Is there "free will"?

[Miserabilia]

Okay so I saw the "chaos theory thread"and I just had to make this.
(thread specificly for free will) (if you think the the threads are too similar by all means remove it)

Do you think people or animals have "free will"?

I personally think they don't. It wouldn't make any sense at all if they did.
It would break the whole logical working of the world.
I see it as choises come from your brain, and your brain produces them from earlier experiences.

[Bleid]

Okay so I saw the "chaos theory thread"and I just had to make this.
(thread specificly for free will) (if you think the the threads are too similar by all means remove it)

Do you think people or animals have "free will"?

I personally think they don't. It wouldn't make any sense at all if they did.
It would break the whole logical working of the world.
I see it as choises come from your brain, and your brain produces them from earlier experiences.


Do explain for us as to what part about Free Will would at all interfere with logic and its workings?

[Human]

Elaborate please... I could do anything now if I wanted.
If I wanted to right now, I could go kill my family, but I choose not to
And I choose to stay here on my laptop

[darthearth]

I believe that our immortal spirit influences the quantum probability potential in our brain to implement free will. This effect, if it exists, is thought to be so slight as to be virtually unmeasurable but is still being looked for by some researchers. As with my belief in God-guided evolution, if science ever can conclusively prove and demonstrate these things materialistically, I will accept that. I adjust my ideas with proven science and am at the same time a strong theist.

[variantwarrior]

You have a point. The entire world could be a scripted dream from the mind of a single person who is comatose in the real world. However, were this the truth the world would be utopian, a playground for a single human. Also, if free will didn't exist there would be no trouble with idiot politicians and their lackeys.

[LouBerry]

We have free will. You can argue that the choices we make are only because of our chemical makeup and how our individual brains work, and I don't know, you could throw temperament and personality and experiences into it too, and say that this whole huge complicated thing mixes together differently in every person, and makes them do things, but you can't prove that anymore than I can prove that we really do have free will. I am capable of thinking. Creating ideas. So, if I am creating thoughts, decisions if you will, then I think I have free will, because I don't know, it's complicated, but yeah, it really doesn't matter.

[Bleid]

Elaborate please... I could do anything now if I wanted.
If I wanted to right now, I could go kill my family, but I choose not to
And I choose to stay here on my laptop

An argument against this would be that you merely think you have the ability to do anything right now.

"If I wanted to right now,"

And this statement raises the question, "Who says it's within your choosing to decide if you want to or not?"

How would you respond, in justification of your alleged Free Will to do so?

[Miserabilia]

I believe that our immortal spirit influences the quantum probability potential in our brain to implement free will. This effect, if it exists, is thought to be so slight as to be virtually unmeasurable but is still being looked for by some researchers. As with my belief in God-guided evolution, if science ever can conclusively prove and demonstrate these things materialistically, I will accept that. I adjust my ideas with proven science and am at the same time a strong theist.

Immortal spirit influences? ._.

anyway to everyone else:

Your conciousnes is just the feeling of being aware and in controll.
Your brain is a part of your body, your body senses whatever happens to you, and it all has influence on your brain. Everything influences everything, and your brain is so complicated and has so many different influences in it, that the choices you makes seem impredictable.

That's not because we have free will, it's more likely that it's just because our brains are so complicated. Assuming the world works on cause and effect, (which you basicly can't deny), you should just assume your brain works like that too.
Everything that happens to you changes what happens in your brain. You make small unconcious decicions all the time, because your brain knows what to do, because of earlier experiences.

So you see, beleiving humans have free will is seems impossible, unless you assume some kind of spiritual, divine, or random influence.

[Bleid]

So you see, beleiving humans have free will is seems impossible, unless you assume some kind of spiritual, divine, or random influence.

Well, to be honest, there especially isn't Free Will in those circumstances.

Consider the spiritual:

If my choices are determined by a spirit for my body, then you could still make the same deterministic arguments against it.

"What is the deciding factor for this spirit? Certainly, any decision this spirit would make is still a decision due to some sort of push to take that decision rather than any other decision, otherwise the spirit would simply remain indifferent, and not make any decision at all."

Consider an analogous situation:

I have a pencil on my desk, and I place it perpendicular to my desk, such that it is balancing perfectly on its eraser.

What could possibly cause this pencil to topple over from its current state of balance? It must have a push of some sort, otherwise it wouldn't topple over at all. So we can make this same argument against a spirit that controls our decisions. The spirit must also have some sort of push, or it would not decide anything at all. So, this raises the question still, "How could this immortal spirit even have Free Will?"

And we can make this argument against any successive number of alleged Free agents.

If I say my Free Will comes from the decisions of another entity, then we can always ask me, "Then how does that entity have freedom of its own decisions?"

And if it's posited that the entity has freedom because its decisions are governed by another entity? Ask the same question of that new entity. No one can elude the question of where their Free Will comes from by simply positing another entity, even if that other entity is their immortal soul, or spirit.

And specifically for the divine:

If our decisions are entirely determined by a divine force, then we especially don't have Free Will, because we have no control over our decisions - it's subject to the whims of this divine entity.

