Exactly what is FREE WILL?

Belief binds you to the World of Illusion, conjecture, speculation, theory; a Mind filled with Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Absolutely Good Knowledge being of a Reality that exists independent of the MInd.

There is no Free Will for those bound by Illusions of Reality, Duplicity, Guilefulness, Self-Deception, Rationalization, Reason alone, without the aid of our commons sense; Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Knowledge having a Dual Quality, the Knowledge of Good and Evil being the Greatest cause of all Suffering.

The Truth sets you Free.

Misty, I promised you my slant on free will. Here it goes:
Free will is an impossibility as most people define it. Some people are born brilliant, others less so. Some people are born strong, some less so. Some are born with athletic ability, some are born klutzes. Genetics determine birthrights, but they do not determine environmental influences, the quality of parentage, or the strength of self concept.

Self concept will develop with or without our will--subject to the rendom influences available to it; or self concept can be developed consciously. We can choose to invest in feeling good about ourselves by acting responsibly in the best interest of self concept. We can elect to read, to study, to practice generosities in our personal relationships, to fight for the environment, to resist prejudice, racism, and naked aggression. We can build a consciously constructed sense of self.

We can choose to be in charge of how we feel about ourselves, or we can "go with the flow" and let primitive instinct (and environment) control and direct those decisions for us. Those individuals who elect to do the latter will never know free will; those who exert control of self-image and invest in a positive image of self will know free will, for it is in the realm of self concept, and only in this realm, that ultimately humans have any say at all!

Within the context of modern science this debate should no longer be of consequence. Free will can now be clearly seen to be an evolutionary necessity. Simply that feature of an organism which allows optimization of interaction with its external environment. Which, of course, bears directly on its chances of survival and hence of positive natural selection. This is the point which is consistently missed by so many. Certainly there is the deterministic component of decisions provided by internal molecular mechanisms. But there is also the equally deterministic component that is input from the external environment. There is, as it seems with all natural processes, invariably the element of chance.
Early philosophers, of course, just did not have sufficient information from chemistry and biology that now makes such an analysis rather trivial.
An additional point that we should always bear in mind is that although the free will of our own species is remarkably high because of the extreme level of interaction of our kind with the external world, it is in absolute terms still very limited.
Similar considerations, by the way, apply to the closely related concept of "consciousness". That, too, is a mystery no more.

The broad evolutionary model that very informally provides a wider background for such matters can be found in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?", a free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website.

First to everyone: don't be stupid. This is a perennial question in metaphysics / philosophy and has had serious philosophers i.e. those who deserve to be taken seriously on both sides of it and anyone who can't agree with that is a deluded ideologue who doesn't deserve to be listened to.

Don't have time to read all nine pages right now but I hope someone has at least pointed out to the original poster that no serious philosopher who has advocated free will (yes there are many, see above) has had the idea that free will means an absolutely and totally unlimited choice including the choice that I will become a football playing king in space during the next five minutes.

I like these. They are thoughtful. Some good, some weaker, but thoughtful.
May I offer a couple thoughts.
In the context of religion, I think Free Will... is a religious concept like "perfect" and "divine". They have their religious meanings in a religious context and in that context it means the choice between doing good or evil.A God given choice by the way. Very interesting if you want to think about it in terms of science. Sort of like Leto's Golden Path. Special, not natural, side stepping normal physical laws.
That is important because of modern atheists. In their push to refute the possibility of a God, they deny free will. They say that the universe is a clockwork in which there is no free will, based on action and reaction at mechanical and sub-atomic levels inevitably determining all your behaviors and actions, so there can be no possibility of a God. Not surprisingly this is very distasteful to anyone with a shred of spiritual feeling. I don't buy it because they worship (yes, atheists) a fundementalist God, becaue that is the easiest to refute with the tools of reason and science. I myself certainly do not believe that we know enough about physics to say if time is immutable.
I have an altogether different take. I finally finished my book on Human Morality, that is genetic and moral strategies for finding and adapting to a new long term niche. I pay more attention to genetics than meta-physics or religion. It is a biological interpretation. I'll put in a couple points from it to show my view.
>>A very current discussion, particularly coming from the modern atheist movement, is the question of if we have Free Will. There are good arguments against it as well as for it. It is a bit depressing to think we might not have any free will, but some current research suggests against it, that our responses are highly wired in from our genetics. Many of our opinions, habits, beliefs and even political leanings seem to have genetic foundations. I myself believe in free will, if for no other reason than that I often cannot make up my mind. One of the ideas of the hybrid is that it would increase our available potentials for responses. A hybrid has far more choices of responses. A warrior fights. A peasant runs. A hybrid could do either or something novel. In a way this is to say that we want to be genetically hybridized enough that we are capable of free will, free of our genes. Let our future be formed by reason, rather than instinct.
>>If we have free will, it largely comes from our intelligence.
T'anks, Mike

