Free Will (An Illusion?) Revisited

[Azure24]

Hi All, it's been a while. I'm not one to go back on past threads (if anyone remembers this one), but I'd like to know what other religions think about this. Is free will an illusion? A clarification when I say free will I do not mean choice (e.g. we don't make our own choices / predetermined) but I mean, does life (or God) set out a certain path for us in life that we must follow guided to us by life experiences? In other words does certain situations influence our decisions.

Here's an example:

Your in your car driving somewhere, suddenly your realise you low on petrol. You tell yourself you're going to stop at the next petrol/gas station you see (as you do). Eventually you see one and decide to stop there. As you get out to fill your car, you happen to see a large billboard advertisement of the Eiffel Tower. The next day you enter yourself in a raffle which you win and the prize is ...guess what... a trip to any major European City of your choice. You choose... Paris... of course because of the large billboard you saw the other day. You can say it had... influenced...Your descision, which was after all completely your own choice... but... realising you were low on petrol at that moment, arriving at that petrol/gas station first, putting the billboard of the eiffel Tower in that particular place, even the winning prize for the raffle being a trip to any Major European City...Was not your choice.

Ok, that was probably a bad example, but hopefully you know what I mean...

Our choices (Our control) are influenced by situations (not in our control).

But, just ask yourself "who is in control of the situation then?"

"What? So murderers, rapists etc are what they are because of situations beyond their control?" I here you say? Well...Not exactly. Here's the confusing part. Personally, I believe life is about self development, we're all here to learn from life's experiences (not matter how bad). Some (or most) of life's experiences are beyond our control: e.g. Which family we are born into, the people we meet, where and when we are born and so on. But what we decide to take from these experiences are up to us, which then leads to our choices.

Here's an example:

In England some years ago a young black man was murdered in a racial attack. His attackers were not jailed (or found) due to a lack of police effort it was believed (perhaps something again racial). The Mother in this situation decided to...instead of taking revenge or taking the law into her own hands since the law (police) obviously seemed to not care. She decided to attempt to build relationships between police and all members of community to work together for a better future. Where as someone else in the same situation would do the opposite.

I believe throughout every persons life there is an experience that can make that person do things for the better. But more often that not it is either, misinterpreted making people do things for the worst or ignored.

Can a person ever make an completely imdependant choice?

 

[dauer]

"Rabbi Akiva said: All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given..."

Avot 3:19

xD

I think R' Akiva and others in the Jewish tradition probably saw the paradox of an omniscient deity granting free will and just embraced the paradox. Over the other years other people attempted to explain how something like that works. Sometime free will got more emphasis, sometimes omniscience got more emphasis. I tend to play down free will and see people largely as a product of their genetic predispositions and their experiences up until this present moment. So for example, I would agree with you, for me life is very much about personal development. However, how an individual takes an experiences I think is going to be very shaped by their natural predisposition and by the experiences that have shaped them up until that moment. I am fortunate in that I see difficult times in life as a learning experience, but when I meet someone who takes difficult experiences differently, I might see the way they take it as less effective but, given their experiences up until that time and their predispositions, quite possibly the only way they could take that experience.

So the question for me would be, is there a point in a person's processing of an experience that they either have a choice on how to respond or can redirect the way in which they would respond? I don't have an answer to that question. It may be that what we perceive as a decision-making process is a defense mechanism to help us cope with how divided the mind is into various competing parts. It may also be a real ability to transcend those competing parts, at least at times, in order to choose, maybe by showing favor for one of our internal voices or maybe by going in a different direction entirely. I don't know and I'm comfortable in my not knowing. It gives me the flexibility to say, when someone else does something I see as wrong, "Oh well they are probably shaped by their genetic predispositions and by the experiences they've had up until now." And then when I do something that I perceive could have been done in a better way I'm able to maintain the belief that choice was involved, at least on some level, and that I can learn from the experience in order to handle myself differently in the future. I think the beliefs we hold about the world will influence the way we act in the world, but I am uncertain if our beliefs are chosen by us or are what is most natural for us based on our biology and what we've been exposed to in life.

-- Dauer

 

[seattlegal]

I think we have free will. We can rebel against any genetic dispositions we might have, or against any sort of subtle programming we might receive.

