Scientific determinism.

[bluethread]

If all is matter and motion in a closed system, isn't everything that happens predetermined by a chain reaction of cause and effect, including the being that considers itself able to make independent choices? If so, isn't that being engaging in a faith based lifestyle? If not, what is it that enables that being to make independent choices?

[2ndRateMind]

If all is matter and motion in a closed system, isn't everything that happens predetermined by a chain reaction of cause and effect, including the being that considers itself able to make independent choices? If so, isn't that being engaging in a faith based lifestyle? If not, what is it that enables that being to make independent choices?

I don't have an answer to this. For what it's worth, I just have a couple of observations:

1) The notion of free will is what makes our societies function. Praise and blame, reward and punishment, honour and disgrace, only make sense within the context of a freely willing being.

2) Free will may be an emergent phenomena* of the complexity of our consciousness. It may be that looking at the physics, chemistry and biology of our brains is trying to tackle the issue at too low a level.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*An emergent phenomena is a property of the whole that the parts of that whole lack. Just as an airliner can fly, while its separate cockpit, fuselage or tail-plane cannot.

[bluethread]

If all is matter and motion in a closed system, isn't everything that happens predetermined by a chain reaction of cause and effect, including the being that considers itself able to make independent choices? If so, isn't that being engaging in a faith based lifestyle? If not, what is it that enables that being to make independent choices?

I don't have an answer to this. For what it's worth, I just have a couple of observations:

1) The notion of free will is what makes our societies function. Praise and blame, reward and punishment, honour and disgrace, only make sense within the context of a freely willing being.

Yes, but this is just an expansion on the humanist prospective. It does not reconcile that prospective with what many consider to be the nature of the universe. To apply the question to a functional society as a justification, can't a society function without free will? Many man made systems work perfectly well without AI and many argue that AI would just muck up the system.

2) Free will may be an emergent phenomena* of the complexity of our consciousness. It may be that looking at the physics, chemistry and biology of our brains is trying to tackle the issue at too low a level.

OK, to continue with the justification of free will based on perceived functionality, in the future, could AI also justify itself based it's own functionality. Could it not view man as merely another inevitable phenomenon that just happened in the course of predictable interactions of forces and consider itself to be the soul possessor of free will based on the value it places on the processes that it uses to interact in it's networks? Again, where does free will fit in a universe of uniform cause and effect?


It seems to me that the concept of emergent phenomena is just a way of sustaining the view of uniform cause and effect by making the perception to the contrary a necessary result of cause and effect. Your airplane example does not really justify this, because, unless man has no free will, the airplane is not the result of uniform cause and effect, but the result of a concept contrary to uniform cause and effect creating something the would otherwise have not occurred. A better example might be that of the bird and it's various parts. However, the principle of emergent phenomena fails here also, because it argues that each of the desperate parts were developed by uniform cause and effect, and then the whole comes together by a process contrary to uniform cause and effect, that was itself the product of uniform cause and effect. Thus, we have yet another exception created by the rule. How many emergent phenomena are necessary for the theory of uniform cause and effect to be undermined and eventually rejected? In short, how uniform is uniform cause and effect?

[Metadian]

If all is matter and motion in a closed system, isn't everything that happens predetermined by a chain reaction of cause and effect, including the being that considers itself able to make independent choices? If so, isn't that being engaging in a faith based lifestyle? If not, what is it that enables that being to make independent choices?

I would critique the usage of "independent", "faith" and "free" here.

Under a determinist philosophy, a closed system behaves like you said, even if it includes living beings that believe in free will. That much is true. We need however to examine well what biological systems are like and what belief in 'free will' is like, so as to not to conflate possibly relevant distinctions.

Some living beings have minds. These minds are that through which these beings experience the world (ie, their subjectivity). But humans, who are intelligent, also have the ability to reflect about things, including their own selves and minds ("auto-science"), and abstract reasonings (thus we get, for example, philosophy). That is to say, that a dog can only experience the actions they do, but we can both do that, and think about our own actions. By doing so, we have complex models of our selves, our minds and reality.

