Benjamin Libet Do We Have Free Will Summary

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

What if every decision you thought you were making, was hypothetically predictable prior to you being consciously aware of which option you would choose? What if your control over your actions and decisions and thus the path your life will take is an illusion? What if free will is an extremely misguided belief humans have? Philosophy, psychology, neuroscience and several other disciplines have spent over two millennia, constructing hypotheses and theories, to then promptly contradict them or trump them with opposing views, with regards to the presence or lack there of, of free will. Hundreds of scientists and theorists have proposed ideas and built upon those to attempt to come up with an understanding of free will that allows for a tangible

Before we can discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James we have to know the definitions of the items the issue is about. Free will according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "The power or ability of the human mind to choose a course of action or make a decision without being subject to restraints imposed by antecedent causes, by necessity, or by divine predetermination. A completely freewill act is a cause and not an effect; it is beyond causal sequence or the law of causality." So according to this statement freewill is the ability for humans to make

The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.

With that being said, our legal system presumes that we are all practical reasoners with free will, but this concept has flaws and, therefore, is problematic. Eagleman uses patients of Tourette’s Syndrome as an example. To illustrate, Tourette patients prove actions occur in the absence of free will or free won’t. (Eagleman) Unfortunately, these patients cannot control what subconscious parts of their brain have decided to do.

The first matter to be noted is that this view is in no way in contradiction to science. Free will is a natural phenomenon, something that emerged in nature with the emergence of human beings, with their

Some proponents of free will argue that by choosing to do something, one causes oneself to act. One could have caused oneself to act in another manner, and therefore the act, although caused by that person, is still a free choice. However, that notion is held under scrutiny because a person who acts freely has no evidence that they have acted of his or her own accord. For all one knows, one’s actions and choices could have been causally determined, and although one thought one was acting out of free will, one is not. There is no definite proof to show that one’s choices are made freely. As A.J. Ayer stated in his essay, Freedom and Necessity, “…but from the fact that a man is unaware of the causes of his action, it does not follow that no such causes exist” (Ayer 272). Since there is no way of knowing if one exercises free will, determinism poses a serious threat to the concept of free thinking and free acting human beings.

Do we really have free will or is it as mythical as are the gods and most just simply don’t know it yet? As I am not a philosopher I do not know for sure, but I would assume that it is a question that has been a plague to their thoughts for a while. There are many ways to talk about this topic though this will only be covering a few aspects. The inspiration for this was a combination of the popular Greek play called Oedipus by Sophocles and a paper written by Mrs. Cysewski containing instructions for a report which her class was going to write. Back to the topic at hand: do we make our own personal decisions or is that just what we think?

As humans, free will is something we commonly assume we have. When evaluating what free will is, we become less certain. David Hume calls it “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” In simplistic terms, free will is having the ability to determine your own plan of action. There is a relationship between free will and freedom of action and causal determinism that must be evaluated to have a complete understanding of free will. There are compatibilist views that believe in free will and incompatibilist views that imply there is no free will. Free will is also related to both theological determinism and logical determinism.

Perhaps we need to take a step backwards and understand the definition of free will. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, free will is the “freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention”. Therefore, free will is voluntary and not predicable or predestined as scientists and some philosophers would say. In the introduction of David Bayles and Ted Orland’s book, Art & Fear, they say, “It [art] is about committing your future to your own hands, placing Free Will above predestination, choice above chance. It is about finding your own work”.

When it comes to free will scientists fall into three different groups: metaphysical determinists, neuroscientists, and compatibilists. Metaphysical determinists believe that decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transferred from one brain cell to another. Therefore, when discussing the topic of free will, metaphysical determinists are free will deniers, known as libertarian incompatibilists. Since making decisions without these electrical and chemical impulses is impossible, all of our choices are determined for us. Neuroscientists believe that there is some sort of neurobiological gap between reason and action and that “there is an irreducible non-Humean self which makes a reason effect by acting on it” (Banja) if we are to be free. However neuroscientists have found no room in the human nervous system for this noumenal self or gap, so there is no scientific evidence of humans having free will. Compatibilists believe they are the authors of their actions and can be held responsible for their actions and decisions. Since we have the ability to control the core decisions that determine who we are-- “such as persons with chemical dependency disorders enrolling

Libet performed an experiment in which subjects wore an EEG net that measured electrical activity across their scalp, indicating brain activity. They were asked to flex their wrist whenever they felt like it while also watching a clock-like timer. They were then asked to report when they first had the conscious intention of moving their wrist. Libet found that there was neural activity in the motor cortex before the subject reported having a conscious decision do act. These results suggest that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in them. This has us urging the question, if unconscious brain processes have already begun taking the steps to commence an action before the conscious mind is aware of any desire to perform it, then is the causal role of awareness refuted? Libet finds that conscious free will is used in the form of having the ability to veto an action; the idea that conscious agreement is required to allow thoughts of consideration of performing an action to turn in to actually performing the action. While consciousness plays no part in the motivation of voluntary acts, Libet suggests that it may still have a part to play in concealing or fighting certain acts brought about by the unconscious mind, often referred to as a “veto”. It is stated that “All of us, not

Are we free? All of us have a clear sense that we are free. We believe that our decisions are wholly our own, a result of our own reasoning and analysis. According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” If Hume is correct, understanding of free will is a complex task indeed. At best to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent has the ability and power to choose his or her course of action without constraint.

There are many great philosophical ideas and questions that are known and of course unknown. One of the questions that really enticed my interest was the question of whether or not we have free will. I myself was once a believer of people having free will and doing what I want was my choice and my choice alone. However, after careful consideration and lectures I have been reversed in how I believe in free will. Is there any free will though? Many people would say yes there is and of course there are some who believe that free will is a fallacy and not to be believed. Whether or not there is free will is yet to be determined but what we have to go on and by is from philosophers and every person who has their two cents to fill in. In

The neural impulse activity was an interesting activity to do while measuring two different distances and how it affected us students. The hypothesis of the experiment is stated as: “Increasing the distance a neural impulse has to travel to reach the brain, increases the time it takes to make a response”. During this experiment, the class stood up and formed a circle around the room. The first trial was based on all the students holding hands while having their eyes closed. The professor in the class squeezed the student’s hand that was first in line, and that squeeze had to go through the line to the last person that would hit the bell when it reached them. Performing the “long distance”