 

[Dondi]

Your in your car driving somewhere, suddenly your realise you low on petrol. You tell yourself you're going to stop at the next petrol/gas station you see (as you do). Eventually you see one and decide to stop there. As you get out to fill your car, you happen to see a large billboard advertisement of the Eiffel Tower. The next day you enter yourself in a raffle which you win and the prize is ...guess what... a trip to any major European City of your choice. You choose... Paris... of course because of the large billboard you saw the other day. You can say it had... influenced...Your descision, which was after all completely your own choice... but... realising you were low on petrol at that moment, arriving at that petrol/gas station first, putting the billboard of the eiffel Tower in that particular place, even the winning prize for the raffle being a trip to any Major European City...Was not your choice.

Why were you suddenly low on petrol in the first place? Because you neglected to check to make sure you maintained a certain amount of fuel before fuelling back up. That was your choice. If you had the principle to fill up your gas tank at the 1/4 mark instead of 'E', the you would not have run into this problem. Furthermore, seeing a billboard of the Effel Tower might have some influence on your choice of vacation, but what if you already had a predisposed dislike for France, perhaps for political reasons? Your first thought, when you were given a choice of vacationing city, might have been, "Well, I'm damn sure not going to Paris!". And what if you aren't one for gambling? Maybe you wouldn't have entered the raffle in the first place. So now you're going to have to fill up you car with petrol in order to go to Disney World instead.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Azure,

thank you for the post.

Is free will an illusion? .... when I say free will I do not mean choice ... but I mean, does life (or God) set out a certain path for us in life that we must follow guided to us by life experiences? In other words does certain situations influence our decisions.

yes, free will is an illusion but then it sort of depends on what you mean by the term and the degree to which you apply it. sentient beings have a limited free will but even that is somewhat questionable.

life is not a sentient being so it cannot intend anything.. it cannot set out a path for anything or any being. deities do not do so, either, though i realize that for theistic beings this may be the belief. with respect to theists and free will it really comes down to how the define their god for many of them define their god in such a manner as to make free will logically impossible.

the last question, however, isn't related to free will nor deities and is clearly the case. the situation that we are in influences the choices of possible decisions that we could make. i wouldn't necessarily apply this to mean a negation of free will however.

metta,

~v

 

[Nick_A]

Free will is difficult to explain since it is a property of consciousness which we lack. Instead of free will we mechanically choose between desires. Reaction to desire appears like free will. Meister Eckhart gives a good description of free will:

"God...does not constrain the will. Rather, he sets it free, so that it may choose him, that is to say, freedom. The spirit of man may not will otherwise than what God wills, but that is no lack of freedom. It is true freedom itself."

Conscious awareness provides the opportunity for free will. However this is quite rare and as creatures of reaction what we call free will is just the dominant reaction to conflicting desires.

 

[Bandit]

Free will is difficult to explain since it is a property of consciousness which we lack. Instead of free will we mechanically choose between desires. Reaction to desire appears like free will. Meister Eckhart gives a good description of free will:



Conscious awareness provides the opportunity for free will. However this is quite rare and as creatures of reaction what we call free will is just the dominant reaction to conflicting desires.

That is a good explanation. There are too many things that we do not choose for free will to be absolute in the religious dogma. It is more like freewill inside of a bubble with restrictions.

 

[dailogue is the best]

Hi All, it's been a while. I'm not one to go back on past threads (if anyone remembers this one), but I'd like to know what other religions think about this. Is free will an illusion? A clarification when I say free will I do not mean choice (e.g. we don't make our own choices / predetermined) but I mean, does life (or God) set out a certain path for us in life that we must follow guided to us by life experiences?

In other words does certain situations influence our decisions.

Can a person ever make an completely imdependant choice?

Peace, Azure24.

I have discussed this issue with winner08 in the Christians forum under the title: “ the myth of free will”

Actually, to say that free will is a myth is really misleading and confusing statements. But rather one should say the myth of uncaused free will. Hence, one can make his statements very clear, and avoid misunderstanding.

