Free will
Free will has been one of the most important issues in philosophy for long.
If us, humans, have Free will or not is already, at least, a 7 Million USD question (Philosophers and neuroscientists join forces to see whether science can solve the mystery of free will).
Or just think about the very recent case of Lisa Montgomery who murdered (in 2004) a pregnant women just to get her child as her own. Her being guilty or not has been debated for more than a decade. On one side she were extremely abused as a child herself surely altering her consciousness and as a consequence Free will; she was even beaten heavily several times (this latter causing permanent brain damage, probably further altering her consciousness and her capacity to think and act in a way society would normally expect). On the other side if a dog kills a (wo)man the dog gets executed (as a punishment?!), right? So one probably expects the same to happen to another human killing another human.
Besides there have been lots of very good articles written on this topic in the past few years, decades — and centuries. Debating Free will has a long history(1).
To make this debate more difficult, the debate (if us, humans have Free will or not) is on multiple levels.
On a physics level to not to have Free will one “simply” needs to know 100% how the world works (a.k.a. a unified theory of physics) or “simply” to find the answer to questions like is it all the world we see or there is more (e.g. other entities in other dimensions, including maybe something similar to God or gods some of us believe in). Once one gets inclined to bring in to the topic string theory (as a possible candidate for the universal theory of everything) and its 10 (or 11 or 26) dimensions (trying to explain how our world works) and things do not get more simple, for sure (see the article: Why string theory is still not even wrong).
On a neuroscience level to be 100% percent sure about Free will (if we have it or not) one needs to learn and document perfectly how our brain is making decisions. Side-note: this documentation of how our brain makes decisions would be needed not only for short-term decision making but for long term decision making (spanning sometimes not days but months or even years), as well.
On a psychology and sociology level there is even more at stake: the perception of (and the belief in) having Free will (or not) fundamentally alters our personal and collective future, as humans. So from this perspective Free will is utmost important — we will show you why in more details in this article.
This article will not provide you with the final answer — but may be a useful for some other reasons you may not expect yet.
Why free will is important-on a high level
On a high level Free will is important, firstly, because we, as humans, just feel so. We feel that there is a lot at stake. Both on an individual responsibility level (for one’s own fate and actions) and on a
group level, for collective actions (this latter being, amongst others, the foundation for democracy).
Our additional statement is that if there is Free will-its effects must be visible.
We will prove that Free will has very significant effects not only on an individual but on a society (country) level, as well.
We analyzed the GDP/capita and the ratio of Doers (persons who believe that they do have influence over their own lives) in 25 countries and we found that there is a very significant (0.91) correlation between these two factors.
Summary of our findings
The belief in Free will (if the individual has Free will while making decisions) is utmost important on a personal and even on a group-team-country level:
- There are proven experiments that show the utmost importance of Free will on individual performance, altruism, trust and almost all things we think of as being positive
- We prove that the belief in (feeling of) Free will on a country level fundamentally affects economic performance (0.91 correlation)
- Besides, we mention that some areas of science, namely physics and neuroscience have only assumptions (about aspects relating to Free will) at the moment but could not get to the point yet, where their findings could be used to have a final say about Free will (or the lack of it). On the level of physics it would be needed to have the final theory of everything (for the ones who think we are exaggerating: physicists have been looking for this for decades: a theory that could describe the entire universe from the very subtle level up to the macro level) 100% proven, without any probabilities or uncertainties.
One can see that there is a fundamental contradiction between the areas above: whereas it would be surely wonderful for physics and neuroscience to have a 100% sure theory that would eventually clarify (once and for all) that there is (or there is not) Free will-both the individual and the society does significantly benefit from the perception of (belief in) Free will:
Besides, we make an attempt at defining what Free will is- we believe that in spite of the long standing debate about the topic not even one single, accepted definition exists.
Besides, we mention another very important but so far overlooked aspect with respect to Free will: time and change (in personality, and as a consequence one’s brain structure) in the long run.
