For centuries philosophers have been debating the concepts of free will and whether it exists or it’s a mere illusion. Over the years, many different theories have been hindering the answer behind this complex concept. Many different philosophers discuss different ideals such as compatibilism and determinism. Both the combatalist and the hard determinist feel there's no escaping fate, however there differences lies on one major concept — free will. Even though an individual's fate may remain fixed, the compatibilist view concludes that humans still possess free will. In contrast, the hard determinist feels rather the opposite of the compatibilist, this theory remains correct and plausible in comparison to the compatibilist theory due to examples
…show more content…
The hard determinist compares the aspects of moral decisions to physical scenarios. For example, the tennis ball flew over the net from the force of the tennis racquet not from any other guiding factor. The ball did not propel forward without a cause, whether it be the tennis player swinging the racket or even the wind moving it toward the net. Since physical objects, like the tennis ball and the racket, do not move without a cause, then why do people feel their own human actions can act too without a specific cause? The hard determinist feels that human desire and choices are just an illusion. Consider the tennis ball and the racket example, the reason the tennis player decided to swing his own racket was because he felt a desire to. It seems difficult to consider the possibility that each individual may not have free will, but the determinist believes just so. They believe the experience of the racket causing the ball to move is no different than choosing to eat oatmeal or cereal for breakfast. Although many can agree that objects do not move into motion, like the tennis ball example, without a certain force or cause, many disagree that mental states are similar to physical objects. What remains very puzzling is that you cannot disprove or prove determinism. But as a rationalist, which all hu nbvmans are indeed rational, one can …show more content…
Determinists believe that every aspect is predetermined, and with the extensive amount of knowledge, one can predict various outcomes even including a mental choice. But humans are incapable of learning each and every aspect of particles in the brain and in the universe. Many then ask, what about neuroscience? Neuroscience studies the functions and psychological states of the brain but yet they still cannot determine various different puzzling questions. For instance, scientists are unsure of how the brain can transfer sensory details into different types of perceptions. They are also unsure of even simple actions such as sleep. Humans cannot figure out the function of sleep or even the function of dreaming. With this knowledge and more, the determinist believes that one can then predict aspects of the brain that are typically unknown to many. Another objection to the theory of determinism is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This principle of quantum physics describes the states of particles at a molecular level. Werner Heisenberg, a german physicist, discovered that it’s rather impossible to predict the exact position and momentum of a particle due to the randomness and uncertainty. But the human knowledge of every particle in the universe remains very limited,
The hard determinist compares the aspects of moral decisions to physical scenarios. For example, the tennis ball flew over the net from the force of the tennis racquet not from any other guiding factor. The ball did not propel forward without a cause, whether it be the tennis player swinging the racket or even the wind moving it toward the net. Since physical objects, like the tennis ball and the racket, do not move without a cause, then why do people feel their own human actions can act too without a specific cause? The hard determinist feels that human desire and choices are just an illusion. Consider the tennis ball and the racket example, the reason the tennis player decided to swing his own racket was because he felt a desire to. It seems difficult to consider the possibility that each individual may not have free will, but the determinist believes just so. They believe the experience of the racket causing the ball to move is no different than choosing to eat oatmeal or cereal for breakfast. Although many can agree that objects do not move into motion, like the tennis ball example, without a certain force or cause, many disagree that mental states are similar to physical objects. What remains very puzzling is that you cannot disprove or prove determinism. But as a rationalist, which all hu nbvmans are indeed rational, one can …show more content…
Determinists believe that every aspect is predetermined, and with the extensive amount of knowledge, one can predict various outcomes even including a mental choice. But humans are incapable of learning each and every aspect of particles in the brain and in the universe. Many then ask, what about neuroscience? Neuroscience studies the functions and psychological states of the brain but yet they still cannot determine various different puzzling questions. For instance, scientists are unsure of how the brain can transfer sensory details into different types of perceptions. They are also unsure of even simple actions such as sleep. Humans cannot figure out the function of sleep or even the function of dreaming. With this knowledge and more, the determinist believes that one can then predict aspects of the brain that are typically unknown to many. Another objection to the theory of determinism is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This principle of quantum physics describes the states of particles at a molecular level. Werner Heisenberg, a german physicist, discovered that it’s rather impossible to predict the exact position and momentum of a particle due to the randomness and uncertainty. But the human knowledge of every particle in the universe remains very limited,