Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sushan wrote: ↑February 18th, 2022, 10:34 pm

stevie wrote: ↑February 18th, 2022, 3:38 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2022, 10:40 pm

stevie wrote: ↑February 15th, 2022, 5:42 am

I cannot follow your differentiations "logical inputs" and "emotional and rational thinking".
The author may be telling us many things, however has he ever considered whether he has thought about and concluded based on his relatively free will or whether he had no choice but to tell us like a remotely-controlled machine without relatively free will?
With the developement of the brain we have actually achieved a degree of free will that cannot be found in animals. E.g. based on relatively free will humans can decide to suppress instincts animals cannot suppress.

Maybe you are correct about the author. He may just have wrote what his brain told him to write depending solely on its prior processes, but not considering any of the author's own thoughts. He may just have been a puppet of his own brain, and he may not had any free will at all. That all thought makes me doubt the validity of all of his concepts, and even my ones too. Is it possible that all of us are mere prisoners of our brain processes, without any sort of free will? Can what we experience as relatively free will be an illusion?

From my perspective it's quite simple: the concept of 'free will', absulutely free or relatively free, is necessarily connected with the concept of personal 'self'. If one rejects the reality of personal self then one won't be able to talk about 'free will' at all because then there can't be an owner of any kind of will and thus the differentiation 'free vs non-free' doesn't make sense. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' then one will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that there is free will when observing one's own decision making in the context of its degrees of freedom. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' but still asserts that there is no free will then one is ignorantly abiding in the 'realm of mere abstract thought' without taking notice of one's own degrees of freedom when it comes to one's own decisions.

I think it goes far more deep when we think about the existence of 'self'. People accept and deny various things as per their beliefs, knowledge, experience, etc. But that does not alter the objective truth, but only affects the subjective perspectives. There can be flaws in individual thought processes, and that is why all three groups of people that you mentioned exist. But what is the reality? Is there a thing called 'self'?

Well, you won't be able to delineate where 'objective truth' begins and where 'beliefs' end. All you can do is to express your belief about it. Therefore your referrence to an alleged "objective truth" does neither add nor remove clarity and/or confusion.
There are arguments in favour of a self and there are arguments against a self. I don't deny the appearance of self every now and then in my mental continuum but I am not speculating about whether this appearance 'is' or 'corresponds with' truth or not.
Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will.

I think my belief is that to describe the world you can ask yourself if 0 is 0 and 1 is 1. Then if 0 changes to 1 what is in between 0 and 1. Expanding possibilities maybe. It's not so clear but for me it's related to something i was thinking. That's why i got this idea.

stevie wrote: ↑February 20th, 2022, 5:11 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 18th, 2022, 10:34 pm

stevie wrote: ↑February 18th, 2022, 3:38 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 17th, 2022, 10:40 pm

Maybe you are correct about the author. He may just have wrote what his brain told him to write depending solely on its prior processes, but not considering any of the author's own thoughts. He may just have been a puppet of his own brain, and he may not had any free will at all. That all thought makes me doubt the validity of all of his concepts, and even my ones too. Is it possible that all of us are mere prisoners of our brain processes, without any sort of free will? Can what we experience as relatively free will be an illusion?

From my perspective it's quite simple: the concept of 'free will', absulutely free or relatively free, is necessarily connected with the concept of personal 'self'. If one rejects the reality of personal self then one won't be able to talk about 'free will' at all because then there can't be an owner of any kind of will and thus the differentiation 'free vs non-free' doesn't make sense. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' then one will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that there is free will when observing one's own decision making in the context of its degrees of freedom. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' but still asserts that there is no free will then one is ignorantly abiding in the 'realm of mere abstract thought' without taking notice of one's own degrees of freedom when it comes to one's own decisions.

I think it goes far more deep when we think about the existence of 'self'. People accept and deny various things as per their beliefs, knowledge, experience, etc. But that does not alter the objective truth, but only affects the subjective perspectives. There can be flaws in individual thought processes, and that is why all three groups of people that you mentioned exist. But what is the reality? Is there a thing called 'self'?