And we collect some factors (internal and external) that may lead to Free will (or the lack of it) to get to the all-time Free will quotient (FQ) — quite similarly as suggested by Stephen Cave: The free-will scale; stating that FQ surely differs person by person and is affected by both internal and external factors; and FQ changes over time, as well.
Lastly we mention some additional areas for further investigation and discussion.
And lastly: Do we believe in Free will?
- We see that Free will (the existence or lack of it) cannot be determined on a physical or neuroscience level (at the moment) but the belief in Free will is utmost important for the overall happiness and well-being, as well as economic performance of individuals and entire countries.
- Long term change of individuals (for the better) is truly a proof of Free will (not on the level of physics but on the level of psychology, sociology). So we included in the proposed definition of Free will long term personal change.
The most important long term personal change relating to Free will is that of “heroes”: people who rise above the situational and internal limitations of theirs and do things they were not assumed to do: be they star entrepreneurs or everyday health workers.
So Free will must be studied, promoted and better understood as it has fundamental effects on us, humans.
Our brief take on Free will: branches of science and Free will (2020)
Free will can be investigated on several levels.
We believe that before we start to put scientific-looking labels on viewpoints regarding Free will we must firstly define that on what level the given viewpoint is.
Experimental branches, fields of science relating to Free will
These two fields of science relating to Free will can be investigated with the tools of experiments and (in the case of physics) mathematics.
a) physics: the fundamental level
physics has been looking for long a unified theory of everything; would such a theory exist that could explain (and as such predict) how the world works (and also what will happen next) then Free will on a physics level would be out of question; so if the world is 100% deterministic and 100% follows causation (“if this — then that”): then the future (and the past, as well) can be 100% predicted, modelled e.g. with a quantum computer
(see on this latter idea the Devs mini-series)
Relationship with Free will: i) if the world is entirely deterministic and can be 100% described with the rules of physics or not (if it can be: then there is no Free will)
ii) if findings in quantum mechanics (especially: superposition: the fact that the status of elementary particles cannot be ) suggest (or not) that the universe is deterministic (or not)
iii) many more: there are a rather high number of theories which, if proven right (or wrong) will affect our belief about Free will (or the lack of it)
Note: superposition is a phenomenon in quantum physics: the laws of quantum mechanics tell us that subatomic particles exist in this superposition of states until they are measured and found to be in just one — when their (so called) wave function (think of this latter as a probability function) collapses. In other words: subatomic particles can exist in multiple locations at the same time, until their location is measured. So this means that until someone observes their location. This is so mind blowing that even Albert Einstein found this idea merely unacceptable (see this nice article about the meaning behind Einstein saying: “God does not play dice with the universe.” ). Why we do not see this phenomenon in everyday life is because there is “decoherence”: superposition disappears (this is what quantum physics is stating) above a certain size of particles.
b) neuroscience: the other fundamental level
Neuroscience tries to understand (amongst others) how we make decisions: which parts of the brain participate in (at the moment rather rudimentary e.g. move your finger-type) decisions: its objective is to find out if the brain’s way of making decisions can be understood, documented and as a result, predicted. Relationship with Free will: a part of neuroscience focuses on the question if our decisions are made firstly in the unconscious parts of our brains before appearing in our conscious parts of our brains. It is not stated explicitly (it is only implied) but neuroscience would state that if that is the case (e.g. our unconscious drives our conscious) then there is no Free will. Below we will show why this is not the case: even if our unconscious would be driving 100% our conscious (and as such this would mean that our conscious brain just fabricates logical explanations for what we do after the fact) we believe that that is not the end of Free will. The reason for this is that the conscious part of our brain sends signals back to our unconscious, so this is a 2-way connection. So our rational thoughts, if not in the moment but in the long run, “program” or influence our unconscious. So there is learning and development.