Since you are interested to know what other religions say about this issue, I would tell you what my religion says in this matter. God created man to be His vicegerent on earth, and present Him on earth. Hence, man is asked to establish a relation of love and divoution with God through which man submit and implement God’s Words. God puts daily in tests and trials to see those who are devout believers from those who aren’t: “Undoubtedly We adorned the earth whatever is on it, so that We may test them as to which of them is best in works.(18:7)

The following is a part from my discussion with Darren (winner08). I hope it is clearing up things.​

Causes whom I see as God's testing are two types: internal and external.

1) Internal causes:

A) Negative feelings: envy, hatred, jealousy, contempt, arrogance, lusts.... Example: You are home, and your ego inspires you of watching a porno movie for instance.
This cause is from inside (Satan’s inspiration). But, does it really affect you, or is it up to you to surrender or not? Two persons may take different choices. So, it is up to one’s principles and how much he/she is attached and depending on God

B) Positive feelings: love, peace, giving, compassion, care, mercy…
Example: Suddenly you remember your childhood friend that you haven’t seen him a long time ago, and think of making him a visit.
This cause is from inside (angel’s inspiration/ from God). Now, it is up to you to respond or not. Two persons may take different actions. This cause may affect two persons in different way according to one’s principles. One would say: “ oh! I really miss him. Let’s make him a visit” Another one may say: “ oh! What about him?!! Why shall I think of him? Why he doesn’t think of me?!!”

2) External causes:
These are the things we face daily in our life: Seeing poor people, being offred bribe, being seduced to take drugs, to make illegal sexual relationship, to go to bad places… Now, it is up to you to choose or not? The causes don’t affect anyone unless he/she gives them a chance.

NB: Any external cause is not the mere reason behind our choice. We shouldnt forget the inner causes (Satan/Angel) that are struggling inside us , and it is up to us to choose to which side we should submit and surrender. And be sure as long as your relation with God is firm and deep, God will always inspire you to choose rightly. That’s why without God we are nothing.

From all these, Azure we come to the conclusion: It is right that we don’t have free uncaused will, but it it very true that we have free will to choose right or wrong.

Apart from these, anything else that happens to us which we have no hand in, and which doesn’t stand as a moral dilemma like accidents which change our plans, these things we aren’t responsible of/ we have no will in, and they are put in our ways by God for sure, and for a wisdom for sure. Any thing happens in this world is for wisdom. God is all Wise.

 

[Snoopy]

I'm not one to go back on past threads (if anyone remembers this one), but I'd like to know what other religions think about this.

Hi,

Not quite sure why you posted this in the Abrahamic section then, but here goes...

I looked up these two snippets from a book called Between Heaven and Earth: From Nagarjuna to Dogen – A Translation and Interpretation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika by Michael Eido Luetchford:

Chapter 16. Bondage and Freedom.

“In acting in the present moment we are both bound and free; it is our intention to attain something that we believe we do not yet have (grasping) that binds us. Acting, giving up our intention, giving up all views, frees us in the moment.”

Chapter 17. Action and Effect.

“Dogen believed absolutely in the rule of cause and effect. It is interesting to note that even today, scientific investigation is not able to pinpoint or describe the exact nature of the cause-effect mechanism; it just divides the cause-effect process into ever smaller processes. In this chapter, Nagarjuna creates a middle ground between two points of view. This middle ground, while acknowledging my freedom to choose to act morally or not, also ties the results of my actions irrevocably to the act through causality. In this area, we are both free to act and bound by cause and effect. This seeming contradiction is at the heart of the nature of reality.”


Also, I found this article interesting:

“Buddhism posits sufficient free will to allow for intentional practices to augment awareness, to foster wholesome thought and action, and to defuse unhealthy reactions.

Buddhism has always posited sufficient freedom of consciousness to enable choice, and Buddhists try to increase conscious choice by cultivating mindfulness.”


Buddhism Meets Western Science


s.

 

[Dogbrain]

If there is no free will, there is no moral responsibility. If there is no free will, then God is worse than Satan.

 

[Q2008]

I think we have free will. We can rebel against any genetic dispositions we might have, or against any sort of subtle programming we might receive.