Well, you won't be able to delineate where 'objective truth' begins and where 'beliefs' end. All you can do is to express your belief about it. Therefore your referrence to an alleged "objective truth" does neither add nor remove clarity and/or confusion.
There are arguments in favour of a self and there are arguments against a self. I don't deny the appearance of self every now and then in my mental continuum but I am not speculating about whether this appearance 'is' or 'corresponds with' truth or not.
Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will.

Conventional ways are accepted for so long, and many things are developed on them. But that does not mean conventional scopes are the only extents that our thoughts or truth can be extended to. It all depends on what we choose to accept and believe.

Rende wrote: ↑February 24th, 2022, 2:13 pm I think my belief is that to describe the world you can ask yourself if 0 is 0 and 1 is 1. Then if 0 changes to 1 what is in between 0 and 1. Expanding possibilities maybe. It's not so clear but for me it's related to something i was thinking. That's why i got this idea.

0 has no value related to 1. 1 has a value related to 0. So everything are relative in this world. Seemingly there is an unlimited amount of possibility, and all these things are relative to something.

Sushan wrote: ↑February 24th, 2022, 11:10 pm

stevie wrote: ↑February 20th, 2022, 5:11 am

Sushan wrote: ↑February 18th, 2022, 10:34 pm

stevie wrote: ↑February 18th, 2022, 3:38 am

From my perspective it's quite simple: the concept of 'free will', absulutely free or relatively free, is necessarily connected with the concept of personal 'self'. If one rejects the reality of personal self then one won't be able to talk about 'free will' at all because then there can't be an owner of any kind of will and thus the differentiation 'free vs non-free' doesn't make sense. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' then one will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that there is free will when observing one's own decision making in the context of its degrees of freedom. If one accepts the reality of personal 'self' but still asserts that there is no free will then one is ignorantly abiding in the 'realm of mere abstract thought' without taking notice of one's own degrees of freedom when it comes to one's own decisions.

I think it goes far more deep when we think about the existence of 'self'. People accept and deny various things as per their beliefs, knowledge, experience, etc. But that does not alter the objective truth, but only affects the subjective perspectives. There can be flaws in individual thought processes, and that is why all three groups of people that you mentioned exist. But what is the reality? Is there a thing called 'self'?

Well, you won't be able to delineate where 'objective truth' begins and where 'beliefs' end. All you can do is to express your belief about it. Therefore your referrence to an alleged "objective truth" does neither add nor remove clarity and/or confusion.
There are arguments in favour of a self and there are arguments against a self. I don't deny the appearance of self every now and then in my mental continuum but I am not speculating about whether this appearance 'is' or 'corresponds with' truth or not.
Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will.

Conventional ways are accepted for so long, and many things are developed on them. But that does not mean conventional scopes are the only extents that our thoughts or truth can be extended to. It all depends on what we choose to accept and believe.

As far as I am concerned it merely depends on what kind of knowledge I apply when I use verbal expressions. And knowledge of self is generally applied in society in countless contexts, actually social life would be impossible without knowledge of self. Even communication and verbal expressions would be impossible without "I" "you" "she" etc.
And scientific knowledge is independent of religious and philosophical beliefs due to its primary dependence on evident sense perception. Therefore "Nevertheless when it comes to 'free will or not' I am expressing what is aligned with the conventional way of looking at things and that is 1. self is accepted and 2. scientific evidence is a basis for assessment which entails that there is no absolutely free will but there is relatively free will."
So what I say what it comes to "free will" is guided by mere pragmatism and non-speculation.

Procirclism, when reading this concept, is different than reframing determinism and rename it. It is complex, it involves all stimuli the brain ever had, the quality of our brain and instant stimuli, when it reaches a threshold. The brain processes constantly and produces outcomes which we then manifest. What we choose is what is presented. We are incapable of making a different decision when all precipitating factors that were present in our previous decision, are still present in our current decision. 2+2=4. If 5 is produced it cannot result from 2+2.
Yet, we feel that we can choose whatever we want because we cannot be aware of all brain processes.
We must understand that in the author’s presentation of procirclism, nothing can go outside of this concept.
When we ask, not who chooses but “what” does the choosing only then will it lead to discoveries that cannot otherwise be made, is my humble opinion.
Note: emotions etc are all stimuli to the brain. Thoughts are also a result of the brain as the author clearly discusses in the book; before we have a thought we don’t have that thought. We cannot think about a thought before we have it. When we think about it, we have it.