Everybody agrees we have will, that our psychology has a function formally called "volition" that we experience as wants, desires, etc. Volition is experienced subjectively in every person, and upon simple self-reflection, it is clear to us that we want things. It is also clear to us that we make decisions, and we make most of them consciously. Thus we quickly have ideas about how our will and these decisions relate: for example, that we choose what we want. It is entirely possible that, on a more rigorous level, we experience choosing what we want because volition is brought to our awareness when a decision-making algorithm has taken place in our brain - when it has already taken place.

This doesn't mean that we don't choose what we want, just that we have already chosen it when we're aware that we want to choose it. As far as I understand there's neuroscientific evidence pointing to this idea.

Moving on, freedom is a complex concept, that different people, societies and philosophical traditions understand differently. I would argue that at least most people agree that on a basic level, to be free we must first be conscious, well-informed and not coerced.

Take sex as an example: if I'm asleep, if I'm lied to / can't understand (about an STD, identity, contraception, position, etc; or I'm an immature child, or in possession of a low IQ) or if I'm held at gun-point, most people would say that I have been denied freedom of choice. This is not metaphysical, but perhaps is where most people's reflection of their volition being "free" stays.

Compatibilists will argue that determinism and free will exist at the same time, because free will is our capacity to choose, and not for those choices not to be determined by preexisting physical conditions (which would be argued, is impossible). I have always thought of myself as a hard determinist, and I still don't grasp the distinction with compatibilists, which is why sometimes I've just said that I'm "ignostic" about free will. I think will is as free as it can be.

Thus, in conclusion, while people can think they're free in ways they are not (if their metaphysical interpretation is, say, indeterminism, but the deterministic material system you laid out is the truth), it doesn't necessarily take faith for a determinist biological system to believe its behavior is free. Because when they claim they're free, they mean things like that they aren't coerced, that no other being's will interferes in their own volition-to-action causal chain - not deep metaphysical claims about causal independence.

[Divine Insight]

If all is matter and motion in a closed system, isn't everything that happens predetermined by a chain reaction of cause and effect, including the being that considers itself able to make independent choices?

That very well may be our actual situation. We may not have the free will that we think we have.

Note: Pure determinism that views everything having been decided at the big bang including the existence of you and me, is not supported by modern physics. That's an older classical view that has since been shown to be wrong.

Our existence may be somewhat deterministic, but that would also necessarily include a dynamic randomness that is always present. Therefore many things that have been "determined" to necessarily occur today may have been determined by randomness that has only occurred a short time ago.

In other words, our existence would not be fully deterministic in the classical sense.

It is also possible that the mere existence of randomness could somehow facilitate a "free will". Although no one to date has proposed a precise mechanism of how that could work. Or if they have I am not aware of it.

If so, isn't that being engaging in a faith based lifestyle?

No. It would simply be doing the only deterministic thing that we can do. In fact, our beliefs and faith would themselves be determined.

But keep in mind again, they wouldn't have been determined clear back to the Big Bang. Our faiths and beliefs are most likely determined by the environment and social interactions we have. So this would be a "determinism" that is more dynamic and is influence by our current live environment.

Keep in mind also that randomness alone may play a big role in what decisions we make. In other words, our decisions would not need to be predetermined entirely. They could be based on randomness within the thought process of our brain. This doesn't necessarily mean that we had any "free will" as we may not be able to control the randomness of our decisions. But our decisions themselves could be influenced by randomness.

That being the case, then things that happen today would have very little to do with things that might have happened in previous times. In other words, if you have a choice to either sleep-in, or get up and go to work, the outcome of that choice itself may not be predetermined. But it may also be beyond our ability to control. Just because it's not predetermined doesn't necessarily mean that we are actually in control of it.

