Free Will and Neuroscience: Revisiting Libet's Experiments

[@Swastika1994]

This is because although we are influenced to act in certain ways, the choice whether to act that way or not is completely up to us and no other external factor.

[@Rooker11111]

Free will, according to Dictionary. reference, is a voluntary decision. When a person drinked water, there was a cause as to why that person drinked water. The cause might have been that the person was thirsty. Even if the cause was thirst, the person voluntarily decided to drink water: The person decided to drink water on his or her own accord, even when that person was thirsty. The person used his free will.

[@sacredsoma]

If they cheated after having read the anti free will article, does that prove that they freely chose to cheat, or that, what they chose shows that they have very little freedom?

[@manafro2714]

That's a very indirect way of saying reading the anti free will article either (A) made them want to cheat because they didn't feel responsible (thinking something along the lines of: "If I have no free will, I'm not actually doing it, I'm not cheating, it's the neurons firing in my brain!"), or (B) it actually proves that they have no free will at all.

[@01assassinscreed63]

@@manafro2714 lol libets experiment was nonsense it was a neural fluctuations that can cause time delay when libets experiment showed 500miliseconds modern reasearch showed 10 sec delays 5sec,4sec,3sec,2,sec even 0sec and it's due to neural fluctuations not some predetermined decitions

[@stephenchase8676]

I think the most useful starting point for this very old debate should have been "If free will doesn't exist, how close is the simulated approximation?" In other words, is there anything about our experience to suggest free will doesn't exist. I think most of us (even hard determinists) would come to the conclusion the simulation was seemingly perfect. The next question should have been "What needs to occur to make the simulation this precise?" and then go from there.

[@Swastika1994]

Good question. It is true that thoughts sometimes arise in our mind without our control. For example, many people have sexual thoughts that they cannot control but accept their presence. Sometimes we have to forcefully induce thoughts and prevent thoughts. It is basically people's lack of ability to control their mind. Hindu yogis are able to control their thoughts to such an extent as to be able to go into samadhi (trance); a state of thoughtlessness. It takes great willpower to enter it.

[@Swastika1994]

I get what you mean. QM is random, meaning there is probability. There is no probability in human decision. Although we may be influenced by certain factors, we can still override and control them. Nothing is forcing us to do anything, only influencing* us. Like peer pressure. We aren't robots per say, it's not like if A happens ---> then B.

[@01assassinscreed63]

Nonsense these are Neural fluctuations in brain that cause time delay and that neural fluctuations aren't decitions there are merely brain responding to signals

[@Swastika1994]

@@01assassinscreed63 What causes the "neural fluctuation"? If it comes after the will, then it's caused by the will.

[@Rooker11111]

Here's an example of free will: You have two thoughts in your mind. The one thought is to go and rob a bank. The other thought is to not go out and rob a bank. You made a decision to go with the bank robbery thought: You made the voluntary decision to go with the one thought (bank robbery) over the other thought. The only way there'll be no free will is if you were possessed by a spirit, which decided your thought.

[@DeterministicOne]

The question is - Is it "you" acting or simply your brain acting and "you" are simply aware it is happening? "I" cannot create a thought, my brain is creating thoughts. Thoughts simply arise in the brain. If I could tell how "I" created thoughts, I would, but I can't. No matter what "you" are, "you" cannot explain how it is "you" make a thought.

[@arniewilliams1255]

If a person punches somebody in the face every day on the lunch line for 30 days, there is no gurantee they will do it again the 31st day. Free will exists, we can control our behavior, sometimes we succeed sometimes we fail.

[@brentbb0]

But when is it you make "voluntary choices?" Randomly? "I choose to get a glass of water right now, even though I'm not thirsty." No, not randomly. There must be a stimulus first. And, you can never know when the next "voluntary choice" will happen, in advance of that stimulus rising. Try writing down the time when you're going to become thirsty enough to be stimulated to have a desire to go get a glass of water (or do ANYTHING, for that matter.) You can't. Think about it.

[@fitzmagic1]

How people respond to learning there is no free will has zero to do with the truth of the claim

[@youvinnie]

I agree with Pablo. Even without the experiments, freewill doesn't make sense to me. I see how it can be used to guilt trip people. I understand how it can give us hope and a warm and fuzzy feeling of control of our destiny. But with all of the ways which our conscious will can be and is manipulated without our knowledge or consent, with all of the unconscious factors that go into what we "will", how can we even come to terms with an objective determination of what free will is?