Physics and neuroscience, at the moment, have a (it hurts to write this down, but) very(!) high number of unanswered questions regarding how i) our world works (at all) and ii) how our brain makes decisions.
http://www.cs.utep.edu/vladik/2013/tr13-08.pdf
c) sociology and economics: there are repeatable experiments regarding the effect of Free will on groups people (both on the job performance, happiness, overall performance, altruism etc.)
Relationship with Free will: sociology is a very important field to find and prove the importance of Free will
Sociology has repeatable experiments proving NOT Free will (or the lack of it) but the effects of Free will on people
Less experimental branches, fields of science relating to Free will
d) philosophy: if Free will can be assumed and / or is a must for humans and if yes, what it is at all (definition) and how can it be proven
Relationship with Free will: philosophy has long tried to prove (or disprove) the existence of Free will. Unfortunately it is mainly a mental exercise only, so it is very hard to reconcile these views without sooner or later getting into fundamental belief-based discussions (including the assumption for the existence (or lack of) God or other similar forces)
Currently (at end of 2020) we can proceed only with (to some extent) philosophical and (mainly) sociological tools. Firstly we define Free will and then show the effect of Free will. Lastly we put up a model that influences the “level of Free will” one can experience.
Why Free will (or at least the belief in it) is important: Effects of Free will on a personal level
People just think and feel when they decide and act from Free will. And sometimes, but not always, they do feel (notice) the opposite as well.
We state, and we find it utmost important to do so, that we think
the feeling of Free will may be actually Free will itself.
(we know it is extremely far from any definition or proof neuroscience or physics would ever find sufficient, but we state that Free will can be defined and investigated on multiple levels from multiple views)
It is scientifically proven that the mere thought of having Free will (or not) has extremely important effects on the individual; there are proven (repeatable) sociology experiments where if participants are being made to believe that there is / there is no Free will, the consequences are very significant. The results of this experiments are that if experiment participants are being made to believe that there is Free will then:
- cheating decreases
- giving to others (altruism) increases
- performance on the job increases
- less stress more happiness
- more commitment to relationships
- life is more meaningful
- better academic performance
- more creativity
- less conform to norms
- learn more from own mistakes
We can see that the perception of Free will has extremely important consequences. We could see it on the country level, as well.
Instead of re-writing the original text let us quote a few very important paragraphs from an article: The Atlantic: There is no such thing as a free will
(its title should not mislead us, as it discusses several aspects of Free will).
Free will is an illusion? The feeling of Lack of Free will: Cheating increases on the personal level
Kathleen Vohs, then at the University of Utah, and Jonathan Schooler, of the University of Pittsburgh, asked one group of participants to read a passage arguing that free will was an illusion, and another group to read a passage that was neutral on the topic. Then they subjected the members of each group to a variety of temptations and observed their behavior. Would differences in abstract philosophical beliefs influence people’s decisions?
Yes, indeed. When asked to take a math test, with cheating made easy, the group primed to see free will as illusory proved more likely to take an illicit peek at the answers. When given an opportunity to steal — to take more money than they were due from an envelope of $1 coins — those whose belief in free will had been undermined pilfered more. On a range of measures, Vohs told me, she and Schooler found that “people who are induced to believe less in free will are more likely to behave immorally.”
The ones who believe in Free will will perform better on the job
In another study, for instance, Vohs and colleagues measured the extent to which a group of day laborers believed in free will, then examined their performance on the job by looking at their supervisor’s ratings. Those who believed more strongly that they were in control of their own actions showed up on time for work more frequently and were rated by supervisors as more capable. In fact, belief in free will turned out to be a better predictor of job performance than established measures such as self-professed work ethic.
The feeling of Lack of Free will makes us more stressed, less happy, less commitment to relationships, find life less meaningful, results in poorer academic performance
Further studies by Baumeister and colleagues have linked a diminished belief in free will to stress, unhappiness, and a lesser commitment to relationships. They found that when subjects were induced to believe that “all human actions follow from prior events and ultimately can be understood in terms of the movement of molecules,” those subjects came away with a lower sense of life’s meaningfulness. Early this year, other researchers published a study showing that a weaker belief in free will correlates with poor academic performance.
