Stimbo alluded to this in the first page of Aurora's recent Free Will reprise.

The question here is not "are we free to choose what we will?"  Rather, I want to know if we have any other choice.

You drive up to the McDonald's window to place an order.  But understanding you have no free will, you just sit there and wait for the will over which you have no say to do as it will.  After the honking stops, the manager stops yelling and your car has been pushed out of the way you are genuinely surprised to see that you have received no meal at all, super-sized or otherwise.  Where to hell is determinism when you need it?

Kind of odd to think that something impossible should also be required, with the fact of our survival indicating that we do accomplish this required thing.  Therefore word of its non-existence must be greatly exaggerated?  You may not be able to choose a happy meal free from the determinative factors of your environment.  But neither, it appears, are you free to refrain from acts of will without starvation or worse.

Please choose all that apply; you are not limited to just one choice.  The poll will be public so that we are all free to laugh derisively at anyone who disagrees with us.

It seems most likely to me that the feeling of free will, along with the "mind", is some sort of weird side effect of the workings of the brain. My only "evidence" (it's not really evidence as such) for this belief is the lack of evidence for anything other than the brain actually existing, as far as I know. So I went with the epiphany one. I have toyed with calling it an illusion before... I'm not so sure what that means anymore, so it doesn't quite seem like the right word.

I'm far from totally convinced, this is only my best guess. I certainly haven't discounted there being more to the mind/free will than just the brain, I just can't justify thinking that there actually is yet.

If anything, I feel more and more that I don't have free will. I feel like an observer to "myself".

I really don't know. I'm stumped, stupefied, ass-deep in alligators trying to drain the swamp.

I would agree that free will is an illusion, but hardly signifying nothing. By illusion I mean that there exist multiple descriptions of the phenomena, and that the naively endorsed description of will, that it's a capacity to freely decide, is bettered by a description which is not as obvious or naively correct, namely that the working of will plays some deterministic role in the economy of the mind. It is a useful idiot. Illusory, but not without function, and not non-existent. Being illusory means that there is a conception of it that is more accurate to what is really occurring.

First, thanks for the clearer poll.

I selected epiphenomenal. Because yes, it certainly signifies something, it isn't useless, and I don't think only idiots believe in some kind of actual will.

I don't know what epiphenomenal means, so I picked the one saying everyone's an idiot.

I really don't know to be honest. The brain likes to keep moving - following trains of thought and associations etc - but 'choice' happens mainly when it is at rest (ie when you are not lost in thought). Ie you can sit and do nothing for x amount of time and then make a choice. In other words I don't know what triggers it as opposed to how normal associations are triggered. It could be just subconscious stuff going on under the surface and when that 'returns' it triggers the act of choice but I really don't know. I'm still inclined to think though that it is determined in the same way as the other brain processes are, just part of its affect is to make us feel like we really are doing it ourselves.

Gah I'm so glad I'm not the only one without a clue on the topic

(May 28, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Being illusory means that there is a conception of it that is more accurate to what is really occurring.

I really like how you worded everything, but this last bit gave me pause. Maybe you could explain this a bit better for me. I'll try to illustrate my confusion: Lets say a thing has 10 details that's describe it. Then Bob comes along and describes the thing with 20 details. Is Bob really more accurate?

(May 28, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Exian Wrote:

(May 28, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Being illusory means that there is a conception of it that is more accurate to what is really occurring.

I really like how you worded everything, but this last bit gave me pause. Maybe you could explain this a bit better for me. I'll try to illustrate my confusion: Lets say a thing has 10 details that's describe it. Then Bob comes along and describes the thing with 20 details. Is Bob really more accurate?

Accuracy in the scientific sense.  I'm primarily concerned with explaining metaphysical details with naturalistic explanations.