Our own nature. So perhaps your response may lead to a better question. Is our nature predetermined? Should consideration be given to celestial influence (astrology) as the ancients have written and carved in stone?
Yes, then like a framework in which you act accordingly. Seems like the ancients knew a whole lot more than we as can be understood by the Indian temples and the like. I wish West would take more of an interest in the Eastern myths, traditions and writings to be of possibly great help in science, history even biology I think.
The brain's operation is vastly subconscious - we cannot possibly be aware of (have thru our conscious window) all that is going on inside of it.
The subconscious input is a constantly, randomly changing, dreamlike state of imaginings mostly related to the possibilities within our current environment and our past experiences (including even our past imaginings). Its nature is truly random in the sense that even quantum fluctuations affect it, which means that not all the imaginings will be determined totally by our current environment and our past experiences.
The subconscious must have some method of choosing the very few imaginings which occur there which it decides to present to the conscious mind (occasionally even in an eureka! moment). In this manner, the subconscious can present to the consciousness choices of imaginings (decisions) which are not fully determined by our current inputs to our mind, even though they are most definitely related to and constrained by those current inputs. The conscious mind is but a small window on the subconscious mind positioned by the subconscious.
I thought of this solution over 20 years ago and have happily held it ever since. All my life I have trained my subconscious to present to me only imaginings that will be in my most rational (widest and farthest sensing) self-interest, not always successfully, but that has been my goal, hopefully I get better all the time.
I'm not young anymore, and I've thought over this over my life quite a bit. In the end, I realised that it's way simpler than it looks.
The only logical approach is to consider that yes, we all have free will, maybe constrained by our environment, but free will. And that we should continuously try to improve ourselves, because we can (as opposed to other mammals), and in a way - that it is our duty to try and improve ourselves.
Debating whether we have free will or not is akin to debating "should I blame others for my failures or not?" No matter the actual truth, the only correct choice (for me) is to consider we do.
There are many problems with removing free-will from human action. For example, from a legal standpoint, how could someone be punished for a crime if it wasn't their choice? Also, what about spouses? How could a spouse be guilty of cheating if it wasn't their own free-will to choose?
Feelings and emotions seem to lack free-will though. A lot of time we experience emotions without processing it and thinking it through first. It's related to our less-refined "reptilian brain" that first developed millions of years ago. I think the idea of free-will is multi-faceted.
A thought-provoking topic. If free will exists, it opens the door to personal responsibility and the power to shape our own destinies. However, if it's an illusion, then many of our decisions, actions, and even emotions might be more dictated by outside forces than we realize. The consequences, either way, would be profound. Free will would grant us autonomy but also burden us with accountability for our choices. Without it, we might find comfort in absolution but lose our sense of agency. It’s a delicate balance, and one that speaks to the very core of what it means to be human.
As a scientist I agree the non spiritual aspect of argument but I think free will can still come from human brain. You can observe that the temperature goes up before you can see a flame, but they are both caused by a small tiny fire. We can still be the “thing” that triggers the neurons. If you think about AI these days it’s like you try to understand ChatGPT by looking at one of the chips it uses.
As a philosopher, I think that free will still exists no matter what. At the end of the day, our will comes from our own brains. We have to take ownership of our actions that come from ourselves. If not, then logically, we don't own ourselves.
So after reading others comments here, it would appear nobody has a belief in pre-determination. If one follows their own reasoning, by definition, they have gone against free choice or free thought. Self-reasoning is an internal process that is influenced by beliefs and thought patterns. Since we don’t cause our own nature, we are subjected to its effects; governed by unseen forces.
Classic example- When Pandora opened the jar that she was instructed not to, it was not by choice. Zeus set this trap, because he knew her curiosity would cause her to open it. The causality; a neurological impulse led by her minds pursuit of happiness- an irresistible force. The effect; blame of releasing all evils of the world was given to Pandora. Perhaps free will (human nature) was not questioned before? Humans cannot cause their own nature, but are the result of it- therefore where does the blame go? As humans, we are somewhat chained to what makes us happy- and typically that happiness comes from chasing our own desire(s).
When not physically restrained, we can feel a strong sense of freedom, which can lead some to believe that we in fact have free will. In reality, free will is a figment of the imagination because of our ignorance (limited thoughts and awareness) constrains us, simply by neurons reacting to unseen forces, such as neurochemical effects. Say for example, this weekend one person goes to a night club and gets drunk, and another chooses to stay home and watch a movie. In either case, the decision is already made before it becomes a conscious thought, due to the way our brains are wired, respectively.
To truly become free will, I think it is possible, but not likely.
Any claim that man does not possess free will commits the fallacy of reaffirmation by denial. Any attempt to deny free will results in a contradiction, also known as the fallacy of self-exclusion.
