NationStates Jolt Archive

The question of free will comes up so often on NationStates that I thought I would post this explaination from the Bahai Faith. ENJOY!!!!

Question. -- Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?

Answer. -- This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.

Now another question arises. Man is absolutely helpless and dependent, since might and power belong especially to God. Both exaltation and humiliation depend upon the good pleasure and the will of the Most High.

It is said in the New Testament that God is like a potter who makes "one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour."[1] Now the dishonored vessel has no right to find fault with the potter saying, "Why did you not make me a precious cup, which is passed from hand to hand?" The meaning of this verse is that the states of beings are different. That which is in the lowest state of existence, like the mineral, has no right to complain, saying, "O God, why have You not given me the vegetable perfections?" In the same way, the plant has no right to complain that it has been deprived of the perfections of the animal world. Also it is not befitting for the animal to complain of the want of the human perfections. No, all these things are perfect in their own degree, and they must strive after the perfections of their own degree. The inferior beings, as we have said, have neither the right to, nor the fitness for, the states of the superior perfections. No, their progress must be in their own state.
[1 Rom. 9:21.]

Also the inaction or the movement of man depend upon the assistance of God. If he is not aided, he is not able to do either good or evil. But when the help of existence comes from the Generous Lord, he is able to do both good and evil; but if the help is cut off, he remains absolutely helpless. This is why in the Holy Books they speak of the help and assistance of God. So this condition is like that of a ship which is moved by the power of the wind or steam; if this power ceases, the ship cannot move at all. Nevertheless, the rudder of the ship turns it to either side, and the power of the steam moves it in the desired direction. If it is directed to the east, it goes to the east; or if it is directed to the west, it goes to the west. This motion does not come from the ship; no, it comes from the wind or the steam.

In the same way, in all the action or inaction of man, he receives power from the help of God; but the choice of good or evil belongs to the man himself. So if a king should appoint someone to be the governor of a city, and should grant him the power of authority, and should show him the paths of justice and injustice according to the laws -- if then this governor should commit injustice, although he should act by the authority and power of the king, the latter would be absolved from injustice. But if he should act with justice, he would do it also through the authority of the king, who would be pleased and satisfied.

That is to say, though the choice of good and evil belongs to man, under all circumstances he is dependent upon the sustaining help of life, which comes from the Omnipotent. The Kingdom of God is very great, and all are captives in the grasp of His Power. The servant cannot do anything by his own will; God is powerful, omnipotent, and the Helper of all beings

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 246)

Basic summary of what I want to pay attention to:

You have free will in matters of good vs. evil, but not in diseases, outside material stuff, etc.

My response:

So what about clinical depression? If a person commits suicide because of that, is that because of free will (presumably its an act of evil being done, if not bad example) or divine decree (depression is a disease). What about people's actions under the influence of drugs, alcohol, other diseases that affect actions, etc?

Basic summary of what I want to pay attention to:

You have free will in matters of good vs. evil, but not in diseases, outside material stuff, etc.

My response:

So what about clinical depression? If a person commits suicide because of that, is that because of free will (presumably its an act of evil being done, if not bad example) or divine decree (depression is a disease). What about people's actions under the influence of drugs, alcohol, other diseases that affect actions, etc?

Most of the complaints that I have read here on NationStates regarding free will say something to the effect if God really was all of the things people say He is then we don't have free will. Or, something to that effect. I think the above answers that fairly well. They may not agree and that is their right. In regards to depression the actions that we taken when under the strong influence of a medical disease, in my opinion, do not constitue complete free will. Suicide is an act of extreme desperation and should not be judged by those of us still in this earthly plane. Drugs like alcohol and others that by their nature cloud our judgment do, it seems to me interfere with free will. But that does not completely absolve us of our responsibility for our actions.

Most of the complaints that I have read here on NationStates regarding free will say something to the effect if God really was all of the things people say He is then we don't have free will. Or, something to that effect. I think the above answers that fairly well. They may not agree and that is their right. In regards to depression the actions that we taken when under the strong influence of a medical disease, in my opinion, do not constitue complete free will. Suicide is an act of extreme desperation and should not be judged by those of us still in this earthly plane. Drugs like alcohol and others that by their nature cloud our judgment do, it seems to me interfere with free will. But that does not completely absolve us of our responsibility for our actions.

