We don't have "free" will, and that's easy to prove. You do what you like, right? You reject what you don't like, right? And you do everything dependant on your likes and dislikes. Sounds free, right?

The problem is, you don't choose your likes and dislikes, you just have them and devote your life to appeasing them. Where do they come from? Your genetic/biological predispositions set against your environment, which refers to education, experience, parental influences, needs, etc.

All that manifests as will. So free will is like saying free predispositions, or free conditioning. An oxymoron.

But that changes nothing. We learn. We know what is expected of us. We can change our feelings/ likes and dislikes through learning. We have language that allows us to understand complex concepts. Thus, unless you're mentally disabled by damage or disease etc, you are responsible for your actions. No free will required, just the ability to understand.

Philosophy is used in science both in deciding on a topic for experiment, and then in the interpretation of the results. Hence why we have dozens of interpretations for QM.

Philosophy is the use of logic to interpret facts/data and create models that then can be further explored by experiment if the philosopher has the interest of scientists, or by the continuation of applying logic to modifying the model as new evidence comes in. Wait and see.

A real philosopher, like a real scientist makes guesses based on facts alone. Not only that, they don't try to sell guesses, no matter how educated, as fact. Too often hypothesis are sold as fact, like the dozen many worlds theories. All based on pretty and compelling math. But no mater how pretty and compelling your math is, it's not a fact until its varified by experiment. There's no such thing as mathematical certainty until the math's been proven to accurately predict the outcome of experiment. If it doesn't, it's wrong. If it can't be subjected to experiment it's no better than the idea of god in adding to our over all knowledge base..

It's an idea that can't be proven true and can't be proven false. Why believe it is or isn't? No one knows and no one presently can. But keep trying to figure out a way, if it's possible.

To me, a philosopher shouldn't care what the truth ends up being, we should care only about figuring out what it actually is. Therefore I believe nothing. I accept only facts. Belief in a fact is redundant and not required. Anything other than fact is speculation. Belief in speculation can be dangerous at worst and unproductive at best. Belief/faith doesn't change facts one way or the other, and closes an open mind

There's nothing wrong with opinions based in fact. That's logic and model building. But the opinion should never be sold as fact. And that happens all too often.

@Philosophim

I think you misunderstood. I agree that all animals are conscious, but their consciousness is our subconscious. We think in language. Turn that off and you're living in your subconscious. Like any animal you're still aware and can feel emotions and pain etc.

What I'm saying is that our form of language based consciousness evolved with language due to our more evolved frontal lobe and increased number of neurons.

@Pop: Thank you for reading and commenting. And thanks for showing me your articles on the subject. Nice to meet another person devoted to figuring it all out.

The hard problem is the question of how experience arises out of non-sentient matter.

I don't see it as a problem at all. That's why I said It's all auto response from atom to human. A rock seems to be inanimate matter. But it's made of atoms, like we are, which are anything but.

The laws of physics determine how an atom responds to interaction, depending on the atoms nature. I'm suggesting that this auto response is what evolved into awareness when biology arose. That awareness is due to feelings/emotions/experiences, which are how all biology knows it has a need or has fulfilled a need.

If you aren't ever hungry, why would you eat? You wouldn't. What would trigger your response to your need? How does an atom know another atom is present? Why does it try to reach its lowest possible energy level? What triggers that auto response? We know how stressful high energy conflict can be, and how nice it is to be able to relax.

I think that whatever triggers response in atoms could be considered proto-feeling.
So our feelings/emotions are just more complex/evolved examples of the same patterns.

The harder problem is exactly how biology emerged from non-biology.

There is obviously no. "free" will. We serve our likes and dislikes but we can't choose them. What is will? Simple: your genetic/biological predispositions and needs set against your environment/ experience, parenting influence, learning, etc. So free will is the same as saying free conditioning. That's just an oxymoron.

But because of language we know all too well what is expected of us. We can change our auto responses and our likes and dislikes through learning and deliberation. Genetics can be changed too, by environment.

We think in language. Because of that we can understand complex concepts. Because of that; unless you are mentally ill, damaged, unable to learn and understand, you are responcible for your actions.

To me, consciousness is simple. It's a complex form of auto responce. Language is the cause of our evolution to human language based consciousness. Try thinking without language. All you get is feelings and emotions, and it's hard to get there. Best way is learn meditation: the quiet mind. You can enter states of bliss, but the second you think in language, it's gone.

That's the consciousness of other animals: our subconscious.

Animals use sound to communicate, but for us each word is a concept and filled with information. We can even understand all the relationships in Mid Summer Night's Dream Animals can't do that. Why? We get told in language what's going on. How did our languages develop? Mainly because we have billions more neurons than other animals, have ability to make a variety of sounds with our vocal chords, and we have a far more developed frontal lobe.

I think it's development and the development and evolution of language went hand in hand.