From whence would come the motivation to "rebel" against one's genetic dispositions, or external programming? Would you choose to feel like rebelling against your inclinations, or would your motivation to rebel against perceived inclinations itself be an inclination over which you had no control? This issue can't be dismissed so easily as "Well, we can choose to do something else." It cuts down to the very core of the ego, the process of choice. You would not choose to act against an influence unless the substance of the motivation happened to be in you.

 

[Q2008]

If there is no free will, there is no moral responsibility. If there is no free will, then God is worse than Satan.

Essentially, yes. Within an Abrahamic context ('tis the section, after all), a lack of free would throw God's nature into serious question.

 

[Q2008]

Why were you suddenly low on petrol in the first place? Because you neglected to check to make sure you maintained a certain amount of fuel before fuelling back up. That was your choice. If you had the principle to fill up your gas tank at the 1/4 mark instead of 'E', the you would not have run into this problem. Furthermore, seeing a billboard of the Effel Tower might have some influence on your choice of vacation, but what if you already had a predisposed dislike for France, perhaps for political reasons? Your first thought, when you were given a choice of vacationing city, might have been, "Well, I'm damn sure not going to Paris!". And what if you aren't one for gambling? Maybe you wouldn't have entered the raffle in the first place. So now you're going to have to fill up you car with petrol in order to go to Disney World instead.

(Emphasis mine.)

You've made my argument for me. "If you had, if you were," Not, "If you had chosen to have, if you had chosen to be"

If you don't [choose] the personal qualities and experience that prompt your decision of X over Y, you don't [choose] X over Y.

If any aspect of your being is not within your conscious control, you are not ultimately free to make any choices; you're as an incredibly complex rolling puzzle - "with this piece here, I turn this way and pick up that piece there, my resulting shape brings me here and causes me to forgo that piece there..."

 

[seattlegal]

From whence would come the motivation to "rebel" against one's genetic dispositions, or external programming? Would you choose to feel like rebelling against your inclinations, or would your motivation to rebel against perceived inclinations itself be an inclination over which you had no control? This issue can't be dismissed so easily as "Well, we can choose to do something else." It cuts down to the very core of the ego, the process of choice. You would not choose to act against an influence unless the substance of the motivation happened to be in you.

Yes, free-will is intrinsic, if we choose to employ it.

Regarding genetic dispositions: just because there is pornography in the library, it doesn't mean you have to read it.

Regarding external programming: your interaction with external programming can change that external programming. It's an interactive universe.

 

[juantoo3]

From whence would come the motivation to "rebel" against one's genetic dispositions, or external programming? Would you choose to feel like rebelling against your inclinations, or would your motivation to rebel against perceived inclinations itself be an inclination over which you had no control? This issue can't be dismissed so easily as "Well, we can choose to do something else." It cuts down to the very core of the ego, the process of choice. You would not choose to act against an influence unless the substance of the motivation happened to be in you.

Welcome to Interfaith, Q2008!

Perhaps, but then we return to murderers being incapable of controlling the urge to murder...they were *simply* created that way, or alternately they are a victim (hostage?) of their genetics and "just can't help themselves" from doing what they do...

From where I stand, allotting a disproportionate amount of influence to one's genes is to overlook the nurture aspect of the nature / nurture equation. It is politically convenient, but hardly all-encompassing or factual.

 

[Q2008]

Yes, free-will is intrinsic, if we choose to employ it.

Regarding genetic dispositions: just because there is pornography in the library, it doesn't mean you have to read it.

Regarding external programming: your interaction with external programming can change that external programming. It's an interactive universe.

The issue at hand is that you may be solely the product of external/internal (genetic/biological) influences. If you don't have control over the content of your character (which you don't; any character-forming decision you might contend lies in your past would also be subject to what made "you" and what compelled you to "make that choice"), your interaction with the universe is just another bit of the script.

 

[Q2008]

Welcome to Interfaith, Q2008!

Perhaps, but then we return to murderers being incapable of controlling the urge to murder...they were *simply* created that way(footnote1), or alternately they are a victim (hostage?) of their genetics and "just can't help themselves" from doing what they do...