If not, what is it that enables that being to make independent choices?

It could be the random nature of reality, as I had already mentioned. Precisely how this would work to produce an actual "free will" is yet to be worked out. But it's clear that the choices themselves can be "independent" from determinism to some degree because of randomness.

Obviously our choices are NEVER independent from determinism entirely. For example, we can choose to jump onto the moon without any technological aid. It's just not possible so there are many choices that we cannot make no matter what.

Usually when we make a choice we are choosing from "available options", therefore those options have already been "predetermined" by the simple fact that they are already available. So the choices are predetermined in all cases.

Which choice we end up choosing is the only thing left open to the question of having been determined prior to choosing it.

And exactly how "free" we are to make our choices is anyone's guess. Our choices may appear to to us to be "our own". But that doesn't mean that they still can't just be random to some degree and we don't realize it.

So we don't even know whether or not we even actually have any free will.

~~~~~~

Finally, I would like to suggest that we shouldn't hold individuals responsible for how they turn out. I don't hold Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler responsible for their choice. To the contrary, I'm convinced that they were swayed by previous beliefs, etc. In other words, their ultimate mental state was predetermined from various experiences they had in their lives.

Does this mean that we should allow people like Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler to roam free in our society and post a threat to everyone else? No of course not. They have to be dealt with for the safety of others. But we don't need to "blame" them for their mental condition. In fact, we should be viewing them as "victims" of an unkind universe. After all, they may not be responsible for how screwed up they are. It could have been "determined" by factors beyond their control.

We don't know the answer to that question. So why pretend that we do?

That would be my question. Why pretend to know that free will exists when we genuinely don't know?

[bluethread]

If all is matter and motion in a closed system, isn't everything that happens predetermined by a chain reaction of cause and effect, including the being that considers itself able to make independent choices? If so, isn't that being engaging in a faith based lifestyle? If not, what is it that enables that being to make independent choices?

I would critique the usage of "independent", "faith" and "free" here.

Under a determinist philosophy, a closed system behaves like you said, even if it includes living beings that believe in free will. That much is true. We need however to examine well what biological systems are like and what belief in 'free will' is like, so as to not to conflate possibly relevant distinctions.

Precisely, so proceed.

Some living beings have minds. These minds are that through which these beings experience the world (ie, their subjectivity). But humans, who are intelligent, also have the ability to reflect about things, including their own selves and minds ("auto-science"), and abstract reasonings (thus we get, for example, philosophy). That is to say, that a dog can only experience the actions they do, but we can both do that, and think about our own actions. By doing so, we have complex models of our selves, our minds and reality.

However, that is all "baked in" as it were. How could that have occurred any other way?

Everybody agrees we have will, that our psychology has a function formally called "volition" that we experience as wants, desires, etc. Volition is experienced subjectively in every person, and upon simple self-reflection, it is clear to us that we want things. It is also clear to us that we make decisions, and we make most of them consciously. Thus we quickly have ideas about how our will and these decisions relate: for example, that we choose what we want. It is entirely possible that, on a more rigorous level, we experience choosing what we want because volition is brought to our awareness when a decision-making algorithm has taken place in our brain - when it has already taken place.

Not everybody. There are some who disagree. However, even if every human agrees, is not that agreement the natural result of how the universe works, leaving wants, desires, etc. as little more than personal perception of the inevitable course of scientific principles?

This doesn't mean that we don't choose what we want, just that we have already chosen it when we're aware that we want to choose it. As far as I understand there's neuroscientific evidence pointing to this idea.

Yes, and, if neurologic predisposition dictates choice, why don't the immutable scientific principles dictate neurologic predisposition?

Moving on, freedom is a complex concept, that different people, societies and philosophical traditions understand differently. I would argue that at least most people agree that on a basic level, to be free we must first be conscious, well-informed and not coerced.