[@marklluf7404]

Alfred, makes a common mistake in erroneously arguing for compatabilism. He asserts that he has the urge to smoke but he refuses to. This does not demonstrate freewill in the sense that his intention to resist smoking is primarily due to a will that is not motivated by a cognitive perception from his environment. The resistance towards vice is not willed without something from the external environment which tells him to sacrifice his urge.

[@Swastika1994]

Do you think I am refuting free will?

[@Rooker11111]

The conscious brain is part of the neurological system; therefore, intention of the conscious brain is a neurological intention.

[@XilOnGlennSt]

Random decision and free will are two different things! "Free will" implies expression of self. Self is not involved in random decision. Would someone please conduct an experiment, like this one, except the choice should involve cognitive dissonance on the part of the subject. Also, please be aware that neurological studies of bird-song learning have shown that there are "feed-forward" and "feed-backward" circuits. The feed-forward pathways are reflexive. The feed-backward pathways are reflective, and are available only during a certain learning period. It seems possible that in humans, both pathways are always possible. I suggest that Libet was testing the behavior of feed-forward pathways. That's why a decision that requires deliberation is necessary for a meaningful test.

[@SelfEducationRadio]

your DNA is an expression of self.. does not need or include your conscious awareness in that process.. what makes you think your conscious awareness is needed to make any decision... your conscious awareness is probably a result of the decisions your brain was already programmed to make.

[@01assassinscreed63]

@@SelfEducationRadio Evidence? Libets experiment was nonsense

[@01assassinscreed63]

@@SelfEducationRadio and also what evidence do you have? Reading decitions is like mind reading but mind reading through brain activity (EEG) has been debunked

[@Rooker11111]

Only way a person has no free will is when hypnotized, demonically possessed, or breating while sleeping.

[@Swastika1994]

Well the you don't control the soul or spirit. You are the soul, and you control the body.

[@Rooker11111]

When a person drives a vehicle and is about to approach a yellow light that's about to turn red, the person can make the decision to stop or continue driving to beat the yellow light. The person already knows that continue driving is a risk, yet the person makes the decision to take the risk. The person is using free will to go with continue on driving, because he or she is making the voluntary decision to do so.

[@ajm5007]

@MancipiumInsurgo "I'm not at all impressed with this guy. None of this arguments are empirical. It's entirely based on his fear of amoral people." Did you watch more than the first 5 minutes?

[@zakmatew]

Many arguments in science are not empirical, yet they are accepted as true. His arguments are solid.

[@DeterministicOne]

How do "you" decide not to act? First step to not acting is not acting. . .? Let's assume there is this soul/spirit thing that interacts with the brain. How do "you" control this soul/spirit? How electrochemical reactions can be aware is the big question that we are trying to answer. It would still be a big question if we assumed there is this soul/spirit.

[@Rooker11111]

According to Dictionary.reference, free will is a voluntary decision. Your brain uses two decisional systems. One decisional system, the subconscious, makes a decision that's involuntary (e.g., you breath while asleep), while the other decisional system, the conscious, makes a decision that's voluntary (e.g., you tell your arm to move then it moves).

[@TJ-kk5zf]

duh! been making these arguments against Libet since the study first came out

[@rteeha]

This was meant to be more of a metaphysical question, and I guess the original response was not worded correctly. The point I was trying to make is that personality could emerge in a couple of ways. First, it could be the result of individual neurons. Second it could come from a holistic view of one part of the brain. Finally, it could be part of an immaterial "self". Much of the current philosophical debate is centered around this, and mind/body dualism is particularly important for it.

[@rteeha]

My personal belief is that personality is just a social construction. It is simply the way different people value different reasons, and the respective weight they give to each reason. Personality is simply just a way of weighing between competing motivations, which then leads to action once the person has finished deliberating. This is somewhat of a curtailed version, since there isn't enough space to talk about Wittgenstein and language games.

[@DeterministicOne]

You are about to create a thought, what is the first step in the process?

[@Rooker11111]

Free will = a voluntary choice, not a thought or feeling. The carrying out of a thought or feeling can be made by a voluntary choice.