So if the biochemical effects of a disease preclude free will, how about more normal biochemical effects? Let's say you're under the influence of your own adrenaline. Let's say you're acting reflexively. For that matter, lets just say you obey the laws of physics. Free will, or Fate?

Why is free will such a difficult concept for so many people?

Possibly because they confuse it with unlimited free will. Our will is always constrained by what is possible. We can't, for example, flap our arms and fly to the moon, no matter how intently we will it to be so.

The laws of physics constrain us. The actions of others constrain us. Our own past actions constrain us. Our nature constrains us. All of these place limits upon what is possible. Does this mean that we have no free will? No, because there is still a range of things we can choose. That is where our free will lies: not in what is impossible, but in what is possible.

Such a simple concept. I think some people just try to think it to death.

Why is free will such a difficult concept for so many people?

Possibly because they confuse it with unlimited free will. Our will is always constrained by what is possible. We can't, for example, flap our arms and fly to the moon, no matter how intently we will it to be so.

The laws of physics constrain us. The actions of others constrain us. Our own past actions constrain us. Our nature constrains us. All of these place limits upon what is possible. Does this mean that we have no free will? No, because there is still a range of things we can choose. That is where our free will lies: not in what is impossible, but in what is possible.

Such a simple concept. I think some people just try to think it to death.

The issue I have, at least, is that the universe could simply be purely mechanistic. The more scientists understand the brain, the more things that could be attributed to some sort of supernatural "free will" are chipped away. Why won't this process continue indefinitely. Why should we assume there is some part of the human decision making process that breaks the laws of physics, that has no set effect stemming from a set cause. (And no, quantum theory has nothing to do with this, that would be like saying a computer that uses a random number generator to choose its strategy has free will).

free will NEVER!!! We have him captive and unless we get the one million dollars you will never see him again!

Easy one...we are all just individuations of God, little tiny parts of Him experiencing the world of physicality. "Made in God's image" and all that. As such, all of our wills are "God's will" because we are all part of God, made of God. Whatever we choose to do is God's will by default.

Free Will !!!!!!

And Grace!!!!! Free her too!!!! And don't forget that other guy!!!! The really flamboyant one!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Every action you take is based on the effect previous actions have had upon you. All of those previous actions have been based on the effect previous actions have had upon them.

The Chaos Theory states that we can't predict actions because we can't know all the factors that go into them. On the flip-side of that, if we were to know everything about the universe at a given moment including particle placement, velocity and acceleration as well as all experiences affecting the brains of every living organism, we could predict the future exactly.

Everything that happens in this universe is the sum of its parts. Know all the parts at any given moment and you will be able to predict all that happens.

What does this mean for free will? You don't actually have it, but the knowledge that you don't have it should not affect your decisions in any way.

EDIT:Does this mean that we have no free will? No, because there is still a range of things we can choose.

Let's take a simple example: whether or not you will eat a block of cheese. One would say this is an issue of free will. You can choose to eat the cheese or not eat the cheese. Consider, however, all the factors that go into whether or not you would eat the cheese. Are you hungry? Is it warm or cold outside? Does somebody else want the cheese? Do you even like cheese? Based on your answer to these questions and thousand of other obscure ones including the famous "did a butterfly recently flap its wings in Japan?" one, you will decide whether or not to eat the cheese. Note, however, that if all those factors remain the same you will always pick the same response. As a result, your response could be predicted if enough data were inputted. Do you have free will when choosing to eat cheese? Technically no.

Ultimately, I believe we do have free will, but we are also buffeted by influencing factors, both physical and mental.

I am religiously skeptical, but even I can't bring myself to believe the workings of our thoughts, personalities and intentions are purely the result of an entirely mechanical process.

I have always thought that Free Will was different that deciding things based on our environments... I've always compared it to something that's within us. We are mammals, and like other mammals, we have instincts. Free Will means we get to override those instincts by our own choice, for the better or worse of our survival prospects. We're the only animals on earth that get to do that, everybody else is either wholly dependant on their instincts and only interested in the survival and continuation of the species they belong to, or they are pets of humans and they get trained into certain behaviours in order to get the foods and the lovins instead of the stern word... again, survival. You can teach a monkey to speak in sign language, but what you'll see them say is praise for their keeper and requests for company, playing, sex, sleep and food. Just cause they can communicate doesn't mean they have a choice in what they want.

