.

What we do have control over is, understanding the consequences of whichever of these two actions we do take. It is in the minute amount of time between this contemplation of consequance and acting, that freewill comes into play. Just as the act of examining a particle determins its 'position', the act of understanding the conseqences of our actions indicates the moment of free choice.

Really when you think about it to suggest otherwise makes a mockery not only of ethics and morality, but the whole of our law and judicial system.

How did you know? I have already predetermined that you will give $1 million to me, and $1 million to your dog, and as for the rest, the government will tax it away from you.

ooooo you better hope i win tonight then. i already bought my ticket.

Determinism though does not equal lack of free will. It just shows how our mids have been moulded to what they are.

Once again try the sandwich experiment.

Go to the kitchen, make two differant types of sandwhich, choose which one to eat, and then eat the other.

I actuly read a piece on this very subject the other day which broke free will down to a quantum level.

It suggested that we may not be free to decide wether to throw the cup of coffee at the wife or wether to drink it. Determinism says that this choice is an illusion (not that I agree with this, but lets just for a second agree that this is the case) that in fact we have no choice and are already programed into taking the action that we shall.

What we do have control over is, understanding the consequences of whichever of these two actions we do take. It is in the minute amount of time between this contemplation of consequance and acting, that freewill comes into play. Just as the act of examining a particle determins its 'position', the act of understanding the conseqences of our actions indicates the moment of free choice.

Straight off the bat, determinism in the first place means that the consequences that you forsee from your possible options, as well as what options you actually have, are already out of your hands. Furthermore, you claim that after you think of the consequences of two choices and before you act out one of those choices is where free will comes into play. I would dispute this. Though it may be a specific time period where you "decide" to take a course of action by weighing up the choices, this also relies on external stimuli. For example...

You have a cup of coffee and you can drink it or throw it at your wife. You think about the consequences of both and then weigh them up? How do you weigh them up but? Does the hilarity of your wife being covered in hot coffee outweigh your love for her etc. The thought processes and rationale that you use to justify your eventual action isn't your own, because your personality and rationality etc are just a result of outside effects. Every thought you have in your entire life is just a result of something else you have no control over.

Really when you think about it to suggest otherwise makes a mockery not only of ethics and morality, but the whole of our law and judicial system.

I realised that a while ago and it did kind of worry me for a while, but now I actually don't mind it. Specifically the justice system. A man robs a store and you throw him in jail. But according to determinism he had absolutely no chance of ever not robbing the store, so why should he be put in jail? My response is as follows: 1) By putting him in jail and creating a deterrent and hopefully rehabilitating the criminal we will be influencing other people to not break the law in the future. 2) Hope like hell that I am never in the criminal's position.

As a side note, it would be quite a zany and hilarious farce to see a lawyer using determinism to try and defend a client. Somebody write that screenplay damn it.

A mechanism working under the exact same conditions in the exact same state will achieve the exact same result every time. However, there is no all powerful force controlling everything, not one that prescribes to any consistent ideology anyway.

In a way, we don't have free will, and in a way we do.

Wow you really take life a bit too seriously.

Here is my idea. There is no true free will/random action as we normally define them. The proof for this is based on the way the brain works. What may seem to be a random firing of neurons is actually a pattern based on the connections that have been formed, imprecations in the neurons, and a few other factors that i know nothing about.
Random actions can not exist because every physical action must stay within the laws of physics. That being said, if(this being a big if) a person was able to understand all the laws of physics (even the ones we do not know yet) he would be able to know how every action that could ever happen would happen.
Now, as anyone would say, it is imposable for someone to be able to know the exact layout of a persons brain and be able to compute how the neurons would fire. it would also be imposable to be able to take into account every force that could possibly be able to act upon another object.
In other words, if you like looking at the big picture there is no free will and if you like looking at the small picture there is free will.

Here is my idea. There is no true free will/random action as we normally define them. The proof for this is based on the way the brain works. What may seem to be a random firing of neurons is actually a pattern based on the connections that have been formed, imprecations in the neurons, and a few other factors that i know nothing about.
Random actions can not exist because every physical action must stay within the laws of physics. That being said, if(this being a big if) a person was able to understand all the laws of physics (even the ones we do not know yet) he would be able to know how every action that could ever happen would happen.
Now, as anyone would say, it is imposable for someone to be able to know the exact layout of a persons brain and be able to compute how the neurons would fire. it would also be imposable to be able to take into account every force that could possibly be able to act upon another object.
In other words, if you like looking at the big picture there is no free will and if you like looking at the small picture there is free will.