From where I stand, allotting a disproportionate amount of influence to one's genes is to overlook the nurture aspect of the nature / nurture equation. It is politically convenient, but hardly all-encompassing or factual.(footnote2)

1. Is something false simply because we don't like its implications?

2. It's not even as simple as a nature/nurture question. While certainly we are products of both biology and experience, we are not the master of either. Is a choice free simply because your decision wasn't primarily influenced by your genes? Or does it not matter [what] the influence is, simply that the influence is not a voluntary product of your free-will. Any chink in the chain negates the idea of free will. Consider the idea of two completely identical universes; the same experiences, down to the minutest detail, acting upon exactly identical individuals - what reason is there to believe that these identical men in identical worlds will make any given choice differently?

 

[juantoo3]

1. Is something false simply because we don't like its implications?

Is something true simply because it is politically convenient? Is something true in spite of the mountain of research that suggests otherwise? Is something true simply because we want it to be?

With all due respect, such appeal to emotion is not substantiated by the facts on the ground. This is a common tendency, appeal to emotion, but it does not engender "truth" anymore than mob rule justifies vigilanteism. Put another way, pounding on a lectern insisting the world is flat (and the Bible says so!) does not make it so.

2. It's not even as simple as a nature/nurture question. While certainly we are products of both biology and experience, we are not the master of either. Is a choice free simply because your decision wasn't primarily influenced by your genes? Or does it not matter [what] the influence is, simply that the influence is not a voluntary product of your free-will. Any chink in the chain negates the idea of free will. Consider the idea of two completely identical universes; the same experiences, down to the minutest detail, acting upon exactly identical individuals - what reason is there to believe that these identical men in identical worlds will make any given choice differently?

If you are not aware, I think you will find shortly that I am no fan of "multi-" verse theories, primarily because of this very fantasy aspect held out as some validity of reality. Multi-verse theory is experimental mathematics, nothing more. There is no physical evidence to support it.

Having said that, your example is fraught. You presuppose identicality, so that the end result is identicality. First, chaos specifically negates that possibility. Chaos is about *alternate* possibilities. Second, your puzzle is kinda like saying "see the turtle in the mirror?, the turtle in the mirror is green, therefore the turtle is green in the mirror." It is a circular argument using itself to validate itself.

Now, having gotten around the problems with the example, let us proceed. Francis Collins pointed out that our genetics do not dictate what we think. You are welcome to look it up, I have referenced a number of times on this site. And I am more apt to consider Francis Collins, head of the government project to map the human genome, over a political desire to surrender personal responsibility to genetics. I believe you are not giving the *nurture* aspect of the equation its proper consideration. Let us say, for the sake of example, that there is a gene for drunkenness. Why then, are there people with this gene that are: 1) full blown drunks, 2) absolute teetotalers, 3) those who recognize their susceptibility and overcome it, and 4) those who are never exposed and therefore never realize they have the gene {edited to add} and 5) those who are merely modest social drinkers? While this example is not real, it is an example that has been used by Collins and others professionals with a vested interest in the subject, and all of these variable possibilities are *potential* outcomes. THAT is what chaos theory is about, possibilities. So no, I will not concede that my genetics control my thoughts, nor will I allow another to surrender their will either.

My genetics might make me *susceptible* to becoming a drunk, but it is my CHOICES that determine whether or not I actually become one.

BTW, the absolutism language (Is a choice free simply because your decision wasn't primarily influenced by your genes? Or does it not matter [what] the influence is, simply that the influence is not a voluntary product of your free-will. Any chink in the chain negates the idea of free will.) is another logical fallacy. What is more, it does not follow that because "something" influences a choice, that the choice is not free. I have seen some people make some (what to me were) pretty strange decisions *in spite of* the pending influences. There is a presumption that people act logically. In my experience, some people seldom act logically.

That could be said to be a purpose to institutional religion...learning to overcome the animal nature, the *carnal* nature, and learn to direct our behavior in a more ethical and moral manner, ostensibly to further one's family, tribe and community. Your argument holds an element of merit if we were *only* animals. We are not, and have not been for a long time. We are still animals, true, but we are also much more.

 

[c0de]

Welcome Q2008,

with regards to the dilemma:

If there is no free will, there is no moral responsibility. If there is no free will, then God is worse than Satan.

