Our world is not deterministic, it is emergent.

If you have been exposed to both sides of this this question much at all, you'll know it as a continuous and forever ongoing argument. Let's "choose" to think it can be settled once people have learned to understand how their perceptions get limited to the obvious generalizations that get expressed while all the subtleties escape them. To begin with, take notice that the term "Controlled" is vastly less correct than "influenced".

As I pointed out yea long ago when I wrote The Complete Universe of Memes, viewpoints count for most of the value of the statements included in arguments, but they are subtle, never acknowledged, never stated, undervalued, and therefore we stay blinded to the most important aspects of factual or fictional ideas: "What are they exactly about?" We are all too inclined to change stances unannounced in the middle of a discussion. Doing so obfuscates that important consideration because it modifies the parameters of your position. The biggest portion of philosophy is muddy because of that.  It may be a good way to win an argument with a naive opponent, but it proves nothing and is no way at all to find your way to the truth.

In this one instance (out of many), 'free will' (Do we actually have a choice when we are presented with options?), philosophers and scientists do not agree among themselves, let alone agree with the religionists about what exactly is being discussed. Any interpretation offered is countered with a "yeah-but" disagreement. The "yeah-but" is as true as the original statement, but incompatible with it and too often contains the obfuscating conditions just mentioned. Read the following by Dr. Newton Joseph and ask yourself, "Why is that?" Then, reread the previous paragraph and make sure you understand it.

Doctor Newton has quite adequately expressed the common determinist view that reifies a religious proclamation that we can choose to sin or to obey a god. The failure of that kind of expression is that it overlooks the concepts as they exist in themselves, as concepts and not reifications, and also that it is self-referencing in effect. Moreover, the scientific approach would be to subject it to experiment. Is it testable? It would seem it ought to be, if we can allow ourselves to understand the nature of exactly what there is about it that so befuddles so many of us.

The question is important because it bears heavily upon responsibility: Are we, or are we not, responsible for our own actions, wisdom and follies, accomplishments and failures? As Dr. Newton expressed in his final paragraph, the determinist expression would lay our guilt and innocence onto a nonexistent god, or onto controlling factors inherent to the past (much the same thing). That, to me, makes for a very poor example of practical logic. The problem is a very common one of Encapsulated Concepts. (You can find an explanation for this in my Secular Glossary, available free at
< http://www.atheistlloyd.com/Content/Glossary/>.

 One problem with the common determinist view regarding free will and our ability to act upon choices is that it conveys little actual information, and does not settle any questions for the average person. Instead, it muddies the waters. It explains nothing about why something so apparent to our daily experience must be negated and, because it is such a common experience to perceive oneself and others to make choices, it casts deep aspersions and doubts upon the veracity of those who promote science as a source of wisdom and useful knowledge. Determinism claims to be scientific but that claim, especially for so long as it, like stories told about God, cannot be demonstrated to be true, must be denied. Determinism is a philosophy inherited from the Christian doctrine of predestination, hiding in a secular dress. In that, and in the light of more recent science, determinism is actually outdated and old hat, as you will see if you keep reading.

A second problem is that of attitude: Taken to its extremes, determinism denies anything about humans that offers any hope to get beyond the situations in which we flounder. Viewing human beings as "controlled", rather than influenced, repositions the conditions which prevail in our existence so they are seen as obstacles rather than opportunities, as fences rather than guides, and as liabilities rather than talents. That makes a complete difference between hope and hopeless, Xian-like nihilism.

A third problem gives rise to the first two in many ways: Free will is not adequately defined and so, in many arguments, both sides talk about two unrelated things. Free will gets presented in three forms:

1. The common perception: Free will describing the simple ability to make a decision and act upon it, as in "Nobody told me to do that, I did it of my own free will, and so I have to take responsibility."
2. Free will as in the dictionary, as unconstrained actions or thoughts, usually obfuscated by tying it to the example given in #1.
3. Free will as presented in Christian theology, as something "God-given" to mankind, as in Dr. Joseph's essay.
4. Free will as presented in the academic form of determinism, which means the ability to create ideas or originate thoughts with no previous input (as in, from a blank mind).

That any of those other than number one is invalid in no way validates determinism.

Free will number one is unrelated to the discussion in any way, but gets drawn upon by naive arguers to make their points, and to put down those who insist that determinism offers a statement against human consciousness, self-awareness, and other such common states of human thought processes. Since free will number one is only a figure of speech, let us remove it from all further considerations.

Free will number two describes the impossible. We are physical beings with short life spans. That constrains us in all kinds of ways.

Free will number three, the free will of Doctor Joseph's argument, is moot to those who harbor no god beliefs: If God never existed, he could never have doled out free will to anybody.