Well then, where does consciousness come from, if not the interactions of matter and motion within the brain in reaction to external stimuli, which are themselves the result of cause and effect according to immutable scientific principles?

Take sex as an example: if I'm asleep, if I'm lied to / can't understand (about an STD, identity, contraception, position, etc; or I'm an immature child, or in possession of a low IQ) or if I'm held at gun-point, most people would say that I have been denied freedom of choice. This is not metaphysical, but perhaps is where most people's reflection of their volition being "free" stays.

However, though we may logically conclude that certain limitations might assure a determined outcome, what assures us that scientific principles do not do the same with all outcomes?

Compatibilists will argue that determinism and free will exist at the same time, because free will is our capacity to choose, and not for those choices not to be determined by preexisting physical conditions (which would be argued, is impossible). I have always thought of myself as a hard determinist, and I still don't grasp the distinction with compatibilists, which is why sometimes I've just said that I'm "ignostic" about free will. I think will is as free as it can be.

That is a hedge. Everything is as free as it can be. However, if certain scientific principles are to be considered constant, i.e. the speed of light, what is not free of that principle? Then, if one holds that there is nothing that does not act according to some principle, know or unknown, how is it actually "free"? Is it not the inevitable result of those principles interacting with one another?

Thus, in conclusion, while people can think they're free in ways they are not (if their metaphysical interpretation is, say, indeterminism, but the deterministic material system you laid out is the truth), it doesn't necessarily take faith for a determinist biological system to believe its behavior is free. Because when they claim they're free, they mean things like that they aren't coerced, that no other being's will interferes in their own volition-to-action causal chain - not deep metaphysical claims about causal independence.

So, you are saying is "freedom" refers to specific interactions and not scientific principles. Then what do you call things resulting from all other factors? Are there things that are not governed by the scientific principles of the universe?

[Divine Insight]

Everybody agrees we have will, that our psychology has a function formally called "volition" that we experience as wants, desires, etc. Volition is experienced subjectively in every person, and upon simple self-reflection, it is clear to us that we want things. It is also clear to us that we make decisions, and we make most of them consciously. Thus we quickly have ideas about how our will and these decisions relate: for example, that we choose what we want. It is entirely possible that, on a more rigorous level, we experience choosing what we want because volition is brought to our awareness when a decision-making algorithm has taken place in our brain - when it has already taken place.

This is true. However I would like to expand on this if I may.

As you point out above, we view "Free Will" as the ability to choose what we "want" to chose.

Therefore we can actually take the idea of "Free Will" back beyond the decision making process. The real question would then become, "Are we free to want specific things?"

In other words, if we say, "I want that, so I'll chose that". The choice may appear to be a free will choice, but if the choice was based on the want then the real question is whether we actually have any freedom in what we want before we even make any conscious decisions at all.

[bluethread]

.

Our existence may be somewhat deterministic, but that would also necessarily include a dynamic randomness that is always present. Therefore many things that have been "determined" to necessarily occur today may have been determined by randomness that has only occurred a short time ago.

In other words, our existence would not be fully deterministic in the classical sense.

It is also possible that the mere existence of randomness could somehow facilitate a "free will". Although no one to date has proposed a precise mechanism of how that could work. Or if they have I am not aware of it.

So, your answer is that there are random factors and those random factors may be involved in human decisions? Where in the decision process do you think that randomness might exist?

If so, isn't that being engaging in a faith based lifestyle?

No. It would simply be doing the only deterministic thing that we can do. In fact, our beliefs and faith would themselves be determined.

Then it would be predetermined that we think we are not predetermined? Why doesn't that apply to other things. Could we not be predetermined to think that the speed of light is a universal constant, when it really isn't?

But keep in mind again, they wouldn't have been determined clear back to the Big Bang. Our faiths and beliefs are most likely determined by the environment and social interactions we have. So this would be a "determinism" that is more dynamic and is influence by our current live environment.

What gave rise to our faiths, beliefs and our current enviroment, if not the systems that preceded them?