I guess I agree with you in that technically speaking we don't have free will, but living day to day we feel like, and act as though, we do.

Every thought you have in your entire life is just a result of something else you have no control over.

I'll reply to just this bit as it seem to hold the crux of the matter.

The above statement is actualy not true. Lets take the coffee.

I do indeed love my wife and I also would find amusement in seeing her covered in coffee.

So I have been conditioned for both throwing the coffee and drinking it.

Which I am most likely to do depends on numeroes factors, some certianly beyond my control and some as a direct understanding of the consequqnces of both these actions.

If I wanted to get divorced, or beaten, or simply just have a row, then in my best Tommy Copper impresion it would be 'Aha wife, coffee, coffe, wife, just like that aha'

If not I would choose to drink the coffee. But in both cases I have weighted up the pros and cons of both actions, and in doing this I have made choice, yes based upon the experiances of my life up until that point, but informed by them experiances, not controled by them.

Type a sentance, and misspell some words, do this on porpuse, then repeat and get it right. Free will in action.

If we don't have free will then presumably we don't really have any control over whether or not we believe ourselves to have it...

As a side note, it would be quite a zany and hilarious farce to see a lawyer using determinism to try and defend a client. Somebody write that screenplay damn it.Heh, the judge (or jury) could just counter and say it was predetermined that they would find the defendant guilty.

Really, if all things are predetermined, then figuring out what is predetermined, or using it as excuse, is pointless because it won't change what's going to happen.
And if things aren't predetermined, then you can't have knowledge of predetermined events to exploit.

Free will got me into this thread and free will is taking me out, but not before typing my opinion here. :D

Ciao..

Free will ftw. I can kill my team mates on BF2, i think thats free will talking!

Of course we could all think we're being drugged by the CIA....*cough*damn yanks*cough* :P

We are nothing more than chemical processes, abet highly complex ones. We are directly influenced by the things around us. We should theoretically be able to calculate the exact location and direction of every particle in the entire universe, then we could correctly determine the future actions of anything onto whatever ends the universe. The Heisenberg's Uncertainty principal prevent us from finding the necessary information about the particles that we need.

So, in a sense we do not have free will, but as stated before me the processes are so inanely complex that it seems as though we have free will.

I thought about this, and I figure, if this knowledge was in any way going to affect how I go about my life, I wouldn't have a choice, would I? So I really needn't care, and so long as I don't, I couldn't if I wanted to, largely because I wouldn't.

An extremely over-simplified and probably irrelevant example: the lottery. All the balls fall out of the slots into the machine and are blown around before randomly being picked out. But is it really random? No. Though it'd be pretty much impossible to calculate which balls are going to be picked out, we can appreciate that factors such as gravity, the height the balls are dropped from, how powerfully they are blown into the air and a whole range of other physicy things I have no understanding of determine which ones are eventually picked as one of the winning numbers.Physicy things, like, quantum indeterminancy. The nature of sub-atomic physics is purported to be completely random. That randomness spill over into the tangible world in some small way. Deterministic chaos is enough to grow a minute quantum difference into a large-scale difference

Of course, this doesn't help with free will as much as some would hope. Because if we behave randomly, we don't really have a will either. You need some determination to enact your will upon the world. ;)

Yes, all of our choices are determined... or at least that seems fairly plausible.

But as long as they are determined by us... so what?

, but informed by them experiances, not controled by them.

Semantics. What's the difference?

Type a sentance, and misspell some words, do this on porpuse, then repeat and get it right. Free will in action.

...What? Making a purposeful error then fixing it is free will?

You have to realize that at the quantum level, you cannot predict how things will turn out. You are left more with "This is the most likely outcome", but it is only probable, not definite.

Semantics. What's the difference?



...What? Making a purposeful error then fixing it is free will?

Really? What is the differance between data that informs and data which controls? Come on you didn't really need to ask that now.

