Is there free will in heaven?

[tackattack]

---

Sure we can make choices, but when we know that these decisions are affected by brain structure, does that mean we have free will?

---

Just because your decision making can affected by both your focus or intent and physically manipulating certain brain structures doesn't mean that it has to be one or the other, nor does it limit the freedom you have to introduce wanted data into the equation

---

If our reactions are not naturalistic then they would be unnaturalistic.
I do not do the unnatural or the supernatural.

Regards
DL

---

Like a said a strict materialist, now please learn to use hide tags

---

Decisions do not have to be made in the conscious portion of the brain, to be choice. Will directs what we focus on, thus limiting out window to the sum of consciousness to the active portion. I would say almsot every decision is made subconsciously prior to conscious recognition. What you're forgetting is that the consciousness and focus (ie. will) can feed back into the subconscious forcing another decision to be made. The mechanism of decision making is mechanical (gathering info, polling senses, fight or flight, etc.), but it's information and commands when necessary to decide (outside of instinctual reflex) come from abstract stimuli (both outside and inside the consciousness).

I think it would be more appropriate to say non-instinctual decisions are initiated by many responces. One of which can be the foci of will. But you'll probably go into all reactions are naturalistic and instictual since you seem to be a pure materialst from what I gather.

"You would say" anything that you feel might support your position. Care to elaborate on this theory of yours? Perhaps link some peer reviewed papers? It's a very active area of study, should be mountains of data if your conclusions could be supported. When you're done arguing that theory we can move on to whatever you want to use it to support eh?

---

I could also just as easily say something that doesn't support my position. I'm not married to my world view and will be happy to change it if proven otherwise, I think I'm intellectually honest enough to say that. To answer your question sure here's the first one I saw on google. Science can't explain the unmeasurable by design. The scientific method by defaults limits variables to known testable results. Which is fine for most things that we understand. You're perfectly justified to only believe the materialistic stance.
Logically though I see inconsistencies in what is known and look to logic to postulate possible further conclusions. These are the question we all should be asking ourselves:
1- Is there anything more than biological reaction (ie. instinct, fight or flight, etc.)?
2- Can you abstractly reason a scenario where you go against your instincts?
3- If you can go against your biological programming (read instincts) then where does that come from if not your freedom to choose?

I don't deny that decision produce reactions that can produce biological response. I don't deny that a biological response can illicit a decision prior to it becoming a conscious decision. Free will though, the ability to choose something counter to your nature, would at the moment you did it, become then part of your nature and be "natural" even though it was "unnatural" prior. I'm not certain whether free will would, by it's nature, require conscious decision, or possible sub conscious trigger. Thoughts?