Determinism and Free Will

We began discussing determinism and free decision making theory and point out that human behavior can be determined by natural law if we can access all relevant variables. If you want to know someone's gene composition, the environment they are raising, the family they are raising, etc., you can make an effective guess about their behavior. For example, if a child has a very active limbic system (related to feelings and seizures), grows in a very poorly stressful environment, and if parental feelings are not obtained much, predicting it It is effective. Such children will show violence and crime in their advertisements.

Discussion places these two views, determinism and free will on the other side of the coin - determinism means to exclude free will. maybe. However, like other words in the human language, its meaning is not simple and often complicated (ambiguous). Whether determinism and freedom contradict is up to the meaning and understanding that we use. First of all, determinism. One of the meanings that most philosophers seem to use in the discussion is the strict causal logic behind all events. If we believe that all input is given and there are physical laws governing reality, the output is determined in the same way as mathematical calculation. In other words, the latter event is "determined" by the previous event. Logically speaking, previous events are also determined by earlier events, if any, to the origin of the universe. Not only history, all future is decided in advance. Maybe I have wrinkles

There are three standard answers to the problem of free will. The first is known as "hard decision theory" and accepts incompatibility between free will and determinism ("incompatibility"), asserts determinism, thereby refusing free will. The second reaction is liberalism (which is also unrelated to political philosophy), it accepts incompatibility, but denies that determinism is realistic. This seems to be a promising approach. After all, is modern physics still telling us that the universe is uncertain? The problem here is that some kind of uncertainty provided by modern physics is not what the liberalist needs or wants. If the order soup turns out to be completely dependent on the laws of physics, the state of the universe 10,000 years ago, and the inversion of countless subatomic coins, the appetizer will not be more free than before. In fact, it is randomly chosen and it does not help liberals.

According to philosopher J. J. C. Smart, the standard discussion on free will focuses on the influence of determinism on "free will". But he believes that freedom will be denied, regardless of whether determinism is true or not. On the other hand, if the certainty is true, all our actions are predicted, we can not be considered free, but if the determinism is false our actions are random It is considered to be. It is not involved in controlling what happens. Author and neuroscientist Sam Harris also opposed free will in his "moral landscape". He offered crazy scientists representing thinking experiments, determinism. In Harris' example, a crazy scientist uses a machine to control all the desires of a particular human, thereby controlling all actions. In this case, Harris thinks that it is no longer attractive to say that the victim has "free will".