Free will number four appears so obviously true, even though I have never seen it drawn upon in an actual discussion, that to refer to it seems asinine and meaningless. Arguments about free will, however, boil down to being about ideas. In order for such arguments to be meaningful, or at least to lead to meaningful results, we have to agree whether ideas exist in some tangible form, or whether such arguments are, after all, a lot of time wasted over nothing. To expect ideas to be capable to pop up out of nothing seems equivalent to expecting trees and flowers to start growing where no seeds have ever been planted, in no germinating, life-sustaining material.

In philosophy, one has to define terminology to make certain everybody is on the same page (Principle of Focus).

If the definitions in American Heritage seem acceptable to us, then we can agree that ideas are something:

noth·ing (pron.) 1. No thing; not anything

2. No part; no portion

3. One of no consequence, significance, or interest

--noth·ing (n.) 1. Something that has no existence.

2. Something that has no quantitative value; zero

3. One that has no substance or importance; a nonentity

--noth·ing adj. 1. Insignificant or worthless

--noth·ing adv. In no way or degree; not at all

If one would resort to considering everything as events and processes to decide their nature, ideas are definitely a component of that. There comes a problem when trying to assess the nature of determinism vs. freewill when resorting to this most reductionist view of existence, however, that does not allow me to support determinism or free will, and may serve to explain why I take that stance:

A: If, as determinists insist, everything results only from a linear progression of causes and effects starting from the very beginning, ideas cannot be of human origin, but would necessarily be a result of that concatenation of influences.

For that to be so, God would necessarily be a creation of Nature, and not of the human mind, even though that must be where it first appeared. That also means that, since it is an idea, free will exists in spite of determinists insisting otherwise, and would require determinists to believe in a god.

B: If free will does not exist, and God does not exist, then ideas must be of human origin and determinism is a moot philosophy regarding god-created free will (if unsupported by religious beliefs, it is anyways, since No-God equals No Creations), and entirely erroneous regarding the human-origins version of "free will" (which is not really what we should define as being "free will").

Let me offer two propositions to you in its place: evolution and autonomy. 1. Evolution: Panatheism (and, in a lesser amount, atheism) derives from an ancient philosophy called 'Secular Materialism', or simply and most often, 'materialism', or realism, which proposed that all material is composed of atoms. A part of that philosophy is about the so-called realms of existence which, in our modern times, get identified as the 'micro', 'macro' and 'cosmological' realms. 'Micro' is the realm wherein (if we could somehow visit there) we would find only the components of which it consists. The fascinating thing about it is, we would discover that it forms an obvious pattern for our own 'macro' realm--that which we see as living human entities, from the electron or proton we identify as "Earth".

I understand the 'cosmological' realm as being about the stars as seen from among them, but have not firmed that in my own mind. That would have little to do with 'choices' and 'free will' anyways, even if something called a 'god' should ever be discovered there (She would be too pissed off at the three kinds of Arabic Abrahamists by this time to let Herself be known, I suspect)

So, that behind us: From what realm do we consider our choices or identify 'free will'? Determinist philosophy denies free will by claiming our inclinations to be a product of our DNA but, if you can understand my proposition, we could claim, with no more garish absurdity, that we do not exist according to the same premise. All of our perceived existence is derived from the macro point-of-view. All of our perceived existence is built from the materials made available by the micro realm, and the nature of all of it depends upon what materials were used in the construction of any one entity in 'our' realm. That is cause and effect at work. We seem existent because we perceive the result, and not the components.

So, as a product not only of our DNA ladders, but also of our environmental, experiential and circumstantial influences, do we actually get to make choices? Wait before you jump in to answer that question, and ask another one: Who, exactly, is this 'we' person? Who is 'Me'?– and who is 'You'? Who is it that's in charge of the body each of us occupies and tries so hard to enjoy and provide sustenance for?

2. Autonomy: Determinism uses the notion of 'free will' as a strawman, and actually argues against autonomy: independence; self-governance or the right of self-governance; self-determination, your natural condition of self guidance and self responsibility. The natural notion of an autonomous self threatens determinism with its prevalence among the human population. There is no need to call upon cause and effect as 'law' and so introduce unverifiable religiously held notions into the realm of science. To do so introduces errors that lead thinkers astray onto paths that take us away from investigation toward dark speculation. We want not to introduce new religions into our world, but to increase our understanding with workable results.

Let us look at this in the light of a newer philosophy in which we need no discussion at all about free will or cause and effect, but poses emergence against dissolution for its description of existence. Each of us IS the product of all the obvious components already mentioned, plus the memes and habits gathered during the course of all the events we have survived, and those we find ourselves amidst. We thump our chests and bellies and proclaim, "This is Me," which gets misinterpreted, of course, as 'Me' being somebody who lives inside our guts. We are talking about the much maligned 'self' the major religions regard as being evil. The self is but one of many features to emerge from material substances to which we willingly grant recognition.