Sushan wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 9:44 pm This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month,
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral


The author constantly speaks about a theory that he names as 'Procirclism', which he defines as cycles of brain processes that are influenced by previous such processes, and will make the next outcome a pre-determined one, rather than a choice which comes from nowhere. This is his main argument to prove that we do not have free will.

As per my opinion, the author has given just another name for the concepts like determinism, destiny, God's will, etc. And if what he claims is true, we are unable to choose our actions, so we cannot be held responsible for our actions, and there are no moral values in our lives.

What are your opinions on this concept? Are all our actions pre-determined? Are we accusing people for their wrong doings and appreciating people for good deeds for no valid reasons, since all such acts are just a result of brain processes, but not the choice of a particular person or a group? Can we just get away after doing anything claiming 'That was God's Will' or 'That was the fate'?

I did not read the book, but I don't think we need any extra terms. The brain operates deterministically, via reliable cause and effect. One of the operations of the brain is choosing what we will do when faced with multiple alternatives. We presume that the choice was reliably caused by our own goals and our own reasons. Thus choosing is also deterministic. When we are allowed to choose for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and other undue influences that effectively remove our control of the choice, that is called "free will". Free will, being based upon the choosing operation, is also a deterministic event.

Praise and blame, reward and punishment, are deterministic tools of behavior modification. So, we cannot blame free will for any of them.

I don’t think Procirclism is the same as determinism. When a new concept is presented regarding free Will, it is often forced into existing boxes. Procirclism stands on its own essence when it is fully understood. It is simply to easy to to put it aside in one sentence. Where does determinism defines “I” or “will”? Both are essential in Procirclism and so is awareness, perception, brain processes etc.
Interesting conversations though

Topic related. I asked myself today: Is freedom just a word, a definition, or a feeling? Or it is a real thing, a existing rule of nature like gravity, for example.

I think it is too easy to say that we live our lives like machines. I could think of being nothing from a nature perspective, but is that right? I don't think we have the power to describe the world in the right way with reason and words.

A life with no pain and only pleasure would be a life free of choice, but what a life it would be if there were only pleasure—not a free life.

ernestm wrote: ↑February 5th, 2022, 4:06 am So that was what I have to say on determinism.

Regarding moral values, there is a problem with what has come to be called the distinction between 'normative' and 'descriptive; ethics. That is, there is a meta-ethical problem with ethics in general, and I discussed the problem in section 7 of this article:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17827

The problem originally arose because of objections to Kant's notion which is now referred to as 'intrinsic goodness.' The thread discusses its implications to the existence of divine forces, which was the larger question leading to a reformulation of Hume's guillotine as 'the naturalistic fallacy' as described by Moore and Whitehead at the turn of the last century, and the issue has remained pretty much as it was in the centuries since.

There have been many attempts to bypass the naturalistic fallacy but in terms of meta-ethics, I'm not aware of any that definitively resolve the problem. If there is, I would be glad to hear about it.

Thank you for the comprehensive and thoughtful contribution. I find your argument engaging, especially when you tie evolution, determinism, and the existence of God together, suggesting that a divine being could, indeed, utilize evolution as a tool. This not only offers a fascinating perspective on the alignment of scientific theory with religious belief but also significantly contributes to our discussion around determinism and free will.

In terms of determinism, your arguments, although seeming to fall in line with the view of Procirclism, appear to reconcile the coexistence of free will and determinism. You argue that if God created the universe and everything within it, there is room to believe that free will exists as a part of that creation. It's an intriguing notion which suggests that we're not merely passive participants in the cosmic machinery but potentially active, decision-making agents within a predetermined system.

