[MD] Free Will

[david buchanan]

Steve said to dmb:
... Neither an autonomous agent nor a causal chain is posited as a fundamental premise.
As a pragmatism, the question also gets dissolved when you consider the question, what would I choose in this particular situation if I thought I did not have a choice versus if I thought that I do have a choice? A difference has to make a difference, but there is no difference here.

dmb says:
Yea, if free will and determinism are taken as two mutually exclusive world formulas and neither of them can win the day on the basis of reason or evidence, then the difference comes down to the consequences of adopting one or the other. In that case, it's hard for me to imagine why anyone would choose determinism. I guess for some people it feels safe and cozy. James was so depressed over the idea that it might be true that he very nearly killed himself. I'm not suicidal over the notion but I can definitely relate to James's reaction.
If we move the issue to radical empiricism, I think we can simply say that freedom and limits are both known in experience. These are both real elements in experience, not mutually exclusive visions of the world. Experience also gives us random events, flukes, freak accidents and unbelievable luck. I see no reason why any of these terms should be used to characterize everything to the exclusion of the other terms. 
Is there freedom or are events determined? Yep, absolutely. That's exactly how it happens every single day.