[@therobbiethorpe]

Your example of the bank highlights the problem. Your conscious awareness has highlighted just 2 variables out of probably millions that are occurring in your brain to decide to rob a bank. The thoughts that pop into awareness make up a miniscule proportion of the neural activity that goes into making a decision. There is no way conscious awareness can be the main influencing factor - indeed many believe it just reports outcomes and does not factor in the decision process at all.

[@sAfgun123]

Libet's experiments do not disprove the notion of free will. They only indicate the existence of a readiness potential that occurs whether or not you choose to act out a decision. Even Libet himself said that the experiment doesn't disprove the notion of free will.

[@Rooker11111]

Thoughts = made in conscious state of brain (see cerebral context). Thoughts play big role in free will.

[@marklluf7404]

We are having a misunderstanding on a semantic context. I believe all actions are caused. Human beings are not an exception. There are causes which compel human beings to bad and good actions. Resisting the temptation to initiate bad actions, is based on a cause that initiates the will to resist bad actions. Every single action is caused. HOw can you look at the world and contend otherwise?

[@coccinelsucrer]

@brentbb0 But our thoughts aren't the only ones that determine our behavior, you can choose to give in to these thoughts/urges or not, so if there is no free will, what do you call that which makes us able to make that choice?

[@rteeha]

This leaves a pretty large gap between being influenced or shaped by something, and being totally determined by it. Second, it it noted neurologically that the neurons actually change after interactions between the person and the environment (learning reading, etc.). Also the point about DNA seems to also be false since our actions in the present also influence and change the way DNA is expressed (see epigenetics), so you have the direction of causality wrong.

[@rteeha]

I agree the space constraints are pretty annoying. I don't want to just copy and paste the answer to your other response, so just see that since it seems to accurately respond to this comment as well.

[@therobbiethorpe]

Causal determinism does not equal 'predictable'. The human brain is the most complex structure in the known Universe. The billions of control points that balance a 'decision' could never be predicted. We can't even calculate the immediate future of more than a handful of particles interacting and randomness probably does feature (due to Quantum Physics) which makes prediction probably impossible.

[@DeterministicOne]

intention: an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. So, the first step in creating a thought is to. . .think? Do you see the dilemma?

[@DeterministicOne]

Thoughts are created by the brain, you (consciousness) are created by and maintained by your brain. Please explain how you supersede the brain.

[@manafro2714]

That's a good point. It seems to me that we either have to forget about causality altogether or refine our understanding of it. If we have free will, that means we can generate a thought that does NOT logically/causally follow from the preceding thought/the current state of all biological, chemical etc processes that make us up. This means we create a thing that did not have a cause, so in one sense, created something out of nothing (although this may be a bit too strong, because nothing is of a completely different nature than something, and thoughts are the same category of things). Or perhaps there is a mind-body duality, and the mind is different in nature from the body. But this leads us to the same question: the current composition of the brain predicts its future composition, so the current composition of the mind should also determine the mind's future composition. The only way out of this would be to say that since the mind is different in nature from the body, the body's rules don't apply to it (i.e. the elements don't determine the whole). Hm, although a similar idea is held about real-world and conceptual things as well: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

[@01assassinscreed63]

Thoughts cause Brain activities not before it

[@DeterministicOne]

@@01assassinscreed63 What causes thoughts?

[@sikun7894]

so why didn't he try to carry out the proposed studies himself?

[@rteeha]

I can claim that actions occur outside of our personality structure because people often do uncharacteristic things. In addition, society often pressures us to act in certain ways outside of our personality. For example, someone may have a personality that makes him untrustworthy, however he probably will not lie to the IRS or in court because of the risk of perjury. You also never addressed the issue of rational reflection. The point on the third premise was more of a metaphysical question

[@lordpatthethird]

so i'm not in direct control of motor functions. Is this supposed to be news to me? I mean, who the hell manually plots out every movement when they walk or actively thinks about the buttons the press when playing a game?

[@brentbb0]

Its an interesting analogy, but its just a belief. Is your life perfect right now or are there some improvements you could make? Of course there are, so why haven't you taken care of them yet? Why are you putting off getting them done? Just grab a hold of those horses! But wait, you can't; there just isn't enough desire in you yet to finish them. And its really just that simple. Take a close look and see. Or, prove me wrong. Do them all ASAP and let me know when you're finished. I'll be here...

