In the context of philosophy, physical limitations are ignored. To have free will is to be able to choose something among several options. Therefore, a "need" is different than a "want" or "desire."
And that's exactly why 'free will' will be whatever we determine it is to make us feel better, not a universal truth. Hence it's a debate, because it's become subjective and it's meaning determined by whoever wants it to mean whatever. In the end there are so many restrictions to the application of choice that 'free will' is a feel good concept at best. Physical and mental limitations to choice are the same thing. The breathing was a metaphor. To be simplistic to an extreme, being stuck in a cage and having the choice of leaning left or leaning right is not 'free will'.
That's only true to a certain extent. Out of the handful of definitions I've come across, I've never seen physical limitations like hunger, thirst, etc. included in the concept of free will, so I don't think it's an accepted definition in philosophy. Free will is not the same as freedom. So ignoring the cage part, you certainly could argue that choosing which way to lean is exercising free will since you are choosing a course of action out of two options.
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” ― Stephen Hawking
Some interpretations of quantum mechanics do but this is something even the smartest people on Earth can't seem to agree on. Some argue quantum indeterminacy could be the explanation for free will, but we have to ask ourselves if randomness offers more freedom than determinism. If our brain is partially controlled by random quantum effects, we have no control over those effects. It would make us unpredictable, even in theory, but not really free.
The inborn characteristics are also part of you. If someone pursues gay relationships, it's because they have a certain sexual preference which they didn't choose. A heterosexual would most unlikely choose to pursue gay relations out of his own free will.
Scientists debate this constantly, and the consensus is moving towards a no. BUT, real life says we have it (We think, then we act. We feel as though we made the decision.)...So even if everything was determined the moment the bang went big, we still act as though we have free will, which is a functional form of it. Congrats, we can have our cake and eat it too.
all of you who question the existence of free will just chose to read what i'm writing... no one/nothing forced you to do so... i rest my case
I do not wish to delve into a religious argument, but am simply stating what I believe. Evangelical Christians (I don't mean those people who think "being good" is good enough to get to heaven, I mean people who need and want to trust in God and in Him alone) believe there is free will in this world, only God knows us so well that He then knows what we will do. So we are not robots, but people with souls. That's what I believe, anyway.
What? That proves nothing. The whole concept is about predetermined destiny. Maybe we were all destined to read it due to inevitable fate. That's the problem with the concept. Every single illusion of choice can be considered fate. Because of the conundrum that every 'choice' can be considered fate it's impossible to conclusively disprove.
And this is why the conversation of free will can only ever go round and round in circles. We are the dynamic under discussion. The paradigmatic wrapper that either does or does not exist is ever outside our grasp for we are in the box, not outside looking at the shiny, colorful surface. And as soon as the epistemology of God (Religion) gets thrown into the mix, that's it, the conversation experiences a complete breakdown because the epistemology of religion, by definition accepted by those who participate in the epistemology, does not answer to reason.
Humans don't actually have free will, biologically. At least not in the way that we think we do. There have been experiments where the subconscious part of the brain lights up with its action/reaction several milliseconds before the conscious brain - i.e., the part we know about, and which we assume does the thinking - knows about it. A large part of the way the subconscious comes up with its decisions is genetic, but upbringing and past experience is a far greater input. The closest we come to free will is thoughtfully cherry-picking our experiences, and thus exerting an influence over what makes our subconscious think in the way it does, rather than making decisions ourselves - something we don't appear biologically incapable of doing. An easier route would be alerting the brain's chemical balance, of course, manipulating moods and thought processes, but then you become more of an automaton responding to a particular set of pills than a human.
One flaw in these experiments is that they all test trivial decisions, like choosing which hand to move. Would be interesting to see how the decision-making process functions when pondering moral dilemmas, for example. Might be different. The scariest thing about this is that even though the subconscious mind made the decision, we really feel like we did it consciously. So we might be mistaken about our other intuitions as well. It's not as depressing as an idea when you keep in mind that the subconscious is as much a part of you as the conscious one. Even if we don't really know how we make choices, we know we have control. Our brain responds to stimulus, ponders several alternatives and then chooses a course of action for a reason. That gives us moral competence and therefore moral responsibility even if we lack metaphysical free will.
How does quantum mechanics play a role in this? People are like ping pong balls. Newton describes us, not Schrodinger. If you read the Schrodinger Cat hypothetical experiment closely, you would know the cat's life hinges on the fate of a single radioactive atom.
Anything is possible, but so far as we still know, the timescale in the brain is too slow for quantum effects.
Even if quantum effects occur in the brain and would introduce some measure of true randomness to our thought process, could you call it free will? I mean, the random effects cannot really be said to be in your conscious control, would they?
