Probably not. The man that comes home and beats his wife every night isn't going to get any more sympathy even though we've established he doesn't have free will, I don't think. It's hard for people, even after critically thought about this, to not, on some level, place blame. Don't you think?

As a former serious nicotine addict (chewing tobacco, constant use for 15+ years) I can honestly say that it never once occurred to me that my subconscious might have had any role in my addiction. I thought it was my brain. HowStuffWorks "How Nicotine Works". I started chewing tobacco of my own free will. Considering that I also quit chewing tobacco of my own free will, would it follow to conclude that I must have been chewing of my own free will all along?

Probably not. The man that comes home and beats his wife every night isn't going to get more sympathy because we've established he doesn't have free will, I don't think. It's hard for people, even after critically thought about this, to not, on some level, place blame. Don't you think?

Probably not. The man that comes home and beats his wife every night isn't going to get more sympathy because we've established he doesn't have free will, I don't think. It's hard for people, even after critically thought about this, to not, on some level, place blame. Don't you think?

So what do you mean by subconscious? It wasn't a conscious addiction, yes? I don't know if such a thing is possible. I guess subconscious can be ambiguous, I'm referring to the unconscious part of the mind or brain.

It doesn't follow. I doubt you consciously decided each time, and even if you thought you did it could be an illusion (confabulation).

How could it not have been my free to continue using chewing tobacco?
A fresh chew did not just magically appear between my cheek and gum.
Not to dissemble, but I was very conscious of my addiction. Indeed, I still am,
as it never quite goes away.

I continue to exercise my free will in
not caving into those occasional moments of nicotine desire.
Don't I?

But in the clothing example, people weren't picking the item of their own free will were they? They picked the one on the far right 4/5, and came up with a reason that they believed explained why they picked it. And I would think an addiction would be stronger than a tendency to pick the object on the far right.

If the man has a brain lesion which causes him to act that way, he may, indeed receive understanding. If that fact can be established. And, he should not be blamed. The fact is, it would be very difficult to establish such a thing.

I can't seem to locate this example now. Is it on this thread somewhere?
If you know what page it's on, would you let me know, or link me up to it?

The treatment for severe epilepsy is (or was) to sever the connection between the two hemispheres. The patients would then have two unconnected brains. They would have them stare at a dot and then display a picture of a house so that only one eye would see it. If they showed it to the left brain, the person would say it was a house (language in the left brain) if they showed it to the right brain they wouldn't be able to say what it was but could point it out on a piece of paper with the left hand (right brain).

When they told the right brain to get up and walk out of the room, the person would start to, and when asked why they would say "I was going to get a drink" or "I was restless", believing it completely. We have a mechanism that confabulates constantly, making sense of what we are doing, providing the illusion of choice.

Benjamin Libet (2002) conducted experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is highly controversial. Libet himself concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures. Wegner (2002) masses a much range of studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive systems. O'Connor (forthcoming) argues that the data adduced by Libet and Wegner wholly fail to support their revisionary conclusions.

I still don't get it though. Political motives and justifications aside, what would be the payoff for proving that we don't have free will?

I still don't get why you think people are trying to prove we don't have free will. Is there some agenda or movement I don't know about?

I still don't get why you think people are trying to prove we don't have free will. Is there some agenda or movement I don't know about?

Yes. Didn't you get the memo?

Perhaps I'm just making assumptions. It seems to me that if there
are so many hundreds of threads discussing free will, then surely
some are arguing that we do have free will, while some are arguing
that we don't have free will.

Otherwise, if we're all in agreement about the question of free will,
what the heck are we talking about?

I'm merely curious what someone who was able to prove that
free will is simply an illusion saw as their reward for such proof.

I ask the same question of people who seem bent on proving
that the reality we see is somehow not the real reality.
What's the payoff?

Most people who ask philosophical questions are not looking for pay offs (unless they enter academic philosophy, and then they would like to be paid).

So what are they looking for?

Answers to the questions. Why else do people ask questions?

Thanks. That clears things right up for me.

Didn't you ask your question in order to get an answer?

Indeed I did. Alas, no one seems to be coming forth with an
answer. Perhaps "payoff" was poor word choice.

Your question was, "What are they looking for?". My answer was, "they were looking for an answer". I wonder why you did not think my answer was correct.