Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism)

"If we were to simply question why I was predetermined to believe in Hard Determinism, it would be because I used my determined rational mind (among other things) to interpret the evidence in a way that I found convincing, including the internal (and still determined) weighing up process that you mentioned." I would like Pro to give us an illustration of how outside forces could have forced him to interpret the evidence in such a way. It seems to me we are all free to interpret evidence however we want, or not to interpret them at all. Pro is saying that because of outside influence X, he was forced to interpret the evidence to conclude Y. Please give us a scenario where this plays out that we may understand; for I propose there is no set of circumstances which would restrict a person from the ability to reject determinism with a sound mind. Con then asks ‘how does free-will work'? But, there can be no explanation of how free-will works just because it is not a cause-and-effect system. If I could explain "how" it works by some "mechanism" or "scientific model," it would cease to be free-will and be determinism. The fact that one cannot explain the randomness of a set of event does not deny the existence of the events or their randomness. "How are people predictable if they have the freedom to do what they want?" It's kind of like saying that just because I know what conclusion you will reach through your reasoning process, doesn't mean you don't have the ability to reason. Similarly, just because you can guess how I will use my freedom, doesn't mean I don't have it. When citizens obey the law, they aren't "forced" to obey it, they could have broken the law and chosen to suffer the consequences. Pro is assuming that because he can predict what "most" of them will do, that "none" of them have free will. But such logic doesn't follow, for it would also mean that anytime he could not predict what someone would do in a situation where (given what he knows about him and the influences on his life) he should have been predictable, that free will does exist. Yet, such events happen everyday. "Self Perfection Mentality: If we are so free, then why don't we all choose to enjoy being good people?" To give a motivating force to explain why people do wrong is a fall back into Pro's trap of cause-and-effect, crafty question. After ten years of enjoyable, peaceful marriage, a man goes out and pays a prostitute for sex. When he is discovered, and they finally go for counseling, he answers a list of questions. Were you watching porn? No. Did a woman seduce you and persuade you to come? No. Weren't you satisfied with the sex your wife gives you? Yes. Were you two having problem? No. So why did you do it? "I don't know, I just wanted to." It goes on all the time Pro, to deny this is to deny life. Sometimes people have reasons, motivating forces, other times they don't; and even when they do, they "have" to obey those forces. The fact that many resist them shows they are not predetermined to obey external forces. "Notice how we assume that someone who is an adult is thus capable of controlling the stealing desires? This is a prejudice. We prejudge them as capable of a certain level of self-control that is not based on anything but a presumption of maturity." We judge them based on the experienced reality that "we as adults" in all sorts of similar and sometimes the same circumstances make better choices, so can they. If I, while poor and homeless and hungry, did not steal, why should you, while rich and comfortable, steal? It's inexcusable. "Hypothetically, you could read this and conclude that the world is flat (and believe it) if you so wished." So if I find people who believe bogus, outrageous things, like the world is flat, that would prove free-will? Many don't believe man ever landed on the moon, some believe the world is an illusion and that we don't really die, only appear so. "If everything is unbiased, then how could anyone decide anything? I even question why anyone would want a will made up entirely of random conclusions, as appose to an entirely rational, all-inclusive determined consideration." I can choose to develop desires which are random or structured according to a set philosophy. Free-will doesn't have to mean all one's decisions must "appear" to be random. "A bigot is usually taught to become a bigot (at least, in the eyes of the opposition)." Some parents do their very best to raise their kids as good moral citizens, and their peers, religions, etc tell them to be law abiding, yet they choose a life of crime. Bigots aren't always raised to be so, they often times just "choose" to be so, and this is why people are so surprised when so and so suddenly changes for no rational reason. "Consider any choice that you have ever made. Ask yourself why you made that choice. Consider the influences, and how much control you had over them at that time. Consider everything. You will notice that none of those influences are changeable." I don't need to change the influences to have a choice on how I respond to them. I was hungry, very hungry, I love pizza, and my mum offered me some; given the forces at work (my hunger and my love for pizza), I should (in the determinist view) accept the pizza. But I just didn't want any at the time so I said no. Why didn't I want any? Was there some force stopping me from wanting it? Not that I know of; on the other hand, I "choose" to ignore the forces pushing me to eat it. "Simply ask why. In the end, it's because you wanted to walk away more than you want to hit someone, otherwise you would have hit them." How do you know the intensity of a desire, Con? That's an internal feeling, which isn't necessarily in accord with outward expression. For example, does a man feel more hurt because he is crying than a woman who isn't? She lost her baby, his home team only lost on baseball game, go figure. You can't make the judgment that my desire to walk away was stronger. Wonderful responses from Pro. Thanks for a great debate so far.