From what I understand, it’s already been proven that decisions are made in the mind before the person is even aware of it consciously. Why is there still a debate in science and philosophy about whether a magical force of free will exists? I can understand why religious people might still think it exists, but from a scientific point of view I would argue that case is closed - free will does not exist.
I was going to respond, then decided not to. Or at least that’s what I think happened.
The research you mention decouple free will from our experience of choice. That doesn’t mean the unconscious decision wasn’t free.
That said a major reason it’s still a debate is it’s not an easily definable concept, and we still really, really, really want the undefinable version to be true.
1- Even if that is true, I don’t know if it is or not, we are a sum total of our past decisions and habits.
2- So maybe we do “decide” before we eve realize it, but, we can then choose to act on it or not.
3- Therefor, our current behavior shapes future decisions.
4- In other words, if you believe that “character” is something you build over time, then we have free will, regardless of whether our decisions take 1/100 of a second or 1 second to make.
The OP needs to define “free will”. Even if we accept that choices are made before we realize that those choices have been made, that doesn’t imply that we aren’t making those choices independently of any other entity.
From a spiritualist/non-religious POV, I see free will as more then just decisions one makes, actually many decisions are pre-made as you state. However there are times where we much decide what path in life we will be walking, for some, perhaps many, people they know that moment, that decision that brought their life to where it is (for good or bad)
So like so many spiritual things, it is a personal knowing and a personal experience.
And that does challenge your assumption, just because most decisions are premade does not equate to all, or unless you can prove that each and every decision is premade you can’t prove a negative.
I think most concepts of free will are not coherent, but I want to point out that the above is not a sound refutation of the existence of free will. At most, it shows (if it shows anything) that conscious awareness of a decision is not a necessary component of that decision’s having been freely made.
By what mechanism could it be “free”, though? What does that even mean? I know there is both determinate and indeterminate physics, but randomness does not mean the same thing as free.
“Free will” would mean that we have the capability to go against what nature and nurture dictate. It introduces a tertiary “X factor” that is invented to support the hypothesis, which violates Occam’s Razor.
Since when is “free will” a magical force? Seems to me that free will is the default option in the absence of some magical force of predetermination.
But aren’t we making the decision to act before we are aware of it too?
Protoboard,
How many times a day do you decide to do one thing, then turn around, change your mind, and do something else?
Free will implies that our actions are somehow guided by a tertiary force aside from the way our genes and environment influence our brain. Our actions are “predetermined” in the same way that gravity is. All our actions really are are very complex interactions between physical laws. They only seem willed to us because of the way we feel while we are doing the action.
I think 95% of what we do we do on"instinct". Which is more or less what you are describing in your OP. But, we have the power to override instinct if it goes against our core values. And our core values are an accumulation of time, choices and values.
I think the non-existence of free will hasn’t been accepted by society because capitalism and our laws are based on the idea that people are free agents. If it was widely accepted that law abiding and hard working people are only that way because they are basically lucky, it would greatly threaten the principles that bind Western society, in particular our attitudes on crime and punishment and free enterprise.
Things like capital punishment and “sink or swim” economic philosophy is much harder to justify without free will, it’s essentially the underpinning of Conservative thought.
Fate.
In light of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the logical consequences of an omnipotent God, I find it amusing that Free Will is a doctrine associated with religion.
I agree. But it’s not like it’s a 100% situation. I think you are underestimating the ability to go against instinctual choices.
Because not all Christians are Anglican or Presbyterian, and because John Calvin was a poopyhead.
Calvinism actually seems more reasonable to me. If there is a God, it’s obvious he has favorites.
A state machine, which is certainly deterministic, will have its next output determined by its state which is determined by the inputs and state transitions made in the past. So its current behavior affects its future decisions, but it certainly does not have free will.
On the other hand if we have a little man in our heads making our choices freely, he can inform us (our consciousness) of them after he sets the physical action in motion. I don’t believe this, but the experiments don’t prove determinism, only hint at it.