[@brentbb0]

The whole thing is a mystery: the Perceived, Perception, the Perceiver. We haven't a clue what any of these things are, or even if the Perceiver actually exists in some way other than just as an idea in the imagination. And just as we have blind spots for our eyes that are hidden and filled in by the brain, the "blind spot" of the Third Eye/Consciousness is hidden by the Ego, which covers "us" over. Most of the time we think our Ego (identities) is the Perceiver, so we think we know who we are!

[@Swastika1994]

I will give an example in Hindu philosophy that explains the mechanisms of actions. The chariot is the body, the 5 horses pulling it are the senses. The passenger is "you", the eternal witness, the non-doer of actions. The charioteer is the mind and intellect. The mind will go wherever the senses go because it is influenced by the senses. But the intellect knows what is better and can control the horses and follow the right path towards the highest goal.

[@brentbb0]

The problem is.."any thought I WANT.." What causes you to want anything? Is it happening NOW? Do you "want," NOW? And do you know right now, when the next time will be, that you will "want" again? "Wanting" happens on its own. Its a feeling. We don't create feelings. If you think you do, then right now, create massive feelings of bliss and do this all the time for the rest of your life, constantly. If you're successful, write a book and make lots of money... "Wanting" is not created by us.

[@brentbb0]

I was just pointing you out of normal perception to say that entry and exit points to this relative "existence," aren't necessarily the beginning and end points to what might be a more relatively real existence. We may simply be looking into this world like a submariner looks into his periscope to view the world on top of the water. So brain activity and our mind-body organism may be our periscope into this universe. Sentience may not start here with sex. But maybe I misunderstand your context.

[@rteeha]

On the first point, the baby has internalized norms from either its parents or siblings. Also, my definition still accounts for this, since the baby can still weigh between reasons. One the second, he has a personality because he weighs between reasons. Animals can also weigh between options. All of your ponts come fram misunderstanding of social construction. This does not mean that they need to society to exist, but rather that we have come to accept that term in society. contd on nextpost

[@marklluf7404]

"The only way there'll be no free will is if you were possessed by a spirit, which decided your thought." The cognitive causes "decide" your actions. These cognitive causes are based on desires and emotions from the external world.

[@marklluf7404]

Do you do a specific act just to do this act while simultaneously having a motive for doing this same act? This is the crux of compatibiism.

[@therobbiethorpe]

It depends what you label as 'bad behaviour'. I was at a friends house yesterday and he was constantly telling his child to stop showing off because my daughter was there. He was a little hyperactive, running around playing freely. I said nothing, my friend has the right to raise his child how he likes, but I couldn't help feeling his boy was just being a kid. Parents say all sorts of things to their kids out of their own embarrassment that their child is not meeting a standard set by 'society'.

[@therobbiethorpe]

If you search TEDx Raoul Martinez (on youtube)and watch this short video it explains everything I feel extremely clearly without mentioning free will. For me it is a truly inspiring video. Can't seem to link videos on here.

[@Rooker11111]

Dualism holds a philosophical and theological view. Dualism is the notion that a human being has a spiritual body incorporated in his or her physical body, not that the mind is separated from the brain.

[@Swastika1994]

Uh,... a bit of assumptions there but, you can still control the mind to a certain point where you can hold a mental state of thoughtlessness for a long time. It is the mind doing the thinking, but the brain reacting. Hindu yogis believe that ALL actions are influenced by an external factor. No one does actions without an influence, or else we wouldn't do something. But ultimately, the action which we choose to do in the face of many influences, is ultimately ours.

[@therobbiethorpe]

Yes I questioned everything since childhood for whatever reason. I stopped for a while as I tried to lead a normal married life and chase material things for happiness the way people do but when I found no fulfillment from this way of life I hit depression and it all fell apart and then, as I said, I discovered the truth about the 'self'. And yes, it feels like a switch flicked in my brain. I'm in England 20 miles north of London. You?

[@andrerobertson3151]

He works at the university of texas in austin

[@Swastika1994]

That's not my point. My point is that why should I be accountable for my actions if 'I' am not doing it?

