The Battle of NEUROSCIENCE against INTUITION

FREE WILL: MADE SIMPLE? 

What is free will? It's the impossible questioned asked, debated and researched by many in the social science fields. 

To date there still is no universally agreed decision; ironically we may develop flying cars or even a pill to reverse ageing before we will be anywhere near to finding the real answer to the possible illusion of FREE WILL.

PHILOSOPHY: oh how I had a love/hate relationship with it. Initially, I really did think WHY! However, after being forced to study a module, I realised that a lot of science has emerged from PHILOSOPHY and it's not without it's own merits. 

I have tried to break it down as simply as possible. 

NEUROSCIENTISTS firmly are COMPATIBALIST SUPPORTERS; however, though they give insight into the superficial brain level activity of FW, it is not without its limitations & issues. 

PUT SIMPLY

Neuroscientists argue classically that people can volitionally be willed to an act, but still have the ILLUSION of being FREE.

 

I was a strong supporter of Neuroscience, enjoying hard, solid and concrete facts of life, initially believing that our choices are pre-determined. BUT...

I OPENED MY EYES a bit more & did not just rely on fancy brain scans & numbers. For instance, culture & personality can impact the debated degree to which FW appears to be an illusion. 

Brain area activation for moral reasoning increases during highly emotional scenarios. Studies also show that individual FW perception depends on the context.

NO ONE ANSWER is therefore suffice in science, but based on my research I do lean towards the notion that FREE WILL is NOT an ILLUSION, if a person actively chooses so. 

PUT SIMPLY 

It doesn’t matter if you subscribe to theology-based, scientific or a lay-person understanding of FW.  I believe that how we feel intuitively that ‘our decisions can be our own’ matches up with the true nature of FW.