The feeling of Lack of Free will makes us less creative, more likely to conform, less likely to learn from own mistakes, less grateful
The list goes on: Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative, more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes, and less grateful toward one another. In every regard, it seems, when we embrace determinism, we indulge our dark side.
Why Free will (or at least the belief in it) is important: The economic effects of (believing in) Free will on a country level
Apart from the well known statement about the United States (“The land of the free”) we investigated the effect of Free will not only because economics is close to our heart, but also because if there is Free will then it must have visible effects in the economic performance of entire countries.
But how can we determine the perceived level of Free will (or lack of it)?
We looked at the results of an otherwise overlooked study from 2008 by a group of Hungarian researchers. This study is based on data obtained from the European Social Survey (this survey has been repeated since almost every year on an European level, but the summary by the Hungarian scientists occurred in 2008).
The study investigated the lack or presence of society-level differences in fundamental approaches to life amongst 25 European countries.
The study created groups of people based on their responses to the survey and assigned the respondents to 3 groups: Active (=Doers) / Rebels / Passive (=Sufferers).
Characteristics of the 3 groups identified were:
Group 1: Active (=Doers): they believe in the meritocracy (talented and hard-working people have a higher income), they enjoy (or have enjoyed) a high degree of autonomy in their workplace. They see members of their environment as helpful rather than selfish. The choice of values related to individualism is markedly visible among the members of the group. It is important for them to invent new things, they like to do things in their own individual way, they avoid routines, they are hungry for the success they expect from themselves and others depending on their performance. They seek adventure and risk. They take every opportunity to have fun. It is important for them to do things that make them happy. Not surprisingly, they like danger, rejecting the idea that people should always do what they are told, and it is not a consideration for them to always behave properly. They are not bound by tradition.
It is not very hard to conclude that the people in this first group (Doers) do have and they do exercise Free will daily. We know it has not been asked explicitly in the study but based on the responses we assume that should we ask these people if they feel they do have Free will or if they believe in Free will they would firmly answer YES.
Group 2: Passive (=Sufferers):They desire for mechanical equality between people, no distinction between hard-working and lazy, talented and untalented. They expected the state to handle income disparities, provide security of employment. Their sense of autonomy in the workplace is minimal. They are careful and they feel being deceived or exploited. Protecting and protecting the environment is not an issue for them. They are afraid of immigration. They refuse to look for new things, they don’t like individual solutions, they don’t even want to go on adventures. They especially like one thing in life: they are afraid of variety and change. Immobility and immutability are their home. They don’t want to show up, they don’t want to be successful, they don’t believe they have the right to enjoy the joys of life. It is important for them to live in safe conditions, avoiding anything that could jeopardize their safety. They think people have to do what others tell them. They believe in a strong state that will protect them. Traditions are important to them: to follow the religious and lifestyle habits learned in the family.
Group 3: Rebels: they do not believe in any of the above or they are not so much concerned with these things. They go this or that way, depending on the situation.
And how does the distribution of the people look like when it comes to countries in the study?
It would be again very hard not to notice that wealthier countries are on the right of the graph above: the higher the number of doers, the wealthier the country is.
Then we calculated a simple correlation between the ratio of Active (Doers) and the GDP/capita in these countries (we compared the ratios in 2008 to the most recent GDP/capita figures, this choice of ours may be questioned, but we think that there would be no huge difference have we chosen 2008 GDP/capita figures).
The correlation is very significant.
We know that it may not be clear which causes which: that the higher number of Doers results in more prosperity — or more prosperity results in Free will.
This could be the subject of further studies.
Free will-viewpoints-so far (2020)
Conclusions so far can be found at both end of the scale: from complete fatalism to 100% Free will.