[@therobbiethorpe]

You still seem to believe that there is a 'you' separate from your brain that can override motivations that originate in the brain. Have you read any of the current books on neuroscience and the self? I recommend 'The Ego Tunnel' by Thomas Metzinger or 'Self comes to Mind' by Antonio Damasio. I suppose I might have intrusive thought disorder though, lol :)

[@marklluf7404]

Based on your definition, a cat has freewill. Why should we believe that a cat's will does not dictate that he/she play with a doll? Why should we believe a cat who moves around is not telling his/her legs to move? Freewill is impossible because causes induce humans to act or even not to act. Can you demonstrate how a will is caused out of nothing.

[@therobbiethorpe]

Yes but I am talking more about things that are happening inside the brain that you aren't even aware of. In a sense we are like robots - just phenomenally complicated ones - I imagine millions of control points, electrical signals and chemical ones, interacting and 'causing' us to come to the decisions we do. 'A man does what he wants but he does not will what he wills' is a famous quote by Schopenhauer that Einstein lived by.

[@DeterministicOne]

How does that distinction help?

[@Rooker11111]

A will isn't an action, only a decision.

[@brucecook502]

Also the example given when he asks for you to intend on doing something and then choosing to not do it does have a loophole that makes the scenario possible. Now if you are instructed to do this right away it is impossible to do if you know the end result is that you do not do it. This is not a perfect argument to say you cant change what you intend on doing because check this out. Let's say you have been talking about this question of free will. Let's say you go throughout your day with intentions, and you are minutes or even seconds away from doing something you intend on doing and suddenly you remember the discussion of Free Will and then you prove the flaw in this example by purposely not doing what you were intending on doing and those coming seconds. You have just now prevented yourself from doing something you were intending on doing. To ask somebody 2 immediately intend on doing something and then not do it with the ladder result fresh on the mind it is impossible to get around this but the simple memory of testing free will popping up in the head just even one second before you were about to do something proves you can make the choice 2 not do something you just intended on doing.

[@rteeha]

I'll let you comment stand since I don't care enough to point out the lack of substance it in, and frankly it is amusing. However, I don't know who Snaa is and I don't know where xmas lists came into this. The argument I was making against Hedgehog was not my personal belief, I was just providing reasons why my criticism was correct. I doubt there is enough space to accurately defend my personal views on personality.

[@Swastika1994]

"You" are the soul.

[@Hektor88]

@jonwalksred I don't think he opened with refutations. He opened with "Why do I care about this?" and then gave moral reasons why he cared. But his refutations were scientific, not moral.

[@brentbb0]

Yes, it all just happens on its own when it does. When the clarity hits, it really hits. I think its all related to the evolution of consciousness which is related to what children "see" in their early years - wherever the emphases is put in their guidance from family and culture. Kids will believe anything. I was lucky and had a strong desire for the truth over illusion, or I would be like most others, defending to the death (of my ego) my silly identities. What part of the planet are you on?

[@Rooker11111]

Decisions can't be made in the subconscious since the subconscious wouldn't be aware of the decisions it's making. Can you make the decision to tie your shoes while you're sleep?

[@Swastika1994]

You mean which any materialist person subscribes to? Remember rationalism isn't the same as materialism. Also the mind is separate from the body. For example, yogis in India can leave their body at will and come back in it accurately describing what happened outside of it.

[@stephenchase8676]

We've done experiments predicting with precision (we're not 100% on this yet though) what someone will do in advance. I don't find this particularly compelling or useful for anything other than predicting. On one hand, if I'm using a method to find out exactly when the organism decides something, I'm only proving a decision has occurred. On the other hand, if I'm simulating the mechanisms of the organism to predict it's decision, I am just making another decision making machine. (cont)

[@Swastika1994]

The fact that you have made many efforts to stop thoughts in your brain means you have free will.

[@WispYart]

says: "... and he generalizes to actually all cases, we will get to that in a second" later says: "And it's not just with his own study, he thinks it (unconscious decision making) applies universally" then quotes Libet: "Our overall findings do suggest some fundamental characteristics of the simpler acts that may be applicable to all consciously intended acts..." now I am in position to dismiss what you say, because Libet quote says "MAY BE APPLICABLE" and not "ALL CASES" and "APPLIES UNIVERSALLY" I thought I misheard and went back, and it is apparent that there is some twisting you have done here, sir let's see the rest now...