You guys can argue all year around about causality and outside influences, but the truth of the matter is, at any point any of us could say fuck it all and try to fly by flapping our wings and leaping off a cliff even though we know it's impossible. That's what free will's about, the way I've always understood it.

Taking the premise that the Bible (for all it's double-talk) is the word of God.

1. God is all-knowing and all-powerful and transcends time (past / present / future)
2. Because God knows all and transcends time, he knows what you will do in the future
3. Because God knows what decisions you will make, your future has already been written.
4. As your future is already written, you have no say in what happens.

Thus, you have no free will. God already knows what you will do, thus your future has already been determined - regardless of whether you feel you are making the decision to take an action or not, what you decide has already been determined.

QED

Basic summary of what I want to pay attention to:

You have free will in matters of good vs. evil, but not in diseases, outside material stuff, etc.

My response:

So what about clinical depression? If a person commits suicide because of that, is that because of free will (presumably its an act of evil being done, if not bad example) or divine decree (depression is a disease). What about people's actions under the influence of drugs, alcohol, other diseases that affect actions, etc?
The concept of will is dependent upon a conscious mind in control of itself. A mind under the influence of drugs and such is not in control of itself, it is not entirely "rational." Therefore, it is "subject to influence" rather than acting wilfully.

So if the biochemical effects of a disease preclude free will, how about more normal biochemical effects? Let's say you're under the influence of your own adrenaline. Let's say you're acting reflexively. For that matter, lets just say you obey the laws of physics. Free will, or Fate?
I don't believe in fate, except in two contexts: outside influences that determine a course we must submit to (such as "the jury decided his fate"); and the human mind assigning meaning to coincidence. Neither precludes free will.

Reflexes, reactions, instincts, all occur "subconsciously." A wilful act is a conscious one.

EXACTLY !


Taking the premise that the Bible (for all it's double-talk) is the word of God.

1. God is all-knowing and all-powerful and transcends time (past / present / future)
2. Because God knows all and transcends time, he knows what you will do in the future
3. Because God knows what decisions you will make, your future has already been written.
4. As your future is already written, you have no say in what happens.

Thus, you have no free will. God already knows what you will do, thus your future has already been determined - regardless of whether you feel you are making the decision to take an action or not, what you decide has already been determined.

QED

What is consciousness? Philosophy defines it as the mind's faculty of awareness. It can be thought of as the centre of your awareness, as a single point, a symbolic singularity that is you and from which you view the world subjectively.

It's a concept. It's not real, but conceptual, existing in and as a part of the mind (a faculty). The concept of consciousness requires: a) a "me", an individual or agent from which it is centred; and b) a reality apart from it that it can compare against "me" to say "Oh, look! That is not-me."*

We use this faculty everyday, every moment that we are conscious (d'uh) and aware of things around us. Other parts of the mind are busy, too, taking in put, analysing it, creating new outputs (debatable if you like), but consciousness does just one thing, ceaselessly: it wills.

Now, "will" has come to be synonymous with "want," and for good cause; when we will things, we want to make them happen. If I say I "will do a task," and I mean I will, then I will attempt to make it happen. If I have the will to fly, I will flap my arms. I may not get anywhere, but that's another story. Will is what goes on inside the mind, the cause of my doing this silly act; will is not the choice to flap my arms (thought it could be seen as such, as I chose to act on my will), and the lack of accomplishment in flying does not impact the will to fly. But will --my will --is the cause of the act. My learning and experience were not responsible for the act, as they told me I could not do it. But I wanted what I will, and so I did the act.

(hypothetically :))

EDIT: I should add, we don't always act on will, but we do always act wilfully if it is US consciously, deliberately acting.


*This is symbolized in astrology in The Sun symbol (http://www.kidcyber.com.au/IMAGES/sunsymbol.jpeg).

EXACTLY !
EXACTLY!

If you believe in THAT God. ;)

EXACTLY!

If you believe in THAT God. ;)

What kind of a God isn't omniscent, omnipotent, and transcending time?