But the question remains, if we're given free will yet exist within a deterministic structure, where do our moral responsibilities lie? If our choices are indeed a result of divine grace, it would be logical to hold ourselves accountable for those choices. But if these choices are themselves influenced by deterministic factors like our environment or biology, are we truly free and morally responsible?

Additionally, your analysis of Immanuel Kant's intelligent design argument and intrinsic goodness provides an interesting avenue to approach the question of morality in a deterministic universe. If goodness exists independently of human thought, it may serve as a fixed point in our moral compass, guiding our choices regardless of whether they're freely made or predetermined. Nevertheless, it might be challenging for some to accept this premise without empirical evidence.

Finally, your critique of utilitarianism and deterministic ethical theories opens up another dimension in our discussion. If goodness cannot be defined by what 'is,' how do we then define what 'ought to be?' Should we abandon our attempts to establish a deterministic ethics altogether, or should we strive for a more nuanced understanding that accounts for the complex interplay of determinism and free will in our lives?

ernestm wrote: ↑February 5th, 2022, 4:24 am

ernestm wrote: ↑February 5th, 2022, 3:41 am Well I would say, Richard Dawkins has made quite a lot of money on that idea, but to consider Dawkins one might also remember Nietaxsche saying all philosophy is no more than an autobiography.

That is because Dawkins greatest achievement was to advocate that altruism is a social gene. At first his idea was mocked by the naive science community for decades, but eventually computer models were developed that demonstrate his version of the 'hawks versus doves' concept is true. Putting the specifics of that aside, what next happened to Dawkins was that atheists realized they could use his idea to advocate 'socail Darwinism' as a complete explanation of all human behavior. They stole his idea, restarted it, and made it an anti-religious argument to remove discussion of Creationism from the US Public School system.

When Professor Dawkins retired, he had an amazing idea that would only come from someone with two PhDs who ran All Souls College for years. He decided to make a book saying the atheists were right, called the 'God Delusion.' It purports to provide 'evidence' that God does not exist via determinism. As a scientist Dawkins himself knows it is impossible to model the 100 trillion neurons in the human brian with sufficient accuracy to verify the hypothesis, but the 'evidence' he provided has been interpreted as 'proof' by atheists, who are also emotionally enamored with his criticisms of religious institutions. The irony is that Dawkins is now making a **** of money from the people who previously scorned him and then stole his ideas, that is, he found a way to exploit the hawks. Pretty much entirely by himself. An amazing accomplishment.

So what you will find is people who advocate that determinism disporves the existence of free will, etc. However the problem remains that it is likely humanity will NEVER be able to build a computational engine of sufficient complexity to prove it true, so it remains an unproven hypothesis. That's not what you will hear from them. But it is what Dawkins actually thinks, and he is their hero. lol.

Of course, I have to respond myself to cynics who say that my interpretation of Dawkins' position is wrong. So I am obliged to add, professors at All Souls think what Dawkins has done is very funny, and moreover agree he deserves to make money off the people Pinker et al. got to believe they are original thinkers. So the 'evidence' I am right is this. If a person of such esteem as Dawkins, who ran the postgraduate college at Oxford University for years, had actually written a book which actually proved the non existence of God, there would be a huge rush by hundreds, if not thousands, of PhD dissertations and dozens of books from Oxford University professors on its implications in history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, and theology, let alone philosophy.

But no one has written anything expanding on Dawkins' thought from Oxford University. Nothing. Try to explain that if you don't agree with what I said.

I appreciate your comprehensive take on Richard Dawkins' views. It's interesting to see the paradoxical and somewhat circular trajectory of his thought and its reception, and how it feeds into the wider debate about determinism and free will.

However, it's worth noting that while Dawkins' views are certainly influential, they are not the be-all and end-all in the discourse around determinism and morality. Even if we were to agree with determinism in the strictest sense, it doesn't necessarily abolish responsibility or morality. In fact, compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility.

In this framework, actions may be predetermined by prior causes, but that doesn't absolve the agent of moral responsibility for their actions. The reasons being that the agent's desires, beliefs, and intentions – even if they are determined by prior causes – still play a causal role in bringing about the action. In other words, the action is still a reflection of the agent's character, which is relevant to judgments of moral responsibility.