Some events may be pre-destined, if you'd like to consider something along the lines of fate, but our choices made in reaction to those events always disrupt the course, or alter the course of those events, rearranging said 'pre-destined' events, and, imo, creating a new sequence.. so the events or way things unfold are constantly shifting, or evolving--never absolute, as long as we are reacting, and it could be said that the absolute is the idea regarding events and how they will always unfold, in whatever way, shape, or form.. Choice plays a large factor, for example: Things we are powerless over: Time, Others, Weather (just for example.) We make the most of our time. We react to others behavior. And when it's raining, we either stay inside, or use an umbrella. I'm one who believes in positive and negative energy, and I think our choices and actions constantly displace said energies, and as a result, those fluctuations are what cause events to unfold in the way they do.. To steal a line from Robert Jordan: The wheel turns as the wheel wills. The wheel, or the Universe, will always turn however it wants to, or events will unfold, and though I don't necessarily believe things are absolutely pre-determined, I think certain events happen because they were meant to, as a result of certain choices being made and actions taking place. So it's fate, and it's not fate... but more or less a consequence of negative and positive energy constantly battling to balance each other out, and we're caught in the crossfire. And doesn't like energy attract like energy? Sort of implying there might exist a pocket of similar energies, effecting the world and its people and their choices in such a way, certain events and situations seemingly "fall into place," as a result?
The brain, even if it doesn't register what's going on, counts as an observer if I'm not mistaken. An interaction can take place without the observer being conscious of it. Furthermore, how important the observer is depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. On a related note, I may have to revisit some of my old textbooks from my philosophy of physics class.
In what way is not based on objectivity? My choice to not believe in a god is not determined by a desire to feel free and not be a slave. I've never believed in any gods. In fact, the first time I found out what religion and gods were was when I was about 12 years old. Sure, I had heard some words and names before but I had no idea what they were about, neither did I care. I do remember that I was against religion and god even before that, for apparently no reason as I didn't really know what they were. Now that I know what they are - fruits of imagination taken as absolute reality by billions - I am very much against it. I see what they are, I see what they do and have done and I do not like any of it. People might not imagine that a god is a tyrant. But if you look at every description, or at least most, of one with an objective mind you'll notice that that is not entirely true. Humans have no reason to believe in a god other than that created from imagination. We can live not just well but better without them. As to a truly benevolent god, was I wrong with anything? You have to consider the supposed power, knowledge, and any characteristics ascribed to one, and project from that objectively. The most prominent one is one that's supposed to be omnibenevolent, all knowing, etc., yet is said to do things that contradict those characteristics. Why would someone claim something and then claim something that opposes it? Because it was all made up a very long time ago, back when human mind wasn't as advanced as presently, when it was easy to mess things up without even knowing it. Why still cling to all that mess if we can, now, see much more clearly? Or rather that now we have the ability to see more clearly... Because they do not see the world they live in objectively. I'm not referring to current economical system since that is literally slavery covered behind an illusion of freedom. Rewind, reboot, makes no difference. If nothing is changed the outcome is exactly the same. Every time. No, I did not. The body contains the mind, enables it. They are connected. But not one and the same in physical characteristics, as they are made up of different things. You kill either one, both die, as both are also dependent on each other. The mind is electrical impulses contained within the body. The electrons dancing between molecules, atoms, and what not. Buttons like the ones on keyboard while typing? Makes sense, consciously deciding which ones to press would be too slow. But you could decide concsiously if you wanted. Repetition creates familiarity, at one point you'd do whatever it is instinctively, and anything instinctive comes from subconscious. While walking you don't think which foot to move first, but I bet you did while you were still learning it, even though you can't remember it. Everyone knows what a button is for. Learned instincts, the subconscious knows what to do with it. I bet the test carried out on a newborn child would show different results. On genetics? How it must be according to genetics? One male, one female. Genetically speaking there could be no homosexuals, as without the attraction toward the right gender there would come no children. Those genes would die. It is about the mind, conditions one grew up in, certain characteristics genes determine. And how the mind develops in that soup. Not true. Preferences can change. Mine have. If there is reason to. If you don't know why you prefer something then it is as good as bias. I doubt there is someone with 100% free will, perhaps 99% is the closest. Not entirely true. The inborn characteristics are the basis on which your person develops. The characteristics you were born with can and will refine. They will not stay the same your entire life, if they do then something's wrong. They didn't choose it, but according to their genetics they are not gay. It's the environment they grew up in, their characteristics they were born with. Wrong mix of those and the orientation will go wrong. Can't really do anything about it. It's very much possible to pinpoint why you prefer something over another, just requires to look into yourself. But that ability isn't something that one day simply is there, it takes some exercising, everyone possesses the quality, just have to refine it. And once you see the cause behind it, and you don't like it, you should be able to change it.