Keep in mind also that randomness alone may play a big role in what decisions we make. In other words, our decisions would not need to be predetermined entirely. They could be based on randomness within the thought process of our brain. This doesn't necessarily mean that we had any "free will" as we may not be able to control the randomness of our decisions. But our decisions themselves could be influenced by randomness.

How can randomness play a role? That would mean that the principles are only principles, if there is no random factor effecting them. Then, if those factors are indeed random, how can one say the principle is indeed a constant.

That being the case, then things that happen today would have very little to do with things that might have happened in previous times. In other words, if you have a choice to either sleep-in, or get up and go to work, the outcome of that choice itself may not be predetermined. But it may also be beyond our ability to control. Just because it's not predetermined doesn't necessarily mean that we are actually in control of it.

Now, you are arguing against scientific constants, i.e. the speed of light may not have always been a constant.

If not, what is it that enables that being to make independent choices?

It could be the random nature of reality, as I had already mentioned. Precisely how this would work to produce an actual "free will" is yet to be worked out. But it's clear that the choices themselves can be "independent" from determinism to some degree because of randomness.

How do you know it is randomness? If it is random, how does one determine that?

Obviously our choices are NEVER independent from determinism entirely. For example, we can choose to jump onto the moon without any technological aid. It's just not possible so there are many choices that we cannot make no matter what.

Usually when we make a choice we are choosing from "available options", therefore those options have already been "predetermined" by the simple fact that they are already available. So the choices are predetermined in all cases.

You mean that they were predetermined all along, or they somehow became predetermined when we realized it. Also, many things that we thought were impossible have been discovered to be possible. So, how can we call something impossible, if there is some random factor out there that may change?

Which choice we end up choosing is the only thing left open to the question of having been determined prior to choosing it.

And exactly how "free" we are to make our choices is anyone's guess. Our choices may appear to to us to be "our own". But that doesn't mean that they still can't just be random to some degree and we don't realize it.

So we don't even know whether or not we even actually have any free will.

So, how can we determine if our choices are not predetermined, even after the fact? If they are random, why is are scientific principles considered constant?

The rest of your post is beyond the scope of this thread. This thread is not about blame, but about the possibility of choice if scientific principles are immutable.

[Divine Insight]

So, your answer is that there are random factors and those random factors may be involved in human decisions? Where in the decision process do you think that randomness might exist?

Well the entire decision process takes place within the brain right?

And the brain operates mostly due to electrical and chemical processes. Both electrons and chemical ions behave according to the laws of Quantum Mechanics which requires there there must necessarily be randomness involved. Therefore the very mechanism of thoughtful decisions within a human brain are vulnerable to being influenced by the randomness of quantum effects. Who knows how many quantum-level interactions are required for a thought to occur within the brain. Just recognizing the vast areas of brain activity that appear to be active when a human brain is thinking suggests that countless billions of quantum-level processes are necessarily involved. With that much possibility for randomness we can almost say that it's astonishing that a meaningful thought can even make it through the process. Clearly meaningful thought do make it through the process, but certainly not without having encountered quite a bit of opportunity for quantum randomness that could easily affect the outcome of the final decision.

If so, isn't that being engaging in a faith based lifestyle?

No. It would simply be doing the only deterministic thing that we can do. In fact, our beliefs and faith would themselves be determined.

Then it would be predetermined that we think we are not predetermined? Why doesn't that apply to other things. Could we not be predetermined to think that the speed of light is a universal constant, when it really isn't?[/quote]

But we clearly aren't predetermined to think that we are not predetermined. Didn't I just say that I'm not convinced that we are not predetermined?

Don't forget, your idea that we are not predetermined may have been 'predeterminded' for you as an individual based on your experiences, and things you have read about and perhaps see as what you perceive to be an assumption of the masses. I wouldn't even argue that it isn't the assumption of the masses that we have "free will". I would agree that this is a mainstream belief.

