Well I flipped a coin after asking "Should I allow Hawkins tattoo my face?" the answer was tails. Sorry.
Hmm I assumed that you would only be morally culpable up to the point that you decide to submit yourself to said randomness. After making that commitment your culpability is only reinstated (and retroactively) after the first time you go against the toss. Then it is proven that you are making the decisions and not chance. Not to say that you would get very far in life that way or anything. That is one of the ways that Lestat dealt with being a vampire, by turning his predation into a force of nature through randomness instead of a force of will.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that changing your mind proves free will. If that is the case I have to say it is not enough.
A determinist would say there are causes that would make you change your mind. These causes would be environmental, situational, biological, physical, nature vs. nurture, and probably some others that I can't think of now.
Just to clarify, did "tails" mean I could tattoo your face but you chose against the coin toss, or that tails meant no tattoo and you were forced to say no?
Mmmm, not so mad really. I agree with you in a sense (or maybe I'm mad as well?) There's plenty been written about how our responses are largely conditioned by our environment and our experiences. In fact, I would venture that by the time most people reach adulthood, the overwhelming majority of their actions and thoughts are simply automatic responses, based on their previous conditioning. For example, I see a highly poisonous snake sunning itself on the trail when I'm out hiking. Immediately my heart rate elevates, I begin to sweat slightly (unconscious response) and I give the snake a wide berth (conscious response) as I continue along the trail. Not a single part of that came out of me exercising my will. It's all done without thinking, and as an automatic response to what I've been conditioned to believe (ie that poisonous snakes are dangerous and should be avoided).
This isn't to say that nobody has a free will, but lots of people in many situations act as if they don't. That is, given the same stimulus they will respond the same way every single time, without exercising their will to choose differently, UNTIL a different stimulus or different information is introduced. Maybe we as humans exercise our free will by intentionally seeking out different information, which will help condition us to respond differently. In that way, we exhibit the trait of free will by choosing which information to deem relevant and which to disregard completely. Then again, maybe those filters are based on our conditioning as well. (sigh)
Is there such a thing as free will? I don't think so, but I also know that even so, it doesn't mean we don't have the illusion of freewill.
Consider this. If the universe follows all the rules of mathematics, physics, quantum physics, thermodynamics and conservation, then that means every atom, every quark, every photon follows a set pattern and interacts with other particles in a "pre-determined" way.
But I still can't get around the fact that if it is all pre-determined then hypothetically we could build a computer to predict the events of the universe. And if we can predict something we can change it, but then if we change it that proves there is free will. But that also proves the computer was wrong and thus changing what the computer predicted could just be the actual course of the universe.
Ah, but the Heisenberg Principle dictates that the mere act of observing causes the observed particles to behave differently, so in effect, it's impossible to build a computer that can predict the future given the current state, even if you could gather all the necessary data.
Well since we are speaking of God predetermining people's future it actually makes no sense. First of all supposedly God created humans to give us the CHOICE as to whether or not we would follow him. He got bored with angels being forced to worship him I guess.
But later in the book he's Omniscient, and knows the past and the future. So it would make no sense for him to create humans to give humans choice but as he creates humans he can see their choice. Or maybe the world is just a giant sitcom that God's watching...who knows.
Free Will or Predetermination- I say the answer is Yes.
I think of it this way and it is somewhat useful to me. Its like I'm playing chess and God is on the other side. He's way better than Kasparov obviously so the outcome of the game is predetermined- I'm gonna die.
Yet I have the free will to move my chess pieces any way I choose within certain limits. Can't move my rook on a diagonal -I'm not going to dunk a basketball.
As the game goes on, I lose pieces- I get older and my realistic options start to narrow.
On the other hand as the game goes on my pieces have certain freedoms they did not have when the game started and they were all crunched together- I get smarter and find things I am good at and that are meaningful to me.
In the end God doesn't care about whether I win or lose because I'm going to lose, he just wants me to play well. If he decides I'm gonna lose my Queen I can't stop it, all I can do is move my pieces around the best I know how.
Hypothesis: Free will and pre-determination are mutually exclusive and the truth of one violates the truth of its counterfactual, we hypothesize that pre-determination is possible (negating free will by extension).
Free will IS possible by virtue of the fact that; I have the power/ability to respond to this post AND I simultaneously have the power/ability to REFRAIN from responding to this post.
Pre-determination can only be achieved in the following ways; divine omniscience (which none of us have), time travel (which as of yet is impossible and only theoretically feasible up and to the moment a time machine is invented/turned on and not before), and probability based prediction of outcomes which is insufficient to account for the fallacy of "inductive logic" in that all it takes is ONE instance that a prediction fails to violate the veracity of ALL pre-determined conclusion.
Since confirmation is also impossible we can therefore turn to the argument of refutation and we can reject the hypothesis that pre-determination is possible and assume the truth of free will.
"Has anyone seen the hand-on-the-Bible thing outside of movies and publicized swearing-ins for office? I see such oaths (and affirmations) done about weekly, with never a Bible in sight.
John Adams was worried about "our moral compass" as…"
"In the classification system we use it is harm to the United States and it's interests. It does not take into account any damage done to a person, political or economic group, or racial group. In the case of the AP leak it was…"
"Just as if he had found your open notebook and read the journal entry there you need to explain that although it may look like it paints him in a negative light there are more entries showing him in a positive light. Go on to explain that that…"
"What site did you write the blogs on? What app? I hate to break it to you roughly but if you are going to journal you need to choose between a hardcopy (book) which can be lost, or stolen vs digital file. Choosing to blog online has huge risks…"