I'm a bank robber I come into the bank, hand you a bit of paper that says 'Unless you give me cash now, I will blow your head off'

Or

I'm a bank robber I come into the bank, hand you a bit of paper that says 'Unless you give me cash now, I may blow your head off'

Surly you can see that one bit of paper holds more control over any action you may take than the other. One controls your actions, the other may he; to guide your actions.

Nope making a purposefull error indicates that determination may well determine your choices, but it certianly does not control you. You know how to spell 'right' so all of your life's experiance is geared towards you writing 'right' It is determined that you write 'right', right? So how can I write 'rite' instead, whenever I choose to. What act of determinism is responsible for this?

Unless you can show me exactly which influences forced you to make the error? You can even choose not to take make this experment, what determines this choice? Go ahead, choose not to do it, then change you mind and do it anyway. Or don't!

Or how about flip a coin, and choose heads or tails. What forced your choice?

One controls your actions, the other may he; to guide your actions.

Perhaps, but how are you so sure your experiences and mind only guide your actions?

Nope making a purposefull error indicates that determination may well determine your choices, but it certianly does not control you. You know how to spell 'right' so all of your life's experiance is geared towards you writing 'right' It is determined that you write 'right', right? So how can I write 'rite' instead, whenever I choose to. What act of determinism is responsible for this?

Presumably your wish to prove a point, which is, again, a result of other controlling factors, such as your personality, and coming onto this thread. These things are, in turn, a result of previous events or states.

Unless you can show me exactly which influences forced you to make the error? You can even choose not to take make this experment, what determines this choice? Go ahead, choose not to do it, then change you mind and do it anyway. Or don't!

Or how about flip a coin, and choose heads or tails. What forced your choice?

Don't be silly. Just saying "I chose this" doesn't make it so. Changing your mind isn't free will, you could easily be predetermined to do so.

and computers can generate completely random numbers (right?).

Not really. Random numbers are generated based on a seed (another number). If the seed is the same in two instances of a random number generator running, they will produce the exact same numbers in the exact same order. The way programmers make it appear random is by setting the seed to a number based on the time, and then the program hopefully wont have the same seed more than once.

I vote, "How to win the lottery." "You don't have free will," sounds boring.

Don't be silly. Just saying "I chose this" doesn't make it so. Changing your mind isn't free will, you could easily be predetermined to do so.

Ya see I asked you to show me these actions that lead to my every though.

I asked you to point out these things that have made my life predeterimned, but you can't yet you are sure that it is so? That's almost like the religous experiance huh! Faith without proof.

Ya see I asked you to show me these actions that lead to my every though.

I asked you to point out these things that have made my life predeterimned, but you can't yet you are sure that it is so? That's almost like the religous experiance huh! Faith without proof.

Are you even trying? Tell me now, before I go on.

What a lovely fence that is.

Are you even trying? Tell me now, before I go on.

Trying what?
Am I trying? Sometimes.
Am I trying to understand? Always.

Are you even trying? Tell me now, before I go on.

The point I was making though was one of reflecting your own words back right at ya.

You said: 'Don't be silly, just saying "I choose this" doesn't make it so....'

The you start being equaly as 'silly' and tell me that my choices have been somehow predetirmind without even trying to show me how. So I should just take your word for it?

Not really. Random numbers are generated based on a seed (another number). If the seed is the same in two instances of a random number generator running, they will produce the exact same numbers in the exact same order. The way programmers make it appear random is by setting the seed to a number based on the time, and then the program hopefully wont have the same seed more than once.

I heard that computers can generate completely random sequences based on, say, atmospheric radio noise. I read it in a Tom Clancy book so it must be true. :)

Really? What is the differance between data that informs and data which controls? Come on you didn't really need to ask that now.

I'm a bank robber I come into the bank, hand you a bit of paper that says 'Unless you give me cash now, I will blow your head off'

Or

I'm a bank robber I come into the bank, hand you a bit of paper that says 'Unless you give me cash now, I may blow your head off'

Surly you can see that one bit of paper holds more control over any action you may take than the other. One controls your actions, the other may he; to guide your actions.

Nope making a purposefull error indicates that determination may well determine your choices, but it certianly does not control you. You know how to spell 'right' so all of your life's experiance is geared towards you writing 'right' It is determined that you write 'right', right? So how can I write 'rite' instead, whenever I choose to. What act of determinism is responsible for this?

