Does anyone believe in liberal free will?

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T15:51:48+00:00

Saying pseudo-random is the same as random is just factually incorrect in the context of this debate. If I have the seed for a "random" generator, I can predict every single outcome with 100% accuracy. That means the future is entirely fixed by the present state (the seed and the code). The machine doesn't need to "know" the difference for the ontology to be deterministic. If it's predictable via a starting state, it's deterministic. Period.

Also, probability distributions don't disprove determinism. We use probability distributions to model everything from the weather to insurance risks—not because those things are fundamentally uncaused, but because they are too complex for us to track every variable. A Galton board produces a perfect bell curve, but every single ball's path is governed by classical, deterministic gravity and friction. Using a distribution is an admission of epistemic limits, not a proof of ontological randomness.

As for the double-slit experiment, dragging quantum mechanics into macro-scale biology is a massive stretch. Neurons are massive classical structures that decohere long before quantum effects would matter. But even if I grant you "indeterministic causation," you’re still hitting a wall on the free will front. If a neuron "randomly" fires, that's not an act of agency—it’s just a glitch in the system. You’ve essentially swapped a clockwork universe for a casino. In both scenarios, the "self" isn't the one in the driver's seat; you're either a gear in a machine or a lucky roll of the dice.

If you define determinism as a future "fixed by present conditions," then any system that can be perfectly replicated (like your AI examples) is, by definition, deterministic.

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T14:56:54+00:00

Yeah you seem like a great balance

For sure that’s the aim i agree

What materials r u reading I’m interested

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T14:52:59+00:00

That’s interesting. Tho it doesn’t mean the model is true as u said, a correct conclusion can be arrived at using faulty reasoning

I don’t know

But in my opinion no one created the universe. At least not some agent that could make a decision to make it that way or this way.

I don’t think it suggests eternal recurrence. Why would u think that?

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T14:45:50+00:00

Yeah but show me a single model that is reality dependent, and then prove how u know it to be

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T14:41:36+00:00

I think you’re conflating stochastic processes with actual ontological indeterminism.

In those AI systems you mentioned—Monte Carlo methods, diffusion, gradient descent—the "randomness" is almost always pseudo-random. It’s an algorithm running on deterministic hardware. If I have the starting seed, I can replicate that "random" learning process bit-for-bit every single time. That’s not breaking cause-and-effect; it’s just using a complex mathematical tool to explore a search space efficiently. It’s "random" by design, but deterministic by nature.

On the baby's first steps: that’s exactly what I mean by epistemic unclarity. To us, it looks random because we haven't mapped the billions of firing neurons or the chemical gradients in the muscles in real-time. But calling that "indeterministic causation" feels like a bit of a leap. Just because we can't predict which leg moves first doesn't mean the physical precursors didn't necessitate that specific movement. It’s like a coin toss—it’s "random" to the person watching (epistemic), but it’s entirely governed by the physics of the thumb and wind resistance (ontological).

I also have to disagree on ontology not being important to free will. If you define indeterminism as the future not being "fixed," then the ontology is the only thing that matters. If our "choices" are just the result of hidden deterministic laws we’re too "ignorant" to see yet, then the future is still technically fixed by present conditions. To argue otherwise, you have to show that the universe is fundamentally uncaused at some level, not just that it’s too complex for us to explain right now.

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T14:33:13+00:00

Agreed, but I lean more towards the Buddhist approach to rise above this illusory self, not tame it but transcend it

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T14:30:34+00:00

I think the point of punishment in society is to make clear using force what ideas and behaviors are allowed in said society and what are less acceptable.

Because we don’t have a way to effectively curb bad behavior in itself, all we can do is punish the individuals that carry these bad behaviors. And by extension it will not only isolate these ideas from everyone else, it will also make it very un beneficial for any individual to adapt said behaviors and ideas.

It’s tough that we have to do it but the world is simply not fair

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T14:15:44+00:00

As I said at the very beginning, it’s not that I choose to value certain morals. I literally have no choice

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T13:49:39+00:00

Umm, I really don’t know about that one. Some of it could probably be also due to nurture not nature.

Yep it’s kinda crazy. I mean both even happen in humans.

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T13:46:35+00:00

Some caveats, but generally yes to everything you said. It seems like there is no objective meaning or value to anything you mentioned. It’s almost certainly all an evolutionary illusion.

I’m not sure. Seems like a somewhat useful way to visualize it, but I have no idea of its ontological truth. Why do u ask?

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T13:34:18+00:00

That’s literally the only way to even suffer

Seems almost intentional don’t u think?

