Free will is impossible unless one is omnipotent. Agree?

[Compassionist]

We are all unique prisoners of causality. Our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences make us who we are. Our awarness, our values, our interests, our goals and our choices all arise from the complex dynamics of our unique combination of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. We don’t all want the same things. We are not all equally able to do what we want. I think that we have a constrained will – our wills are constrained by causality. I think that free will is impossible unless one is omnipotent.

Although there are similarities between people and other living things, everyone is unique. Two people, share 99% of their genes. Two identical twins share 100% of their genes. A human and a chimp share 98% of their genes. While genes are the starting point, they are not the only ingredients in the complex broth that we are.
Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences make us who we are. These four groups of variables interact dynamically and in multiple layers.

While it’s relatively obvious what I mean by genes, I think I should clarify what I mean by environments. By environments, I am talking about the physical environmental factors e.g. temperature, acidity, air pressure, pollutants, etc. For example, if one is too hot or too cold in the womb one would not develop within functional parameters.

By nutrients I don’t mean just carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals. I am also including oxygen and water as nutrients.

By experience, I mean all we perceive through our five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell) and our thoughts about what we perceive and our feelings about what we perceive and how we respond in terms of words, actions and omissions. For example, right here and right now, YOU are experiencing reading these words of mine. You are also experiecing consequential thoughts and feelings of your own. You will in turn respond with your own words which you will type (i.e. action) or you might decide that it’s not worth the effort and refrain from sharing your thoughts (i.e. omission).

I think that if I had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences then I would be you, living your life, the way you have lived and continue to live. And if you have my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences then you would be me, living my life, the way I have lived and continue to live.

Depending on the degree of similarities in terms of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences , we can empathise to various degrees. For example, if you have gone swimming then you can empathise with someone else who has gone swimming but if you have never done it you would find it difficult to empathise. Swimming as a human is different from swimming as a dolphin or an otter or a fish or a squid or a whale or a shark, etc. The degree of empathy is directly proportional to the degree of similarity.

Given that no one has totally identical genes and environments and nutrients and experiences, I think that it would be impossible to have total empathy with another organism.

In the poll, I have chosen the first option. I don’t think I could have chosen the other options given my unique combination of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I am all too aware that I am a prisoner of causality. I am all too aware that I do not have free will. I am all too aware that I have a constrained will. I have made many choices in my lifetime and I don’t think that even one of them could have been any different at the place and time of the decisions. Of course, I learn from experience but this too, is constrained by causality. I can’t learn Japanese without ever being exposed to Japanese or trying to learn Japanese and my ability to learn Japanese may not be as good as yours. All things happen inevitably according to causality. The inevitable has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong but you will inevitably fail. And that’s not your fault. Unless you are omnipotent, you are also a prisoner of causality – just like me.

[Cathar1950]

You may have a point. I guess pre-determined would be the same as determined and redundant. I guess I mean something more along the lines of unplanned where pre-determined means something more.
I am saying the future is open and not yet and it is not determined until it happens. What happens has been determined by its constituent. We are programmed to make choices if indeed they are really more then responses, adaptations we have learned. By there are many combinations, and analogies that have never been though of yet and maybe he situation has never even been present until now. They are all determined but it can’t be know what the outcome if it has never happened, and if it happens it never happened that way so that there is more then the past in the present there is the future and even if it is known what will happen how that now presents itself in the future has not happened and is unknown. The determinism is more like an organism and its environment then a machine or an equation.
Does an amoeba have free will or is it responding?

[TheMessage]

You may have a point. I guess pre-determined would be the same as determined and redundant. I guess I mean something more along the lines of unplanned where pre-determined means something more.
I am saying the future is open and not yet and it is not determined until it happens. What happens has been determined by its constituent. We are programmed to make choices if indeed they are really more then responses, adaptations we have learned. By there are many combinations, and analogies that have never been though of yet and maybe he situation has never even been present until now. They are all determined but it can’t be know what the outcome if it has never happened, and if it happens it never happened that way so that there is more then the past in the present there is the future and even if it is known what will happen how that now presents itself in the future has not happened and is unknown. The determinism is more like an organism and its environment then a machine or an equation.
Does an amoeba have free will or is it responding?

The bolded portion is where you're getting off track. You seem to be under the impression that if something is not currently known it cannot be determined. If events are determined, this is most certainly false.

Look at it this way, if there is only one possible result of an action (Which are, by your own admission, just responses based upon a complex multitude of factors, unless I've misread something) then the result will also lead to another single possible outcome, and so on ad infinitum. What this means is that while we are obviously in the present and only have knowledge as to the present and the past, the future is already Determined to happen since it is the sole possible result of a massive chain of cause and effect.

Determinism isn't related to knowledge in any way, shape or form. It's purely related to Free Will and the function of events in the universe. A determined outcome doesn't require that we are aware of it for it to be determined.

Lastly, I'd say that an amoeba doesn't have free will, seeing as I'm arguing that free will doesn't exist.

