# Does no free will necessarily entail fatalism or nihilism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 29, 2024, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940 "2024-04-29T19:37:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/121 "2024-05-19T02:45:03Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Because my conscious thoughts are one of the authors of that script. That’s just putting off the question. How are your conscious thoughts one of the authors? That’s the question. The script analogy was only to show what it means for the choice to be inevitable. Inevitable means no alternative, right? It couldn’t be any other way. If your conscious thoughts could change the outcome, they have some way to be different. What makes your conscious thoughts able to be different if the inputs are the same? Because if the universe is completely deterministic, the same inputs should give the same output. You yourself used the word inevitable. So it is inevitable, _and_ could be different? > [@Max\_S](#): > > For example, imagine you and I are collaborating to write a story book. [Snip] > [@Max\_S](#): > > From the perspective of the Skeptic himself, did he exercise free will in his initial reply to God? Your decision was based on complex chaotic processes and only a fraction of the necessary information is exposed as ‘physical knowledge’ in the story book universe. For a character in the story book universe, the goings on between you and I occur in a non-physical substrate. No amount of ‘physical knowledge’ is enough to accurately predict the Skeptic’s initial reply. Therefore, from an in-universe perspective, the Skeptic exercised free will in his initial reply. No, the Skeptic is a character who had his actions and words dictated to him by whatever outworld process negotiated the written page. The Skeptic has no free will. The Skeptic _might_ have the illusion of free will, if we allow the fictional construct a reality in the book, but the character is constrained and the choice is not free. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/122 "2024-05-19T02:59:39Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > The Skeptic _might_ have the illusion of free will, if we allow the fictional construct a reality in the book I see “the illusion of free will” and “free will” “from the perspective of the Skeptic himself” as equivalent. Of course, from my perspective as an author of the book, the Skeptic is under my direct control and not a free agent at all. Likewise a reader can flip the page back and forth as many times as he wants, and the Skeptic always follows the same script. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/123 "2024-05-19T12:02:25Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > That’s just putting off the question. How are your conscious thoughts one of the authors? That’s the question. That wasn’t the question you asked. You were saying in your analogy that we are actors “just doing what the script says” and so I responded that in my view we are the ones also writing the script; the story cannot be written without your conscious thoughts. You’re not a passenger, you’re intrinsic to this. This is the opposite of “putting off the question” btw, I am directly responding to your analogy. And the answer to this new question is as I am saying here: if your decision-making thoughts were somehow surplus to requirements we could remove them and the same events would play out. That’s not the case. > [@Irishman](#): > > If this agent, this self can choose a different option in the same situation, that’s free choice. If the situation means that the agent would always arrive at the same option, is that choice? Yes. And I think this is absolutely at the crux of things. If I find myself in a particular scenario, I make a decision based on my experiences, my personality, my wants and needs. That’s my choice, freely arrived at. Expecting to reverse time and see a different decision made is somehow expecting my choice to not be my choice. To somehow defy my own preferences or judgement. Why on earth would that happen? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/124 "2024-05-19T19:32:57Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > If I find myself in a particular scenario, I make a decision based on my experiences, my personality, my wants and needs. That’s my choice, freely arrived at. If your experiences are a slave to circumstance, and your personality a slave to experience, and your wants a slave to personality, and your needs a slave to either sin or God (or biology), none of these can be the source of free will, as all are coerced by external forces. > [@Mijin](#): > > Expecting to reverse time and see a different decision made is somehow expecting my choice to not be my choice. This _only_ follows on the assumption of hard determinism. Especially with your definition of free choice, which perplexes me. (But I think you adopted a different definition of choice for this particular sentence.) If for example it turns out your personality channels a bit of fundamental randomness, such that there is a 1/1000 chance of you choosing tea just for the hell of it, I would expect you to acknowledge the random element doesn’t alienate your personality from your self. Therefore though your decision varies under the exact same circumstance, by your definition isn’t it still an exercise of free will? And then if I deny the premise of physicalism it doesn’t make sense to turn back time - there is not necessarily a correlation (1:1 or otherwise) between physical and mental substrates. Here’s the problem I have with your definition of “free” choice, or “free” will. Grant me the following premises for the sake of argument: - Given your personality, experiences, wants, and needs, you don’t have a strong preference for coffee or tea so you resolve to pick at random (flip some mental coins, eeny meeny miny moe, etc). - Randomness doesn’t actually exist due to hard determinism. - God resolves the coin flips that you conjure in your mind, thereby enforcing determinism. - God is a part of your self identity / His breath animates you and is part of what makes you _you_. This scenario satisfies your definition of free will. The decision is entirely made by you. You haven’t defied your own preferences or judgement. There’s no internal inconsistency. But this is the textbook example of what free will _isn’t_ - a lot of people have a big problem if the choice is between salvation and damnation rather than coffee and tea. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/125 "2024-05-19T19:46:52Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If your experiences are a slave to circumstance, > and your personality a slave to experience, > and your wants a slave to personality, > and your needs a slave to either sin or God (or biology), > none of these can be the source of free will, as all are coerced by external forces. As I’ve said many times: I don’t think that “free will” is a meaningful concept, so if you want to conclude free will is not compatible with \, be my guest. I think free will is “not even wrong”: it’s never adequately defined. It’s an existential angst formed into a nebulous concept. But if we’re talking about rational _choices_, then not only do the things you list not _preclude_ choice, they are _necessary_ for it. Even if we lived in a magical universe of souls, and gods, and whatever you like, if I’m making a rational choice, it’s going to come down to my character, my experience and understanding. A pocket of cause and effect regardless of however else that universe rolls. > [@Max\_S](#): > > This _only_ follows on the assumption of hard determinism. Answered above; what we think of as “choice” is a pocket of determinism. It’s why people trivially reject randomness as not being choice. Implicitly, what we mean by choice is based on past events and personal preference. Also, as I’ve said earlier, I think the balance of evidence right now is that our universe _isn’t_ deterministic, but that does nothing to reform “free will” into something meaningful. Determinism is a complete red herring here. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/126 "2024-05-19T19:57:29Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Answered above; what we think of as “choice” is a pocket of determinism. It’s why people trivially reject randomness as not being choice. Implicitly, what we mean by choice is based on past events and personal preference. I don’t understand how this answers my post. Maybe it’s because I don’t understand what you mean by _a pocket of cause and effect_. Suffice to say I think most people believe “free” choice implies some degree of freedom from a chain of causation. If I put a gun to your head, can you explain whether/why that deprives you of free choice in your framework? Let me try again without muddling _will_ and _choice_: > [@Mijin](#): > > Expecting to reverse time and see a different decision made is somehow expecting my choice to not be my choice. This _only_ follows on the assumption of hard determinism. Especially with your definition of free choice, which perplexes me. (But I think you adopted a different definition of _choice_ for this particular sentence.) If for example it turns out your personality channels a bit of fundamental randomness, such that there is a 1/1000 chance of you choosing tea just for the hell of it, I would expect you to acknowledge the random element doesn’t alienate your personality from your self. Therefore though your decision varies under the exact same circumstance, by your definition isn’t it still an exercise of free _choice_? And then if I deny the premise of physicalism it doesn’t make sense to turn back time - there is not necessarily a correlation (1:1 or otherwise) between physical and mental substrates. Here’s the problem I have with your definition of “free” choice. Grant me the following premises for the sake of argument: - Given your personality, experiences, wants, and needs, you don’t have a strong preference for coffee or tea so you resolve to pick at random (flip some mental coins, eeny meeny miny moe, etc). - Randomness doesn’t actually exist due to hard determinism. - God resolves the coin flips that you conjure in your mind, thereby enforcing determinism. - God is a part of your self identity / His breath animates you and is part of what makes you _you_. This scenario satisfies your definition of free choice. The decision is entirely made by you. You haven’t defied your own preferences or judgement. There’s no internal inconsistency. But this is the textbook example of what free choice _isn’t_ - a lot of people have a big problem if the choice is between salvation and damnation rather than coffee and tea. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/127 "2024-05-19T20:26:40Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Suffice to say I think most people believe “free” choice implies some degree of freedom from a chain of causation. This is true for “free will”, yes. And why, as I say, I think the concept is incoherent: what’s the alternative to cause-and-effect and randomness? If a free will entity, in a free will universe chooses to drink coffee, can I ask it _why did you pick coffee_? But yes, even though people try to define free will that way, it’s clear they have a more deterministic model in mind when talking about choices. This is why randomness is trivially rejected as a source of choice. Otherwise why wouldn’t free will advocates simply note that physics implies genuine randomness happens, therefore free will? > [@](#): > > If I put a gun to your head, can you explain whether/why that deprives you of free choice in your framework? Yes, in the technical sense: _all_ of our choices are constrained, even free will advocates would concede that. A gun to my