The definitions we included here are far from scientific-on purpose. We will explain, why, in this article, below. We call these approaches, views regarding Free will “viewpoints”, on purpose. Again, we will explain, why, below.
fatalism: there is no Free will and even our decisions do not matter at all.
determinism: the world is 100% determined: since the creation (be it Big Bang theory or Kalpa in Hinduism) of the known universe every moment is a direct consequence of the previous — as such there is no free will, but our decisions still do matter
Note on fatalism vs. determinism: “Determinism is the belief that our decisions are part of an unbreakable chain of cause and effect. Fatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that our decisions don’t really matter, because whatever is destined to happen will happen — like Oedipus’s marriage to his mother, despite his efforts to avoid that fate.” (Sam Harris in the The Atlantic: There is no such thing as Free will article, June, 2016)
randomness: the world is 100% random: everything just happens this or that way, irrespectively of ourselves — there is no free will
compatibilism: free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.
free will, to some extent: some others claim that Free will is not a physical but a psychological phenomenon — and as such it can even be measured. (Stephen Cave: The Free will scale)
free will, complete: there is something that makes the world (or just us, humans) be able to “escape” both randomness and determinism
Neuroscience’s view on Free will
There are well known, famous neuroscience experiments (see: Bereitschaftspotential, Kornhuber and Deecke) in this field. These experiments found that the brain showed signals well before (e.g 0,5 second before) an actual action has been taken by the experiment participants. These experiments occurred about 50 years ago, and have been repeated several times since. Some of these even measured the time it took for experiment participants to consciously realize that they would actually make e.g. a movement with their fingers. Again, according to these experiments, there was a lag (=delay) between the brain signals and the actual action.
Some proponents of this theory jumped on the results, including Sam Harris claiming that Free will is surely an illusion as our unconscious brain parts make a decision first.
Why this neuroscience-based claim against free will is not actually against free will
Firstly, this theory have been seriously questioned recently on a brain-science basis: see e.g this excellent article here in the Atlantic: A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked
But even without this scientific result we think there is no problem with the idea that the unconscious part of our brain makes a decision first, then later it just “broadcasts” (“only”) the result to our conscious part of our brain.
Why?
Because Free will is not only about the moment: as we have mentioned above, we think Free will is about “forming”, shaping our brains in the long run. Free will, as well, is about long term change. So I may be making a decision against my own good today — but my conscious brain will send signals to my unconscious brain parts (if I survive my stupidity:) ) and after a while I may not make the same (bad) decision(s) I have been always making.
So just because I am acting against my own good today-it does not mean that I will do the same tomorrow. My unconscious can be re-programmed.
In other words: the earlier brain-science-based questioning of free will just simply, implicitly stated that “the unconscious is not part of your Free will”. “There is a device inside you that is making decisions without your brain’s conscious consent”.
This reasoning is not that nice, we think.
We think that how the human brain makes decisions is more like a quantum computer (versus today’s more linear computers): quantum computers find a solution to a problem (=answer to a question) with investigating multiple options at the same time. Our brain, with its unconscious parts plus conscious parts, can do the same: it can investigate multiple options, together, all at once. And we think the results are often communicated to us through feelings. So when someone is saying: listen to your gut: it is your brain in its entirety communicating to you. You’d better listen to it.
Our definitions of Free will
We attempt to create definitions for Free will.
Our Definition 1 — What Free will is: What I consciously decide and do now for my own good in a given situation-when it really matters
In other words: if I exercise free will I make a decision and then do it in a way that will have positive results for me (=for my own good) in a given situation where it really matters.
We dissect this definition. As all parts of it are important.
Note-1: the ‘I’ that is making the decision and then taking the action
‘I’ (the actor who is making a decision and taking an action) is a crucial point where we think there is a difference amongst prominent figures (scientists and philosophists included) and even philosophical systems. Just a few examples for the definition of ‘I’ from the past:
- Plato had 3 parts of ‘I’: reason, passion and thumos (in constant fight, as 2 horses).
