Philosophy: Free Will

-------------------------

In this essay I am set out to argue against free-will and give the most compelling reasoning I can why free-will may not even exist. From the free-will definition, a free act must be choiceful. Then there must be alternative choices not only present, but also logical and compelling for the agent to choose. Let's assume that I have lived up to point P where I must make a decision. When I was born my mind for the most part had no neurological connections except those that are innate. As I lived and experienced life and as others teach me I form new relationships, understandings and connections. Every action and thought process I take can be described by a specific neurological path(s). When I make a decision at point P, it is the result of the firing of one or more neurons and the paths they travel. My argument starts here. If this path that leads to my decision is based on the network of experiences and connections, then their really wasn't any choice involved. My mind ran through a process and gave a result. The act is chosen, but not choiceful because the path was already in place and I have very little I can do at decisions moment, to change these paths. Some new experience or knowledge would be needed to alter these paths, which is outside my ability to control. This also means that the choice is very much constrained. This is a hard knock to pure Free-Willism, because two of the criteria for a free act can be challenged by the very way the mind works.

I will go further to argue the Compatibalist view. They generally except that choices can be and are constrained by the past. I disagree with the premise of this assumption. It is not the past that constrains but the links and connections that make up our conscienceness. Our experiences in life and the effect they have on our developing minds. We have no control over the experiences we go through or what happens to us. And the conclusions we make from these events are most certainly part of our 'character' or the innate essence of ourself that we were born with. The innate instincts that allow us to learn in the first place. We did not learn how to learn, so we must have already been programmed with the process to follow when a neural-path forming event happens. Therefor we can conclude that we can't control how our neural-network forms. And thus, the choices we make are very much at the hands of outside forces.

Furthermore I will try to explain why free-will has even entered into this picture as a valid claim even though little evidence can support it. In a deterministic system, free-will plays a very important part. Or rather, the illusion of free-will. The illusion allows the agents to feel a certain motivation and meaning to life. Without the illusion the agents collectively could just lose all will to continue; believing that no mater what they do they will come to the same end. So the illusion serves to give purpose and momentum to the system. Free-will is almost desperately wanted to agents, including myself. Because it not only gives meaning and purpose to our lives, but it fulfills the need we have to be in charge. The illusion of free-will then, must come from us imagining the other choice that our minds have not and could not have chosen. So it seems to follow that free-will can seem to exist in determinism, but not actually exist at all.