But no satisfactory one can be suggested. For my wishing to move my body, is followed by my moving it so frequently and so universally, that there must be some connection between them. And though we cannot imagine how a mere wish can move particles of matter (in the brain or anywhere else), it is just as hard to imagine how the movement of particles of matter can produce a wish. The latter theory is no easier to understand than the other; and, as just said, it is opposed to _the daily experience of mankind_, which is that a man's will can, somehow or other, move his limbs, and hence determine his acts.
It must next be noticed that man's will is a _free_ will, and this is a most important point. It is quite distinct from the previous question. Then we decided that a man's raising his hand, for instance, was the result of his wishing to do so. We have now to consider whether this wish was free on the man's part, or whether he could not help it; the latter view being called that of _Necessity_, or _Determinism_, and meaning that a man's acts are necessarily determined, and not free. Of course everyone admits that there are _limits_ to human freedom. A man cannot always raise his hand when he likes, it may be paralyzed. The important point is whether he is _ever_ free; and there are two main arguments on each side.
Now the great argument in favour of free will is, again, our own inherent conviction. It is one of the most universal, and one of the most certain, beliefs of mankind that he has free will. This belief is forced upon him by his own daily experience. He feels, for instance, that he is free to raise his hand or not. And what is more, he can verify the fact by actually raising it, whenever he likes; so it is literally true to say that the conviction rests on the daily experience of the human race. And to many, this argument alone seems conclusive.
But, as a matter of fact, it is fully confirmed by _human conduct_. For a man's conduct is _variable_ and quite unlike the uniformity which we find in chemistry and physics, where there is no free force, and everything is brought about in accordance with fixed laws. So we seem to require some free force in man to account for his variable conduct. These, then, are the two arguments in favour of free will--man's _inherent conviction_, confirmed by his _variable conduct_; and no more powerful arguments can be imagined.