I feel that free will is a delusion… People rationalise, and play semantics games with what free will truly means as well.  I do believe that our actions are determined by causal chains that are out of our control (A causes B causes C… haha, what causes A then?  Not to get into a first cause discussion).  Now I wouldn’t phrase it in the fanciful way “demented forces push me madly round the treadmill” because I believe in a rational universe, and am more prosaic than poetic.

As I mentioned earlier, I expect that many people deceive themselves into believing that their decisions are free from causal chains that result in a necessary action because this gives them a sense of empowerment.  It is uncomfortable to think that all of our actions and choices are determined by hereditary and environmental factors; that in any given circumstance our decisions are fixed by our past experiences, environmental stimuli, and our genetic makeup.  However, I believe that forces beyond our control fix our decisions – and I’m inclined to say that we cannot alter those forces anymore than we can change the laws of gravity. But I offer my own qualifiers to help help empower me.  Whether I contradict myself is fine for me.  I’m a materialist essentially, but I still believe in moral responsibility.  In becoming aware of the forces that cause us to choose, it may seem that we can effect a new causal chain, or alter our course, our fate if you will (self-determination) by making choices that go against our temperament, but that choice would also be determined by factors out of our control by my way of thinking.

There is also a compatibilist (soft determinsist) idea out there that there is a distinction between immediate “internal” and “external” causes which "saves" the idea of freedom (agency).   A deterministic view is taken that all actions are completely determined by causes, including internal and external causes, but internal (psychological, physiological) causes are thought of as free because there are no outside forces at work.  Really this a semantics argument for me. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me (mind you, it is argued intelligently).  Because I believe that our internal reasons for action, being determined by past external events and heredity, are so enmeshed within the external that the two cannot be sufficiently, or indeed at all, separated to accept the notion of free will.  Outside forces do not work on us in a vacuum, they work together with our internal training, and physiology, to determine our actions.

As to the libertarian (theory of agency) stance (well there are different camps there), I have some fundamental problems with it.  While both determinists and libertarians accept that causal chains exist, libertarians are compelled to advance the vague idea of a self that can somehow transcend causal chains.  Occam’s razor, y' know, the idea that utilising the minimum number of necessary assumptions is best… I’m inclined to believe that hard determinism is a better view because it is simpler.  It dispenses with unknowable metaphysical notions, and presents what is empirically evident; that there are causes behind all actions and decisions.

Soft determinism is problematic for me because it is illogical to associate free actions with a causal chain that always leads to an inevitable action.  The libertarian notion that there are causal chains, which can be broken through careful deliberation, is also problematic. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." What causes us to carefully deliberate, and come to a conclusion?  Surely we deliberate because we have been trained not to come to a hasty conclusion when matters are of importance.  Our conclusion is dependent upon our weighing up the pros and cons, the pros being conducive to our desires, which are determined by various psychological and physiological factors.  If we did not deliberate we might come to a conclusion different from a conclusion arrived at with deliberation, but our caused conditions dictate the extent to which we deliberate, and, therefore, determine our decision. I’ll be the roundabout.

Therefore, it is unnecessary in my view to resort to vague metaphysical notions of the self in order to explain the process of deliberation.

Not that important to the discussion, but I also believe in, let's say semi-conscious and sub-conscious decisions. That our conscious mind is acting in coordination with our sub or semi conscious mind (I do believe in internal and external factors when it comes to deliberation and execution).  We consciously deliberate and these facets of our mind effect resolution (we we react in any given situation).  The subconscious is "programmed," if you will, and the "conscious mind" is being affected by external and internal factors.  Still not free will.  But if one believes in "free will" as a concept can depend on how one defines it.  Rather like some of the categories at this site, ;), we can define things into existence.

Guys, the math already has identified the answer to this with the advent of chaos theory, and it can actually be broken down into pretty understandable sense.