I don't necessarily believe things just because the masses do.

Whether I was predetermined to think for myself is pretty much impossible to say isn't it?

In fact, when it comes to character I often wonder whether I'm responsible for having made the personal free will choice to be a "good person", or whether that's just what I was destined to be due to predeterminism. I mean, it is inviting to think that I'm responsible for having chosen to be who I am. I think it would be great if I could claim responsibility for having chosen to be a good person.

But is that really true? Even I can't say with any certainty.

In fact, I can say that I have never had the desire or want to do bad things. Therefore I didn't even need to fight off any temptation to do bad things. I mean, for me, being a good person is just who I am. I didn't need to work at it. In fact, this was a common feeling among many of my relatives. We used to sit around the campfire having philosophical conversations, and it came up pretty often. Our family was pretty good, and the reason seemed to be that none of us had any desire or temptation to do bad things. So we used to joke about it saying that our family must have been gifted with a "Get out of Temptation Free" card. None of us felt like we had to "work" at being good. It's just who we are.

So was this predetermined by genetics or something? I don't know the answer to that. If could have even been predetermined by the family we grew up in. Perhaps we were just providing each other with good influences? I don't know the answer.

But the question of why we aren't tempted to do bad things remains unanswered.

But keep in mind again, they wouldn't have been determined clear back to the Big Bang. Our faiths and beliefs are most likely determined by the environment and social interactions we have. So this would be a "determinism" that is more dynamic and is influence by our current live environment.

What gave rise to our faiths, beliefs and our current enviroment, if not the systems that preceded them?

Well, the universe has clearly evolved physical in a predetermined way based on the laws of physics. That much we can be pretty confident about. But then again the universe doesn't think so there isn't any question of whether the universe has any "will" at all, much less a "free will".

We do know from classical physics that much of macro physics unfolds in a very predetermined way. I watch a lot of Air Crash Investigation where they figure out from the crash of an airliner exactly how things unfolded as it crashed, and from that they can extrapolate backwards to figure out what caused the crash. So we not only think that the physical universe unfolds in a predetermined fashion, but Air Crash Investigators could never figure out why an air liner crashed if the universe doesn't unfold in a predetermined fashion.

So it's not just our "belief" that the universe unfolds in a predicable predetermined way, it's a FACT. And as ironic as it may seem it's that FACT that has predetermined that will must eventually believe this.

So in this case, we really don't have any "free will choice" to believe otherwise. Sure, some people can ignore the FACTS and refuse to believe the obvious, but of what value is that kind of "belief"? That's just ignorance spelled b-e-l-i-e-f.

Keep in mind also that randomness alone may play a big role in what decisions we make. In other words, our decisions would not need to be predetermined entirely. They could be based on randomness within the thought process of our brain. This doesn't necessarily mean that we had any "free will" as we may not be able to control the randomness of our decisions. But our decisions themselves could be influenced by randomness.

How can randomness play a role? That would mean that the principles are only principles, if there is no random factor effecting them. Then, if those factors are indeed random, how can one say the principle is indeed a constant.

I'm not going to try to defend that randomness can give rise to "free will". I merely suggested that it may be possible that it might play a role assuming that free will exists at all.

Remember, I'm not even convinced that we actually have any free will. But I do recognize that randomness within thought processes could certainly "Free" decisions made in the brain from any long-term predeterminism. In other words, thoughts you have today, (because of randomness) could arise today spontaneously with no solid predetermination involved.

Obviously, there is going to be SOME predetermination involved because it's highly unlikely that you'll have a thought that is totally alien to your experiences. At best there may be a random fluctuation in how you are thinking about things that you have already been predetermined to think about based on experiences you have already had. And that random fluctuation with be an "Ah ha!" moment. It will be a "new idea" that was not predetermined prior to the randomness of thought.

That being the case, then things that happen today would have very little to do with things that might have happened in previous times. In other words, if you have a choice to either sleep-in, or get up and go to work, the outcome of that choice itself may not be predetermined. But it may also be beyond our ability to control. Just because it's not predetermined doesn't necessarily mean that we are actually in control of it.

