Philosophy: Free will vs Determinism

Agent

one who acts the central problem of agency is to understand the difference events happening to me or to me, and my taking control of events, or doing things

Free will

An event is said to be free when it comes about purely because of the agent’s willing it when she could have done otherwise.

Determinism

the doctrine that every event has a cause. More precisely, for any event e, there will be some antecedent state o nature N, and a law of nature L, such that given L, N will be followed by e

Hard Determinism

the position that, accepting determinism, we do not have free will, we are not agents

Soft Determinism/Compatablism

The position that everything you should want from a notion of freedom is quite compatible with determinism

Conditions for Free will (FREE WILL)

The philosophical census today is that free will obtain if the following is true

1) Intentional agency( we deliberate about our decisions)

2) Alternative possibilities ( we have more than one action from which to choose)

3) Causal control over our actions( we cause our actions

Metaphysics

The branch of philosophy concerned with investigating the nature of reality. Concerned with the big picture.

Ontology

From the Greek word for being. This branch of metaphysics is concerned itself with “what exists”

ex: Do others really exist?

Laplace’s Demon

thought expierement conceived by caplaceas an implication of this theory of the conservation of information:

if there was a supreme intelligence that had all the information about the universe, then it would have everything it needed to know.

Everything that has happened & everything that will every happen; think about this as a god like figure

Fatalism

Is the doctrine that what will be will be & entails the idea that human action has no what will happen;

Implies that studying will have no impact on your grades

Liberalism

(NOT POLITICAL) this view seeks to protect the reality of human face free will by supporting that a free choice is not causally determined but not random either theories are based off/similar to “this statement and laws”

Correspondence Theory of truth

Truth is what propositions(things that we write or say) have by corresponding to a way the world is

P is true if and only if (IFF) p corresponds to the fact

Problems: the notion of corresponding is complicated when we reflect on how a proposition could correspond to come “fact” about the world

Coherentist Theory of Truth

The truth of a proposition as arising out of a relationship between that proposition and other propositions

P is true if and only if (IFF) it coheres with the maximally coherent theory of the world and how it works

Prespective-based: people in the past weren’t wrong, but “truth changes”

Problems: it could be true for me but it might not be true for you

Pragmatist Theory of truth

A proposition is true if is useful to believe that proposition. Truth beliefs are those which help us achieve our purposes truth has cash value.

Problems: it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with truth. Lies can be useful

Argument for Free Will (List’s)

(Natural sciences don’t support this theory, but then our other sciences wouldn’t be applicable anymore)

p1: We establish that something is real phenomenon/ property because our best scientific theories support it

p2: Free will is such a phenomenon; humans exert control over their actions

c: Free will satisfies the necessary scientific criteria for being accepted as a real phenomenon

Argument against Free Will (Strawson’s)

(genetic, environmental, and how we have raised, along with other factors has made u the way we are)

Simplified;

p1: We do what we do, because of the way we are

p2: to be truly responsible for our actions we must be fully responsible for the way we are

c: Therefore, to be fully responsible for the way we are, we must have intentionally brought it about that we are the way we are, and this is impossible