[Cathar1950]

You may have a point. I guess pre-determined would be the same as determined and redundant. I guess I mean something more along the lines of unplanned where pre-determined means something more.
I am saying the future is open and not yet and it is not determined until it happens. What happens has been determined by its constituent. We are programmed to make choices if indeed they are really more then responses, adaptations we have learned. By there are many combinations, and analogies that have never been though of yet and maybe he situation has never even been present until now. They are all determined but it can’t be know what the outcome if it has never happened, and if it happens it never happened that way so that there is more then the past in the present there is the future and even if it is known what will happen how that now presents itself in the future has not happened and is unknown. The determinism is more like an organism and its environment then a machine or an equation.
Does an amoeba have free will or is it responding?

The bolded portion is where you're getting off track. You seem to be under the impression that if something is not currently known it cannot be determined. If events are determined, this is most certainly false.

Look at it this way, if there is only one possible result of an action (Which are, by your own admission, just responses based upon a complex multitude of factors, unless I've misread something) then the result will also lead to another single possible outcome, and so on ad infinitum. What this means is that while we are obviously in the present and only have knowledge as to the present and the past, the future is already Determined to happen since it is the sole possible result of a massive chain of cause and effect.

Determinism isn't related to knowledge in any way, shape or form. It's purely related to Free Will and the function of events in the universe. A determined outcome doesn't require that we are aware of it for it to be determined.

Lastly, I'd say that an amoeba doesn't have free will, seeing as I'm arguing that free will doesn't exist.

I think you are correct. I recant. I see no reason that it is not necessary as well as determined There are many imagined possible outcomes as we use analogy but the despite the possibilities the outcome is determined by what has happened.
I also thin we can see the same sorts of probabilities for the things that happen in the variations which have also been determined. I think you are right, it is a big massive complex chain of cause and effect events.
With any event we can ask why.
Other animals just seem to asume there is a why or at least live that way.
Maybe I need to not retreat from a determinist position so quickly and clarify so we don’t talk past to each other or just to ourselves.
I think it was this you wrote that through me off.

I suspect it is entirely my caution at overstating or not saying enough.
I see how everything is determined and except on some paradox in QM not yet understood given the use of probability I think it can be somewhat like predicting the outcome especially in the case of any possible emergent outcomes.
Everything seems to be determined including our wills.
Free should not mean indeterminate.

We make choices because as animals we seek satisfaction and as humans we us language, culture and meaning in order to achieve both social and personal satisfactions. We grow, learn and adapt.
The choices presented to me are limited and hardly free. We put combinations together in new creative ways but they are determined by our experiences, history and the circumstances. We may be free from cohersion but we are not free from circumstances and experiences. Even our feeling are determined by the moment. But they are determined. Most of what we do hardly qualifies as choice as we learn so we don’t have to make choices. A choice comes when there is more then one option and you don’t know what to do because your experiences as of yet have not determined what to do so not it will determine and you will learn which will determined too. I still think the future is open and has yet to happen. This is what gives determinism its power, it shapes the future because of something in the past and now. It gives us hope that things will work out or be determined for the best but what happens has happened and the only real prediction we can have about anything is how the past shaped the past. Like social statistics the predictions are about tendencies in historical data.
Responsibility is often brought up as some defense against determinism.
We are still people, humans that are determined and animals that have the ability to creatively respond. If a person breaks human laws then for some reason he didn’t learn or took the chance but all of it is determined and he is still responsible as no one else actually did it. We re-determined them not to do it or maybe we as a culture demand some type of retribution or a sign that others should not take this route.
Can we look at a facile and tell how the patter will be if it has never been done before?
We can see patterns after the fact. . .
We also seek them out.

[TheMessage]

A choice comes when there is more then one option and you don’t know what to do because your experiences as of yet have not determined what to do so not it will determine and you will learn which will determined too.

I would argue that this still isn't a choice, as while you may not have a 'normal' response prepared for a new situation your actions are still fully under sway of our convenional reactions to similar situations, to our life experiences and to our genetic dispositions. Determinism is still in effect, just harder to 'predict' (Which is not to say that we are anywhere near the level of knowledge that would be required to predict even the most basic of 'decisions', just that I'm inclined to believe that it's less complex to predict those actions born of common experiences than those which react to something utterly alien... I'm rambling, sorry).

If a person breaks human laws then for some reason he didn’t learn or took the chance but all of it is determined and he is still responsible as no one else actually did it. We re-determined them not to do it or maybe we as a culture demand some type of retribution or a sign that others should not take this route.
Can we look at a facile and tell how the patter will be if it has never been done before?
We can see patterns after the fact. . .
We also seek them out.

I'd say that philosophically we cannot really hold someone 'responsible' in the normal sense of the term, seeing as they had no free will. I would follow that, however, by saying that we should continue to live as though we have free will, because punishment (Or rather, threat of punishment) is likely a very powerful deterministic factor. If we abolish that for philosophical reasons alone, we're likely to end up with a less desirable world.

I'll only argue against free will for philosophical purposes. "Do whatever you're determined to do" is a horrible legal policy, for obvious reasons.

