Determinism vs Free Will (Psychology Debate Explained)

Determinism is the concept that we do not have much control over our actions, and instead, are controlled by factors such as our biology or genes, or by the way we are brought up. A consequence of this is that determinists believe that we are mainly passive responders to our past or biology and that we have no free will.
Determinists therefore believe that is possible to predict behaviour by identifying the cause of behaviour.
Although most psychologists believe in some form of determinism, many argue that hard determinism is too extreme. They argue that humans do not always act involuntary and have some control over their behaviour. This argument is known as soft determinism.
A further argument is that humans have free will. The argument is that we have the freedom to act as we want at all times. Psychologists who support the idea of free will, believe that the determinist argument is de-humanising as it treats people as if they were machines.
However, much of the evidence presented by psychological research suggests that behaviour isn’t unpredictable, and that it is possible to identify behaviour patterns which, to some extent, do seem predictable.

[@abedalikhan3803]

Good work 🎉🎉🎉

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

Why it's not the case that determinism for all things (all things are deterministic ) is an illusion ?

[@caricue]

You almost got there when you began to separate cause and effect from determinism. Determinism is just an updated version of Fate, but instead of the will of the gods, it's physics that controls your future. No wonder it is so sticky in people's minds. Religious beliefs are designed to protect themselves from removal.

[@caricue]

@@itsAmeOFP This comment may not apply to you since there are a variety of determinists denominations. Some say there is no agent, maybe not even a self, and others preach a any number of other self-serving rationalizations. Anything to avoid personal responsibility.

[@Chloe-bv2cj]

what are the strengths and weaknesses of freewill?😀

[@marvinedwards737]

Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence, such as significant mental illness, hypnosis, deception, authoritative command (parent/child, commander/soldier), etc. Whether you have this freedom in a given scenario is a question of objective evidence. The reason people believe they have free will is because they empirically observe themselves and others making decisions for themselves every day. Another thing that we empirically observe every day is reliable cause and effect. I press the "H" key on my keyboard and an ''h" appears here in the text. If some other letter appeared I would conclude my keyboard had a problem that needed fixing. And, if each time I pressed a key, some unpredictable, random letter appeared in the text, then I could no longer control what I was typing, and I would lose my freedom to write what I want. Every freedom we have, to do anything at all, requires reliable cause and effect. Choosing what I will do, for example, requires my brain to function reliably. So, free will presumes a deterministic world, a world of reliable causation. My choices will be reliably caused by my purposes and reasoning, by my thoughts and feelings, by my genetic dispositions and prior life experiences, etc. In short, my choices are both reliably caused (deterministic) and reliably caused by me (free will). Thus, the two concepts, free will and deterministic cause and effect, are compatible. Therefore, determinism cannot assert that I have no control over my choices, because that would be a false claim. All that determinism may say is that my choices will be reliably caused.

[@marvinedwards737]

@Stephanie Mujan Sorry, but I don't accept homework assignments. If you found the video enlightening, then you should be able to explain it in your own words. But if it didn't help you to understand things better, then why would you think it would help anyone else?

[@marvinedwards737]

@Stephanie Mujan Ah! It's the same video that I commented on earlier. Go there yourself and read my comment.

[@caricue]

Marvin Edwards, that was a good explanation, but it will have no effect on determinists, as I'm sure you've noticed. I've just started pointing out that cause and effect and determinism are two entirely different ideas, but once again, it makes no difference. Even if you specify reliable causation as a prerequisite for a functioning universe, all they hear is the siren call of determinism (which is indistinguishable from Fate after you replace will of the gods with physics).

[@marvinedwards737]

@@caricue Yes, I'm beginning to see a distinction between determinism and deterministic.

[@caricue]

@@marvinedwards737 I had one guy say that determinism wasn't the same as Fate because Fate was written down ahead of time (presumably by the gods), so you had to say predetermined. The determinists keep saying that there are only two options, determined or random, so I'm trying to come up with a third option that won't trigger them. Like I said, you did a good job of explaining it, but all it takes is one little word or phrase for them to cling onto and they will jump right back into it. I've had some just ignore my points and fall back on the impossibility of agency or that there aren't persons, just subsets of the universe. In a way, I get that I am tilting at windmills, and it doesn't matter what anyone else believes, but it is a fun exercise and keeps me sharp. Really, I don't know that free will is even a thing in the real world, but the arguments of the determinists are often obnoxious and so out there that I wonder what the real motivation is to hold such eliminativist views in the face of common human experience. In any case, keep up the good work.

[@jonprice1075]

"it arguements that'

[@joegeorge3889]

We don't have free will otherwise I wouldn't be watching u