The terminology, premise, and references are sound, but there is an unjustifiably large leap to the conclusion. This entirely ignores the analytical portion of human thought. You can't stretch an anecdote and a few specific research articles to a metaphysical theory, certainly not in a blog post.<p>Negation of this universal quantifier only needs existential evidence, so I'll attempt to provide one. Say I'm unemployed and watching TV on a Monday afternoon. The thought occurs in my mind that I need to look for a job, but the facticity is setup such that I'm very lazy and unwilling to look for jobs, and the impulse for me is to continue doing what I was doing. A few minutes into it, my brain has analyze the consequences of my action, and I am now at a point where I'm making a choice. The research quote all agrees above that my unconscious brain made the choice initially, and yet there's room for "free will".<p>I think the problem is the extension of impulse as the basis of all human behavior, leaving no room for analytical thought. You're probably looking for a dialogue here, but unfortunately I've used up all my free time in trying to write this up :) There's no reason to respond, I only want to plant the seed that "lack of free will" theory doesn't hold up. I am sure you can stretch your metaphysics to accomodate my anecdote above, but I'm sure someone else can provide another. I urge you to step outside your thought process and really quantify free will as a result of analytical thought, come up with a different theory, and then reconcile it with the one you've come up with above.
>(At atomic level, I don’t know if universe is deterministic or not, but at human level it definitely is not).<p>That level of certainty demands an explanation. The author seems to come to the conclusion that the complex interactions do not leave room for determinism. I'm not entirely sure why.<p>The usual idea is that if one were to know the position and velocity of every particle in the physical universe, one could theoretically predict how the universe would change at any given time. That should work as well for four particles as it should for four billion. I don't think complexity in a system can be used to show evidence of true randomness.<p>That being said, I don't believe the world is deterministic at either the atomic or the macroscopic level. But I wholly dislike the reasons presented here.
There's an important factor usually missing from "free will" discussions: that a deterministic consciousness engine must include the individual's beliefs about free will. Someone who believes they have free will behave differently than someone who doesn't. Moreover, a society that believes in free will exert different behavioral pressures than one who doesn't.<p>While I don't think "free will" exists objectively (every choice is traceable to causes under any model), it seems to me to be a necessary illusion for people to accept responsibility over their own behavior, internally and externally. However, it is at best a fuzzy abstraction, and there is absolutely benefit to continue exploring and unpacking the free will story.
It's <i>fact</i>icity, as in 'fact' of the matter. I don't think you've quite grasped the concept or the necessary, productive role it plays. You might also look into <i>Befindlichkeit</i> and the section of B&T that deals with the hermeneutic circle (I don't have a copy at the office, but if you search '<i>circulus vitiosus</i>' you'll find it).
No point trying to decide what to do about the consequences of a lack of free will. If you can decide whether or not to punish someone, they can decide whether or not to offend. If they have no choice in their action, neither do you.
Daniel Dennett has a nice critique of the Libet experiment where he argues that there's a temporal mismatch between making the decision and recording that the decision was made. Basically that experiment can't actually measure the decision moving from unconsciousness to consciousness, only the shifting to making that decision to consciousness being aware that you made the decision and now need to focus on shifting attention. It's important to note too that people who have more attention report faster response times.
> <i>we may either regard children who do well at studies as good kids, or we may instead idolize cool kids who bunk classes and have fun all the time. So early in our life, what makes us fall into one group and not the other?</i><p>Another conundrum: Some people like to create false dichotomies, and others (who fell into both of the above groups) see them for what they are.<p>How do you explain that?
Being influenced by your environment doesn't mean you had no say in the choices you made.<p>And if there truly is no free will, then we have no choice but to feel pride in our actions, if that's how we are built.<p>So you can't say not to feel pride.
Doesn't really make sense.