[Cathar1950]

A choice comes when there is more then one option and you don’t know what to do because your experiences as of yet have not determined what to do so not it will determine and you will learn which will determined too.

I would argue that this still isn't a choice, as while you may not have a 'normal' response prepared for a new situation your actions are still fully under sway of our convenional reactions to similar situations, to our life experiences and to our genetic dispositions. Determinism is still in effect, just harder to 'predict' (Which is not to say that we are anywhere near the level of knowledge that would be required to predict even the most basic of 'decisions', just that I'm inclined to believe that it's less complex to predict those actions born of common experiences than those which react to something utterly alien... I'm rambling, sorry).

If a person breaks human laws then for some reason he didn’t learn or took the chance but all of it is determined and he is still responsible as no one else actually did it. We re-determined them not to do it or maybe we as a culture demand some type of retribution or a sign that others should not take this route.
Can we look at a facile and tell how the patter will be if it has never been done before?
We can see patterns after the fact. . .
We also seek them out.

I'd say that philosophically we cannot really hold someone 'responsible' in the normal sense of the term, seeing as they had no free will. I would follow that, however, by saying that we should continue to live as though we have free will, because punishment (Or rather, threat of punishment) is likely a very powerful deterministic factor. If we abolish that for philosophical reasons alone, we're likely to end up with a less desirable world.

I'll only argue against free will for philosophical purposes. "Do whatever you're determined to do" is a horrible legal policy, for obvious reasons.

You wont get much of an argument from me as I am already convinced.

[Cathar1950]

Free will doesn’t seem to exist. Yet it is used as a defense or apologetic.
If out wills or anything was free they would be random and chaotic but we assume that what we do matters as if the future and our choices or responses make a difference in the future.
It is determinism that gives us hope as it makes what we do matter.

[polygonx]

Yes, that's it exactly. But seeing as it's more chemical reactions that 'choose'* which course to take, it's still not really in your control. It's you doing it, but there isn't any true choice involved.

*Note that this use of 'choose' isn't meant to indicate an actual choice. It's really a massive number of complex factors on a chemical level that determine the outcome.

First, it started off with Nietzsche and his irresistible, 'inescapable' compulsion against Christian ideals (i.e. intrinsic morality), now it ends with science, and its fabulous , scientific 'inescapable' chemical truth.

This message was brought to you by: Eli Lilly and Prozac and several lawsuits. This message was also brought to you buy the countless commercials of "Is depression medicine not working for you?, here, try the Superman pill! (counseling too of course!)'

[TheMessage]

Yes, that's it exactly. But seeing as it's more chemical reactions that 'choose'* which course to take, it's still not really in your control. It's you doing it, but there isn't any true choice involved.

*Note that this use of 'choose' isn't meant to indicate an actual choice. It's really a massive number of complex factors on a chemical level that determine the outcome.

First, it started off with Nietzsche and his irresistible, 'inescapable' compulsion against Christian ideals (i.e. intrinsic morality), now it ends with science, and its fabulous , scientific 'inescapable' chemical truth.

This message was brought to you by: Eli Lilly and Prozac and several lawsuits. This message was also brought to you buy the countless commercials of "Is depression medicine not working for you?, here, try the Superman pill! (counseling too of course!)'

I take it you disagree with my statement, then. Would you like to put forth your argument in a form that is more conducive to debate?

[polygonx]

Free will doesn’t seem to exist. Yet it is used as a defense or apologetic..

This is exactly what it is, a perfect apologetic defense, IMO. The same reason that I find physics to be of a mess. Very well said.

P.S. I just hate the extremities of both positions. I think the polarization of them both, leave something missing, or left properly unexplained.

I take it you disagree with my statement, then. Would you like to put forth your argument in a form that is more conducive to debate?

That is fair, but I can't. Honestly, I try to stay off these types of threads. I am not really convinced of either position. I think they both have their merits, I also think that both could simultaneously exist and avoid contradiction. Needless to say, I attack them both, and IMO, properly (of course!).

P.S. On a separate note, there are Christian apologist that take both sides at some level (Freewill vs. Determinism).

[TheMessage]

Free will doesn’t seem to exist. Yet it is used as a defense or apologetic..

This is exactly what it is, a perfect apologetic defense, IMO. The same reason that I find physics to be of a mess. Very well said.

P.S. I just hate the extremities of both positions. I think the polarization of them both, leave something missing, or left properly unexplained.

I take it you disagree with my statement, then. Would you like to put forth your argument in a form that is more conducive to debate?

That is fair, but I can't. Honestly, I try to stay off these types of threads. I am not really convinced of either position. I think they both have their merits, I also think that both could simultaneously exist and avoid contradiction. Needless to say, I attack them both, and IMO, properly (of course!).

P.S. On a separate note, there are Christian apologist that take both sides at some level (Freewill vs. Determinism).

Holding Free Will and Determinism as not being mutually exclusive is called Compatibilism, the inverse is Incompatibilism. I have yet to hear a single good argument for Compatibilism, but if you think you know of one I would love to hear it.