Do We Have Free Will?

What we consider as free will is just and end product of a process. It has been scientifically proven before an action there are specific neural patterns which take place in the brain which is not under the control of that person. So free will is not something under control but the consequence of a process which is not under our control.

 

You can test your free will at any time.
You can watch porn, or you don't do it.
With your free will you make decisions and act.
Yes or No.
It's your choice.
This is free will.

 

Isn't this committing the essentialist fallacy along with the level crossing fallacy? This article expresses what I'm talking about, just look at the first two points:https://www.google.tt/amp/s/rationa...e-will-why-incompatibilism-is-incoherent/amp/

 

I don’t really know if free will exists. On one hand, we make decisions about things big and small every single day which would lead us to think free will exists. On the other hand, we know that every single thought we have is the result of neuron activity in the brain, specifically neurochemicals.

I think a good example is our addiction to porn. We know that addiction is the result of our brains becoming hijacked by intense stimuli resulting in altered neuron pathways and a reduced sensitivity to dopamine. That’s why we feel so compelled to give in to our addictions. Another example would be drug use. When a person uses alcohol, heroin, cocaine or any other drug they are putting a foreign substance into their body which ultimately makes its way to the brain and alters the way it functions, thus the person’s thoughts and behavior changes.

So does free will actually exist? The only answer I can come up with is “somewhat”. This debate will continue for as long as humanity exists and I highly doubt we’ll ever have a definitive yes or no.

 

Hi, I just don't have any reason to believe that humans are any different than anything else in nature. We're determined by natural processes just like everything else. And that includes our higher brain functions. I don't deny that the appearance of choice is real. But it's just appearance. Ultimately, whatever choice we do end up making, was determined by a chain of causes, like our own biology, our family, our society, etc.

 

Yes, I do think it's possible, I just think that it still will be dependent on these other factors I mentioned, that cause us to act in such a way, not through free will. Whether we get to the point of introspecting and studying, and creating processes that help us do better, is not something we make happen out of thin air, we must be caused to do so. We believe we are making free choices only when we are unaware of what the causes are

 

If you didn't read the article, the essentialist fallacy states that people who don't believe in free will claim that humans may not be free because they fail to find the essences they thought free will should have, and so declare that it doesn’t exist at all such as causation, the self, agency and authorship. Here's an analogous mistake to what those who believe in determinism make (this is from the article):

One can see that wetness does not have an absolute definition; a pure, unambiguous essence we could point to that adequately, absolutely defines it. Instead, its definitions are contingent upon nuanced definition.
And the level crossing fallacy states that determinists use concepts from a lower level of description (the firing of neurons), to describe concepts at a higher level of description (a person's decision making process)

 

Yes, I think the process you describe is correct

 

Hi Brokenman, thanks for the summary! I would say that first off, I am not a rationalist, in fact I'm more of an irrationalist, I believe that our rational capacities and abilities are influenced by factors external to the rational process, again like our biology, society, language, etc. I don't know that I accept the author's points about the fallacies. They strike me as a kind of "moving the goal posts", so to speak. With both of them, they're basically saying that all we need to do is define free will in to existence, they're making changes to the definition of free will and making logical distinctions for the purpose of trying to save the idea of free will. But my question is why the need to try to preserve the idea of free will at all in the first place? We're attached to it.

 

I think they're trying to say that free will can only be defined within certain parameters. I don't think they're trying to define it into existence although I can see why you'd think so but rather I think they're trying to define it in the best way possible.

 

Yeah that's a big problem I have with idea of free will, is that it treats humans as being different from animals, it treats us as being special or as you say, anthropocentric or egoistic. It's inconsistent.