A similar case for randomness:

If our decisions are entirely rooted in randomness, then we emphatically do not have Free Will, because it's just a matter of a dice roll.

Just like I have no choice in the matter as to whether or not I roll a pair of die and I get a 7 - I would have no choice in the matter if such dice rolls were landing and providing me with my decisions, instead of numbers.

So, in any of those three cases, the idea of Free Will is still easily criticized.

*As a note:
Even though I was chastising Free Will in what I provided above, I am not of the opinion that we do not have Free Will.

[Miserabilia]

Well, to be honest, there especially isn't Free Will in those circumstances.

Consider the spiritual:

If my choices are determined by a spirit for my body, then you could still make the same deterministic arguments against it.

"What is the deciding factor for this spirit? Certainly, any decision this spirit would make is still a decision due to some sort of push to take that decision rather than any other decision, otherwise the spirit would simply remain indifferent, and not make any decision at all."

Consider an analogous situation:

I have a pencil on my desk, and I place it perpendicular to my desk, such that it is balancing perfectly on its eraser.

What could possibly cause this pencil to topple over from its current state of balance? It must have a push of some sort, otherwise it wouldn't topple over at all. So we can make this same argument against a spirit that controls our decisions. The spirit must also have some sort of push, or it would not decide anything at all. So, this raises the question still, "How could this immortal spirit even have Free Will?"

And we can make this argument against any successive number of alleged Free agents.

If I say my Free Will comes from the decisions of another entity, then we can always ask me, "Then how does that entity have freedom of its own decisions?"

And if it's posited that the entity has freedom because its decisions are governed by another entity? Ask the same question of that new entity. No one can elude the question of where their Free Will comes from by simply positing another entity, even if that other entity is their immortal soul, or spirit.

And specifically for the divine:

If our decisions are entirely determined by a divine force, then we especially don't have Free Will, because we have no control over our decisions - it's subject to the whims of this divine entity.

A similar case for randomness:

If our decisions are entirely rooted in randomness, then we emphatically do not have Free Will, because it's just a matter of a dice roll.

Just like I have no choice in the matter as to whether or not I roll a pair of die and I get a 7 - I would have no choice in the matter if such dice rolls were landing and providing me with my decisions, instead of numbers.

So, in any of those three cases, the idea of Free Will is still easily criticized.

*As a note:
Even though I was chastising Free Will in what I provided above, I am not of the opinion that we do not have Free Will.

I guess you're right, not even in piritual and divine and random ways, a person can have free will.

So if you just concluded this, how do you still beleive people have free will?
Just explain it please. It makes no sense to me.
Do you think just humans have free will? Or all animals? All creatures that have complicated brains? Or animals with conciounse? because we are not the only ones.

If so, why just humans? Or why would having a feeling of conciousness give you free will?
How would free will work in logic? You can think, but your thoughts are produced (well, produced, i dunno couldnt think of a better word) in your brain.

You are born with a brain geneticly passed down by your parents just like the rest of your body.
It has been working since it started growing.
Every influence gets saved in it.
So it's such an immensly complex system, it might give the illusion of having free choise; but do we really?

Assuming our brains evolved from earlier animals which didnt have advanced brains at all, why do you think we have brains at all?
We know our brains are what we use to think.
But the basic principle is for survival; as is everything in evolution.
When an ape sees a lion comes to hunt at the same place at the same time everyday, if the ape has a good brain it can recognize the pattern,
and not be there when the lion is.
(stupid example but yea)
Maybe for some other influences, the ape may be there, since the system of the brain is so complicated.
Would you say this ape (not knowing if it's concious) could have free will?

That for some unexplained reason it could choose to do something completely different, even with a much more primitive brain then us?
Could it just choose to give itself to the lion?
Maybe it wanted to die for some reason.



(OMG i just reread this and the text below sounds kind of offensive >_>
didn't mean for it to sound that way, don't commit suicide)

You see the same in humans. You could commit suicide right now, but unless you feel you want your life to end so much you just do it,
you don't commit suicide. You could, but you don't .
If you eventually do commit suicide (just to proove the system wrong, and that there is free will for example) then it was because you thought of it.
That thought came from a previous thought.
Our thoughts are a never ending chain.
So you see, if you had done something different before, your thought chain could be completely different and you would have never made your choise.

[Bleid]

I guess you're right, not even in piritual and divine and random ways, a person can have free will.

So if you just concluded this, how do you still beleive people have free will?
Just explain it please. It makes no sense to me.
Do you think just humans have free will? Or all animals? All creatures that have complicated brains? Or animals with conciounse? because we are not the only ones.

I anticipated that it might be inferred that I believe that there is Free Will, but to take up a closer look at what I had said, which I purposely worded carefully,

Even though I was chastising Free Will in what I provided above, I am not of the opinion that we do not have Free Will.

We should make sure to note from this that,

(Believing that we have Free Will) ⊭ (Not having the opinion that we do not have Free Will)

I merely do not believe that it isn't there. Rather than believing that it is.

