Philosophy discussion

“Do you think free will is real, or an illusion? Why?”
“This theme is central to a character's journey in my book. Would love your opinion.”


#DeepThinking #PhilosophyCommunity #FaithAndReason #WhyWeBelieve

first of all, what do you mean by free will. you have the free will to act as good as you can, but you don't have the free will not to react to a predator that is about to do you harm. so, humans have free will, but it is limited. end of story, if you ask me.

Or all current states proceed from previous states. So, if you can follow your event sequence back to a choice over which you had no control, your free will becomes an illusion.

How many chose to be born?

@J. Gowin.....that's correct according to classical physics law.... everything has a fixed cause and vice Versa. But quantum mechanics says things may evolve in different ways for same given initial state.. with different different probability....so in this way things are not already decided....free will may arise just due to this.

Why we believe by Abhishek Kumar

Abhishek wrote: "@J. Gowin.....that's correct according to classical physics law.... everything has a fixed cause and vice Versa. But quantum mechanics says things may evolve in different ways for same given initia..."

Quantum fluctuations can break causality. But random particle states are outside of our control. Therefore, we are still the puppets, not the masters.

yes quantum process can be said random.but. What I think is , also shown by neuroscience, we are just witness to decisions which are taken by our brain chemicals and neurons...Neuroscienece suggests that first decision are made in the nrain then we become aware that we have taken the decision.

Abhishek wrote: "yes quantum process can be said random.but. What I think is , also shown by neuroscience, we are just witness to decisions which are taken by our brain chemicals and neurons...Neuroscienece suggest..."

How do decisions of which you are unaware equal free will?

I think awareness itself and illusion

If we reject extreme metaphysical positions and endorse Buddhism's doctrine of Two Truths', as expounded by Nagarjuna, then we must say that we both do and do not have freewill.

This would be the reason why the freewill question remains unresolved in Western philosophy. Neither of the extreme views work, and nobody takes any notice of Nagarjuna. The same problem arises for every metaphysical question, resulting in two millennia of philosophical stagnation, and still nobody takes any notice.

If we want the true answer then we need to remember Lao Tzu's statement, 'True words seem paradoxical''.

Ive always thought, you can decide to do or choose whatever you like, you just cant choose what you decide to choose. I cant decide what i decide, but i can decide anything i want, something like that

Hi Abhishek. First, best wishes with the book! I was dealing with the same question, but in a non-fiction way. To set up the topic, I posed the range of thinking that's been around forever, but with a few modern additions, here it is below. I like (more for entertainment than logic!) the "free won't" hypothesis: no "free will." Pick yours for your book character!

Debates over free will span millennia. Ancient Stoics endorsed a kind of compatibilism: fate governs events, yet freedom lies in aligning will with reason. Augustine and later scholastics wrestled with divine foreknowledge and human choice. Early modern thinkers were split: Thomas Hobbes defined freedom as acting without external constraint (compatibilism), while libertarians like Thomas Reid posited genuine agent-causation beyond deterministic chains. In the 20th century, hard determinists argued that every event—including choices—unfolds from prior states and laws, leaving no room for alternative possibilities. Thus, contemporary views cluster into three camps: libertarianism (real, indeterministic agency), hard determinism (no free will), and compatibilism (freedom as acting according to one’s reasons and character, even if those are determined).
Neuroscience complicates and refines the picture. Benjamin Libet’s experiments suggested that the brain’s readiness potential precedes conscious intention to move by a few hundred milliseconds, inspiring the phrase “free won’t:” perhaps our conscious role is to veto impulses rather than initiate them. Replications and critiques followed: readiness potentials are noisy,
the timing of “intention” is imprecise, and more recent work shows that not all actions exhibit clear neural precursors. Still, the central lesson stands: much of what becomes “our choice” is prepared by non-conscious processes; conscious awareness may shape, bias, or inhibit these tendencies. This is as yet unresolved, scientifically.
Now layer in the materialist world we inhabit. Our options are bounded by biology (genes, hormones, neural architecture), learning history, culture, and situational factors. Hunger, sleep loss, stress, and emotions shift variables and impulse control. Preferences are constructed on the fly, not merely retrieved; bounded rationality and heuristics guide decisions. That is, we are inclined to perceive, process, and act as efficiently as possible. From this angle, “I chose X” can be read as “given my current physiological state, past experiences, and the environment’s cues, X emerged as the salient action.” Freedom then looks like a navigation plane within constraints: we do not choose our desires or circumstances wholesale, but we can curate the conditions: sleep, nutrition, habits, attention. They all influence which options feel available and what wins.
This is where “free won’t” matters. Even if impulses arise unrestrained, the practiced capacity to pause, reframe, and withhold action can redirect behavior. Training executive control, applying controls around risky choices, and pre-committing to values, expand this veto power. Over time, such practices reshape the very
processes that generate impulses, blurring the line between initiation and inhibition.
Could the mind be “outside” us? Some traditions such as Vedanta, panpsychism, and neutral monism, treat consciousness as fundamental, with the brain filtering or expressing it—not generating it. If so, incarnate minds still encounter material constraints. Even a “receiver” must operate within bandwidth limits, noise, and energy costs. On this view, freedom is not absolute authorship but skillful attunement: learning to receive, interpret, and act within the channel conditions of a physical world.