What kind of a God isn't omniscent, omnipotent, and transcending time?
Most every one but the Christian one. Other gods have characteristics, you see; they are not boundless, formless, shapeless. They have stories that progress them *through* time. They have limitations.

Zeus, for instance, had a wife. ;)

It's like trying to kill yourself by not breathing :D

sorry.

What kind of a God isn't omniscent, omnipotent, and transcending time?

It depends. Are you saying God or god?

Well... what exactly are we defining as 'free will', anyway?

I also take issue with the standpoint that 'if all initial conditions were identical between two events, then both events would always be identical.' This seems kind of unfalsifiable to me, not to mention there are some processes that are inherently unpredictable.

Hehe, the thing that really worries me is how notorious a liar the human mind is, to itself. Are we actually self-aware, or is there simply a part of our brain constantly telling us that we're self-aware? :)

Human consciousness is nothing more than a complete electrical relay in the brain with no point of centralisation. It is a cycle of reassruance that something is there to be aware of. Each point/moment we are aware is contingent to the last point we were aware and that chain eventually links back up to its original "starting point" (althouhg that term has no real basis when contemplating such matters). We are nothing but a feed-back-loop of true consciousness, a segregation of awareness to create the illusion that we are self aware. But true self awareness does not lie in self-reassurance, self-reflection and self-confirmation.

For instance; if a brain surgeon cuts away a piece of your cranium and attaches electrobes to your brain; they can make your hand move. You will claim not to be moving your hand of you own "free will". This is because the relay/circuit/cycle has been circumvented and this creates an openness to where this act has originated from. We then have nothing to turn inside-out and reflect upon, ie: relive.

Various enviroments are again bigger versions of our psyche. Take our earth for example; a collection of materials that is enclosed to exist within its own set parameters so those materials encased inside can find an equilibrium, an equilibrium that can only be achieved once total awareness has been shared.
But once total consciousness has been achieved it will probably be so devoid of any similarity to that which lays outside; it's quest for internal equilibrium will of been just that which prevents any equilibrium with that which lies external.

Hehe, the thing that really worries me is how notorious a liar the human mind is, to itself. Are we actually self-aware, or is there simply a part of our brain constantly telling us that we're self-aware? :)
No offense, but isn't that the same thing? After all, how could you not "be aware" if "a part of your brain" (a faculty of the mind) wasn't telling you you're aware?
;)

Consciousness is that faculty of awareness.

Human consciousness is nothing more than a complete electrical relay in the brain with no point of centralisation. It is a cycle of reassruance that something is there to be aware of. Each point/moment we are aware is contingent to the last point we were aware and that chain eventually links back up to its original "starting point" (althouhg that term has no real basis when contemplating such matters). We are nothing but a feed-back-loop of true consciousness, a segregation of awareness to create the illusion that we are self aware. But true self awareness does not lie in self-reassurance, self-reflection and self-confirmation.

For instance; if a brain surgeon cuts away a piece of your cranium and attaches electrobes to your brain; they can make your hand move. You will claim not to be moving your hand of you own "free will". This is because the relay/circuit/cycle has been circumvented and this creates an openness to where this act has originated from. We then have nothing to turn inside-out and reflect upon, ie: relive.

Various enviroments are again bigger versions of our psyche. Take our earth for example; a collection of materials that is enclosed to exist within its own set parameters so those materials encased inside can find an equilibrium, an equilibrium that can only be achieved once total awareness has been shared.
But once total consciousness has been achieved it will probably be so devoid of any similarity to that which lays outside; it's quest for internal equilibrium will of been just that which prevents any equilibrium with that which lies external.
I love your concept of consciousness, as an electrical relay, then a cycle, then a feed-back loop. (I'm guessing your're taking electronics engineering or electrical engineering in university or trade school.) But if it's relay, wouldn't it be both the on and off condition? Consciousness is usually considered to be the "on", not the "off;" the "off" is unonsciousness, that is, not conscious.

I love the concept of consciousness as constant reassurance that something is out there. I'm going to adopt that as part of my explanation. It's very X-Filesey. :)

I'm not sure what you mean by some of your terms, like "turning inside-out" to reflect upon/relive, or the relay being circumvented. Do you mean that because we did not operate the hand, we have no memory of doing it, and no sensation or awareness of doing it? It makes me shutter to think of it.