Unless you can show me exactly which influences forced you to make the error? You can even choose not to take make this experment, what determines this choice? Go ahead, choose not to do it, then change you mind and do it anyway. Or don't!

Or how about flip a coin, and choose heads or tails. What forced your choice?

Umm... What? That is completely gibberish that proves no point.

The mere ability to misspell a word, even though you know how to spell it, doesn't invalidate determinism; I don't even understand how you can make a relationship between the two. If you misspell a word you do that for a reason. Whatever the reason is, the fact is that your mind has been conditioned by outside forces since you were conceived that arrived you at the point where you made the choice (or other factors leading to you accidentally) to misspell the word.

Umm... What? That is completely gibberish that proves no point.

The mere ability to misspell a word, even though you know how to spell it, doesn't invalidate determinism; I don't even understand how you can make a relationship between the two. If you misspell a word you do that for a reason. Whatever the reason is, the fact is that your mind has been conditioned by outside forces since you were conceived that arrived you at the point where you made the choice (or other factors leading to you accidentally) to misspell the word.

Gibberish huh!:eek:

Okay lets try it this way. Can you show me what it is that makes me now write 'right' and now write is as 'rigth'?

I know how to spell the word, what previous action caused me to mispell it?

Other than it was my intent to do so.

What a lovely fence that is.

Are you referring to anything specific?

If we don't have free will then presumably we don't really have any control over whether or not we believe ourselves to have it...

lol. I read something funny once on this subject. It was about a book written on the topic of determinism and how it received favourable reviews by critics. However the author shouldn't really be receiving praise since he didn't even have a choice in writing the book.

You have to realize that at the quantum level, you cannot predict how things will turn out. You are left more with "This is the most likely outcome", but it is only probable, not definite.

I agree. It would be impossible to create some sort of model which could predict human reactions perfectly, but that doesn't detract from the validity of determinism IMO.

Gibberish huh!:eek:

Okay lets try it this way. Can you show me what it is that makes me now write 'right' and now write is as 'rigth'?

I know how to spell the word, what previous action caused me to mispell it?

Other than it was my intent to do so.

You're determined to be a difficult old bugger - you were always going to be :)

You're determined to be a difficult old bugger - you were always going to be :)

Hahah, old and buggerish me? Well I can get with that!

Gibberish huh!:eek:

Okay lets try it this way. Can you show me what it is that makes me now write 'right' and now write is as 'rigth'?

I know how to spell the word, what previous action caused me to mispell it?

Other than it was my intent to do so.

But what constituted your intent to do so? Every experience you've had, movement you've made, chemical reaction in your brain etc, these all have created who you are. You want to spell right as rigth because your personality, rationality etc have been conditioned to believe that it is a good example of your argument.

My answer is: Yes, we have free will... And how is that? Well, one term: THE QUANTUM MACHANICS!

But what constituted your intent to do so? Every experience you've had, movement you've made, chemical reaction in your brain etc, these all have created who you are. You want to spell right as rigth because your personality, rationality etc have been conditioned to believe that it is a good example of your argument.

I will not deny that I am a product of my genetic makeup and my enviroment. But equaly this does not show how determiasion cancels out free will.

Can you show me exactly which processes determines that I now misspell the word 'graet' other than it is my intent to do so? If not then you are placing faith in an idea that you cannot prove.

It is exactly this intent, that is free will. Deteminism may well guide my choices, but control them? Nope I just don't see that.

I will not deny that I am a product of my genetic makeup and my enviroment. But equaly this does not show how determiasion cancels out free will.

Can you show me exactly which processes determines that I now misspell the word 'graet' other than it is my intent to do so? If not then you are placing faith in an idea that you cannot prove.

It is exactly this intent, that is free will. Deteminism may well guide my choices, but control them? Nope I just don't see that.

I've already responded to your similar example about 'rigth'; you have intent but that intent is manufactured by external sources, thus you don't actually have true intent or free will.

I've already responded to your similar example about 'rigth'; you have intent but that intent is manufactured by external sources, thus you don't actually have true intent or free will.

Yeah you have said this. I wish to know which of these sources is responsible for my deliberate misspelling? You can't tell me, because you don't know for sure. You could guess, you could claim that they are too numerous to count or to know every one.

Doing that however makes your words not fact but belife.

