Yes, all events are caused--past, present, and future. But, they are all antecedently caused. It is always a looking back principle. When Y happens in the future at a particular point in time, we will look to the past of that future point in time for causes.

...were is the freedom even to will straight ? Probably the cause to my will will make me will randomly...

So what.

If I am not the necessary condition of what I will, once it is random, were is my freedom in willing ???

Say what? :perplexed:

Right, legally, but morally? It's hard to see how your failure to execute your misdeed is somehow more morally right than if you had succeeded.

lets say you intended to chose A rather then B on a pre-conscious level but since there is Indeterminism you end up willing B...were is your Choosing free ? Once it is yours but you were not its only cause given randomness ...

lets say you intended to chose A rather then B on a pre-conscious level but since there is Indeterminism you end up willing B...were is your Choosing free ? Once it is yours but you were not its only cause given randomness ...

If you chose it, that's where free will ends! There's no mystery to this thing, man. Stop mystifying it. You either choose to take a ****, or you choose not to take a ****. It can't be simpler.

You're absolutely right that we can be compelled to do things and not know it. But we must make sure we do not overstate this. We must not, for instance, assume that all chemical processes occuring in our brain, or anywhere else in our body, are compelled. This is why I want to clarify. If we say an involuntary action, like a heart beating, is compulsion, it seems to me it's different than the being compelled we're speaking of here*. The being compelled I imagined we were speaking of here, must be within the confines of something we would say X person would do, or is capable of doing. For instance, we wouldn't say, "Jim is beating his heart", would we? His heart beating is not something we would consider as his doing. We would instead say, "His heart is beating", as if the heart were an independent entity. Here we begin to seperate Jim from his bodily function. Once we draw this seperation, I feel, we should stop applying compulsion and free will. It is no longer a consciousness we're speaking of; free will and compulsion are no longer terms which apply.

Now, how this relates:

It's been explored many times within this thread: Well, what if our actions boil down to biological/chemical processes, do we really then have free choice?

I believe this question confuses matters.

I think people are attempting to mix things which are considered capable of being done and experienced, with things which are not considered capable of being done or experienced. I think that each should be evaluated differently (although not always seperately), and the latter should not have the terms (or any variation of) 'compelled' or 'free' applied. We must evaluate what humans are capable of doing as being compelled or freely done only. When we begin to doubt that we can freely choose or be compelled simply because there are biological/chemical causes, we are confusing matters. In other words, the compulsion and free will come after the fact, and are usuaully experiential matters (except those times where we do not know we're being compelled - clarified above). They are part of an epiphenomenon related to consciousness. In the same way that we would say that something makes us happy, despite there being being chemical causes for why we are happy. But our being happy is still us being happy, no matter the cause. We must distinguish between the experience of us being happy and the causes which biologically led to our happiness. Or, at least I think we ought to. And actually, for a more stretched analogy, I think it's like questioning if we're conscious at all, simply because there are millions of neurological processes which are the cause of our consciousness. We don't question our consciousness or any other experience simply because there are causes, do we? So why free will?

And once again, just as a keepsake: Not all causes compel.

* I understand it's hard to know where to draw the line, though. Because, as noted, some involuntary actions we should apply "compelled" to. It's really tough to say sometimes.

lets say you intended to chose A rather then B on a pre-conscious level but since there is Indeterminism you end up willing B...were is your Choosing free ? Once it is yours but you were not its only cause given randomness ...

I don't know if this will help you, but here it is anyway:

You are right that in the case of my choosing A, but due to indeterminism, I do B, I don't have free will. There are also cases of brain injury that can affect our actions.

Indeterminism doesn't cause us to randomly do B after choosing A because we wouldn't have evolved this far if it did. (See: Anthropic Principle)

But I just explain to you that you are not the only responsible for the outcome of what you came to choose

I've gone over this in past threads. That there are biological/chemical processes which cause, does not mean we don't make choice. One thing has nothing to do with the other. With your logic, you mustn't believe we are conscious either. After all, consciousness is a phenomenon based largely on other processes, many, I believe, neural.

Nothing is what it is, since it can be further reduced? A door is a door, despite us being able to individually view the wood molecules under a microscope, isn't it?