Not necessarily:

I understand your concern, as I shared it for a long time. However, one has to accept the simplicity of the problem before us, without complicating the issue:

If the universe is deterministic, then there is no free will.

So is it deterministic or not? If God is All-Knowing, and All-Powerful,
then the universe is, by definition, deterministic. If you look at the issue objectively you will have to accept that there is no way to avoid this conclusion.

However, (and this is the important bit) even though it is deterministic, there is a way to avoid the follwing conclusion: "...you end up with a god who's a very nasty piece of work ... if such was true then the whole premise of the Abrahamic God is a nonsense."

There is a solution to this paradox. But it requires an answer to a VERY DEEP question which has troubled mystics since the beginning.

How do you reconcile the Wrath of God, with his Mercy?

These are two, seemingly contradicting attributes. If we understand how this is possible, that God can have both these qualities, at the same time, we will understand the solution to the paradox. This understanding, I believe, is essential for anyone who wants to progress on the path of any of the Three Abrahamic Faiths.

In the Quran, for example, it is clearly stated that If God wanted, He could have guided all mankind. But He lets those go in error who "wrong themselves". Is there a contradiction here? It seems at first sight there is. But lets look closer. And to do this, we have to understand what the purpose of Hell is.

Those who "wrong themselves" are the ones who will enter Hell. But what is Hell? Is it a place where pain is meted out for eternity? No. This is a misconception. Hell is a place which the wicked will go through as a purification. But purification towards what?

This is not a seperate question, but is essential to understanding the paradox. God created man, to take his place above the angels. Not just some men... but "Man"... Mankind (and womankind of course). But all men have to go through a purification. And what is "purification"?


Lets look at nature (this usually always helps). How is gold purified? You melt it, until the impurities are separated from the core metal. But this process is very harsh is it not? Rumi (the Persian Sufi poet) once wrote of the harsh stages a seed of wheat has to go through before it can become bread, and bring benefit to mankind. All such processes, require a lot of effort in order to return a benefit.

Now lets look at human nature, how do good men attain character? They go through trials. Which seem like "hell" when one is going through them. This is exactly the concept of Hell. To purify man. According to sayings of Jesus (PBUH) in the Bible, and Mohammed (PBUH) in the hadith, the wicked shall be taken out of hell.

So now, the last and most pressing question: If God is All Powerful and so Merciful, why did He not create a world in which man could have been purified without all the hassles? Why does one have to suffer so much pain in order to experience eternal bliss.

The answer to this question is simply mathematical. Lets examine the word "eternal". What does it mean mathematically? Eternal means infinite. So "eternal bliss" would mean "infinite Bliss". So basically, the comparison here, is between something finite (hell/pain) and infinite (heaven/bliss). This might seem like a fair comparison from the point of view of philosophy. But mathematically, there is NO comparison here. Why? Because nothing finite, could ever be compared with anything infinite. Even if man spent billions of years in hell, but ended up in infinite bliss afterword, there would still be nothing to shed a tear about. And according to one saying of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) the longest time anyone will spend in Hell, is the time span of 80 years (basically a human life time). The point being, infinite bliss is a reward which is so unimaginably out of proportion, that even if man is put through whatever trial, as he is going through that pain, he will feel it... but when he reaches the destination, he will understand that the reward he got in the end... was priceless.

This is how we can understand how even in a deterministic universe, in which no one has any "free will", God can still be understood as "The Benificient, The Merciful". Because ultimately, God is in total control of everything. And He knows what He's doing, and where He is leading us. And its all good. So in this way, even without clinging on to this concept of "free will" we can get through the day just fine.

 

[Q2008]

Is something true simply because it is politically convenient? Is something true in spite of the mountain of research that suggests otherwise? Is something true simply because we want it to be?

With all due respect, such appeal to emotion is not substantiated by the facts on the ground. This is a common tendency, appeal to emotion, but it does not engender "truth" anymore than mob rule justifies vigilanteism. Put another way, pounding on a lectern insisting the world is flat (and the Bible says so!) does not make it so.

