TIL that according to neuroscientist 'Sam Harris'; humans are just robots without real freewill, and that our brain activity can been used to predict our decisions up to 10 seconds before we become consciously aware of it.

If we were complete slaves to the chemical make-up of our brains then things like OCD and addiction would be impossible to work through.

I don't really have a dog in either fight, but I'd like to suggest an explanation for your examples.

If I'm wrong, tell me how in detail.

I think it's easy to see how some simple organisms like plants just react to stimuli (like the vine that searches for specific plant pheromones to attach to). If I were to make the argument that humans have no free will I would say that we are an electro-chemical process that reacts to stimuli many orders of magnitude more complicated than a plant. It might then follow that the benefit of overcoming OCD or addiction is a collection of stimuli that is being recognized and acted upon. Perhaps like a biological cost-benefit analysis determined through nested cause-and-effect events, similar to the "if/then" and "do/while" statements of modern computer languages. It would be reasonable to assume that this unbelievable complexity gives the illusion of free will because the decisions seem so natural and intuitive to us.

That being said, my favorite quote about free will goes something like "of course I believe in free will, I have no choice." I've just never encountered an argument either way that wasn't arguably an unfalsifiable premise. The rabbit hole goes pretty deep (nature vs nurture, determinism, sense of self, consciousness, AI, etc) and I don't know if the answer can ever be known. If you're interested in a much more elegant discussion of topics like determinism vs free will I suggest reading James Rachels' Problems from Philosophy or The Elements of Moral Philosophy. They are short and easily digestible yet well written and satisfying.

/r/todayilearned Thread Parent Link - breakingthefreewillillusion.com