“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
Exploring free will:A free will choice could only take place at a time when an individual is aware. When an individual is not aware there can be no possibility of any free will decision. In an aware state one notices what is present. It’s false to claim that the individual is producing the experience. And even if they were, it could plausibly only stem from past decisions and values accrued.
“The problem with any claims that we have free will is that we immediately don’t have any when we try to use it. We have to summon our limited will power to use a different toothpaste for example and it is not enough to constitute that we have autonomy in our choices very often at all. Autonomy is a characteristic that relies on time, energy, understanding, willingness (and so on) upon a choice we would like to make; or else we will not make one at all or simply follow along. And so if free will is redefined as autonomy to choose we most usually do not have it. It is more likely that the roads we go down in life are not autonomous choices but rather simply our characteristics, plus the characteristics of our environment equalling the result.” Sitara; June 26, 2025
Recent Developments in Free Will Philosophy (as of November 2025)
As the debate on free will continues to evolve, 2025 has seen several notable contributions from philosophers, scientists, and thinkers. One perspective introduces the concept of “Fragile Free Will,” described as an emergent capacity arising from memory for reflection and imagination for envisioning futures. This view is presented as the most practical for fostering societal progress, influencing how we collectively approach personal agency and responsibility.
Another argument posits that science has not disproven free will and, in some ways, points toward its existence. Criticisms of determinism highlight unresolved issues like the N-body problem, chaos theory’s sensitivity to initial conditions, inherent randomness in nature, and quantum phenomena that challenge linear causation. Additionally, classic neuroscience experiments purporting to show decisions are made subconsciously are critiqued for methodological flaws, such as ignoring preparatory neural processes. Biological evidence, including epigenetics and non-random evolutionary adaptations, further supports a form of relative free will.
Exploring the idea of freedom independent of free will, some discussions emphasize that true liberation can exist without the traditional notion of autonomous choice. Rooted in critiques of materialism and reductionism, this view argues that subjective experiences—thoughts, emotions, and perceptions—have causal power, even if the mind is intertwined with deterministic brain processes. This perspective draws from behavioral science, neuroscience, and Eastern philosophies like Buddhism, suggesting that denying free will need not lead to despair but can coexist with personal agency.
The core philosophical tension is framed as a trilemma involving three propositions: we have freedom of will, the universe is deterministic, and the two are incompatible. Responses include hard determinism (denying free will), libertarianism (denying determinism), and compatibilism (reconciling the two). Modern physics, such as quantum indeterminacy, adds layers but doesn’t resolve the debate, as unpredictability alone doesn’t equate to free choice.
Sitara simply says, “we only ever catch on to what we are going to next.”
