While I disagree with determinism, I understand why some people make an argument for it. I really do wish, however, that those who choose (heh) to do so wouldn’t try to remake the language so that they can claim to argue for "free will.
Here’s a summary of my position and thoughts:
-
I do not hold a position of causality in terms of determinism, nondeterminism, or indeterminism. Those aren’t the only options. I hold the position causality, and that’s it. None of these theories sufficiently deal with computations or methods, at least not without literally advocating dualism a la Binswanger. See http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27779&p=329099
-
I claim that free will IS the act of choosing that occurs in a conscious manner while the whole methodology or decision procedures is happening. Think of how a computer uses logic gates to make decisions. If choices occur as the result of an action potential in my neurons, I’m only saying that most of the time, for conceptual thought especially, the choice among options is entirely mine, that is, fully active and conscious.
-
Nothing at all is free of antecedent factors. If anything were free of antecedent factors, it would violate the law of identity. At the least, being free of antecedent factors means its causal workings are literally random, thus unknowable. Probability and randomness only applies to situations where we don’t have time to gather ALL relevant information.
-
There are a set of options available, but if the process of choosing repeated forever for eternity, the same decisions will always be made (see my next big post!)
-
If the logical end of my argument amounts to determinism, point out where.