head is just a much more constrained situation than others. Of course in the colloquial sense, we would say I had “no” choice – when a situation is _that_ constrained we basically say we are compelled. > [@Max\_S](#): > > If for example it turns out your personality channels a bit of fundamental randomness, such that there is a 1/1000 chance of you choosing tea just for the hell of it, I would expect you to acknowledge the random element doesn’t alienate your personality from your self. Therefore though your decision varies under the exact same circumstance, by your definition isn’t it still an exercise of free _choice_? Yep. I don’t think most people would include the randomness part as being part of the act of choosing, but yes, having indeterminancy is irrelevant to being able to choose. Deterministic universe, non-deterministic universe, my decisions are still the product of my character, experiences and the scenario I am in. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Grant me the following premises for the sake of argument: I can’t because your premises are inconsistent. One premise is that my mind is capable of generating randomness, and another premise is that randomness doesn’t exist. And this is not me being obtuse; I genuinely can’t follow your point because those two premises seem to be in direct opposition. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/128 "2024-05-19T20:31:31Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > One premise is that my mind is capable of generating randomness, and another premise is that randomness doesn’t exist. Per my hypo, your mind isn’t capable of generating true randomness. “Randomness doesn’t _actually_ exist due to hard determinism.” However, it is capable of choosing what _it thinks_ is a random outcome. “you resolve to pick at random”. The mechanism is given as a mental organ that acts as a pseudo-random generator. “God resolves the coin flips […] God is a part of your self identity.” ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/129 "2024-05-19T20:55:55Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > This is true for “free will”, yes. And why, as I say, I think the concept is incoherent: what’s the alternative to cause-and-effect and randomness? If you find the concept of free will incoherent, how about we frame the question this way: _Is_ there, at least potentially, an alternative to cause-and-effect and randomness? Is there something logically inherent in the concept of strict cause-and-effect determinism that necessarily rules out any alternatives other than randomness? > [@Mijin](#): > > If a free will entity, in a free will universe chooses to drink coffee, can I ask it _why did you pick coffee_? I’m not sure how useful this question is. In a free will universe, you could choose to ask it that question. And it could choose how, or whether, to answer the question. In a strictly deterministic universe, you could ask anyone “Why did you pick coffee?” _if_ there were some causal chain that led to the effect of you asking that question. And then (1) the actual reason that entity chose coffee, (2) the reason that entity believed they chose coffee, and (3) the answer that entity gave to the question of why they chose coffee would all be determined as the effects of causal chains. And there’s no reason those three separate effects would have to agree with one another, since they could be the results of separate causes. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/130 "2024-05-19T21:03:31Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Is there something logically inherent in the concept of strict cause-and-effect determinism that necessarily rules out any alternatives other than randomness? Wouldn’t strict cause-and-effect determinism rule out all uncaused causes, including randomness? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/131 "2024-05-19T21:08:22Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Wouldn’t strict cause-and-effect determinism rule out all uncaused causes, including randomness? I meant the _concept_ of strict cause-and-effect determinism, not the _existence_ of cause-and-effect determinism. By analogy, the concept of acute triangles doesn’t rule out the possibility of obtuse triangles, even though a particular triangle being acute rules out the possibility of that particular triangle being obtuse. But the concepts of acute triangles, obtuse triangles, and right triangles together logically rule out the possibility that there could be a triangle that is neither acute, obtuse, nor right. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/132 "2024-05-19T21:14:35Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Otherwise why wouldn’t free will advocates simply note that physics implies genuine randomness happens, therefore free will? As you note in your attempt to define free choice, there is a necessary distinction between self and non-self. Positing randomness does not on its own guarantee a given random cause is part of one’s self identity. > [@Mijin](#): > > I don’t think most people would include the randomness part as being part of the act of choosing There is no requirement that I predict the effect in order to make a free choice. If I defer to an external random process such as a true random coin flip, I have still made a free choice to _defer_ to the external process. The same holds if I defer to an external pseudo-random process such as a coin flip under hard-determinism. However in my hypothetical, the process is not external and therefore the choice is not delegated. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/133 "2024-05-19T21:17:38Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I meant the _concept_ of strict cause-and-effect determinism, not the _existence_ of cause-and-effect determinism. Okay, makes sense to me. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/134 "2024-05-19T21:23:33Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If I put a gun to your head, can you explain whether/why that deprives you of free choice in your framework? > > Yes, in the technical sense: _all_ of our choices are constrained, even free will advocates would concede that. A gun to my head is just a much more constrained situation than others. > Of course in the colloquial sense, we would say I had “no” choice – when a situation is _that_ constrained we basically say we are compelled. Can you give me a concrete example or two of a choice that isn’t free? (Per your personal understanding of the terms in their philosophical, not colloquial sense.) ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/135 "2024-05-19T21:28:26Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > If you find the concept of free will incoherent, how about we frame the question this way: _Is_ there, at least potentially, an alternative to cause-and-effect and randomness? Is there something logically inherent in the concept of strict cause-and-effect determinism that necessarily rules out any alternatives other than randomness? In answer to the first question: tentative yes. I mean, cause-and-effect and randomness are very nearly exact opposite concepts, and therefore leaving no other option. But they are not formally X and not-X and I don’t like to rule things out prematurely. In terms of the second question, thank you for giving me the chance to clarify my last post. The reason that free will is incoherent is _not_ because it posits something beyond randomness and cause-and-effect; if that were literally the definition, I would have no issue with it. It would be a standard conjecture as yet unsupported by evidence. The reason that it is incoherent is also because it is in the context of reasoned choice, which implicitly relies upon cause and effect. Furthermore, definitions like “could have chosen differently” are ill-formed: as I have been saying, there is no reason for me to choose something different to what I indeed chose. I both _could_ not have chosen differently and _would_ not have chosen differently. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I’m not sure how useful this question is. > > In a free will universe, you could choose to ask it that question. And it could choose how, or whether, to answer the question. And I think you don’t want to take on this problem, because it is a significant one for free will. If a hypothetical free will agent says they picked coffee because they like the taste (as someone in our universe might) then that is injecting, at least partially, a cause and effect that the agent did not choose. If there were no such reasons, then that’s randomness. Of course this relates back to the original point: _perhaps free will is a third way_, one we haven’t thought of yet. But I would say to that, that the way this debate is typically presented is that it is considered a problem if our universe lacks free will, and if we don’t have it, then fatalism. And yet we cannot even define what it is. Given a hypothetical universe, with free will by definition, we still cannot say how choices are made and how they are more “free”. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/136 "2024-05-19T21:32:28Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Per my hypo, your mind isn’t capable of generating true randomness. “Randomness doesn’t _actually_ exist due to hard determinism.” However, it is capable of choosing what _it thinks_ is a random outcome. “you resolve to pick at random”. The mechanism is given as a mental organ that acts as a pseudo-random generator. Then it isn’t random, and so the conclusion that follows is unsound. I don’t think this hypothetical is going anywhere. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Can you give me a concrete example or two of a choice that isn’t free? (Per your personal understanding of the terms in their philosophical, not colloquial sense.) No. I would say some degree of freedom is implicit in the concept of choice. Some scenarios and choices are more free than others. But there is no scenario where you have zero freedom that I would call choice. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2024, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/137 "2024-05-19T21:37:25Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Then it isn’t random, and so the conclusion that follows is unsound. The conclusion was that you would categorize the decision as a free choice and traditionally it would not be so considered. Are you saying you don’t see it as a free choice, or what? for your convenience, > [@Max\_S](#): > > Here’s the problem I have with your definition of “free” choice. Grant me the following premises for the sake of argument: > > - Given your personality, experiences, wants, and needs, you don’t have a strong preference for coffee or tea so you resolve to pick at random (flip some mental coins, eeny meeny miny moe, etc). > - Randomness doesn’t actually exist due to hard determinism. > - God resolves the coin flips that you conjure in your mind, thereby enforcing determinism. > - God is a part of your self identity / His breath animates you and is part of what makes you _you_. > > This scenario satisfies your definition of free choice. The decision is entirely made by you. You haven’t defied your own preferences or judgement. There’s no internal inconsistency. > > But this is the textbook example of what free choice _isn’t_ - a lot of people have a big problem if the choice is between salvation and damnation rather than coffee and tea. > [@Mijin](#): > > No. I would say some degree of freedom is implicit in the concept of choice. Some scenarios and choices are more free than others. But there is no scenario where you have zero freedom that I would call choice. Okay, I suspected as much. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2024, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/138 "2024-05-20T00:41:41Z")
As far as I can tell there _is_ no option besides determinism and randomness, as demonstrated by thousands of years of very smart people trying to come up with one and always having to resort to handwaves about souls, free will, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2024, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/139 "2024-05-20T06:35:27Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I see “the illusion of free will” and “free will” “from the perspective of the Skeptic himself” as equivalent. But that’s really the root of the philosophical question. Is all of life preordained, predetermined, never an ability to vary from a single cause to the full extent of every action and decision in the world, like billiard balls on a pool table? Are a person’s decisions, choices, whatever all set in motion and following a natural cascade, like dominoes in a row? We think we are making a free choice, but the outcome is as sure as flipping a 2 heads coin. Or is human consciousness a creative source? Is it somehow its own agent? I gave a suggestion earlier nobody seems to have picked up on, even to counter. I said something about preferences and desires being filters, not constraints. I suppose this gets into semantics and definitions. See below. > [@Max\_S](#): > > If your experiences are a slave to circumstance, > and your personality a slave to experience, > and your wants a slave to personality, > and your needs a slave to either sin or God (or biology), > none of these can be the source of free will, as all are coerced by external forces. I think the assumption that personality is a slave to experience is not solid. It is true our personalities are shaped by our experiences. But I feel like I have a natural internal identity that is at the core of my being, and this appears to be a common experience. That natural identity, or self, is the heart of who _I_ am, that receives experiences and integrates them into my being. Subconscious effects happen as well, but my core identity is more than the sum of everything that has happened to me, it is something else. Why do people’s personalities differ so much? Twins can grow up in the same household and still reflect different personalities from before they can talk. I will admit this is a struggle for me. I’m a hard atheist, I reject christianity and ideas such as souls. My struggle is accepting that a person is just some sort of elaborate bio-chemical reaction in the wetware of the brain. Because it is unsettling, and because it seems hard to see how personality can be such a unique experience if it is ultimately a physics and chemistry reaction. But if I accept that conclusion, then the idea of there being an agent that is independent of the sum of experiences becomes difficult to justify. > [@Mijin](#): > > If I find myself in a particular scenario, I make a decision based on my experiences, my personality, my wants and needs. That’s my choice, freely arrived at. Okay, I see what you are saying. What I’m trying to propose is not that you throw all of that out, but that there might be the chance your personality would weigh all of those inputs and see something else, another preference, or weigh the values differently. Some way the decision could be altered. But you appear to be saying that the same evaluation with the same inputs will always give the same result, just like a math problem or chemical equation. And that somehow is the definition of free. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2024, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940/140 "2024-05-20T12:37:11Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > What I’m trying to propose is not that you throw all of that out, but that there might be the chance your personality would weigh all of those inputs and see something else, another preference, or weigh the values differently. My choice is my best judgement at the time, I both _could_ not and _would_ not make a different judgement. e.g. If you were to ask the **Mijin** of 1996 why he is going to a particular Uni, he could tell you, and explain his reasoning. He may even be able to say it was a very difficult decision between A, B and C but finally he went for C because _reason_. I wouldn’t make the same decision _now_, but at the time, based on what I knew, it was the best option. So get in the time machine as many times as you like: Mijin will either say the same thing every time, or, if the universe is non-deterministic, maybe there’s a random factor in there, but that random factor is not what we would typically call “choice”. > [@Irishman](#): > > But you appear to be saying that the same evaluation with the same inputs will always give the same result, just like a math problem or chemical equation. And that somehow is the definition of free. Well it’s not necessarily the same if the universe is non-deterministic, as I say. But the choice bit _does_ relate to a chain of cause and effect, because when we talk about choice it’s implicitly what we’re referring to. e.g. If a magical jinn in a fairytale world, chooses not to live in a lamp because it wants to see the world, well, “discomfort at being confined / desire to see the world” is a characteristic that the jinn just has that it didn’t choose. Being in a lamp is a scenario that it finds itself in based on prior events. And finally it has a particular level of understanding of how to get out. Based on all this, it makes its best judgement of what to do next. Sounds very cause-and-effecty, even though we’re talking about a magical reality… This is why I stress that talking about lack of free will as some problem of our reality is a red herring; no-one has shown what _other_ kind of choice there can be than the one I’m outlining. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-no-free-will-necessarily-entail-fatalism-or-nihilism/1000940.md?page=8)