Comment from a psychiatrist on a free will article from the New York Times:
(I can't put Links yet)

"I'd like to offer my take on this question as a psychiatrist. I think that we have to back up and ask the question, does it have to be that we either have free will or don't have free will? I suspect that it's more productive to ask under what conditions can we say we have something like free will.

In Gary Gutting's original article he gives the example: "If I choose to remain indoors because I'm in the grip of a panic attack at the thought of going outside, then my choice isn't free.... I'm compelled." Perhaps. But let's look at it this way: if I am aware that I might have some eventual mastery of my anxiety depending on how I approach it, if I know from therapy or reading or life experience that just letting my panic drive everything will keep me stuck, it opens the possibility of making a conscious decision: I could choose to go out anyway and try to tolerate the panic. Or I could decide to go out just to walk around the block. Or I could decide to stay in this time but go on the stoop for 10 seconds next time. Or, or, or....

My take on free will is that it something that takes work, it's an achievement, not a given.

You'll notice that I have not been talking in the language of neuroscience. I think that expecting to get insight about free will from fMRIs and PET scans is like expecting to understand the taste of a good wine by sticking electrodes into the amygdala. The discussion has to take place not in the terms of brain function but in the terms of human experience."

The broad evolutionary model that very informally provides a wider background for such matters can be found in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?", ... from the "Unusual Perspectives" .

Once upon a time, a rat was about to have a field trip, so he consulted his buddy Meow : What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?", the Meow rolled her eyes, answered: "I heard about a land of Unusual Perspectives where the wizards hid their treasure in boxes!".

So the rat travelled to a high land which piled with a lot of stuff, and there was a sweetish smell, vaguely reminiscent of the kitchen of the rat colony.
"Hurrah!", rat was in rapture.

In a distance, "Hurrah!", a hungry serpent gave a venomous bite of the air, and thought: "time for my good luck in making unexpected discoveries!".
So the serpent hid himself in a box, for making sure the rat will cave in, he painted the box with words "Treasure in Box!"...

Ok, similar considerations, apply to the closely related concept of "consciousness"; that too, is a mystery no more. We already knew what will happen.

So the rat get "paradigm-shifted" and "existentially-transcended" into a part of the serpent-hood. The rat has now capable to look through the eyes of the serpent, and it gave him a Unusual Perspectives with a racking shock: "The beauty of the scenery surpassed my expectation!", said the shape-shift, "I am not standing at a treasure-land, it is a wasteland of trash!"

Do cave in then .

-- Updated Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:00 am to add the following --

"Free will can now be clearly seen to be an evolutionary necessity", or "uncontrollable contingencies"?

First to everyone: don't be stupid. This is a perennial question in metaphysics / philosophy and has had serious philosophers i.e. those who deserve to be taken seriously on both sides of it and anyone who can't agree with that is a deluded ideologue who doesn't deserve to be listened to.

Don't have time to read all nine pages right now but I hope someone has at least pointed out to the original poster that no serious philosopher who has advocated free will (yes there are many, see above) has had the idea that free will means an absolutely and totally unlimited choice including the choice that I will become a football playing king in space during the next five minutes.