I love your concept of consciousness, as an electrical relay, then a cycle, then a feed-back loop. (I'm guessing your're taking electronics engineering or electrical engineering in university or trade school.) .

No, I study Eastern Philosophy. It just bugs me when people use different dialectics to explain electrical systems encased by flesh instead of some metallic substance. Ontoglogically what is physically happening is the same, or atleast works to the same principles; so anthropomorphizing the langauge used to describe the human condition usually creates more confusion instead of further distinction.

But if it's relay, wouldn't it be both the on and off condition? Consciousness is usually considered to be the "on", not the "off;" the "off" is unonsciousness, that is, not conscious.


Well this is a problem of duality. Ever heard of the 'subconscious'? I'm sure you have.
The truth is; you are never fully awake, just as you are never fully asleep. For instance; you are still doing all the involuntary things when your unconscious like making your heart beat, and moving your diaphragm so you can breathe. Then consider; when you sleep, if it was actually how it is thought of and your consciousness is being totally switched 'off', then nothing could wake you up before you woke up naturally because you woudln;t be conscious of it.
But you dream aswell when your asleep, which creates a mental construct for your consciousness to exist in, and this uses many of the same facilities that you use when are actually conscious, which is why it seems so real. This also can explain why you may see the face of one person you know, while feeling like it was a totally different person altogether. Or you may think you are in a certain place, like your house, but the image you have dreamed looks nothing like it.

Simply put; when we dream, what we see isn't contingent to what we have just seen, ie: in your dreams when you walk down your drive, there is no telling where the end of your drive will lead to.

Well this is a problem of duality. Ever heard of the 'subconscious'? I'm sure you have.
The truth is; you are never fully awake, just as you are never fully asleep. For instance; you are still doing all the involuntary things when your unconscious like making your heart beat, and moving your diaphragm so you can breathe. Then consider; when you sleep, if it was actually how it is thought of and your consciousness is being totally switched 'off', then nothing could wake you up before you woke up naturally because you woudln;t be conscious of it.
I see. But generally sleep is not equated to unconsciousness, because (medicial definitions aside) it's when we cannot wake someone that we refer to them as being unconscious. Also people recover from unconsciousness with no memory of dreaming or the passage of time.

I have always thought the common belief of sleep is as a state somewhere between unconsciousness and subconscious awareness.

I don't believe in fate, except in two contexts: outside influences that determine a course we must submit to (such as "the jury decided his fate"); and the human mind assigning meaning to coincidence. Neither precludes free will.

Reflexes, reactions, instincts, all occur "subconsciously." A wilful act is a conscious one.

So what by your definition is the difference between a subconscious occurrence and a conscious one? Which chemicals make what you do wilful and which don't? Lets say you're happy, and decide to forgive someone. You are acting under the influence of endorphins. Is it an act of free will? Since by our current understanding everything the brain does can be traced back to chemical/physical causes that eventually lead outside the body, what differentiates one type of cause (reflexes, drugs, being tied up) from another (endorphins, adrenaline, normal brain chemistry)?

I see. But generally sleep is not equated to unconsciousness, because (medicial definitions aside) it's when we cannot wake someone that we refer to them as being unconscious.

Yes, generally it isn't. But generally people don't understand that they can never be totally unconscious unless they are dead....... and even then the physical matter that makes your body can still be argued to be conscious of certain things, such as gravity (the last time i checked dead bodies still fall ;) )

Total none consciousness would mean total entropy within a system, also known as nothingness. But then this paradoxically can be seen as total consciousness because there is a complete tranference of information between each point in space-time, which results in no single point in space-time being definable. Just like in a black-hole or any other singularity.

Of course we humans never exist in such an enviroment and our level of consciousness is misunderstood just as the concepts of 'hot' and 'cold'.

In reality your consciousness is never turned 'off' it's just turned down. Just as you can not really add 'cold' to an object, but merely transfer heat from one onbject to another, so you have the same energy which is spread more equally. But 'cold' is only relative to and definable through the existence of energy in the form of heat.'Cold' doesn't exist ontologically.

