Is free-will an illusion?

Well, you're begging the question with regards to the decision to learn the cello. If that decision were the result of subliminal processes, and you have no conscious control over them, then how can that decision be regarded as a freely chosen one? IF the decision is determined by the subconscious, then how is it a free one? The act of volition is by definition a conscious one. Volition and instinct/reflexes are very different things, by conventional definitions, no?

AbstractSend to:
Am Psychol. 1999 Jul;54(7):480-92.
Apparent mental causation. Sources of the experience of will.

Wegner DM1, Wheatley T.

Abstract
The experience of willing an act arises from interpreting one's thought as the cause of the act. Conscious will is thus experienced as a function of the priority, consistency, and exclusivity of the thought about the action. The thought must occur before the action, be consistent with the action, and not be accompanied by other causes. An experiment illustrating the role of priority found that people can arrive at the mistaken belief that they have intentionally caused an action that in fact they were forced to perform when they are simply led to think about the action just before its occurrence.

Introspection illusion
/Cognitive Bias /Introspection illusion
Cognitive Bias
The introspection illusion is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly think they have direct insight into the origins of their mental states, while treating others’ introspections as unreliable. In certain situations, this illusion leads people to make confident but false explanations of their own behavior (called “causal theories”) or inaccurate predictions of their future mental states.

The illusion has been examined in psychological experiments, and suggested as a basis for biases in how people compare themselves to others. These experiments have been interpreted as suggesting that, rather than offering direct access to the processes underlying mental states, introspection is a process of construction and inference, much as people indirectly infer others’ mental states from their behavior.
...

The thought must occur before the action, be consistent with the action, and not be accompanied by other causes.

In certain situations, this illusion leads people to make confident but false explanations of their own behavior (called “causal theories”)

The phrase “introspection illusion” was coined by Emily Pronin. Pronin describes the illusion as having four components:

1.People give a strong weighting to introspective evidence when assessing themselves.
2.They do not give such a strong weight when assessing others.
3.People disregard their own behavior when assessing themselves (but not others).
4.Own introspections are more highly weighted than others. It is not just that people lack access to each other’s introspections: they regard only their own as reliable.

Well, you're begging the question with regards to the decision to learn the cello. If that decision were the result of subliminal processes, and you have no conscious control over them, then how can that decision be regarded as a freely chosen one?

If the decision is determined by the subconscious, then how is it a free one? The act of volition is by definition a conscious one. Volition and instinct/reflexes are very different things, by conventional definitions, no?

The point is that such mental act results in a transformation of the brain. Thus I posit that mind can effect matter, even though we don't know how it works.

Irrespective of what 'caused' the decision to learn cello, that was a deliberate choice...

Yes but subconscious thought is different from reflexes or instincts, as it is symbolic in nature (works with with words, images etc). It is alike conscious thought but doesn't reach self-awareness.

Olivier5 wrote:

Irrespective of what 'caused' the decision to learn cello, that was a deliberate choice...

This is precisely the 'begging the question' bit. What caused it is precisely the question, no?

Alternatively, please explain how the putative disembodied mind consciously orders the physical brain to do what it does.

And lacking this awareness, if the subconscious processes produce what subsequently come to be taken as conscious choices, that is, retrospectively attributed to a free will as some research suggests, then how free is it, actually.

Again, I'm not conclusively coming down on one side or the other of the debate. I'm just trying to point out assumptions by asking pointed questions (and presenting relevant research) in order to show that there are very good reasons to be skeptical of free will. Devil's advocate, but not as a mere rhetorical game.

As i said i don't know how it's done but it's done every time...we raise our arm...

RESPONSIBILITY, n. A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. (Ambrose Bierce)

Quote:

If we are free, then what is the struggle?

Are you implying that IF you have a choice, then you will invariably make the best/right one? How ya figure? I might as well ask: If people have free will, then why doesn't everyone always score 100% on every multiple choice test?
You seem to be confusing free will with omniscience and omnipotence.

Isn't it the least bit curious that someone with freewill (i.e, someone who does things due to their agency) who says that he desires to quit gambling (who may even attend gamblers anonymous groups) struggles to quit?

So the man who is free to decide to stop gambling, wants to, but doesn't, hasn't stopped because...

Because of the emotional kick he gets from playing. Addiction is a way humans (and a few animals, usually living with humans) manipulate their emotional reward functions by activating them artificially and repeatedly, through booze or drugs or any other way.

Once the trigger-reward habit is in place, it's very hard to get rid of. But it is possible, and that is my point. If we were only machines we could not get the resolve to change ourselves.

I really, I mean, like, REALLY, wanted to bust a cap in his sorry ass, but I hesitated.

So you're in agreement that people choose to be addicted? Does the word "addicted" make sense if the supposed addiction is under the control of the person?