- Freud split the ‘I’ into conscious and unconscious.
- Jung added the collective unconscious.
- Recent studies of the brain support some of these definitions — and they mainly agree in that there is a less developed part: this is the “ancient” brain that we share with almost all animals and the more advanced “new” brain (one of its parts is neocortex).
- Richard C. Schwartz’s Integrated Family Systems therapy introduces the concept of “parts” in our mind — these are like independent units, almost like “programs” running in our head.
- Some split the ‘I’ into the Default Mode Network (being the more instinct-based, more connected to the unconscious) and the Task Positive Network (this latter being more task focused and more conscious).
These almost all agree in that there are ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ parts of our mind (the actor ‘I’). We consider both parts being as ‘I’.
So we avoid the problem some, otherwise surely reputable, scientists were facing, when they claimed that there is no free will because our unconscious (part of us) decides (instead of the conscious part of our brain). We consider both of these parts as ‘I’. It will be soon very clear, why.
Note: We know that at this stage this definition of ours may seem to be unacceptable for those who think it is fundamentally important if wether the unconscious or the conscious part of our mind is making the decision. Please read on and you will see why it does not matter at all.
Note-2: “consciously”
This part of our definition will be debated, as well, heavily, we know. What conscious means? We can use the definition by Dehaene who is a neuroscientist.
According Dehaene the brain has 3 states:
(1) the state of wakefulness — awakening from sleep;
(2) the state of attention — processing a specific piece of information without necessarily being aware of it, such as feeling hungry or seeing a friend; and
(3) the state of perceptual awareness (authorship) and reportable consciousness — becoming aware of some of the information we pay attention to and being able to tell others about it
We think of Free will as a decision being made and an action being taken in state (3): perceptual awareness (authorship)
Note-3: “decide and do now”
Free will only is if I do not only decide to do something but actually I do it.
Note-4: “for my own good-when it really matters”
For my own good: this part of our definition will be debated, heavily, we know. One may claim that Free will can be, as well, if I decide and do something that is not good for me. And, what is “good”, anyway? But: we think, the measure of Free will is that I do things that make me better off.
When it really matters: we think Free will is only important if it is about a real life choice. So we need to investigate complex decisions and actions when there is a lot at stake.
Note A: how about making a decision now to suffer now and feel better later? E.g. eating less to lose weight. Or going to the gym this morning? Is that for my own good (or not)? We think yes.
Note B: and how about real heroes? E.g. Jesus sacrificing his life on the cross? Or Mother Theresa? The did things, seemingly, not for their own good. But we think they did. And we know that we are touching on the most sensitive point regarding Free will: can a person ever choose to die on the cross really due to Free will? Or is it just him, acting as a machine, destroying himself?
Note C: a similarly extreme case in point is suicide: if I choose to kill myself: did I act out of Free will? As it is, seemingly, not for my own good. So can I decide and act in a way that eventually destroys me? Can it be Free will? Albert Camus (1913–1960) starts his famous essay (The Myth of Sisyphus) with the famous line “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide”
Note D: for my own good: can it involve others? We think yes. So especially in collective, mainly Asian, societies acting for my own good may involve being less self-centered and acting for others — as that is what makes us happy.
Note-5: “in a given situation”
The situation may have a significant effect on my decision-Free will cannot be investigated in a vacuum. And the situation itself heavily affects Free will, if I have it at all or not.
Our Definition 2— Long term personal change: Free will is: how I consciously change over time for my own good-when it really matters
Note-6: “consciously change over time”
We think when it comes to Free will time is an extremely important factor. Neuroscience has been so far focusing mainly on the decisions I make and actions I take now.
But: we believe Free will is reflected not only in the now: it may not even matter if I am deciding and then acting based on my unconscious or conscious brain parts or a “blend” of the two now if I consider change of my brain and my resulting actions over time.
Here over time means weeks, months or even decades.
