I would say no because I don’t think a person can go against their nature. I think a person’s personality is shaped by the interaction between their biology and their experiences, there is no evidence of an ‘x factor’ of free will. A sociopath cannot choose to be a saint and a saint cannot choose to be a maniac.
However this doesn’t mean we are robots, since all of our actions reflect our nature, none of this feels forced to us, it feels natural, because it is natural to us. And since we experience it as our choice, we are better than automatons.
The brain is a very complicated series of chemical reactions following the usual laws of physics. If free will were true, wouldn’t these rules have to be upended at some point? How would a chemical reaction decide what it can do without going outside its constraints? It makes about as much sense to me to say weather has free will. Which ancient peoples used to believe. So maybe some day we’ll stop anthropomorphizing people as well.
You just made two choices (which I would assume were, “No, I’m not going to touch my nose” and “Screw you, I don’t need your permission not to touch my nose”).
Making those two choice IS what’s described by “free will.” The argument that free will is illusory due to mechanical systems is irrelevant.
It also has the potential to be wrong. As much as physicalists such as myself like to assume that the brain is nothing but a precise, completely predictable electrical system, the 1:1 correspondance between neurons and consciousness isn’t established nearly so perfectly. The evidence slants that way, there’s no meaningful reason I’m aware to doubt it, but that’s still a long road from saying it’s simple and demonstrable.
Define free will.
In particular, if the outcome of a choice is unknown in advance to us or anyone else, though completely explainable post facto by the state of the world and your innards, do you have free choice?
A great spiritual explanation of free will IMHO is the Native American story of the 2 wolves:
Our free will is which one to feed, after which point the one wolf gets stronger and the other weaker, this continues to the point that one dominates so much that the free will decision is no longer noticed anymore and all you see is the one wolf.
Deny your free will, fine, but then your left with the problem of holding people accountable for their actions.
For instance, I am gay. I am a man and I only feel sexual attraction to men. I firmly believe I have no free will in this matter. But I CERTAINLY have the will to act on that desire or not. I don’t HAVE to have sex with a man, woman or anyone at all.
But I still will be attracted to them.
So with free will, you have several things to consider, the free will of internal feelings and desire and the free will to act or not to act upon such feelings
Logically, either we have free will or not. That is, either we can choose certain actions for ourselves or we do not. If not, then nothing we do, or think, matters. We have no way or knowing whether or not it is true, and in fact, what we believe to be true is as likely to be merely our own prejudices as anything else.
The world provide the context. Choices are made, using previous experience, by a complex machinery. But this complex machinery is me. So, I’m making those choices (*)
Hence, I don’t believe in free will, but it doesn’t bother me at all.
I’m not even convinced that adding, say, a “soul” in the process would change anything. Does this soul has “drives”? Then, how it is different from a brain? Is it influenced by a god? Then, no free will either. Having some mysterious inherent capacity to make any possible choice in any situation? Seems like randomness to me, except if those choices are based on some impetus in which case, back to square one : what difference with a brain?
(*)even if some extremely powerful computer beeing fed all the relevant datas could predict what I would do in a specific situation.
If someone does something we consider “wrong”, say theft, then we react according to our internal state and “programming” in an attempt to achieve our own goals, so we try to modify the other person’s behavior.
People should still be held accountable because it is part of our desire to hold them accountable (for whatever reason).
Free will does not, and cannot exist. What makes it logically incoherent is that something has to cause the will (and the choice is not the will. Those are two different things). The will - the “want to” has to be caused by something. It can’t cause itself (that leads to infinite regress). It’s has to be either random or determined. If it’s determioned, it’s not free. If it’s random, it’s not free.
Not at all. “Accountable” may not be strictly applicable word, but we can apply pressures and sanctions to affect behavior. Social responses to behaviors are part of what shapes will. Determined doesn’t mean pre-determined or immutable. It’s an ongoing process.
Just because your choices are, in a sense, already fixed and mapped out, doesn’t make them any less your choices. And yes, you are still responsible for them.