The 'self' dilemma

If man is a determined being whose brain fires off in an incredibly complex causal pattern to create what we know as consciousness, and has no free will, then the self simply becomes an observer and not an agent. No better than an animal in that instead he can perceive more complex thoughts than the animal can, but has no control over them.

If man is a determined being whose brain fires off in an incredibly complex causal pattern to create what we know as consciousness, and has no free will, then the self simply becomes an observer and not an agent. No better than an animal in that instead he can perceive more complex thoughts than the animal can, but has no control over them.

If man has free will, then his existence precedes his essence and he is nothing, since he has no essence. In choosing anything for himself he becomes what he is not.

Not really sure if this is a dilemma or not, just thought it might spark some quality discussion.

The best fit to the definition of "free will" is often associated with psycotic people, who selectivly adhere morals, ethics and laws.

Your premesis of defining various things in your thesis is extremely ridgid and narrow. It does not reflect any understanding of brain sience nor psycology.

Yeah, I didn't use a bunch of neuroscience jargon. Sue me. I'm not saying neuroscience wouldn't be able to describe what kind of things happen in the brain in the event that we have some kind of transcendental freedom.