Hard determinism is where I find myself. Not soft or compatibilist. I'd leave open the small possibility of randomness, but that doesn't contribute to free will.

You said "That was the reason I stated that such terms need to be put forward with great care." So true. It was a different slant I took on defining "free will" that took me from compatibilist to hard determinist. If "free will" means you can weigh the pros and cons and then decide how to act, then I'm a compatibilist. But if "free will" means you could have done otherwise, then I'm a hard determinist. I think the later definition is the more meaningful as I believe it is what most people intuit when they speak casually of free will.

Agree with all said and would like to add... your belief or not in determinism won't affect how you live, because it is predetermined. Ok. However, if your path includes belief in determinism then it can affect significantly the path you must take in the future. For example, a true story... I used to feel angry at someone who did me a grave disservice. But when I started applying hard determinism I realized that person could not help doing what they did. I try to feel now, no anger, but a desire to act as to avoid any future problems like that. From anger to no anger so there are practical implications.

You say "Why hasn't the existence/nonexistence of free will been proven?" There is disagreement as to whether it has been proven or not. There may not be an overwhelming consensus, but it is an individual choice as to whether it has been proven or not. For me, it has been proven.

Without going into detail, I found several lines of inquiry led to the same hard determinist conclusion. Materialism makes the case for subatomic particles advancing moment to moment, and a psychological approach makes the case based on how we reason, and a brain science approach makes the case based on brain function. It all hangs together.

You have free will to believe there is free will. This is determinism.

None of anyone's business I suppose but why does it trouble you? Things are perhaps not going your way? And if they were or perhaps you were determined to make different choices and soon become much better off and happier? Determinism would be great, would it not? Are you thinking something along the lines of I'm predetermined to not succeed as opposed to not being able to fail for long with enough effort? Couldn't hurt.

Probably a shortsighted analysis but sounds like a concept that can easily be over thought. If I drink and drive and start to really feel out of it far from home, I can't just "will" myself sober enough to make it home safely now can I? So, I am predetermined to instead pull over and perhaps call a friend or take a nap. What you have to answer to yourself is, if everything happens for a reason, what I assume the concept of determinism is. In a world largely governed by scientific and natural law, and non human beings governed largely by instinct, why does a being capable of creating, understanding, and then raising the question about the concept need to feel bound by it? Were you before? Why are you now?

I just find that open minded inquiries into mysterious matters often end up putting you in a mental place you wouldn't have imagined previously, and with that comes a satisfaction of knowing a little better how the world works. It can be an enjoyable pursuit.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The Great Courses offers the lecture series "Great Philosophical Debates: Free Will and Determinism" taught by Shaun Nichols. About 20 lectures that are really well done. It covers various lines of inquiry. He is not trying to conclude one philosophy or another regarding free will, but just to explain in some detail what each approach means.

But I am having a heck of a time finding any writing that addressed how we should live our mental lives as a hard determinist. — Brook Norton

I’m not sure any ethical system requires that we always act in correlation with our beliefs. I actually started a somewhat similar thread, but it seems to have gone nowhere.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8353/on-the-relationship-between-belief-and-action

If you’re interested.

For me, it has been proven. — Brook Norton

What's the proof that convinced you?

You are defining “free will” as freedom from determinism. If you don’t define it that way, you don’t have that problem. — Pfhorrest

What's your definition of free will?

one’s behavior being determined by one’s practical or moral reasoning (what you think you should do), and other influences having negligible interference in that process. — Pfhorrest

Regardless, what we belief is always going to be overruled by what we feel - in terms of our claim to authorship of our actions that is!

Negligible interference? Do you mean to say that zero interference is an impossibility but that some interferences/influences are negligible? How does one decide what is negligible and what is signficant?

What process? I looked back at the origin of that line and it makes no sense whatsoever:

Having free will does indeed consist in being unaffected by certain things and one’s behavior instead determined instead by other things. Namely, in one’s behavior being determined by one’s practical or moral reasoning (what you think you should do), and other influences having negligible interference in that process. — Pfhorrest

The part in bold? Say what?

However, if your path includes belief in determinism then it can affect significantly the path you must take in the future. For example, a true story... I used to feel angry at someone who did me a grave disservice. But when I started applying hard determinism I realized that person could not help doing what they did. I try to feel now, no anger, but a desire to act as to avoid any future problems like that. From anger to no anger so there are practical implications. — Brook Norton

One's beliefs obviously have practical implications and no doubt yours are as you say; the same belief in another might cause them to make no effort to be moral or self-improve. So it goes. But it is interesting that positive or negative, these effects are effects of the belief, whether it is true or false.

In nazism you have biological determinism, in communism you have societal determinism. Certainly the most comprehensive practical applications of determinist philosophy.

Ok. However, if your path includes belief in determinism then it can affect significantly the path you must take in the future. For example, a true story... I used to feel angry at someone who did me a grave disservice. But when I started applying hard determinism I realized that person could not help doing what they did. I try to feel now, no anger, but a desire to act as to avoid any future problems like that. From anger to no anger so there are practical implications. — Brook Norton

And your anger is part of the deterministic effects of their actions. People react to other people's actions deterministically. How you reacted was predetermined, and is possible that has a deterministic effect on their behavior in the future.

If you decide to not be angry anymore at how people treat you, then you are inviting more mistreatment. Anger is a good thing that informs other's that you've been mistreated at their hands.

You seem to be asserting that everyone else's actions are predetermined, but yours aren't - as if others don't have free will, but you still do.