If everything is determined then everything includes the claim that everything is determined. It also includes the claim that man has free will. By a determinist standard it isn’t possible to claim its assertion that everything is determined is true. Indeed nothing can be claimed as true—or false—by a determinist standard.
Moreover, the claim lacks any meaning whatsoever. If someone says to me in discussion that man has no free will I say: But you really don’t mean it do you? According to you antecedent mechanical factors compelled the sound to exit your mouth. Your lungs expelled some air across your vocal chords and tongue and lips that produced the sound ‘Everything is determined.’ But it has no more meaning than a rock settling at the bottom of a hill after an earth tremor. It has no cognitive value whatsoever.
Lastly free will does not need to be validated by proof. Proof requires antecedent knowledge. Can you prove you have a memory? Or that you are conscious? Free will is introspectively self-evident. We experience it directly whenever we focus our minds. The key word is focus. If I asked you to tell me what you had for dinner last Tuesday you would have to make a mental effort to focus on the things that might jog your memory and reach the answer.
The question of free will seems to concern the role of cognition in choice.
The activity of the human mind, and its interactions with the multitude of stimuli from its environment, form an incredibly complex system that defies easy prediction. We also seem to have some sort of internal volition, originating in our minds, that allows us to make decisions using our intellect (at least in part). Finally, we have the ability to examine ourselves including our thoughts and actions, so we can modify our behaviors and change course as needed. Taken together, these all give the impression of having free will, since we experience ourselves making decisions on our own.
Perhaps, then, we should not be looking for free will in a "ghost in the machine" or an abstract and unprovable/unfalsifiable concept that we can call "free will", but in the traits of cognitive complexity, autonomy and self-awareness. Responsibility, culpability and human rights can be just as easily framed in terms of personal autonomy as literal free will.
Do we have free will! What a great question. Thanks to Alexander of Aphrodisias for connecting the question to morality, because without free will, morality is a dead letter. Let's hope the scientists don't take it away from us.
My most recent post at https://adviceobsessed.substack.com/ tackles free will and illustrates this very point. Just look for the picture of the beans...
Grateful to Classical Wisdom for the philosophical history and for raising such a great topic!
If no free will, whose fault are the bad decisions?
Our own nature. So perhaps your response may lead to a better question. Is our nature predetermined? Should consideration be given to celestial influence (astrology) as the ancients have written and carved in stone?
Yes, then like a framework in which you act accordingly. Seems like the ancients knew a whole lot more than we as can be understood by the Indian temples and the like. I wish West would take more of an interest in the Eastern myths, traditions and writings to be of possibly great help in science, history even biology I think.
My Solution to the Free Will conundrum.
The brain's operation is vastly subconscious - we cannot possibly be aware of (have thru our conscious window) all that is going on inside of it.
The subconscious input is a constantly, randomly changing, dreamlike state of imaginings mostly related to the possibilities within our current environment and our past experiences (including even our past imaginings). Its nature is truly random in the sense that even quantum fluctuations affect it, which means that not all the imaginings will be determined totally by our current environment and our past experiences.
The subconscious must have some method of choosing the very few imaginings which occur there which it decides to present to the conscious mind (occasionally even in an eureka! moment). In this manner, the subconscious can present to the consciousness choices of imaginings (decisions) which are not fully determined by our current inputs to our mind, even though they are most definitely related to and constrained by those current inputs. The conscious mind is but a small window on the subconscious mind positioned by the subconscious.
I thought of this solution over 20 years ago and have happily held it ever since. All my life I have trained my subconscious to present to me only imaginings that will be in my most rational (widest and farthest sensing) self-interest, not always successfully, but that has been my goal, hopefully I get better all the time.
Until the subconscious becomes conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate. -Carl Jung
Whether or not you think you have free will, you’re correct.
I see what you did there. 😉
I'm not young anymore, and I've thought over this over my life quite a bit. In the end, I realised that it's way simpler than it looks.
The only logical approach is to consider that yes, we all have free will, maybe constrained by our environment, but free will. And that we should continuously try to improve ourselves, because we can (as opposed to other mammals), and in a way - that it is our duty to try and improve ourselves.
Debating whether we have free will or not is akin to debating "should I blame others for my failures or not?" No matter the actual truth, the only correct choice (for me) is to consider we do.
I love this, lustin!
There are many problems with removing free-will from human action. For example, from a legal standpoint, how could someone be punished for a crime if it wasn't their choice? Also, what about spouses? How could a spouse be guilty of cheating if it wasn't their own free-will to choose?
Feelings and emotions seem to lack free-will though. A lot of time we experience emotions without processing it and thinking it through first. It's related to our less-refined "reptilian brain" that first developed millions of years ago. I think the idea of free-will is multi-faceted.
