I do not know what this means, but yeah, relative freedom is an easily attainable quality. Since freedom is intrinsically relative. But I think we are talking about an absolute. An idea. A vision of the human condition.
Humans (as far as we know) are the only beings that understand gravity and how to use it or overcome it; giving us the ability to be free from such a constraint to a certain degree. Having such knowledge and the ability to pursue it, gives us more choices and freedom than other objects on earth or near us in the universe that we know about. I am attempting to point out that self awareness and free will are not some vague concepts, but a discovered ability that is real and tangible.
Now don't go all morality on me. As acknowledged, the assumption of freedom is useful. Or for all I care moral. But as said, it is also 'morally' important to keep in mind that is only an assumption.
Morals are only a subset of self-awareness and human free will. Determinism can be self imposed and for a very good reason, as long as all involved are on the same page and it is not used to oppress other humans.
The OP is dealing with free will and determinism and I have no intention of turning this into a debate on the need for morals. It would seem to me that morals are a needed self deterministic concept. And even then, they are difficult at best to impose on other humans unless they are willing to accept them.
I agree that the free will we are debating has being given birth by self awareness. Which means by the ability to reflect. The trouble, though, is to put that ability on a pedestal and call it "freedom".
I am sure there are posters here that put "freedom of choice" on a much higher pedestal than I ever could. Knowing that we have choices is enough for me, and limits to my will, keeps me sober every day of my life.
Now, regarding the rest of your post, I think you need to replace determinism with causation. Determinism assumes absolute certainty, but that assumption is neither here or there regarding the ultimate constraints of will. What matters is causation, which is the actual principle we base the postulate of ultimate and absolute constraints of the will on.
The difference is that even if there is uncertainty or chance (which is contrary to what determinism says) it still constitutes an external factor which controls what we are.
I can understand, seeing as how in attempting to cultivate my thoughts it came out more confusing than a constructive attempt at explaining my point. Neither can I guarantee the rest of this post will be any better.
I would tend to go against the grain of assumed knowledge and equate determinism when it comes to the universe as an outside force with a plan for the universe. Causation would be the universe all on it's own developing from a series of events. In science and philosophy the two concepts are so entwined that to understand them, they have to be taken into context of what is being discussed.
Unfortunately for humans the concept of causation came before the concept of determinism. Even causation can work just fine within the concept of determinism. We need to limit it as the ability to do something just to see what would happen. I can still see that working under determinism as long as the one doing the experiment still has the ability to influence the outcome that was pre-determined. The point that causation is the ultimate constraint on choice is wrong on the basis that the choices we have are not determined by us, but only given to us in the deterministic notion of the outside force. I would also add that the consequences of our choices for the most part have been outside of our control as well. Basing something that is out of our control even if we are free to make them is still subjected to the concept of determinism outside of our ability to make a difference. While such constraint prevents chaos, it hardly prevents us from the ability to make choices, even if we detest the consequences. It also leads to the assumption, we truly have no free will. Probably to the point where we may not even be able to destroy ourselves even if we tried. Unfortunately the only proof that causation is the ultimate control factor will only come after we have obliterated ourselves and it would not matter any way. Cause and effect is experimental. Determinism is a plan to make something of our lives, and the way we set goals. Both are important and serve a necessary function.
Cause and effect may limit uneducated humans, (not that I am calling any one uneducated here) As pointed out we know that if we do something there is an effect. The use of cause and effect is how we learn about something. If this is the method we use to control our will, we would limit ourselves, but we would also never progress and allow ourselves more freedom of the will. The more we make use of cause and effect the more confident we are in ourselves, until of course we have a setback. Setbacks are not chosen limits, they are also part of learning. Without causation evolution would never work, but evolution is hardly a limiting factor when it comes to a changing universe, much less a developing one.
You are correct in stating that determinism is a limiting factor on choices, but only because we are trying to get to a certain point, not that we are limiting our choices. Some choices will more than likely be irrelevant to the goal we have set.
Other determinate forces within the universe were not manufactured by us, but are also native to the universe as control functions. Humans did not manufacture determinism, and are still uncertain that there is a determinate force outside of the universe that made the universe in a deterministic way.
Up until the advent of nuclear reactions, human choices had no effect on the rest of the universe with any certainty. If the universe on it's own was determinate, and the only knowledge we have is that the end of the universe was determined to be humans who eventually evolved to end the universe, that does not sound vary deterministic.
The universe via determinism or causation has no control over humans, if there is any certainty at all that humans would eventually bring about the destruction of the universe. Even with the vastness of the universe, one cannot rule out that probability. It would seem that neither humans nor any other entity ie. the universe is capable within it's own means to be deterministic. It also seems to me that the more we prove that developing entities in the universe show signs of determinism, the more it points out that there is a force outside of the universe that designed it in a deterministic way.
I plainly have to say I do not understand the use of the distinction of artificial creation and evolution you employ and what you infer from that. Most of your post is an enigma to me.
Perhaps you can rephrase that. Otherwise I don't feel like deciphering it.
Artificial is normally used in relation to a human endeavor. One cannot manufacture self awareness and by extension the freedom of will. They can only discover that they have such abilities. Concepts are artificial constructs, but unless there is an actual reality such concepts are of no real use. Humans have the ability to choose, unless they restrict themselves in their choices, or an outside force does. Most would deny the latter, unless it is part of the known universe.
Determinism may restrict free will, but it hardly nullifies it. Neither does causation rule out determinism. It just seems to me that causation is the order that comes out of choices whether random or planned, while determinism tends to point to an outside force with a pre-determined plan. Determinism does not rule out evolution, randomness, nor causation. All of these concepts can still work in the framework of determinism. These concepts have been observed, taking them out of the realm of imagination and into the reality of life. And some even question the reality of life if we are just pre-determined in the mind of an outside force.
).