Coming back to Kral's "Procirclism", I believe that it aligns closely with this compatibilist view. Yes, our choices might be influenced by previous brain processes, but it doesn't mean that our moral accountability is void. Our brain processes, after all, make us who we are – they encompass our knowledge, our experiences, and our values. So, it could be argued that even if our actions are determined by these processes, they are still inherently ours and thus we bear the responsibility.

Regarding your point about the lack of dissertations and books expanding on Dawkins' thought from Oxford University, it might be because Dawkins' arguments do not provide a definitive proof or disproof of God's existence, but rather a compelling perspective within a much larger, multifaceted discussion. And it is this larger discussion that continues to fuel diverse research and philosophical investigation.

I'd love to hear more opinions on this, especially on the idea of moral responsibility under determinism or Procirclism. Do you think it's plausible to maintain moral accountability under these frameworks?

Albertus wrote: ↑September 14th, 2022, 5:49 pm Procirclism, when reading this concept, is different than reframing determinism and rename it. It is complex, it involves all stimuli the brain ever had, the quality of our brain and instant stimuli, when it reaches a threshold. The brain processes constantly and produces outcomes which we then manifest. What we choose is what is presented. We are incapable of making a different decision when all precipitating factors that were present in our previous decision, are still present in our current decision. 2+2=4. If 5 is produced it cannot result from 2+2.
Yet, we feel that we can choose whatever we want because we cannot be aware of all brain processes.
We must understand that in the author’s presentation of procirclism, nothing can go outside of this concept.
When we ask, not who chooses but “what” does the choosing only then will it lead to discoveries that cannot otherwise be made, is my humble opinion.
Note: emotions etc are all stimuli to the brain. Thoughts are also a result of the brain as the author clearly discusses in the book; before we have a thought we don’t have that thought. We cannot think about a thought before we have it. When we think about it, we have it.

I appreciate your insightful addition to this discussion. Indeed, the unique aspect of 'Procirclism' as presented by Kral is that it incorporates not only the deterministic factors but also the various stimuli that our brain is exposed to over our lifetime. This concept emphasizes that our decisions are a result of a complex interplay of past influences and immediate stimuli, and not merely the mechanistic following of a pre-determined path.

You've raised an intriguing point about shifting the focus from "who" to "what" does the choosing. This might seem like a subtle distinction, but it fundamentally alters our perspective. It draws attention away from the individual as a standalone entity and towards a broader understanding of the individual as a dynamic system, embedded in and constantly interacting with a network of influences.

Your argument about the temporal aspect of thoughts is also compelling. Thoughts are ephemeral and are a result of our brain processing the stimuli. Therefore, it would be interesting to explore further how this fits into the discussion of free will and moral responsibility.

Does the introduction of time as a variable complicate the matter or help us arrive at a more nuanced understanding? Could it be possible that the appearance of choice is nothing more than a time-delayed awareness of a decision that our brain has already made?

Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 12th, 2022, 9:10 pm

Sushan wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 9:44 pm This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month,
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral


The author constantly speaks about a theory that he names as 'Procirclism', which he defines as cycles of brain processes that are influenced by previous such processes, and will make the next outcome a pre-determined one, rather than a choice which comes from nowhere. This is his main argument to prove that we do not have free will.

As per my opinion, the author has given just another name for the concepts like determinism, destiny, God's will, etc. And if what he claims is true, we are unable to choose our actions, so we cannot be held responsible for our actions, and there are no moral values in our lives.

What are your opinions on this concept? Are all our actions pre-determined? Are we accusing people for their wrong doings and appreciating people for good deeds for no valid reasons, since all such acts are just a result of brain processes, but not the choice of a particular person or a group? Can we just get away after doing anything claiming 'That was God's Will' or 'That was the fate'?

I did not read the book, but I don't think we need any extra terms. The brain operates deterministically, via reliable cause and effect. One of the operations of the brain is choosing what we will do when faced with multiple alternatives. We presume that the choice was reliably caused by our own goals and our own reasons. Thus choosing is also deterministic. When we are allowed to choose for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and other undue influences that effectively remove our control of the choice, that is called "free will". Free will, being based upon the choosing operation, is also a deterministic event.

