Are choices made by biological beings inevitable?

[Compassionist]

Are choices made by biological beings inevitable? If I had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, would I not be you, when and where you are reading these words? If you had my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, would you not be I, when and where I am typing these words? If you and I had the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences of a tardigrade in the vacuum of space we could survive there without air, water, food and shelter. Since our choices are determined by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, do we live inevitable lives and die inevitable deaths? In that case, how can there be justice?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #5]

Radioactive decay is unpredictable to humans but that does not mean that it grants humans free will.

OR that it's uncaused.


.

Yes true, but then you'd be running contrary to what you said earlier when you described yourself as "a hard determinist", yes?

[Miles]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #5]

Radioactive decay is unpredictable to humans but that does not mean that it grants humans free will.

OR that it's uncaused.


.

Yes true, but then you'd be running contrary to what you said earlier when you described yourself as "a hard determinist", yes?

Yes, but only because of a grammatical gaff on my part.

I was addressing the nature of free will. "Radioactive decay is unpredictable to humans but that does not mean that it grants humans free will." and that what people call free will is uncaused. An admittedly badly worded remark, borrowing the "not" from the previous sentence.; "that does not mean that it grants humans free will." To also say: ". . . that does not mean it's uncaused." And then using "it" for two different referents: radioactive decay and free will.

Creating the sentence in my mind to read ". . . . but that does not mean that [radioactive decay] grants humans free will or that [the action called free will] is uncaused."

My bad!
.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #5]

Radioactive decay is unpredictable to humans but that does not mean that it grants humans free will.

OR that it's uncaused.


.

Yes true, but then you'd be running contrary to what you said earlier when you described yourself as "a hard determinist", yes?

Yes, but only because of a grammatical gaff on my part.

I was addressing the nature of free will. "Radioactive decay is unpredictable to humans but that does not mean that it grants humans free will." and that what people call free will is uncaused. An admittedly badly worded remark, borrowing the "not" from the previous sentence.; "that does not mean that it grants humans free will." To also say: ". . . that does not mean it's uncaused." And then using "it" for two different referents: radioactive decay and free will.

Creating the sentence in my mind to read ". . . . but that does not mean that [radioactive decay] grants humans free will or that [the action called free will] is uncaused."

My bad!
.

Very good, I see, no problem.