Now, you are arguing against scientific constants, i.e. the speed of light may not have always been a constant.

No, not at all. If you wake up this morning with a new random thought that the speed of light is different from what we measure, that's not going to change the speed of light. When you physically go back into the lab and measure the speed of light you'll quickly discover that it's the same as before you came up with your new though.

The speed of light is not dependent upon human thought.

If not, what is it that enables that being to make independent choices?

[/quote]
It could be the random nature of reality, as I had already mentioned. Precisely how this would work to produce an actual "free will" is yet to be worked out. But it's clear that the choices themselves can be "independent" from determinism to some degree because of randomness. [/quote]

How do you know it is randomness? If it is random, how does one determine that?
[/quote]

You'll need to take a course on mathematics for that. The explanation is too involved for a post. Probabilities won't work out if right if things aren't random. Randomness is a required premise in probability theory.

From Wiki:
Randomness

A random process is a sequence of random variables whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions.

Obviously our choices are NEVER independent from determinism entirely. For example, we can choose to jump onto the moon without any technological aid. It's just not possible so there are many choices that we cannot make no matter what.

Usually when we make a choice we are choosing from "available options", therefore those options have already been "predetermined" by the simple fact that they are already available. So the choices are predetermined in all cases.

You mean that they were predetermined all along, or they somehow became predetermined when we realized it. Also, many things that we thought were impossible have been discovered to be possible. So, how can we call something impossible, if there is some random factor out there that may change?

First off there is no known macro random factor that could suddenly change. Nor is there any reason to think that there could be one since macro physics doesn't allow for that.

The randomness of Quantum Mechanics will NEVER allow a human to jump onto the moon without the aid of some technological device. So that's never going to happen.

And not I don't mean that we were "predetermined all along".

The predetermination that I'm talking about is the obvious stuff. If you own a house and a car in the country, and you have a wife and three daughters. Then this is a "predetermined factor" concerning your future thoughts and decisions. This is not to say that these specific things will determine your precise thoughts and decisions in the future, but they are certainly going to be a deterministic part of all your future decision.

Even if you decide to wake up in the morning, take the car, and leave the house, wife, and daughter in the dust to run off a start a whole new life. Even if you do that, you aren't going to be able to change that experience, and therefore the experience is going to continue to have a predetermined affect on all your future thoughts whether you realize it or not.

And that's what I mean by "predeterminism". In other words, there is ALWAYS some predeterminism involved in our thoughts and choices even if we have "free will". That kind of predeterminism is inescapable.

Which choice we end up choosing is the only thing left open to the question of having been determined prior to choosing it.

And exactly how "free" we are to make our choices is anyone's guess. Our choices may appear to to us to be "our own". But that doesn't mean that they still can't just be random to some degree and we don't realize it.

So we don't even know whether or not we even actually have any free will.

So, how can we determine if our choices are not predetermined, even after the fact? If they are random, why is are scientific principles considered constant?

Because scientific principles aren't dependent upon human thought or our choices.

We didn't "choose" the speed of light. We "discovered" it. The speed of light has absolutely nothing at all to do with human thoughts or choices.

The rest of your post is beyond the scope of this thread. This thread is not about blame, but about the possibility of choice if scientific principles are immutable.

Well if humans don't truly have any control over their desires and choices, then the topic does indeed include whether or not our society should blame people for their choices. After all, if they aren't truly responsible for their choices because their choices are deterministic or even random, then how could they be responsible for them?

So that's a topic that is unavoidably linked with any discussion of "free will versus determinism".

If we have no free will how could we be held responsible for our actions?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

First we have to establish if "scientific determinism" is even a thing given the weirdness of quantum mechanism.