I am rather familiar with the arguments against free will, however, what has made me hesitant in accepting these arguments is that I seem to experience free will everyday. While many will posit that there is nothing in the natural world that would suggest that I have free will, and that what I experience is merely an illusion. My problem with this line of reasoning is that there is nothing in the natural world that should suggest that I have consciousness; that is to say that my consciousness comes from matter that is in my head, viz. my brain, and thus it seems odd (or at least to me, and I will admit this may be due to a poor understanding of neuroscience) that this matter in my head produces consciousness, while other types of matter does not. The natural world, or at least our current knowledge of the natural world, seems to suggest that we should not have either free will or consciousness. And so my question is, why are philosophers (among many) willing to suggest that free will does not exist in spite of the experience of having free will, and not willing to suggest that consciousness is an illusion, despite the no adequate explanation for it? I should point out that I am not suggesting consciousness does not exist, nor am I suggesting free will does not exist, but rather am asking a question concerning the nature of both. All replies are welcome and greatly anticipated.
Where does the natural world suggest that we have neither free will or consciousness?
Philosophers suggest what?
Why would consciousness be an illusion?
It’s not, or at least no one (I know of anyways) claims that it is, and that’s my point. There are difficulties in explaining both free will and consciousness, yet we experience both. What I want to get at is why we are willing to accept one exists (consciousness) in light of the difficulties in its explanation and our experience of it, but are willing to deny the existence of the other (free-will), because we cannot explain how such a feat is possible?
I should also point out, though I find it rather obvious, that I am asking this question to determinists, and that I have not really made a decision on whether free-will exists or not.
Free will is a concept denoting the idea that a human is a cause but not an effect, i.e. that a human has no antecedent causes, or that man is a cause from nothing. You do not feel this. What you do feel is your desires, what some call the will, and then through experience you see whether your desire, i.e. will, is fulfilled or not. What you feel is your will and whether that will is inhibited by things outside of the boundaries you have for yourself when you attempt to manifest that will into action. What you don’t feel is the cause of your desires, or the cause of your judgment as to whether act or not. What you feel is a desire, and then an idea, and then a judgment upon this idea. You did not tell yourself to like chocolate. You like chocolate because your brain is shaped in such a way that it responds positively to chocolate. You did not tell your judgment to find something more reasonable than another thing. Your judgment is a result of your brain acting a certain way. etc.
Most people confuse what I call uninhibited will with free will. Uninhibited will is simply when one is able to fulfill one’s desire to act. Free will is the state of being a cause but not being an effect, and hence of having one’s desires originate wholly in the self.
Will that decision affect your life? Or is it an abstract question?
Insomuch as I would have a philosophical view point and hopefully all my future philosophical analysis would be consistent with said viewpoint. However, knowing whether free will exists or not is not going to really affect my personal life. Really I’m just curious what others think.
Free will exists as a metaphor. And it is a useful one. I would rather be free from bonds, then bound by them.