Freewill Fact or Fiction
by Do we have freewill or is freewill a myth? This is a philosophical question the answer to which gets at the hart of who and what we are.
There are two views of the nature of the human mind, naturalistic and supernaturalistic. Each of these results in an opposite views about freewill. The freewill conclusion of the naturalistic view is that freewill does not really exist. The freewill conclusion of the supernaturalistic view is that freewill does exist. These two views are philosophical ultimately views about who and what we are.
Natural view
According to the natural view the human mind is just a function of our brain. This reduces the mind to a totally biological affect resulting from the firing of neurons leaving no room for freewill.
In this view mind is nothing more than a complex computer program. This program is so complex that it produces the illusion of freewill. Despite producing the illusion of freewill the mind is seen as just a result of preprogrammed responses. The naturalistic view sees the mind as just a function of the brain that ceases to exist when the brain dies eliminating any possibility of life after death.
Supernatural view
According to the supernatural view the human mind is more than a function of the brain but results form the presence of a spiritual component commonly called soul. Not only does this allow for freewill but to accept the existents of freewill one logically has to conclude that the mind is more than a function of the brain, thus the mind must be a supernatural part of our being.
While one can accept the existents of freewill and a naturalistic mind, this is a logically inconstant view. The simple fact is that logically acceptance of freewill requires acceptance of a supernatural view the human mind, suggesting the possibility life after death.
Discussion
At first glance it would seem that neurology would be able to test the two different views but that is not the case. Once reason is that most; if not all; neurological studies do not even consider the possibility of a supernatural mind. This means experiments are designed and results interpreted only from a naturalistic point of view. However the real problem is that both views are philosophical rather than scientific. As a result both views are sufficiently flexible so as to be able to interpret any observation in a manner consistent with it philosophical staring point. For example the naturalistic view can interpret freewill as an allusion resulting from the brain’s complexity, while the supernatural view can interpret relationships between brain and mental activity and be a result of soul – brain interaction. As a result this question can not be a answered scientifically but will remain an entirely philosophical question.
Liked it