[@WispYart]

you stopped quoting Libet study after that, so I'll go and just read the study, screw you

[@Swastika1994]

No I understand philosophy. Desires arise before will. Our actions come after desire. There is no need for us to act unless we have a desire. Our will is per our desire. BUT we can control our desire. For example, I'll give a Hindu analogy. "You" are the passenger in the chariot. The chariot is the body. The charioteer is the intellect and mind. The 5 horses are the senses. I can let the horses go after sense gratification. OR I can use the intellect to control where the horses go.

[@Rooker11111]

Free will is a voluntary choice. No free will means all choices are involuntary, which would make you not a motivated person since motivation resorts from making a voluntary choice. A person with no free will is a sufferer of the aboulia disorder.

[@DeterministicOne]

How do "we" control our behavior?

[@Rooker11111]

Our actions are caused by what we think, feel, smell, touch, and see. Even when there are causes for people to be bad or good, they still make the voluntary decisions to be bad or good. A person who can't stop being bad--no matter the causes--has zero will power, a weak-state of mind, a habit to not stop, or a desire to keep being bad.

[@marklluf7404]

Rooker, I don't see how it is possible that you just choose to drink water without any motive inducing it. Even though you were not thirsty, I find it hard to believe that you simply willed yourself to drink this water because you just willed yourself. This is my interpretation of freewill. It is a circular perception of reality.

[@marklluf7404]

It can not be made by a voluntary choice because (like or not the thought/feeling is what initiates the voluntary choice. Why do you think you are above this basic fundamental law of existence. Every single human action is caused.

[@Swastika1994]

My intention to, then which thought I want to create, then the thought is created.

[@therobbiethorpe]

Life is not PRE-determined. It unfolds moment by moment and every choice an organism makes (even if it is an unconscious choice as I say) has an effect on the next moment and so on. Children can still be shown an acceptable way to behave without making them feel as if they have a soul that is in control that does 'bad' things. Society has rules but know that when a person breaks the rules it is because they were unable to comply with them in that moment and show compassion and understanding. :)

[@Rooker11111]

You. sir, would be the first humanoid in history to correctly show how motivation, will power, planning, 1st degree murder, creative thinking, rebellion, problem solving, changing of the mind, loving someone, trusting someone, or desire can occur from an unintentional or involuntary choice ( lack of free will)!

[@Swastika1994]

Then we will have an infinite regression unless we reach a point where: A - A willfull action was made without a cause. B - There was an effect but no cause. Both seem impossible. B automatically violates the law of causality. And A violates what we know from the human experience. But understand that you cannot always use logic and analysis to approach every problem and find the absolute truth. There are things that are beyond human understanding.

[@marklluf7404]

A will initiates an action. It is the power to initiate an action. However, this power needs to be activated by a cause. You do not initiate actions without corresponding reasons(causes). How can you deny this obvious fact in reality?

[@Swastika1994]

Uhh... I can't help but think this ties in with Hindu philosophy. Hindu philosophy teaches that there are two facets: The soul and the body. The soul is never the doer of actions; meaning it doesn't do anything, it is the witness of all actions. Under the influence of desire, and modes of material nature, the soul does actions and seems to act in a certain way. But our true self never does any of those things and we should not look at an evil man like he is truly evil because he isn't.

[@Rooker11111]

I've made choices to drink water when I wasn't thirst. Therefore, you = incorrect. Even if I become thirsty and I drink water based off it, I still made the choice to drink water.

[@therobbiethorpe]

Oh and I think Jesus got there before me. When he said, 'forgive them for they know not what they do' he was alluding to the fact that we don't have free will, that the Romans were 'determined' to crucify him. He was a pretty smart dude!

[@DeterministicOne]

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. The agent is the brain. The brain is part of a nervous system that will be motivated to act in response to sensory input. A person with no will suffers from aboulia, which is caused by frontal lesions according to experts in the field.

[@brentbb0]

You're missing the point. You think "willpower" is prior to desire. But why does willpower arise when it does? I know you think it arises by YOU, autonomously, but you are mistaken. That's just a belief (like Santa Claus) that you were told. I used to believe in it too. If you were really in charge, you would be in bliss all the time. Are you in bliss all the time? Well, why not? Well, because you can't create bliss. Bliss arises on its own, when it does. Just be honest - you're not in control.

