I think that's ridiculous personally. We only "think" we choose? So, if I decide to go to the movies on day with my friends, go call them, go out and get candy, pay for tickets, that wasn't my choice? Silly.
I think it depends what aspect of free will your looking at, we have free will in our country, but i do not believe we are truly free, however,I do believe god gives us the choice to believe in him or not.
There is a difference between choosing to do one thing or another, and choosing to do the moral good. Animals can choose between a banana and an electric shock, but seem puzzled by ethical choices. Man alone, of the animals, seems to have such. If you are speaking of the philosophical question of free will versus determinism, the debate rages on and no clear winner seems evident. The notion of human free will is also an important premise for a lot of what happens in human society - in particular, when it comes to our legal system. Free will is necessary for the notion of personal responsibility. If people do not have free will, then it is difficult to argue that they are personally and morally responsible for their actions - and if that is the case, how can they be punished for their misdeeds? In fact, how can they be praised for the good things they do, if those actions were not also freely chosen? The other side points to the determinism of the universe, If human actions simply follow the course of natural law, then it is difficult to hold that those actions can be "freely" chosen. Those who advocate determinism run into something of a contradiction, however, when they try to argue their point with those who argue for free will. If it is true that nothing is freely chosen, then those who believe in the existence of free will do not do so by choice - so what is the point of trying to convince them otherwise? Indeed, what is the point of trying to convince anyone of anything if all events are determined? The end result is to remove man as a moral actor, and this moral arbiter. The side you select may depend on your ethical stance, as well as your disposition toward religion. But being a determinist does not mean you must be an atheist; there are many Calvinists who believe in predestination, which is a type of determinism.
It's clear to me free will is an illusion. All things in the universe have dictated I would say this. My will is born from not a place of originality but the origin of all things and is a profoundly complex chain of events. Though I am not a reactive person my imagination is only so that the will of my physical limitations allow action within an interval of the dimensions we exist. It's not truly a choice. It's as if you have a multiple choice question in a quiz game. But what if I do not want to play the quiz game? Can I not destroy the console I am playing it on? It's not an option and if it were that's simply one of the answers within the game. So the question is can you not play the quiz game even when one of the answers within the quiz game is "not play?" The answer is no, you do not have free will; you have the right to play the game and this right is offered on an infinite loop. Though you choose the answer by pressing the button with 300 newtons of force you are still pressing the button. You are guided by your limitations. No objective choice can be made within a world of illusions and limitations. To be enlightened is to see the game and nothing more.
If you decide to live your life in a state of "free will" then be prepared to be labeled mentally ill, non-conformist - or just a plain, "hippie". If you decide to follow the crowd & do what others do, ignoring free-will ideas - then you're labeled a "sheep", following the heard. Free-will is so overrated & overused - mostly by our court systems to describe the behavior of psychopaths, serial killers, or really cool artists who live in tin shacks with gardens full of whirligigs. Free-will was also the subject of writers to pen confusing classic novels such as "East of Eden". (Go Steinbeck... rah...) Trying to understand, "Timshel" (thou mayest) a Yiddish term explained by a charming, wise asian gentleman gave me a headache & made me feel stupider than usual. In the end - do what you want & just live your life in a way that makes you happy & hopefully doesn't hurt others. (This is free-will in action - saying whatever you like knowing it might pis- people off & not really caring.)
Did you have to ask that question? I mean if you have no free will then you had to ask that question because of all the events that led up to that point where you wrote it. AND, I have to give this answer and then, none of it has any real meaning because it is like taking a vacation trip on a roller coaster. You go where you go because there is no place else to go. We do have free will. In the Bible we are called on to make choices. Without free will, there would be no such thing as real love. It would be programmed "affection" like an electronic puppy that never pees on your rug. And, here is a big one, why are we punishing people for doing things that are wrong. There is no such thing if there is no free will. Life would have no meaning. I admit it is a complicated question but I say we live our lives with purpose and meaning and with real love and real puppies and the works. It's the only way that makes any sense.
Please know that when I answer this, I am only joking ok? You were provided good answer too, so when something kinda funny (at least in my opinion) hits me, I like to go for it if it's an ok time to do so. Too few opportunities to laugh sometimes. So here goes.....my answer to the question: I thought to myself, "I'm gonna answer this one." So I started to, cause I know I CHOSE to or did I just "THINK" I chose to? Well, I don't know, but I'm choosing to now, so I THINK I'll just go ahead. No,did I THINK that ...or was it just a choice to THINK what I should choose? Oh, I dunno, I think I'll just choose to quit thinking...........or should I THINK about choices instead.....too much thought for me!
I think that it is interesting and useful research, but I wonder how it came about if there is no free will. How was the "choice" to undertake it determined? I question that it was a "random happening" from an uncontrolled "brain". It seems to me that saying there is no free will is implying that the brain is a random functioning organ with no mind of its own and there is no ownership. I think that the above comments and answers (well maybe not quite all of them lol ) reflect choices from brains that are under control (have owners). Hopefully it is valid to say my brain and then have ownership responsibility. However I do think there are some situations in which there is not a responsible ownership and a need for judges and juries. But who is the "my" that owns the brain and where in all that mass of electro-chemical reactions is it located? Inherent in the research design was the belief that somewhere in the subject's brain there was sufficient control so that a choice (response - ice cream or car) could be made. If there was not this control, than instead of ice cream or car the response could readily have been gumdrops. Having said this, I think that free will (the ability to make a reasonable choice) can and does have limits. However these limits can be overcome, which overcoming is a major purpose of life. I am currently toying with the idea that choice is a recall of an integration of previous experiences. Any thoughts?