Argument for free will (Similar to Kastrup's)

[GrantHenderson]

I recently read Bernardo Kastrup's argument in favor of free will that he posted on his website, and it greatly resembled an argument that I posted onto the publishing platform "medium". I think that my way of formulating the argument might be of interest to Mr. Kastrup and others on this forum, as I derive some interesting implications about self reference (reality referencing itself), and how that leads to the misidentification of the universe as unequal to itself.

Here is a link to the essay on the publishing platform medium:



Thank you for reading.

[AshvinP]

I recently read Bernardo Kastrup's argument in favor of free will that he posted on his website, and it greatly resembled an argument that I posted onto the publishing platform "medium". I think that my way of formulating the argument might be of interest to Mr. Kastrup and others on this forum, as I derive some interesting implications about self reference (reality referencing itself), and how that leads to the misidentification of the universe as unequal to itself.

Here is a link to the essay on the publishing platform medium:



Thank you for reading.

It seems to me one major problem in "free will" debate is that people just assume it is self-evident what that means and everyone else shares their definition. So I am curious as to how you define it, Grant? In the article you write, "free will is a hypothesis which proposes that minds are capable of “self selecting” changes to its neural states free of any preceding “outside” causal influence." But I am still unclear on what exactly that means, namely what is considered an "outside causal influence" and what are "neural states"?

[GrantHenderson]

It seems to me one major problem in "free will" debate is that people just assume it is self-evident what that means and everyone else shares their definition.

Good point. At some point I will clarify why I choose that definition.

But I am still unclear on what exactly that means, namely what is considered an "outside causal influence" and what are "neural states"?

It means a preceding causal influence external to the mind. I will change "neural states" to "internal states".

Thank you.

[AshvinP]

It seems to me one major problem in "free will" debate is that people just assume it is self-evident what that means and everyone else shares their definition.

Good point. At some point I will clarify why I choose that definition.

But I am still unclear on what exactly that means, namely what is considered an "outside causal influence" and what are "neural states"?

It means a preceding causal influence external to the mind. I will change "neural states" to "internal states".

Thank you.

The reason I ask is because under BK's idealism (or any idealism), there is nothing truly "external to the mind", and external/internal is not a fundamental quality of Reality's psychic structure. Under my own view, there is also no activity external to any given "alter" mind, because each human alter is a microcosm of the macrocosm (Cosmos) in the most literal sense. The reasons for these conclusions are many and often fall outside the scope of strictly analytical philosophy. But the question of "free will" is so fundamental to our existence that I do not think an answer can even be attempted without first making clear what metaphysical assumptions are being made (there are always metaphysical assumptions being made). For ex., under materialism, I fail to see how any philosophical argument could arrive at free will, but that hardly matters, because materialism assumes away immanent qualities of experience to begin with. It goes from an entirely indefensible assumption (no real quality of experience) to an entirely unsatisfactory conclusion (hard determinism).

My own sense is that "free will", if it is to be a meaningful concept, can only refer to how each individual experiences the world's unfolding. There is only "freedom" when that which is experienced is aligned with that which we desire (will) to experience. That is only attained when that which we desire to experience is aligned with the structure of Reality itself, and our desire can only be aligned as such through true knowledge of Reality. "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free." In that sense, no individual can claim to have "free will" until all experiences are desired ones, and clearly we are not there yet. In fact, most people have not even arrived to the conclusion they are living in the same shared Reality as others. They still believe there is a realm of mental activity which is only personal to them and shared with no one else. Until that belief is dispelled by knowledge, there is no possibility of even starting on a path towards freedom of will.