For you claim that my choices in this matter are predetermined without showing me proof for this, is asking me to take your word for it, to belive in what you belive in.

Can you show me the proof that has swayed your mind on determinism?

Remember my point is not that determinism does not exist, it is that determinism does not equate to a lack of freewill.

Yeah you have said this. I wish to know which of these sources is responsible for my deliberate misspelling? You can't tell me, because you don't know for sure. You could guess, you could claim that they are too numerous to count or to know every one.

Doing that however makes your words not fact but belife.

For you claim that my choices in this matter are predetermined without showing me proof for this, is asking me to take your word for it, to belive in what you belive in.

Can you show me the proof that has swayed your mind on determinism?

Remember my point is not that determinism does not exist, it is that determinism does not equate to a lack of freewill.

If determinism doesn't equate free will it doesn't equate anything, since you can't accept determinism and actually believe you have free will.

I can't tell you every single source that has contributed to your current persona, rationale etc. because it isn't just specific moments or experiences- it is every single moment of your life.

you can't accept determinism and actually believe you have free will.You likewise can't accept non-determinism and actually believe you have a will (free or not).
The concept of "free will" is fundamentally flawed. It is either not free, or not a will.

This is why I built my bed out of U-235. :Þ

If determinism doesn't equate free will it doesn't equate anything, since you can't accept determinism and actually believe you have free will.

I can't tell you every single source that has contributed to your current persona, rationale etc. because it isn't just specific moments or experiences- it is every single moment of your life.

That makes not a lot of sense at all.

A train track determines where that train goes, but the train does not have to stop at all of the stations, or even travel at all, or it can go backward, or a crane can lift it off the track.

You see what I mean?

Can you name me then one of these things that rule the way I think?

1.
The reason why he/she can't answer your question, Peepelonia, is that the factors determining your movement/decision/whatever is everything within the "past" light cone of the event.

To use your metaphor of the train, the factors the determine the train's path are not just the tracks, but everything that could possibly affect the train as well. Including drivers/cranes/that protestor lying across the lines.

Nothing can be missed, even your decisions. If anything exists outside of the predictor's calculations, the prediction becoems inaccurate. You can't just say that something's outside of the scope... that's because the scope is everything that could affect it...

2a.
As to the quantum mechanics argument, yes, the movement of electrons are random. The position and hence velocity is restricted by the amount of energy it currently has, see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the quantum wave function of the electron is a probability map of the position of the electron. Since everything is subject to the same uncertainty, and that the interactions of the electron is determined by every single spot it could be at multiplied by its probability at that spot, the interactions of multiple particles tend to have many different eigenstates at the same time.

In layman speech, the randomness is not that its movements can't be predicted. The randomness refers to the random position the electron seems to take when its position is measured. But what is actually happening is the measurement decoheres the electron's position.

In a simple well-quoted example of electron interference, this is more clearly shown. An electron is sent through a pure crystal and an interference pattern is produced on the other side. This consists of alternating bands of high and low intensity. What is happening is that the quantum wave function of the electron travelling through the crystal states that the electron is taking more than one path at the same time. If the electron only travelled one path, you would get straight 'shadows'. This is from the oft-quoted random motion of the electron.

The interesting bit comes when you measure which path the electron takes. All of a sudden, the interference disappears. Your measuring instrument makes the electron take only one path and straight 'shadows' appear.

In this sense the universe is deterministic in the wave functions that appear, because the measuring instrument is also subject to quantum indeterminacy, the measurement of the electron confining it to one path may not happen. Its just that it is most probable to happen and the all the resultant indeterminate states are represented by the probability function. That is, they all happen, just to different extents.

So, from this argument, the universe is deterministic in that you may have say, a 63% chance of that group of events we call "throwing a cup out of the window", and a corresponding 27% of that group of events not happening. What the probabilities mean is that 63% of the cup goes out of the window, while 27% of it does not,... and it doesn't mean that a bit more than half a cup flies out.

I can't make it any clearer, sorry. =(
If someone else can, go ahead.

2b.
Even if I concede that it is random, that's just what it is, random. Random is not free will.

If I managed to determine that, you have a 63% chance of throwing the cup out of the window, 25% chance of drinking it calmly and 2% chance of simply walking away; while only one thing can occur, can you still be considered to have free will, as I could just as easily add a 'you decide to' in front?