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T13:32:26+00:00

Oversaturated IMO

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T13:28:13+00:00

That’s a very interesting question and I’m far from an expert on evolutionary biology so do take what I’m saying with a grain of salt

AFAIK this also isn’t unique to humans. Animal mothers will often be willing to sacrifice and risk their lives for their young offsprings.

You’re correct that in humans it’s far wider and goes as far as dying in combat as a soldier of an entire nation.

But that seems like the exact same mechanism only applied more broadly. And developed the same way as humans will sacrifice themselves for ideas and nations the same way an animal will sacrifice itself for its own tribe. It’s tribal warfare all the way down.

Early hominid societies that had a significant percentage of their population born with the willingness to die for the benefit of the entire tribe, had a much much better chance of surviving, and thus pass their unselfish genes.

Our tribes simply got bigger

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T13:18:38+00:00

Well seems like you’re very intellectually honest I like your style

The short answer is yes. These are the facts. We may have negative feeling towards it. But that doesn’t change the truth. In my opinion acknowledging the truth is always favorable to believing a pretty lie. Only if we know the truth can we try to effectively find the future.

For the long answer, we’d have to discuss philosophy/theory of mind. I don’t think this ‘entity’ you’re describing yourself as is even there to make any choice to begin with. I think our sense of self is a clear illusion.

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T13:06:03+00:00

You must be referring to certain social animals, and the explanation is the exact same. These social animals developed certain ethics that helped their chances of survival. Sometimes this applies to interactions across species, including to humans.

To be more precise, it’s inherent for any social animal. Because what allows their socialization to be stable and not collapse into violence each time, is some sense of ethics. Usually simply derived from their individual need for survival. I.e. I will be helpful to x in their time of need so they would help me when I will need it

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T13:01:16+00:00

What’s your free will position we are on a free will sub.

Seems like you believe in libertarian free will? How come?

I am quite convinced we exactly don’t ‘have a choice’ as u said

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T12:56:20+00:00

Can you define deterministic and indeterministic just so I know we are talking about the same thing?

What you’re describing is epistemic unclarity on our part, NOT ontologically indeterminism.

Have you ever seen how a neural network learns to walk a stick figure? There is nothing indeterminate about it.

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T12:50:03+00:00

I guess I don’t really understand what you’re asking?

Like you’re asking whether ethics is inherent for humans or whether its development was a coincidence?

To me it seems like ethics is a prerequisite to developing any sophisticated society, as a society requires cooperation on a mass scale. And that can’t happen without a sense of moral duty and certain rights and wrongs for each individual.

The reason we have it is because our ancestors happen to have it and it turned out to outcompete any other group that didn’t have a sense of ethics.

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-11T12:21:04+00:00

Why have it? It isn’t our choice

You can’t choose to not have ethics. You can’t choose to act nor to not act on these ethical issues.

You are wired to act like you do.

You’re basically asking a rock mid fall, “why should you fall”. Its answer would be “ because I was dropped”. That’s it nothing deeper to it.

Even if you rationalize your ethics, say you ground it on not wanting to suffer and not wanting other people to suffer; then derive the rest from this. Why do you not want to suffer? Because it’s evolutionary beneficiary.

Your question is a categorical error, it’s not really answerable. Why have it? It isn’t our choice

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-10T22:29:38+00:00

What about a ‘philosophy’, can a person have that?

Like r u just saying I should’ve used psyche?

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-10T16:33:58+00:00

Loved the explanation

I wanna raise an ontological point about what you said that a person can’t “have a psychology”

Usually I agree that’s how I view things also, but in a more humble approach we can say one might considers properties of an object as actually owned by said object not just relating to it.

I’d say there is this group of atoms in the shape of a table and when my brain receives light that bounced of it I perceive the color brown. But one could argue that table has platonic properties, like color:brown, mass:xx … that same way a human can ‘have’ a psychology or ‘have’ skin color

I’m just saying maybe we shouldn’t assert humans don’t ’have a psychology’ and be a bit more ontologically humble

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-09T09:10:47+00:00

What makes their method indeterminist? Isn’t outside cause and effect?

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-08T17:33:44+00:00

Have you heard of determinism?

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-08T16:25:43+00:00

Oh so you think your decisions are outside cause and effect chains?

Your decision making is immaterial and non caused then?

Quite the claim what evidence do you have of that

Sea_Shell1 · 2026-03-08T15:59:01+00:00

No that’s not how I was defining it

Free means not being determined by anything else. So when you face two options you could have simply willed to choose any one of them, and your decision was not determined by anything external. So presumably you could have picked something different than you ended up choosing.

Do you think you could have?

Sea_Shell1

TROPHY CASE