Has this definition of free will been discussed before? ('free will' is the ability to act against instinct)

Question

I want to preface this by saying I'm not a 'professional' philosopher. I like to ignore pre-existing ideas to make my own route as much as I can. As such, I'm not aware of who has written papers on what topics, nor could I name more than a handful of 'famous' philosophers.

I've been interested in consciousness for years now, and I'm currently working through the idea of free will. For now, let's ignore the controversy around morality, free will, and religion completely.

The main thing I'd like to know is if the following iteration of free will has been discussed and if anyone has seriously written about it. I've tried searching in various places, but I can't find anything even tangentially related. This leads me to believe I'm either incorrect for a trivial reason or onto something interesting.

The reason that I've been considering an alternative definition to free will is because the most common definitions are unfalsifiable. My understanding of the common definition is the following: 'Humans are special because we can make decisions without being constrained to the prior state of reality'.

This asserts that we can somehow tap into a source of truth outside of reality, then make a decision that has no relation to the actual state of reality. In other words, every decision made via free will is completely irrational and unable to be scientifically measured. To be rational, you must consider the prior state of reality and come up with an appropriate solution, and a 'random' solution is the exact opposite.

On the other hand, determinists assert that free will is entirely an illusion and should be discarded as an idea. I think this is foolish because it leads to complacency - primarily due to its removal of agency from a person. I have no argument against it, I'm just not a fan of the idea due to the consequences and its lack of utility.

My 'current' definition of free will is as follows:

Axioms:

1. We assume that the true nature reality is exactly what it seems; therefore no simulation theory, and no philosophical zombies.
2. We assume that there is nothing metaphysical about humans; therefore everything that makes us special must be environmental, biological, or cultural/memetic.
3. We assume that innovation and technology more complex than fire are the results of our free will, not the causes of it.

As such,

• We (humans) like to differentiate ourselves from 'animals', despite being an animal ourselves.
• In the common culture, 'free will' is posited as the major innate distinction that separates us from animals (excluding anything physiological and metaphysical).
• Therefore, whatever is it that separates us from animals can be - to some degree - assigned to the concept of 'free will'. This will most likely include logic and memory, although I think of those as either components or extensions of free will. I suspect complex language evolved alongside free will, although it's not necessarily a prerequisite or component, given that many large animals and primates seem to have some degree of free will.

We have three major differences between animals (among countless other minor differences):

1. Our thumbs, although primates also have thumbs and are still thought of as animals; therefore I can safely ignore this.
2. Our language, although many animals have alternative ways to communicate, albeit with a less complex grammar; I will also ignore this.
3. Our ability to go against our initial instinct in pursuit of greater rewards.

I suspect that the third is a major - if not the entire - component of free will. I haven't been able to find confirmation in either direction regarding the soundness of this argument.

As a concluding thought experiment, I propose the following scenario:

Let's imagine someone lived their whole life without thinking beyond their first instinct. They would do whatever came to mind immediately, without considering the consequences. This person probably wouldn't be able to live in society, as they would immediately break some critical law the second they were able to. I'd almost assert they are little more than an animal in the shape of a human.

The consequences of this idea imply that some people are more animalistic than others and that this could be measured objectively. The thought of this makes me uncomfortable, but I can't find a fault in my reasoning.

Answer 1

“Acting against your instincts” is merely acting based on rational thought. So you would need to go one level higher: Can I act against my rational thoughts? But drug addicts for example do that a lot. So now you ask: Can I act against my involuntary impulses, caused by addiction? And so on, and so on.

In the end, there is some action that you would take if you had no free will (but if your actions were not forced). This will be what is the best action for you, based on your preferences, your knowledge of the world, and your intelligence. So can you take a different action?

Answer 2

"The ability to act against your instincts" is certainly a part of free will but it is too limited to be a definition.

A better definition would be "the ability to decide one's own actions". That covers also the ability to follow your instincts if you want.

It also covers two more ways to distinguish us from animals:

• The ability consider alternative courses of action and choose among them
• The ability to make plans for the future

Answer 3

This is not a direct answer, because I find your question is based on multiple fallacious assumptions, so, I take it to the basic notions.

The question behind free will is if we are free enough, for example, to take moral decisions, that our will can change reality (which is a metaphysical notion), that the future is not just determined by the past, but also by our decisions. If our body is just a causal mechanism that just follows a set of physical rules, there's no sin, there's no individual, there are no ethics or morals, we are just machines performing a mechanical act, even if somebody commits suicide (which is acting against his survival instinct), such act is just the consequence of the causal chain of events that the universe performs.

Of course, there's no way to prove we have free will. For that, we would need to experience two parallel and identical realities, one being different from the other due to an act of will. But we can only experience a single reality, even when modern physics tell us about the possibility of multiple realities.

In addition, you have some conceptual glitches:

We assume that the true nature reality is exactly what it seems; therefore no simulation theory, and no philosophical zombies.

There is a circular fallacy here: free will is impossible if you set an axiom excluding any possibility of it: if objective nature is all there is, there is no subject, you negate the possibility of the subject, so, you are just a part of the natural mechanism.

We assume that there is nothing metaphysical about humans; therefore everything that makes us special must be environmental, biological, or cultural/memetic.

"Cultural/memetic" is pure metaphysics. Or else, describe it using physics. As soon as the subject exists, ("me", who might have free will), metaphysics raises.

We assume that innovation and technology more complex than fire are the results of our free will, not the causes of it.

No need for such boundary. The idea of technology is also metaphysical.

Think on this: free will would not be possible if Laplace's Demon is correct.