That makes it: you have a 63% chance of deciding to throw the cup out of the window, 25% chance of deciding to drinking it calmly and 2% chance of deciding to simply walking away.

So, answers? I don't see how quantum indeterminacy is pertinent to the argument of free will...

...every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

Ever since we were conceived we have been affected by external stimuli which determines precisely how we think and how we act.

...However it is he decides has actually been constructed by external influences which determined his personality, creativity, intelligence etc and thus the decision he makes is actually not his own, as it is merely a result of other effects.

So what do you think? A valid theory?
It is a valid theory, yes, but there are other valid theories, too. One in particular, that I favour, is that both determinism and free will are valid, at the same time but from different perspectives.

With one of our perspectives we assemble the world objectively, that allows a view of the flow of cause and effect. With another, we we assemble a world with our participation at its centre. Both are valid perspectives, so both spawn valid theories.

I sincerely hope that made sense. If it didn't but it isn't my fault.
Haha, determinism's fault, I get it...

Every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.Prove it.

Ever since we were conceived we have been affected by external stimuli which determines precisely how we think and how we act.Proof?

However it is he decides has actually been constructed by external influences which determined his personality, creativity, intelligence etc and thus the decision he makes is actually not his own, as it is merely a result of other effects.That's a nice theory. How are you going to prove it?

This is the problem with determinist attacks on free will. They make a decent pretense to an interest in scientific methodology, but in the end they are all, inevitably, non-falsifiable.

This is the problem with determinist attacks on free will. They make a decent pretense to an interest in scientific methodology, but in the end they are all, inevitably, non-falsifiable.

Indeed. I realised that straight away. I honestly don't see any way we could prove this theory scientifically, but it just seems so logical that I don't see how it could be wrong. Then again I'm a humanities student.

I honestly don't see any way we could prove this theory scientifically, but it just seems so logical that I don't see how it could be wrong.When alternative theories are non-falsifiable, "logic" doesn't help us to tell which one is true or useful in the real world... at least, not directly.

The fact of the matter is that we can never know, in a strong sense, whether or not we have free will.

The real question, philosophically, is what attitude towards free will is most useful for ethical purposes--that is, for helping us to reach decisions, which is something we cannot avoid.

So far, determinist positions on choice have only seemed to muddy the real issues of how we decide, and how we should decide. Determinists go to such great lengths to convince us that every decision can be traced to some causal chain that they actually confuse the real issues. They conflate desire with duty, want with need... in order to preserve such useful (and inevitably useful) concepts as merit, desert, and moral worth they need to subject these concepts to such radical contortions that in the end they are barely recognizable as what they were... and certainly no more useful for the task of analyzing our own decisions.

What about overcoming addiction or mental illness? Those seem like pretty free-will driven actions if you ask me.

What about overcoming addiction or mental illness? Those seem like pretty free-will driven actions if you ask me.I agree.

Moreover, I work for a practicing psychoanalyst and my father is a (non-psychoanalytic) counseling psychologist... and both of them agree that to regard oneself as a free subject is highly significant to maintaining healthy psychology and healthy relations with other people.

It is also important, incidentally, to recognize others as free subjects. Much of my employer's published work has been on the topic of recognition or acknowledgment.

To bridge the gap between psychology and politics, determinism tends ideologically toward theories of control. Libertarian theories of the will, meanwhile, tend ideologically toward theories of enhanced individual freedom.

By the way, I use the following as a working definition of free will:

I will freely if it is possible for me to do the right thing because it is the right thing and not for any other reason.

This is not to say that I don't usually have other motives for doing the right thing. But if it is possible for me to do the right thing regardless of causal factors, then I have free will.

The real problem is not determinism--or at least not determinism alone.

The real problem is explaining how we can act on the basis of reasons when it seems that our actions are the result of arbitrary non-rational factors... be they determined material causation or random fluctuation.

If I did not do x because I had a good reason to do it, but only because of some material cause--or some random happenstance of particles on the quantum level--I am not free in any meaningful sense. The prerequisite for autonomy, the concern for what I should do, what I have reasons to do, is sacrificed, replaced merely by a passive recognition of what I "will" do--be this a certainty, probabilistic, or even entirely unpredictable.

...not to interrupt, but what happens to the other 10% of the cup?