[@Rooker11111]

Free will= no thought or feeling; only voluntary choice.

[@marklluf7404]

"A person who can't stop being bad--no matter the causes--has zero will power, a weak-state of mind, a habit to not stop, or a desire to keep being bad." I simply disagree. Many evil people have transformed their life based on causes, rather than simply just deciding to be good. Where is the evidence that "you" can arbitrarily determine your own willpower? How is a weak mind proof of freewill?

[@Swastika1994]

Ahh you are talking about that. Neurochemical reactions in our brain causing us to do things. Well what caused those chemical reactions? Random? Can't be since it coincides with our decisions. This is a complicated topic.

[@DeterministicOne]

It's not you thinking, it is your brain. The brain is a thought creating organ. That is what brains do. All you are doing is asserting that it is you creating the thoughts, but, again, we know brains create thoughts. There is no evidence that "we" are creating thoughts. It's more like we ARE a thought created by our brains.

[@rteeha]

I'm pretty sure that philosophers are not crackpots, in fact many of the advancements we have today were in some way founded on philosophy. For example, Leibniz, one of the people credited with founding calculus, was also a prevalent philosopher during his time. Philosophy has also lead to advancements in computer science and artificial intelligence, as seen with modern philosopher John Searle. Finally, it seems like a somewhat untenable position to call Aristotle and other like him crackpots

[@marklluf7404]

". The cause might have been that the person was thirsty." If the cause might have been that the person was thirsty, how in the world is it voluntary?

[@Treeesmith]

Mark Lluf you can turn it off, same as hunger, same as temperature. Needs strong self control and inner discipline

[@arniewilliams1255]

If I didnt have control over my will, id be a thousand pounds overweight by now. We have the will do do and not to do.

[@jknvorneb]

Yes! What determinists will say to that?

[@Swastika1994]

There is also no evidence to show that consciousness lies in the brain and that somehow, electrical impulses are able to create an abstract field where thoughts are created. To me it seems like a metaphysical thing rather than a physical one. Also, yogis in India can leave their body at will, meaning they can outside of their body.

[@rteeha]

I wouldn't count it as make believe. If you want to see some evidence or sources you can look to the arguments in Aristotle's De Anima. For a moe recent example there is a book by David Oderberg call Real Essentialism which defends this point of view. Just from looking at the abundance of profanity in your comments and username I can tell you are probably not well versed in metaphysics, but those should be some good starting places. You could also try Keith E. Yandell's A defense of Dualism

[@genghs]

Indeed you are kinda right... but i think that is the religious free will you are talking about... right ??

[@brucecook502]

Now hold on one second there. Your first example of your own personal free will which is choosing not to smoke a cigarette, while you are choosing not to smoke a cigarette at the moment it is because your processes in your brain are telling you that it is in your better interest to continue your lecture and not smoke that cigarette. If you truly have free will In This Moment you could choose to stop talking and go outside and have a cigarette but try this without lighting the cigarette once you're outside and do not return to your lecture for an hour. Now your brain has adapted to make choices that you no are in your best interest. You will not make the choice that is not of your best interest. I am an atheist that does believe we have some level of free will but we would have to exercise this free will bye breaking a habit just to prove the point which would bring certain discomfort doing so. You will automatically never make the lesser of two choices unless you remember this and do it intentionally to contradict this. The ability to contradict your habit is a sign that Free Will could exist but unless the thought goes through your mind 2 contradict a habit you will always make the choice you feel benefits you more

[@DeterministicOne]

How can we be anything but a product of brain activity?

[@Swastika1994]

No problem. It's okay everyone makes that mistake. I enjoyed the conversation as well.

[@DeterministicOne]

Yes, I understand that one definition of soul is: person, but this doesn't help in the free will debate. You are saying I control the body, but I say that it is the brain that is in control. I am a product of the brain in my skull. I am maintained by the brain in my skull. Thoughts simply arise in my brain. I cannot take credit for these thoughts, they just happen. So far, you have failed to show how you can take credit for your thoughts.

[@Swastika1994]

"There is no free will because we never know the next thought or feeling that will appear in our minds until they actually do appear." Wrong. I can create any thought I want in my mind at my own will and am able to know my next thought.

[@johnchambers2860]

Are you free to think that which does not occur to you?