Hello BenMcLean,

You would make a good nazi - denying some people to life, thought process, right to ask questions etc, etc. Just because
some people are 'professionals' does not negate we commoners the right to thought etc. Many people have been killed by
so called professionals. You forget doctors 'practice' and do not have total knowledge. Hey, here is an idea - try giving
your own opinion without using other peoples professions(bet you can't as you are influenced like the rest of us) then take your own advice - you know - don't be stupid. (you might try reading all pages before you comment)

-- Updated Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:00 am to add the following --

Free means 'not determined by anything beyond it's own nature or being.
Not obstructed, restricted or impeded. Without charge.

Choice is always limited and comes with consequence. If one is in a prison system, one can refuse the rules or can
follow the rules. While that is co-operation and a choice per se it is not free choice. Free will is not the same as a choice
one can make between choices set before him. True free will does not have consequence nor limitations.

-- Updated Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:24 am to add the following --

True free will for humans does not exist.

First to everyone: don't be stupid. This is a perennial question in metaphysics / philosophy and has had serious philosophers i.e. those who deserve to be taken seriously on both sides of it and anyone who can't agree with that is a deluded ideologue who doesn't deserve to be listened to.

Don't have time to read all nine pages right now but I hope someone has at least pointed out to the original poster that no serious philosopher who has advocated free will (yes there are many, see above) has had the idea that free will means an absolutely and totally unlimited choice including the choice that I will become a football playing king in space during the next five minutes.

Hello BenMcLean,

You would make a good nazi - denying some people to life, thought process, right to ask questions etc, etc. Just because some people are 'professionals' does not negate we commoners the right to thought etc. Many pneople have been killed by so called professionals. You forget doctors 'practice' and do not have total knowledge.

Hey I think you might be confusing me with somebody else because I didn't say anything about doctors or needing to be professionals there!

that "don't be stupid" comment is meant to suggest that "stupid" is thinking either side of this question has some kind of monopoly on intelligence. would be stupid not to realize that there are legitimate points on both sides of it.

Hello BenMcLean,

I took "serious philosophers" (those who are professionals that write books, etc.) as professionals. So, I will include
that serious philosophers are not infallible and the common person can be just as thoughtful and correct and has a right
to be considered. I felt you referred to me as stupid being the original poster. I also do not think people who are more educated and or with higher IQ's or more money, etc. are worth more than people of different qualities, some people make up for that with common sense or kindness, etc. My motto is LIVE and LET LIVE. There is room for us all. If I misunderstood you I am sorry. Please let us know your thoughts.

"Although science strongly suggests that free will of the sort I defined doesn't exist, this view is unpopular because it contradicts our powerful feeling that we make real choices." ~ Jerry A. Coyne, March 18, 2012, The Chronicle, essay.
And there you have it. Free will is a powerful feeling that we make real choices. A choice can be satisfying until we find the same car was bought by a friend for 5% less, then we feel that we were conned.

‎"Free will an illusion? Not so. A feeling. A feeling of having a choice which is so light and airy that it dissipates at the slightest touch of necessity." ~ minorwork

Once upon a time, a rat was about to have a field trip, so he consulted his buddy Meow : What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?", the Meow rolled her eyes, answered: "I heard about a land of Unusual Perspectives where the wizards hid their treasure in boxes!". ----------

I love it!

Although, being just a simple guy of the empiricist faith, I am not entirely sure where, if anywhere, it is going

But it is very entertaining and far more creative than most.

Free will is not a subjective feeling, it is an objective metaphysical truth claim that can be either true or false.

By "serious philosophers on both sides of the question" I was thinking of great figures in the history of philosophy.

Funny, i am having difficulty coming up with a clear example of someone really advocating hard determinism unequivocally. I know there's tons of them but my mind's gone blank at the moment

Well, Ben. I agree that, depending on how I feel, free will is, or is not a subjective feeling.

Will is a product of survival drive--that force that drives a salmon up a waterfall, an oak tree to create acorns, a serpent to eat rats, a wiley (!) tempter in a garden mouthing seductive dogma. Free will is a survival dream run amuk. So long as men and women allow themselves to be in the unconscious grip of primitive survival forces, so long will they remain captive, and will--free or unfree--will be a giant irrelevance!