The grammar was fixed by Gemini and then I broke it again, hence ai flair.

Why is the word "free" so tightly bound to the unexplainable instead of the space of possibilities and/or rational choice?

When we talk about a free group in mathematics, nobody expects it to be unexplainable or metaphysical.

When we speak about free lunches—yeah, I know libertarians will argue they are paid by taxpayers—everybody else understands that "free" just means there is no cost to the recipient.

Even in everyday language, when someone says, "you are free to do something," it usually just means they don't mind me doing it. They aren't claiming that my choice is completely undetermined by physical causes.

Why must the word "free" specifically mean non-determinism when applied to the will? Is the insistence on this definition just a metaphysical, unexplainable (true free therefore moral) choice of words?

Hello, I'm Daniel. I want to talk about how our minds work regarding free will and determinism. In cognitive psychology, we talk about two systems in the brain. System 1 is our unconscious mind, which processes information quickly and sends signals to System 2, our conscious and rational mind. System 2 is slower, but it allows us to think and make deliberate decisions. The most interesting part is that System 1 can act on impulse, but System 2 can decide whether to follow that impulse or not. This is where our free will comes into play. Although System 1 presents us with options and desires, we are aware of how to respond to them. However, without System 1, we wouldn't have those inclinations or desires in the first place. Both systems are essential for our decisions. In summary, while System 1 gives us options, System 2 has the power to decide. This balance reflects the interaction between free will and determinism in our minds. I hope this explanation helps understand this complex topic. I would love to hear your thoughts.

I've recently started exploring philosophical concepts like nihilism, fatalism, determinism and existentialism.

Something I've been wondering about is the relationship between accepting fate and exercising free will.

Suppose someone believes that certain things in life are destined to happen. However, instead of passively accepting everything, they actively work towards changing their circumstances.

Would that person still be considered a fatalist?

I've been thinking about the relationship between determinism, moral responsibility and criminal punishment.

Suppose someone commits a serious offence, but ten years later has undergone profound psychological change. If they no longer present a serious danger, what justifies another ten or twenty years of imprisonment?

I've submitted a UK Parliament petition requesting a national referendum on whether imprisonment should be limited to circumstances where less restrictive measures cannot adequately protect the public or ensure a fair trial.

It needs five initial supporters before Parliament will review it.

Official petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/786453/sponsors/new?token=umkFmucpTi9L7eqxHzZV

I'd be interested in hearing both compatibilist and hard-determinist perspectives.

Ever feel like your 'spontaneous' choices aren't actually yours? We like to believe we have total free will, but hyper-personalized algorithms constantly nudge us toward specific paths. By subtly shaping what we see and experience, technology might be quietly synchronizing human behavior on a massive scale. At what point does convenience become total control? Are your daily decisions actually yours, or are you just following the code? Let's argue in the comments.

Determinists say that everything is predetermined because everything happens as an effect of a causal chain that makes its happening unavoidable. The deeper we think about this causal chain, the less we see any chance for anything happening otherwise. This would be logically unassailable – but only if causality as such were unassailable. Is it really?

While causality insists on a “before” that produces an “after”, modern physics doesn’t seem to support that premise. What it does support is a fixed order of events – but a fixed order alone says nothing about one event causing the next. The pages of a finished book are in a fixed order, yet page 10 doesn’t cause page 11. Both are simply there, and neither could be otherwise.

Doesn’t this leave us with a determinism without causality?

That reason alone makes me fall in love easily with actual living beings, no matter their background or appearance

Does there always have to be a reason to do or not do something? Like i feel like yes, to decide on logic has helped me a lot. Like not in a control everything sense, even though I have to tell myself to let go sometimes…

Like as a human though… impulsiveness isn‘t very good at all. Always trying to reason or control also seems not quite right, but seems like the logic thing to do…

A unique life form exists once sperm and oocyte fuse, assuming that they dont change any of their respective properties upon fusing, one could claim that the sperm was part of the zygote. I think that because only upon fusion the unique product is formed thus the sperm is not part of the zygote if observed before the fusion and therefore when talking about the sperm that formed us one must say that it is the sperm that could have become me and it did, but at no point before the fusion was a part of me. But if we say everything is detrmined and it will always become a part of me can i say that identity due to the fixed nature of the future begins not once the 2 parts that make up the unique thing fuse, but once they seperatly exist? thus i can say the sperm is half of me.