We're obviously on very different pages. Where are you getting this nonsense about mountains of evidence, political convenience and research? I am not asserting that genetics decide all. I am asserting that no being is capable of actual choice because every choice made is decided by myriad factors outside of voluntary control. Do you choose to disobey your parents because you're genetically predisposed to? No. Is your biological profile one influence on your choice? Yes. Is your choice made in spite of your experience and not because of it? No.

If you are not aware, I think you will find shortly that I am no fan of "multi-" verse theories, primarily because of this very fantasy aspect held out as some validity of reality. Multi-verse theory is experimental mathematics, nothing more. There is no physical evidence to support it.

I am not asserting the existence of multiple universes, mearly trying to illustrate why choices are not free. A choice is not free because everything that brings to make X choice at Y moment is outside of your conscious control. A common rebuttal to that point is "But your past choices bring you to the choices you'll make in the present." However, from your very first choice, all aspects of your experience from every moment of your existence are acting upon you and will bring you to only one choice and not the other. Since that process is not within voluntary control, we do not make choices in free will.

Having said that, your example is fraught. You presuppose identicality, so that the end result is identicality. First, chaos specifically negates that possibility. Chaos is about *alternate* possibilities. Second, your puzzle is kinda like saying "see the turtle in the mirror?, the turtle in the mirror is green, therefore the turtle is green in the mirror." It is a circular argument using itself to validate itself.

What makes you think there is chaos? Chaos is imaginary, it does not exist in reality. If you could follow the path of every atom and every particle from the beginning of the universe 'till today, don't you suppose you'd be able to identify the origin of every existing thing? Of course you could. Throw a marble into a pile of marbles and their movements are not chaotic; simply hard to follow.

Now, having gotten around the problems with the example, let us proceed. Francis Collins pointed out that our genetics do not dictate what we think. You are welcome to look it up, I have referenced a number of times on this site. And I am more apt to consider Francis Collins, head of the government project to map the human genome, over a political desire to surrender personal responsibility to genetics.

I have not at any time asserted that genes decide everything for us. My position is that our choices are formed based on our experience. Part of our experience is internal, a man with certain biological qualities will react to certain experiences in certain ways. Other parts are external. A child raised in a box will be different from a child raised in the world. My assertion is that every "decision" we make, every choice, is formed from an unimaginably complex interplay of [every] experience acting upon us.

I believe you are not giving the *nurture* aspect of the equation its proper consideration. Let us say, for the sake of example, that there is a gene for drunkenness. Why then, are there people with this gene that are: 1) full blown drunks, 2) absolute teetotalers, 3) those who recognize their susceptibility and overcome it, and 4) those who are never exposed and therefore never realize they have the gene {edited to add} and 5) those who are merely modest social drinkers? While this example is not real, it is an example that has been used by Collins and others professionals with a vested interest in the subject, and all of these variable possibilities are *potential* outcomes. THAT is what chaos theory is about, possibilities. So no, I will not concede that my genetics control my thoughts, nor will I allow another to surrender their will either.

My genetics might make me *susceptible* to becoming a drunk, but it is my CHOICES that determine whether or not I actually become one.

Again, my argument is not nature/nurture and never was. It's more abstract than that. It's about the very reality of choice. Whether we actually make choices in freedom, or whether our choices are formed by factors not controlled by us, both biological and environmental.

BTW, the absolutism language (Is a choice free simply because your decision wasn't primarily influenced by your genes? Or does it not matter [what] the influence is, simply that the influence is not a voluntary product of your free-will. Any chink in the chain negates the idea of free will.) is another logical fallacy. What is more, it does not follow that because "something" influences a choice, that the choice is not free. I have seen some people make some (what to me were) pretty strange decisions *in spite of* the pending influences. There is a presumption that people act logically. In my experience, some people seldom act logically.

It's not that something influences a choice, it's that a choice is nothing but the result of factors outside of our control. Does a rapist choose to be a rapist? No. Myriad factors carve him into one. Does he choose, in free will, to rape? No. Internal and external factors compel him to act as he does. He is no more responsible for being a man that chooses to rape than the Earth is responsible for spinning.

Your argument holds an element of merit if we were *only* animals. We are not, and have not been for a long time. We are still animals, true, but we are also much more.

Charming idea, but a higher nature does not make one free from deterministic causal chains. Nothing is free from causal chains.