So, how do we answer such as the statement, "Do we really choose or do we just take the path we perceive to be least resistant?" A value judgment is inherent to the posing of that question, which is that we are lazy. Just like ourselves, a house is built up from known materials: Sand, gypsum, clay, wood, iron, tar, plastic and so forth ad infinitum. If an airplane falls from the sky because of engine failure, would we expect the house to just stand there and let itself be destroyed because "it took the easy way out?" Did the airplane fall from the sky because "it took the easy way out?" Did its human pilot allow it to fall from the sky because "(s)he took the easy way out? Did the plane's passengers ride the plane to death because "they took the easy way out?" Do I need to say, "No"? It seems obvious the "easy way out" has nothing at all to do with any of their actions. Why? —they had no options!

Those are the obvious results of having no choice and of being unable to perceive alternatives during an event in which they were involved. Their DNAs, memes, life histories had no effect upon the event in which they had become embroiled. Those on the ground who were fortuitous enough to see the airplane coming toward them, while involved in the same fictional event, did have alternatives and did not hesitate to pick one. That each person was influenced by DNA (and so reacted in a fashion unlike the house) and a whole history previous to the event, and so may have taken different options (or just stood there staring skyward, always an option) bears very little upon the fact that each and every normal, healthy "we" upon the ground exercised choice and applied will to accomplish it. All those options emerged from previous events and conditions to enable choice making. The house was not so enabled, and suffered from the result of that.

In the macro realm wherein we perceive reality to be the conditions and circumstances available to our senses, any "Me" alive is a composite autonomous product that emerges from his or her history, physical nature, and circumstances. All of that furnishes the influential material from which any one of us will draw to arrive at a choice.

When we are held responsible by others, our entire individual history, physical nature, and circumstances may include whatever punishments or rewards other composite beings, like ourselves with slight variations, will choose for us. From the macro viewpoint (that of which we, as human beings are somewhat aware) the airplane event would later be spoken about and acknowledged to have occurred. From the micro viewpoint, wherein the DNA and all our little molecules of fat, protein, and garbage can be perceived, the event would never have happened. Imaginary tiny people living on sub-micro planets would never realize any kind of massive event had taken place. Other than positional changes, or perhaps becoming involved in a submicroscopic equivalent of a supernova, they would remain largely unaffected and unaware of our calamities. They would only know about their own. What we are made from determines of what we are able and of what we are liable, and forms the range of options we find most apt, but the final deed upon which to act remains our own to choose, and cannot be predicted by anyone else from only knowing those things about us. We choose; we bear the consequences and enjoy the rewards. Any tests would confirm that long before confirming any basis for determinism.

Synonyms of free will brought forth by my American Heritage thesaurus are only these: "The mental faculty by which one decides: • judgment• discernment  • discretion • volition • will • taste • judiciousness • discrimination." Any argument against free will, it is plain, is nothing more than an argument against accepting autonomous responsibility for one's own actions (the opposite of Doctor Joseph's view), done mainly by refusing to acknowledge emergent newer thought about this ancient premise (dating, as said, back to the days of Calvinism and predestination). The argument begins by misconstruing the meaning of the phrase and then overblowing that to far more than the usage justifies. All it amounts to after that is a religion-like argument against a religious statement. Since most people will accept responsibility for their own actions, whatever might have induced them, and will hold others accountable for theirs, the argument is moot.

Other than the free will offered in definition number one, I see free will as indefensible. We would be better off to abandon it as a concept and limit our considerations to simple "will", the unacknowledged actual opponent of determinism. That will operates within the constraints nature imposes does not mean it needs fantastic claims to be made about it in its defense. Will is evidenced each time an animal refuses to cooperate with anyone trying to make it do something, and is observable in itself with no need for explanation. Will, originating out of the self we each perceive ourselves to be, can impose itself onto those constraints and find ways to use them to its own advantage. Autonomous Self will, not free will, emerges from our heritage and experiences and uses those as materials to promote its own comfort and survival.

Most arguments about "Free Will" amount to attempts at reification: to make it appear as something with substantial, material existence. I feel sorry to say that the only people I have observed to take that position (so they can argue against it) are my fellow atheists. Free Will and Self Will are both only a concept; arguing against them as a 'thing' amounts to time and energy wasting foolishness against a decoy posed to send us off the trail. Let's turn our time and talents toward something more worthwhile and rewardingly objective before we end up giving the chickencoop away with the stolen chickens.

"To lack substance is to lack existence."   http://tinyurl.com/peh9 

Determinianity (Page 1)

Determinism (Page 2)

World As I See It (Page 3)

Top (this page)

Interactivism (Page 5)

SELF (Page 6)

The Sacred Self  (page 7)

_________________________________________