We will bring you examples below for this, why this definition matters a lot: as even if we may act as partially unconscious machines in the long run there can be change for our own good. It is important to state that the type of change we are talking about here is fundamental conscious change. I decide that I will lose significant weight-and I do. I decide to do a Phd-and I do. I decide that I will write this article-and I do.
And that change over time is surely Free will-even if unconscious parts of my mind (or brain) are involved. Why?
Because our entire human mankind is built on it.
One may say that we need to exclude this change from the definition of Free will, as this conscious change over time is due to all given inputs, as such it is pre-determined. In other words this seemingly conscious change over time is still not free will.
Our Definition 2/B — Long term personal change: Heroes
Regarding long term personal change we need to mention Heroes: heroes are people who, escaping their internal conditioning and the external difficulties (inhibiting them exercising their Free will) do much more, develop much more (over time) than can be expected by default. We even believe that the development of mankind has been built on these Heroes: people who exercised more Free will they were supposed to, merely based on their past and present (knowledge, resources, beliefs and limitations)
See more below about the factors affecting Free will. Heroes are people who do more than could be otherwise concluded based on the factors affecting Free will.
We believe that the whole purpose of life is to achieve more (being better and more good) than we are supposed to be. This is Free will and maybe some magic.
Our take: What factors affect Free will: Free will is not discrete but a range and it depends on the individual (internal factors) and the environment (external factors), as well
We put up a very simple model what affects Free will on a personal level in a given situation.
We believe that Free will is
- not binary (exists or not) but is range that in any case can be
- assigned a number — similarly to the suggestion of introducing a Free will Quotient (FQ) (not necessarily 100% in line with the suggestion made in the article by Stephen Cave: The Free will scale but quite similarly to it)
- its value (FQ) changes over time
- FQ is different for every and each individual
- FQ is even situational: it depends on external factors and the setting
We would like to encourage investigation of the effects of these factors on Free will (and FQ) in the future.
Our very simple model just simply lists the factors resulting in Free will in line with our definition 1:
What I consciously decide and do now or how I change over time for my own good in a given situation-when it really matters
Additional insights and ideas, areas to discover
Additional insights: Self esteem and Free will
When it comes to personality (the feeling of having) Free will and self-esteem are extremely closely related. Probably the two may even be the same, in essence. If not then self-esteem may be one of the most important foundations for Free will.
Additional insights: Fear / anxiety and Free will
We think fear or anxiety inhibits (not necessarily completely) Free will.
Additional insights: Getting stuck (usually accompanied with low personal energy level) and Free will
We think getting stuck into a situation for long where we cannot really act inhibits (not necessarily completely) Free will. In a later article we may enlist techniques or approaches to restore Free will in these situations. Briefly: external help (be they generic or specific (personally tailored) items) can help to restore the feeling of free will.
Additional areas to discover
We just touched upon on some of the additional topics that worth further discussion (this is a mere copy-paste from above, so there is no need to re-read it):
Real heroes: and how about real heroes? E.g. Jesus sacrificing his life on the cross? Or Mother Theresa? The did things, seemingly, not for their own good. But we think they did. And we know that we are touching on the most sensitive point regarding Free will: can a person ever choose to die on the cross really due to Free will? Or is it just him, acting as a machine, destroying himself?
Suicide: a similarly extreme case in point is suicide: if I choose to kill myself: did I act out of Free will? As it is, seemingly, not for my own good. So can I decide and act in a way that eventually destroys me? Can it be Free will? Albert Camus (1913–1960) starts his famous essay (The Myth of Sisyphus) with the famous line “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide”
Acting for Others: we used for our definition “for my own good”: can it involve others? We think yes. So especially in collective, mainly Asian, societies acting for my own good may involve being less self-centered and acting for others — as that is what makes us happy.
Addictions: An extreme version of not having Free will is addiction: we are not free to choose what we do anymore. An addict can tell you s/he is not free to decide anymore.