To say someone is 'unconscious' is to be knowledgable about the extent a person can become aware. Just, at that current moment in time they have shut out the outside world. Only when we sleep we put far more onus upon our own internal triggers than external ones, thats why you shut your eyes when you sleep.

Also, how you have judge a person to be unconscious is not valid. A person trying to wake another person and failing merely means; that the person doing the waking is not conscious of any consciousness from that other person. That isn't to say that that person "unconscious" isn't aware/conscious within themselves. Some people in comas hear everything.

But maybe we always have the same level of consciousness and don't turn 'it' down at all, only we create an imbalance in how the way we use that awareness. We may utilise that consciousness for increased internal knowledge, or increased external awareness.

We may sleep just re-establish internal balance from everything we encounter each day, be it physical or metaphysical. I know that if anything is on my mind that I feel much better for just having 'slept on it'.

Reflexes, reactions, instincts, all occur "subconsciously." A wilful act is a conscious one.
So what by your definition is the difference between a subconscious occurrence and a conscious one? Which chemicals make what you do wilful and which don't? Lets say you're happy, and decide to forgive someone. You are acting under the influence of endorphins. Is it an act of free will? Since by our current understanding everything the brain does can be traced back to chemical/physical causes that eventually lead outside the body, what differentiates one type of cause (reflexes, drugs, being tied up) from another (endorphins, adrenaline, normal brain chemistry)?
Obviously, it would depend on how much the drug affects your level of consciousness (that being, the faculty of awareness). If you become easily distracted, so that you are unaware that you did something, you could easily, and rightfully, claim, "I didn't know I did that! Sorry." Then this subconscious act was not a wilful thing.

If you are under the influence of drugs then you can share responsibility with the influencing thing for causation of the act, depending on your disposition, or pawn it off altogether ("It wasn't me, it was the drugs talking!") but rightfully, unless you were unaware of what you did when you did it, you should take responsibility and acknowledge it as a wilful act. I (the objective observer) would call it a wilful act if they seemed aware of what they did, but with extenuating circumstances in terms of responsibility for the act.

Yes, the brain is made up of chemical thingies, but there is a state of those thingies that we refer to as "normal" or "healthy" functioning. Being "under the influence of drugs" would be abnormal to that.

Obviously, it would depend on how much the drug affects your level of consciousness (that being, the faculty of awareness). If you become easily distracted, so that you are unaware that you did something, you could easily, and rightfully, claim, "I didn't know I did that! Sorry." Then this subconscious act was not a wilful thing.

If you are under the influence of drugs then you can share responsibility with the influencing thing for causation of the act, depending on your disposition, or pawn it off altogether ("It wasn't me, it was the drugs talking!") but rightfully, unless you were unaware of what you did when you did it, you should take responsibility and acknowledge it as a wilful act. I (the objective observer) would call it a wilful act if they seemed aware of what they did, but with extenuating circumstances in terms of responsibility for the act.

Yes, the brain is made up of chemical thingies, but there is a state of those thingies that we refer to as "normal" or "healthy" functioning. Being "under the influence of drugs" would be abnormal to that.

So free will is determined by knowing what you're doing? So if someone grabbed your arm and whacked you with it, that would be an expression of free will? Yes I know that's not what you're trying to say.

A more reasonable example: reflexive actions. You sneeze, you close your eyes. Free will? It's caused by normal chemical activities in the brain. Physically, aside from complexity of circuitry, how is that different from any other decision you might make?

So free will is determined by knowing what you're doing? So if someone grabbed your arm and whacked you with it, that would be an expression of free will? Yes I know that's not what you're trying to say.

A more reasonable example: reflexive actions. You sneeze, you close your eyes. Free will? It's caused by normal chemical activities in the brain. Physically, aside from complexity of circuitry, how is that different from any other decision you might make?
Will is a consciousness thing; otherwise, we could not take responsibility for what happens as a result of it (a conscious act, a conscious decision).

If someone grabbed my arm and whacked me with it, that would an expression of free will on their part, yes.

"Closing your eyes" is free will - you can tell by the context of the English language, which makes use of the concept of will. The act of "closing" was "done" or executed by the person. This is a wilful act; otherwise, we would say, "his eyes closed," and then it is not something he did but something that happened. Circumstance.