Praise and blame, reward and punishment, are deterministic tools of behavior modification. So, we cannot blame free will for any of them.

Thank you for your perspective. You've touched on a fundamental question of this discussion: whether the brain operates deterministically and whether this still allows for the concept of free will. As you've stated, you believe our choices are reliably caused by our own goals and reasons, which themselves are deterministic. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that free will exists within this deterministic framework when we're free of coercion and other undue influences that would remove our control over our choice.

This is an interesting viewpoint that reconciles determinism with the concept of free will, but it seems to slightly differ from the 'Procirclism' concept put forth by Albertus Kral. In Kral's view, even our goals and reasons, the very things driving our choices, are influenced by cycles of brain processes, past influences, and immediate stimuli, which in turn makes our choices predetermined.

Your argument that free will exists when we are free from coercion raises another interesting point. Even if our brain operates on deterministic principles, does the presence of external influence negate the concept of free will? Or do these influences simply become a part of the deterministic equation, further complicating our understanding of free will?

Albertus wrote: ↑October 12th, 2022, 9:48 pm I don’t think Procirclism is the same as determinism. When a new concept is presented regarding free Will, it is often forced into existing boxes. Procirclism stands on its own essence when it is fully understood. It is simply to easy to to put it aside in one sentence. Where does determinism defines “I” or “will”? Both are essential in Procirclism and so is awareness, perception, brain processes etc.
Interesting conversations though

Thank you for your insightful input. It's crucial to recognize, as you pointed out, that each philosophical concept, including Procirclism, carries its unique essence. Indeed, it may seem convenient to assimilate new ideas into pre-existing frameworks, but this might lead to oversimplification or misrepresentation of the concept at hand.

You've highlighted the differentiation of Procirclism from determinism by emphasizing the roles of "I," "will," awareness, perception, and brain processes, which is an intriguing perspective. Determinism traditionally deals with cause and effect, largely neglecting the subjectivity that arises with the constructs of "I" and "will."

Procirclism, from what I understand of your interpretation, seems to take a more holistic view. It posits that our decisions are not merely the result of impersonal causal chains but are influenced by our personal experiences and perceptions. This, in turn, suggests a dynamic interplay between subjective factors and objective causality, which is rather fascinating.

Would you care to elaborate more on how Procirclism views the interconnection between "I," "will," awareness, and brain processes? It would be incredibly insightful for our discussion.

Rende wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 2:40 pm Topic related. I asked myself today: Is freedom just a word, a definition, or a feeling? Or it is a real thing, a existing rule of nature like gravity, for example.

I think it is too easy to say that we live our lives like machines. I could think of being nothing from a nature perspective, but is that right? I don't think we have the power to describe the world in the right way with reason and words.

A life with no pain and only pleasure would be a life free of choice, but what a life it would be if there were only pleasure—not a free life.

That's a provocative question you've raised about freedom: whether it is merely a word, feeling, or a bona fide principle of nature like gravity. It leads us down an interesting path in this discussion.

Your perspective seems to challenge the mechanistic view of life, suggesting that our existence and experience cannot be sufficiently described through reason and words alone. This, indeed, resonates with numerous philosophies that emphasize the limits of language and rationality in capturing the full depth and complexity of human experiences.

The contrasting image you've sketched—a life with no pain, only pleasure, devoid of choice—helps illustrate the nuances of freedom. It reflects an idea central to many philosophies, the belief that freedom does not simply denote an absence of constraints, but the capacity to make choices, to face consequences, and to grow from them. Without the possibility of pain or challenge, the concept of choice might lose its meaningfulness, and hence, the essence of freedom could be compromised.

However, I'd love to hear more about how this view relates to our original discussion of Procirclism, Determinism, and moral values. Do you believe that this perspective on freedom offers a counterargument to the notion of life being pre-determined? Or, do you see it as a component that could be integrated within a broader understanding of these philosophical concepts?