[Helm]

Difficult topic.

If there's no free will and I am the sum of my genetic ancestry applied in a grander physical model, then my current views and beliefs are also the same. By extension, the way I live my life, and where I am aiming at is again, the product of my genetic makeover's interaction with it's environment. This model seems to apply to the world in general.

If all that is so, then my current anti-instinct beliefs are the product of said instinct. (I believe instinctual urge to be something to question and try to not act upon for various reasons) Then, extended to a great degree, in action, my instinct is dictating the nullification of itself. But unlike the depressed man that commits suicide, I could set myself on fire while being chemically - more or less - balanced. My action would be the product of reasoning.

Now a deterministic model of reality would suggest movement, refinement towards a perfect model. Wouldn't it then be a contradiction for a great aspect of that model to work towards it's own removal? Especially since instinct has been a tried and tested and working aspect of this movement for thousands of years? Wouldn't me, by setting myself on fire because of what I believe in, be the product of a failed system? Whouldn't the general direction and move towards refinement of such a determinism clearly NOT be served by such an action?

It's not the strongest argument for free will, or a semblance of it, but it does leave room for discussion. Clearly man is an animal, but he is also an altogether diffferent machine. And I think the start of it's deviation from the deterministic model begins with the concept of sentience. The moment a dialectic relation is formed between oneself and it's environment, and most importantly how one is not the other, at that moment room for choice is created.