Free Will, Free Won't?

[Whateverist]

The idea of Free Will seems to stem from the notion that we are the conscious author of our thoughts, which is demonstrably false. Being merely the source of the thoughts isn't at all what is normally thought of when discussing free-will. It's the conscious agent part that gives rise to the notion of Free Will. The thoughts coming from your brain, isn't enough to justify taking credit for the latter event of becoming consciously aware of them. If that were the case, one might as well feel guilty for catching a cold, after-all, had their white blood cells (which are also equally a part of them) not let their guard down, they'd still be well! Being "free" to do as you wish is contingent upon your wishes, and that which has molded them. Our decisions are determined by previous events and processes, the evidence is in favor of determinism. This is not to be confused with fatalism, which suggests we're doomed to a particular fate. Being aware that Free Will is an illusion has been shown to bring about morally dishonest behavior in some test subjects. However, if those people already have the mind of somebody that operates honestly only because they will be held accountable for their actions, then the experience of having free will removed from them may seem like the excuse they were looking for to un-censor their deeper desires. Imagine the different ways people would behave if they were given the super-power of invisibility! People are wired different. Some people would behave in a manner consistent with society's laws, and others would operate on their own accord. Remember The Emperor? He would never walk around the streets naked under normal conditions. Once convinced that he was wearing some nice threads, he had no problem throwing his inhibitions to the wind! Whether he realized it or not, he WAS naked, and he was either the type of person that could be convinced to walk around naked, or he wasn't. Similarly, the common notion of free will seems to be debunked, and you either are the type of person that will act morally, or you're not.

Well I made it in about 12 minutes. I'd go further but time is an issue right now. I just think the answer can't be that we have no free will .. anymore than it can be true that we have total free will. Of course we don't. But sometimes we do. For the most part, the less we have riding on a decision, the more freedom we have.

The larger the stake, the more driven we are to act coherently for what really matters to us. If my kid is wondering off the curb into traffic, my action requires no deliberation and is almost immune to deliberation. I'm just moving toward the child at maximum speed without any choice in the matter. I have no conscious vote, nor any veto.

If you offer me a drink, I'll probably just have what you're having. But if you insist I choose from what you have on hand, I could choose almost any of them most likely. If it doesn't matter, it is pretty likely that whatever I consciously choose isn't just a rationalization for some deeper barely apprehended motivation. I'm not always compelled toward one or the other choice. When the choice is imposed, I'm all the more likely to choose freely. Not caring is freedom.

But the deeper motivations which compel some of my choices are not really 'shackles'. They aren't imposed from without, they're imposed from within. It isn't that "I" have any reason to choose to act in a way that is incoherent for who I am. Sometimes I think the standard of those who argue against free will, is that if we can't dispassionately and consciously choose between all conceivable actions, then we are not free. But that amounts to being free to have no intrinsic identity whatsoever. If the only way to be free is to be anyone and no one, well I wouldn't choose that sort of freedom anyway. For me, it is no loss of freedom if I am free to be me.

I'm pretty sure there is an irresolvable paradox here.