A thought-provoking topic. If free will exists, it opens the door to personal responsibility and the power to shape our own destinies. However, if it's an illusion, then many of our decisions, actions, and even emotions might be more dictated by outside forces than we realize. The consequences, either way, would be profound. Free will would grant us autonomy but also burden us with accountability for our choices. Without it, we might find comfort in absolution but lose our sense of agency. It’s a delicate balance, and one that speaks to the very core of what it means to be human.
As a scientist I agree the non spiritual aspect of argument but I think free will can still come from human brain. You can observe that the temperature goes up before you can see a flame, but they are both caused by a small tiny fire. We can still be the “thing” that triggers the neurons. If you think about AI these days it’s like you try to understand ChatGPT by looking at one of the chips it uses.
As a philosopher, I think that free will still exists no matter what. At the end of the day, our will comes from our own brains. We have to take ownership of our actions that come from ourselves. If not, then logically, we don't own ourselves.
That's an excellent analogy.
So after reading others comments here, it would appear nobody has a belief in pre-determination. If one follows their own reasoning, by definition, they have gone against free choice or free thought. Self-reasoning is an internal process that is influenced by beliefs and thought patterns. Since we don’t cause our own nature, we are subjected to its effects; governed by unseen forces.
Classic example- When Pandora opened the jar that she was instructed not to, it was not by choice. Zeus set this trap, because he knew her curiosity would cause her to open it. The causality; a neurological impulse led by her minds pursuit of happiness- an irresistible force. The effect; blame of releasing all evils of the world was given to Pandora. Perhaps free will (human nature) was not questioned before? Humans cannot cause their own nature, but are the result of it- therefore where does the blame go? As humans, we are somewhat chained to what makes us happy- and typically that happiness comes from chasing our own desire(s).
When not physically restrained, we can feel a strong sense of freedom, which can lead some to believe that we in fact have free will. In reality, free will is a figment of the imagination because of our ignorance (limited thoughts and awareness) constrains us, simply by neurons reacting to unseen forces, such as neurochemical effects. Say for example, this weekend one person goes to a night club and gets drunk, and another chooses to stay home and watch a movie. In either case, the decision is already made before it becomes a conscious thought, due to the way our brains are wired, respectively.
To truly become free will, I think it is possible, but not likely.
Any claim that man does not possess free will commits the fallacy of reaffirmation by denial. Any attempt to deny free will results in a contradiction, also known as the fallacy of self-exclusion.
If everything is determined then everything includes the claim that everything is determined. It also includes the claim that man has free will. By a determinist standard it isn’t possible to claim its assertion that everything is determined is true. Indeed nothing can be claimed as true—or false—by a determinist standard.
Moreover, the claim lacks any meaning whatsoever. If someone says to me in discussion that man has no free will I say: But you really don’t mean it do you? According to you antecedent mechanical factors compelled the sound to exit your mouth. Your lungs expelled some air across your vocal chords and tongue and lips that produced the sound ‘Everything is determined.’ But it has no more meaning than a rock settling at the bottom of a hill after an earth tremor. It has no cognitive value whatsoever.
Lastly free will does not need to be validated by proof. Proof requires antecedent knowledge. Can you prove you have a memory? Or that you are conscious? Free will is introspectively self-evident. We experience it directly whenever we focus our minds. The key word is focus. If I asked you to tell me what you had for dinner last Tuesday you would have to make a mental effort to focus on the things that might jog your memory and reach the answer.
The question of free will seems to concern the role of cognition in choice.
The activity of the human mind, and its interactions with the multitude of stimuli from its environment, form an incredibly complex system that defies easy prediction. We also seem to have some sort of internal volition, originating in our minds, that allows us to make decisions using our intellect (at least in part). Finally, we have the ability to examine ourselves including our thoughts and actions, so we can modify our behaviors and change course as needed. Taken together, these all give the impression of having free will, since we experience ourselves making decisions on our own.
Perhaps, then, we should not be looking for free will in a "ghost in the machine" or an abstract and unprovable/unfalsifiable concept that we can call "free will", but in the traits of cognitive complexity, autonomy and self-awareness. Responsibility, culpability and human rights can be just as easily framed in terms of personal autonomy as literal free will.
Yes you have the free will to choose every aspect of your own reality - I actually wrote a piece focusing on this
Do we have free will! What a great question. Thanks to Alexander of Aphrodisias for connecting the question to morality, because without free will, morality is a dead letter. Let's hope the scientists don't take it away from us.
My most recent post at https://adviceobsessed.substack.com/ tackles free will and illustrates this very point. Just look for the picture of the beans...
Grateful to Classical Wisdom for the philosophical history and for raising such a great topic!