Personally i beleive that everything that happens is a product of what has come before it, every decison you make is based on your decision making skills, and these are based on your interactions with other people and the environment in which you have lived. and so forth you have no choice, following on from this if the decisions people make are based on what has come before it, and the analysis of ones environment is predictable through the measuring of everything atomically could you predict the future, or would a computer bigger than the universe be needed to analyse the data from it in its enteriety and so forth this forever remain as a theory.

But some decision-making skills, at least those that are based on the use of reasoning, are learned (or not), and this can happen by chance. And these skills are then applied to specific circumstances; given the same conditions, even then the choices might be different for different people depending on their analysis of best attaining some future state.

Many choices are a matter of caprice, which may or may not have been "based" on past experiences; others are commonly said to be "thinking outside of the box" and thus independent of what one normally thinks. To say, moreover, that one's past INFLUENCES one's choices is far different from declaring that they are CAUSED by them, and then being able to point out which event or occasion in the past was the actual "basis" of the decision.

Even if one stopped Kennethamy after he left the ice-cream store and inquired of him why he chose one flavour over another, he would even when pressed for the self-analysis perhaps be unable to provide an account that would satisfy a causal criterion.

noun 1 an act of choosing. 2 the right or ability to choose. 3 a range from which to choose. 4 something chosen. throughout this the meaning is constantly avoided is a decison truly your decision or not, i suppose this ultimately goes back to the old fashioned nature vs nurture debate. to jgweed, i dont see anything in your argument that dictates whether a person will or will not make a certain decision, it has allways been the desire of sociologists to predict social trends, however if we could analyse each individual person are they inebitably going to make the choices that they do, is it truly thinking outside the box or is it merely the minds reaction to a differnt thought stream. my only argument for thinking outside the box is in the context of Lysergic acid diethylamide which leads to brain cells forming completely random links to other parts of the brain, there have been no other example of people having truly out of the box thought it is allways related to something that has happened to them, and links that provide thought allways travel through natural streams of consciousness.

Personally i beleive that everything that happens is a product of what has come before it, every decison you make is based on your decision making skills, and these are based on your interactions with other people and the environment in which you have lived. and so forth you have no choice, following on from this if the decisions people make are based on what has come before it, and the analysis of ones environment is predictable through the measuring of everything atomically could you predict the future, or would a computer bigger than the universe be needed to analyse the data from it in its enteriety and so forth this forever remain as a theory.

Personally i beleive that everything that happens is a product of what has come before it, every decison you make is based on your decision making skills, and these are based on your interactions with other people and the environment in which you have lived. and so forth you have no choice, following on from this if the decisions people make are based on what has come before it, and the analysis of ones environment is predictable through the measuring of everything atomically could you predict the future, or would a computer bigger than the universe be needed to analyse the data from it in its enteriety and so forth this forever remain as a theory.

Personally i beleive that everything that happens is a product of what has come before it, every decison you make is based on your decision making skills, and these are based on your interactions with other people and the environment in which you have lived. and so forth you have no choice, following on from this if the decisions people make are based on what has come before it, and the analysis of ones environment is predictable through the measuring of everything atomically could you predict the future, or would a computer bigger than the universe be needed to analyse the data from it in its enteriety and so forth this forever remain as a theory.

Of course there is a such thing as choice. I just chose to eat a chicken pot pie instead of a tuna fish sandwich. The question is whether or not we make choices freely and that depends on the context of the word free. Do we make choices without influence from the environment or past events - no. Can we freely make choices in the absence of coercion - yes.

Why should choosing freely mean free from just any causes or influence?

When did I say that in order to choose freely you need to be free from any causes or influences? Maybe you misinterpreted what I wrote.

I did not say you wrote it. I simply wrote that freedom does not mean that. And there are people who write that kind of thing. What is ordinarily meant by doing something of your own free will is freedom from compulsion, not freedom from causation. But some people seem to think that because all compulsions are causes, that all causes are compulsions. Not you, of course.

The interesting question is what compels and what does not. Some physical objects, e.g. a person pushing me, can compel me to move. Others, e.g. a single electron in my brain, apparently cannot, but a billion electrons possibly can.

How massive does an object (or group of objects) have to be in order to compel me? Is there a critical size, or are there gradations of compulsion? Do all physical objects/causes (no matter how small) compel to some extent?

How massive does an object (or group of objects) have to be in order to compel me? Is there a critical size, or are there gradations of compulsion? Do all physical objects/causes (no matter how small) compel to some extent?

If I want to do something, then I cannot be compelled to do it.

Again, causing me to do something is one thing, but compelling me to do something is another thing.

But you can be compelled to want to do it in the first place, as in hypnotism. So, wanting does not prove non-compulsion.



Is it? Well, we first need a rigorous definition of compulsion. And, as I have noted above, a subjective criterion (i.e. "wanting") will not suffice. We need an objective criterion, hence the relevance of physical objects such as electrons. And then, since physical objects come in a continuum of sizes, will we have to say that there is a continuum of degrees of compulsion, and that all physical causes compel to some extent?

Or will we conclude that objects below a certain mass do not compel? And where there is no straightforward physical compulsion, must we invoke random quantum factors to explain human actions?

These are deep waters. :puzzled: