What Exactly is it that has Free Will?

[Sunstone]

Assuming free will exists, then what exactly is it that has free will? Normally, we might say "you" or "I" have free will, but what exactly and precisely is that "you" or "I"?

For instance, is it the same as your consciousness? That is, is it the conscious mind that has free will? And, if so, is there anything beyond the conscious mind that has free will?

 

[osgart]

Suppose in our brains there is a heart, and its not all just an illusion. Heart is where people have a particular essence wheras they possess qualities of being. The qualities reside within that heart of a being. The being itself is singular, a unified whole of heart, mind, and will. The heart, and the mind are not the same. The will emanates from the heart. The heart is the dwelling place of all a beings loves, hates, cares, neutralities, and ambivalences. I cant separate myself from myself. At all instances in time, i am only me, with no change in my vessel of being.

Of course i could be temporal hearted and subject to change. Or my heart could remain permanent, or even forever fixed and unchanging. But the vessel that is my being is all me all the time. That vessel is three distinct things, heart, mind, and will. These three components are of one vessel.

 

[Skwim]

I think the issue of what the you or I is isn't particularly germane to the concept of free will. I don't see one's conclusion about it as having any impact on the concept. But if you wish to investigate free will I think you have to first ask what the will is.

In short, I believe it's the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. If you go along with this then one has to decide/determine where this capacity resides. To me, its one's mind. So if one one's mind is making these decisions then the free in "free will" would indicate one's mind is free of something in exercising its will. Of course the next question is, just what is it free of? And the follow up question would be, is this actually possible?

.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the issue of what the you or I is isn't particularly germane to the concept of free will. I don't see one's conclusion about it as having any impact on the concept.

Just to clarify, so you'd be content to say we have or have not free will without knowing what that "we" is that has or has not free will? Am I following you correctly?

 

[Skwim]

Just to clarify, so you'd be content to say we have or have not free will without knowing what that "we" is that has or has not free will? Am I following you correctly?

No, I'm saying that settling any issue of what you or I is isn't particularly germane. I regard both as indicating the self. Either yourself or myself. And this is where free will, if it existed, would reside, in the self.

self
/self/
noun
noun: self; plural noun: selves
1.a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.

.​

 

[Sunstone]

No, I'm saying that settling any issue of what you or I isn't particularly germane. I regard both as indicating the self. Either yourself or myself. And this is where free will, if it existed, would reside, in the self.

self
/self/
noun
noun: self; plural noun: selves
1.a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.

.​

I suspect you're a bit confused about the question and point of view being expressed in the OP, but that's ok.

 

[Curious George]

Assuming free will exists, then what exactly is it that has free will? Normally, we might say "you" or "I" have free will, but what exactly and precisely is that "you" or "I"?

For instance, is it the same as your consciousness? That is, is it the conscious mind that has free will? And, if so, is there anything beyond the conscious mind that has free will?

A system that consciously observes, integrates and responds to information. The answer is slightly esoteric but it is a wee bit like asking what exactly is redness?

Categorization seems to infinitely continue to an instantiation and infinitely regress to oneness. In other words, we can have infinitely specific categorization or infinitely broad categorization. We categorize based on perceived systems. We see systems most easily when they are well defined by our perception. People are one of these concepts where we can clearly perceive defined systems, and you and I, over some space of time, are instantiations of these systems.

However, i tried to use the minimal traits necessary for freewill to describe exactly what it is that has freewill. It must be a system. It must consciously observe, integrate, and respond to information.

"So what [I'm] saying essentially is, is along with infinite space which extends beyond perpetual bigness, there's also infinite smallness."

 

[Jollybear]

Assuming free will exists, then what exactly is it that has free will? Normally, we might say "you" or "I" have free will, but what exactly and precisely is that "you" or "I"?

For instance, is it the same as your consciousness? That is, is it the conscious mind that has free will? And, if so, is there anything beyond the conscious mind that has free will?

Id say the conscious mind is the "you" and "me" and it has free will. The mind i believe is independent of the brain (e.g. the soul).

Our free will is free from the dictates of society, laws, concience and free of our desires that pull on us to go in a certain direction, we can choose to RESIST our desires and there pull or we can choose to surrender to any of the listed things.

 

[Milton Platt]

Suppose in our brains there is a heart, and its not all just an illusion. Heart is where people have a particular essence wheras they possess qualities of being. The qualities reside within that heart of a being. The being itself is singular, a unified whole of heart, mind, and will. The heart, and the mind are not the same. The will emanates from the heart. The heart is the dwelling place of all a beings loves, hates, cares, neutralities, and ambivalences. I cant separate myself from myself. At all instances in time, i am only me, with no change in my vessel of being.

Of course i could be temporal hearted and subject to change. Or my heart could remain permanent, or even forever fixed and unchanging. But the vessel that is my being is all me all the time. That vessel is three distinct things, heart, mind, and will. These three components are of one vessel.

I think the use of a term that is normally used to indicate a muscle in the human body to describe an aspect of human consciousness is a bit obfuscating.

If you are meaning some sort of esoteric concept, that concept needs to be demonstrated to exist.
All the attributes of the heart you have proposed seem to be simply a part of the human consciousness which ends with brain death as far as anyone can tell.

 

[`mud]

Even slugs search for food...above that...
Oh...you mean `free`...at any cost...
wait...I have to blow my nose...
that's better...now...what was the subject ?
`Will` you repeat that question please ?

 

[atanu]

Assuming free will exists, then what exactly is it that has free will? Normally, we might say "you" or "I" have free will, but what exactly and precisely is that "you" or "I"?

For instance, is it the same as your consciousness? That is, is it the conscious mind that has free will? And, if so, is there anything beyond the conscious mind that has free will?

The ego self, which is a notion "I am this body-mind-intellect" and that appropriates doer-ship for itself has illusion of free will.

 

[Willamena]

Assuming free will exists, then what exactly is it that has free will? Normally, we might say "you" or "I" have free will, but what exactly and precisely is that "you" or "I"?

For instance, is it the same as your consciousness? That is, is it the conscious mind that has free will? And, if so, is there anything beyond the conscious mind that has free will?

What has free will is the human being, which is to say the idealized (archetypal, representative) being with which "I" identify, as "me."

The theory I favour for creation of the idealized being is a theory of ownership. Ownership makes for the egotistical "I"--while we parse "things" to be owned or disowned, we are also parsing an owner (or not) of things. (That includes, and therefore elevates the importance of, the objectified "me.") Properties, for instance, got their term name from ownership: things have properties. The sum of their essential properties is what they are. Consciousness is but a property of a being--particularly, for us, the human being.

My explanation of free will stems from humanism. Free will is the capacity for the idealized being to act. It is idealized action, which is mainly a metaphorical 'movement' of motivating thought. It stands in contrast to physical movement of the body, which carries out the thought. It has moral, as well as ethical, consequences, because it represents motivation as the "choice to act," which is a choice to impress the person, the thought-being, the idealized "I," upon the world.

 

[joe1776]

Assuming free will exists, then what exactly is it that has free will? Normally, we might say "you" or "I" have free will, but what exactly and precisely is that "you" or "I"?

For instance, is it the same as your consciousness? That is, is it the conscious mind that has free will? And, if so, is there anything beyond the conscious mind that has free will?

As I have it, the unconscious mind can't form intent. Only the conscious ego can do that. And, logically, free will is a characteristic of intent.

Once, while playing in an amateur volleyball tournament, I spent two hours in what athletes call "the zone." My ego became only a spectator watching my body perform unconsciously and at its peak. I deduced from that that once we learn to play tennis and our ego intends to play tennis, it's best to stop caring and stop trying and let the unconscious mind play the game.

Since we can't tell the difference between free will and the illusion of free will, there will be the endless and pointless debate over whether free will actually exists.

 

[Skwim]

I suspect you're a bit confused about the question and point of view being expressed in the OP, but that's ok.

Possibly, but let me take another stab at understanding you..

You asked: "Assuming free will exists, then what exactly is it that has free will?" To me this is like asking, "when I eat strawberry ice cream who's tasting it? Obvious, to me anyway, it's the self, myself. You then ask, "but what exactly and precisely is that 'you' or 'I'?" or to paraphrase you, "what exactly is this self?" So you have two questions going here: "what is this self? " AND "Is it the possessor of free will?" To me this is quite obvious. The self would be, "a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action,"* and it would be the possessor of free will, if it existed. In addition, you go on to ask if [the self] is "the same as your consciousness?" To which the answer has to be no. The self is more than just consciousness. But to clarify you add, "is it the conscious mind that has free will?" Unfortunately, because I don't believe free will exists, I have to say no. Nothing has free will.


*source

 

[osgart]

The authoritative concept of being! Who has got it, what is it? And why should everyone adhere to it?

Why is the words soul, or heart now outdated anyways? To me and a lot of religious folks these words describe being perfectly well. I wont change my self concept for a sterile version of what a human is.

 

[WalterTrull]

The authoritative concept of being!

You got it. That's the is what is.

 

[Skwim]

Why is the words soul, or heart now outdated anyways?

My guess is that they're so vague or come with so many different definitions that they're not all that useful.

To me and a lot of religious folks these words describe being perfectly well.

Curious. What are the "soul" and the non-physical "heart"?

.

 

[Sunstone]

But to clarify you add, "is it the conscious mind that has free will?" Unfortunately, because I don't believe free will exists, I have to say no. Nothing has free will.

I think you were doing pretty good understanding the OP up until this point. The OP is not asking for whether you yourself believe free will exists. That's been done to death on this board. I would not be surprised if there are over 100 threads on that subject. Free will threads like that are like bacon jokes -- done to death.

At risk of over-simplifying the OP, the OP instead asks for an exploration of what could possibly be said to have free will -- assuming there is indeed free will.

Now, let's skip ahead several steps. For several reasons, I think the ultimate answer to that question is "nothing".

Make of that what you will, but it's a slightly different approach to the free will debate than the old, tired, "Do you think we have free will?"

 

[Skwim]

I think you were doing pretty good understanding the OP up until this point. The OP is not asking for whether you yourself believe free will exists. That's been done to death on this board. I would not be surprised if there are over 100 threads on that subject. Free will threads like that are like bacon jokes -- done to death.

Telling you what I believe was only to explain my "no" answer.

At risk of over-simplifying the OP, the OP instead asks for an exploration of what could possibly be said to have free will -- assuming there is indeed free will.

Now, let's skip ahead several steps. For several reasons, I think the ultimate answer to that question is "nothing".

Make of that what you will, but it's a slightly different approach to the free will debate than the old, tired, "Do you think we have free will?"

Out of curiosity let me ask you; do you believe there's such a thing as a will---the capacity to act decisively on one's desires? If so, where do you feel it resides?

.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Possibly, but let me take another stab at understanding you..

You asked: "Assuming free will exists, then what exactly is it that has free will?" To me this is like asking, "when I eat strawberry ice cream who's tasting it? Obvious, to me anyway, it's the self, myself. You then ask, "but what exactly and precisely is that 'you' or 'I'?" or to paraphrase you, "what exactly is this self?" So you have two questions going here: "what is this self? " AND "Is it the possessor of free will?" To me this is quite obvious. The self would be, "a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action,"* and it would be the possessor of free will, if it existed. In addition, you go on to ask if [the self] is "the same as your consciousness?" To which the answer has to be no. The self is more than just consciousness. But to clarify you add, "is it the conscious mind that has free will?" Unfortunately, because I don't believe free will exists, I have to say no. Nothing has free will.


*source

I'm afraid that there is nothing that is aware of SELF or I. No seers, knowers, or God substitutes. There is only our visceral, intuitive, and perceptual awareness of SELF and I, based only on our subjective perspective. In the same sense, that there is nothing that is aware of the conception of TIME. There is only our awareness of the passage of TIME, from events within time. It is like asking for the location of the voice we internally dialogue with. Therefore, a nonsense question. Self and I are pronouns that only represent things and ideas. They are not things in themselves(reification fallacy). This conceptual state of being only represents less than 4% of the brain's conscious activities. Since it is thermodynamically impossible for all areas of the brain to be active at once(only 13% active at any given time), I and self is a necessary illusions at best, and a belief at worst.

We do not have free will. We have only the illusion of free will. For every action, there must be a cause.Therefore, for every decision there must be a cause for the decision. This cause is our cognition and precognition. It allows us to make decisions based on past experiences, thoughts, and perceptions. Experiments and other studies, have already determined that all our decided actions are already predetermined by the mind, before it was ever consciously determined. In other words, what we decide to do is determined by what we have already done or learned in the past. What we DO seem to have, is the conscious ability NOT to action on the illusion of free will.