If others can't help doing what they did, then could you not help becoming angry?

What does it even mean to say that someone can't help doing what they did? It seems to imply that people are separate from the things that they do.

You starting this thread and asking these questions was predetermined from the state of your ignorance and your need for clarification.

We all have reasons for our actions. Once you reach a conclusion, you find that your reasons determined your conclusion.

Just existing somewhere has some effect on everything around you, so you’re always “doing something” in a super strict pedantic sense. But someone standing quietly out of the way just watching events usually has such little influence that nobody would notice a difference between them being there or not unless perhaps they were looking very carefully for evidence that they were there. That’s a negligible influence. That’s “doing nothing”: as far as anyone can tell, on an ordinary macroscopic scale, the exact same things happened as would have happened if you hadn’t been there at all.

What process? — I like sushi

The process of

one’s behavior being determined by one’s practical or moral reasoning — Pfhorrest

You should read (or watch. I forget) "A Sound of Thunder" by someone I also forget.

This one? Why? (I’m already familiar with it.)

But someone standing quietly out of the way just watching events usually has such little influence that nobody would notice a difference between them being there or not unless perhaps they were looking very carefully for evidence that they were there. That’s a negligible influence. That’s “doing nothing”: as far as anyone can tell, on an ordinary macroscopic scale, the exact same things happened as would have happened if you hadn’t been there at all. — Pfhorrest

Usually, maybe, but I think it depends on which effect we're talking about.

Say what is happening is a crime. The observer isn't a participant in the crime, but can later point out the criminal in a line-up that ends up putting them in prison. That's a lot of causal influence just based on being an observer. Standing quietly out of the way is often how spies and nosey people get their information to sell or gossip.

That doesn’t clarify anything. Clearly there is an error in what you wrote, just wondered what you meant to say - I make enough goofs myself (just asking).

I’m not sure how to say more clearly than I already have. The process in question is the one whereby your practical or moral reasoning directs your behavior: where thinking that you should do something causes you to do it. The specifics of that process aren’t important right now, if that’s what you’re asking about. Just that free will as I take it consists of that process going uninterrupted by anything else, in contrast to circumstances where for one reason or another you ended up doing something you didn’t think was the best course of action.

But someone standing quietly out of the way just watching events usually has such little influence that nobody would notice a difference between them being there or not — Pfhorrest

Here I see a problem. You seem to be conflating things that have no causal power with things that have causal power and yet don't produce an effect. In modern scientific terms, according to noAxioms, the former lie outside a given lightcone and the latter within.

No, I’m not saying anything about things with no causal power.

So hard determinism and everyday life..hmm...perhaps these traits or perspectives are useful.
1). Organisation: organising, categorizing and planning are all to enhance control and order. But they are time consuming. Seeing as you believe in not having control or free will, it would make sense to spend less time doing these activities and more time addressing issues and errands immediately and spontaneously when they arise.

2) Anticipate the future less; A lot of people get anxiety and stress over possibilities, simulating different outcomes before they happen, trying to steer their life around potential obstacles on the horizon and looking ahead. As a hard determinist be present. What is happening now is where you are and what you are doing. It should be where your focus of attention is. The future will happen only exactly one way for you.

3). Learn from the past. The past has happened. It is determined. Learn from the power of hindsight. In a hard deterministic world there is qualitatively little difference in hindsight as there is in foresight. Use the past to navigate what is to come as it likely indicates the direction you are going in terms of successes, goals, relationships etc.

4). Study "Time". If the course of time is totally pre-written then possibilities and probability are illusions masking what is definitely and always was going to be. How then does the present differ from the past and future? What are the determined 'rules' of development for this pre written story? What laws have stayed consistent to allow for complex change and evolution when the mechanism is finite and determined. In essence what determined substance or quality "writes" for everything that seems more uncertain but is not and how can you incorporate these rules into your life.

5). Establish your purpose. You were always planned. Always going to happen. And then influence the universe and environment around you before you die (also planned). Contemplate not how to achieve your purpose (you already are in the process) but rather define it. What exactly is it and why is it already happening and how is it likely to progress?

6). Read about the "Tao". Taoist philosophy delves into what can only be poorly described as a force or flow of existence. It is indescribable by human means but anyways. ...familiarise with this flow as you cannot change the currents or fight them but only integrate. How do you make your life seamless with the changing happenstance around you. Be aware of the state of non-resistance to your planned route.

7). Life happens to you not through you. You dont impact the environment it impacts you. That isnt to say be reckless or irresponsible but rather ...resist reacting badly to negative situations as they are necessary to progress. They were going to happen for 13.8 billion years so why bother get emotional about it.

I did this for fun but hope its useful

If you are truly a hard determinist, I do not see what the problem would be. Whatever happens was destined (determined), fated to happen you do not really have any real control anyway so why struggle with it. The fact that you are struggling implies you do not really believe it, and I applaud you for that. Hard determinism is a useless philosophy except as an excuse for accepting any and everything that happens.

If "free will" means you can weigh the pros and cons and then decide how to act, then I'm a compatibilist. But if "free will" means you could have done otherwise, then I'm a hard determinist. I think the later definition is the more meaningful as I believe it is what most people intuit when they speak casually of free will. — Brook Norton

It's not as simple as that. Experimental philosophers and social psychologists have done quite a bit of research over the last couple of decades to try to find out what it is that folk actually believe about free will. It's a mixed bag: neither consistently compatibilist, nor consistently incompatibilist, but some of both.