The basis for society's legal system is founded on the idea that we need to hold people accountable for their actions, which assumes that people have responsibility for the actions they makes. If everyone's actions are predetermined though, can we really put the blame on people for acting the way they did? We would essentially be sentencing people for crimes they had no control over.

Yeah, just mentioned it in another comment but my understanding, though limited of quantum mechanics just implies that the world can be probabilistic but that just shifts causality to be the result of luck/randomness.

I think this is definitely an argument that kind of just never ends until we come to a better understanding of neuroscience/physics. At the end of the day though it seems valuable to have arguments, define concepts, etc.

I kind of see it as the ability to act as we desire, but not having the ability to desire what we desire. That definitely just circles back around to not being in control of our actions, but the main takeaway I took was the counterargument that we must come from somewhere as our definition of who we are is the sum of our experiences, environment, genetics, etc. If you take all that away then you are not really you anymore so you should kind of just, accept that I guess? Maybe you are right about the emotional aspect of it as this argument seems to hint that we should take some pride in our past. Kind of like, well we can't really have changed who we are up to now but the alternative is nothingness so let's try to make the most out of it.

Perhaps this is the natural conclusion even if deterministic that we are designed to come to? Giving people the illusion of free will helps encourage them to survive and make the most out of their life?

My limited understanding of quantum stuff has led me to believe that there's multiple worlds out there due to the probabilistic nature of things. But then that seems to imply that the world is still deterministic, just now in infinite ways and the current "world" is still determined with factors outside of my control (luck/randomness).

I think that the acceptance definitely plays a part somewhere, I mean at the end of the day we are biologically programmed beings to live and have self-preservation so it makes sense that our minds come up with reasons for us to keep living.

I've pondered the idea of responsibility before as well. If you view the world deterministically then you can't hold people accountable. Even if the majority of society accepts determinism, we can't allow people who commit crimes to stay free for the benefit of the majority. If we want to act morally and put the blame on what caused someone to commit crimes, you kind of just start going down the rabbit hole of who/what to hold accountable? Do you blame someone's parents for their poor upbringing and as a result environment for growing up? Their DNA? For practicality, in society you kind of have to put the "responsibility" somewhere and its easiest to put the responsibility on the individual.

Took me a few rereads and looking up whatever/whoever he was referencing, but I think I'm getting the gist of what he's arguing? The main points I got from this I think were:

• Definitions of concepts/words matters a lot here
• Compatibilists definition of "free will" can be defined as having the freedom to act on our desires, even if these desires aren't something we were responsible for
• The conflict between our desires and the outside world's doesn't prove that free will exist in a compatibilist context. These desires after all, were just products of past events and causal chains
• Who we are has to be defined somewhere down the causal chain though, the alternative would mean that we would be free of all our desires and thus not really "us". Being free of all desires would mean that we are not really ourselves since our desires are important to our identity

Very interesting read, I think he makes a pretty compelling argument that is a lot more well defined/coherent than my take on free will up to now which kind of just boiled down to "all of who I am up to now has kind of been predetermined but even if free will is an illusion it's better to believe, even if falsely, that I am free so that I can function in society" Would love to hear other takes, especially if I interpreted some of this incorrectly.