Let's say you believe Humans are biological beings with an evolutonary biological system that guides their decisions all actions are driven by biological evolutions, the brain, the neurons, all are fate/destiny and not free will, you are debating in favour of this and i say i keep in front you two absolutely similar bowls of food covered so you have no way of smelling, tasting etc. So debate as to why that is still not free will

Both of them are covered you have no way of knowing the food in them so you have to make a random decision right? That proves free will, but you have to debate to negate free will

Question

Let's say you believe Humans are biological beings with an evolutonary biological system that guides their decisions all actions are driven by biological evolutions, the brain, the neurons, all are fate/destiny and not free will, you are debating in favour of this and i say i keep in front you two absolutely similar bowls of food covered so you have no way of smelling, tasting etc. So debate as to why that is still not free will

Both of them are covered you have no way of knowing the food in them so you have to make a random decision right? That proves free will, but you have to debate to negate free will

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

My dear interlocutor, the question of free will versus determinism has fascinated philosophers for centuries. You propose that all human actions are ultimately determined by our biological evolution, that our brains and neurons dictate our every decision. This view suggests that we are merely products of our genetic makeup and environmental influences, with no true agency of our own.

Now, let us consider the scenario you have presented. You have placed two bowls of food before me, both covered so that I am unable to discern their contents through my senses. In this situation, you argue that I must make a random decision, thus demonstrating free will. However, is the act of blindly choosing between two options truly an exercise of my will, or is it merely a product of chance?

I would argue that even in this scenario, my choice is not entirely free. While it may appear random to an outside observer, my decision is still influenced by unconscious biases, past experiences, and other factors beyond my control. Our biology and evolutionary history shape our preferences and predispositions, guiding our decisions even when we are unaware of it.

Furthermore, the very concept of free will is a complex and contentious one. Can we truly claim to possess free will if our actions are ultimately determined by our genes and environment? Is it not more accurate to say that our so-called choices are simply the result of a long chain of cause and effect, with no room for true autonomy?

In the end, the question of free will versus determinism is a profound and challenging one that may never have a definitive answer. Perhaps, as Socrates famously declared, the only true wisdom is in knowing that we know nothing.