How would free will work in logic? You can think, but your thoughts are produced (well, produced, i dunno couldnt think of a better word) in your brain.

You are born with a brain geneticly passed down by your parents just like the rest of your body.
It has been working since it started growing.
Every influence gets saved in it.
So it's such an immensly complex system, it might give the illusion of having free choise; but do we really?

Logic would not have any issues with a notion of Free Will. It would simply be another addition to the domain of discourse, if it were known to be true. The presence of a truth is never a conflict in logic.

Assuming our brains evolved from earlier animals which didnt have advanced brains at all, why do you think we have brains at all?
We know our brains are what we use to think.
But the basic principle is for survival; as is everything in evolution.

Yes. Survival. The basic principle in evolution is not continued survival, however. The basic principle is instantaneous survival. Some are often confused here, because we only ever notice the continued survival of species, because the instantaneous moment of it existing does not seem to be anything more than trivial to us.

If we were to believe the principle is continued survival, we would be guilty of assigning a planned design and consciousness for a mindless process like evolution, which is silliness.

And I think we have brains at all for the same reasons we have arms and legs and bodies at all. It is merely another component that was developed through the ages in assistance of survival - those that had less, lived less.

When an ape sees a lion comes to hunt at the same place at the same time everyday, if the ape has a good brain it can recognize the pattern,
and not be there when the lion is.
(stupid example but yea)
Maybe for some other influences, the ape may be there, since the system of the brain is so complicated.
Would you say this ape (not knowing if it's concious) could have free will?

Wouldn't say it's impossible by any means. I see no issue in the idea of such an ape having Free Will.

(OMG i just reread this and the text below sounds kind of offensive >_>
didn't mean for it to sound that way, don't commit suicide)

You see the same in humans. You could commit suicide right now, but unless you feel you want your life to end so much you just do it,
you don't commit suicide. You could, but you don't .
If you eventually do commit suicide (just to proove the system wrong, and that there is free will for example) then it was because you thought of it.
That thought came from a previous thought.
Our thoughts are a never ending chain.
So you see, if you had done something different before, your thought chain could be completely different and you would have never made your choise.

Well, presumably I can commit suicide right now. Presumably there is some manner by which I can override what the whole of my body is telling me, and at any time I can simply remove myself from my interest in finishing this post and end my life, but there is a problem with this idea of could.

What justification do we have to believe I could, if I did not do it?

There is no evidence to suggest it.

I am not killing myself as we speak, so, until a sufficient justification is provided, why in the world would I believe that it was even possible?

I don't sit here believing that the world could have ended last December, implied by the Mayan Calendar, because it simply did not happen (to my knowledge).

So, why would I begin to postulate on what allegedly could have happened in my decisions, when I have no justification to believe it, since it had no justification for being able to occur? I am only ever left with what did occur - how will I ever even be able to find evidence for that which could have been, when, really, what did happen tells me what certainly could have happened?

That is the issue I have with this idea of (could have happened).

[Miserabilia]

I anticipated that it might be inferred that I believe that there is Free Will, but to take up a closer look at what I had said, which I purposely worded carefully,



We should make sure to note from this that,

(Believing that we have Free Will) ⊭ (Not having the opinion that we do not have Free Will)

I merely do not believe that it isn't there. Rather than believing that it is.



Logic would not have any issues with a notion of Free Will. It would simply be another addition to the domain of discourse, if it were known to be true. The presence of a truth is never a conflict in logic.



Yes. Survival. The basic principle in evolution is not continued survival, however. The basic principle is instantaneous survival. Some are often confused here, because we only ever notice the continued survival of species, because the instantaneous moment of it existing does not seem to be anything more than trivial to us.

If we were to believe the principle is continued survival, we would be guilty of assigning a planned design and consciousness for a mindless process like evolution, which is silliness.

And I think we have brains at all for the same reasons we have arms and legs and bodies at all. It is merely another component that was developed through the ages in assistance of survival - those that had less, lived less.



Wouldn't say it's impossible by any means. I see no issue in the idea of such an ape having Free Will.



Well, presumably I can commit suicide right now. Presumably there is some manner by which I can override what the whole of my body is telling me, and at any time I can simply remove myself from my interest in finishing this post and end my life, but there is a problem with this idea of could.

What justification do we have to believe I could, if I did not do it?

There is no evidence to suggest it.

I am not killing myself as we speak, so, until a sufficient justification is provided, why in the world would I believe that it was even possible?

I don't sit here believing that the world could have ended last December, implied by the Mayan Calendar, because it simply did not happen (to my knowledge).

So, why would I begin to postulate on what allegedly could have happened in my decisions, when I have no justification to believe it, since it had no justification for being able to occur? I am only ever left with what did occur - how will I ever even be able to find evidence for that which could have been, when, really, what did happen tells me what certainly could have happened?

That is the issue I have with this idea of (could have happened).

Well yea
there has been research about the decisions we make, and it has been found
that most of our decisions (you can't rule them all out) have been made for us in a subconcious part of our brain before we are aware of them. You might suddenly burts out in random awesome dance (lol) but your brain has already calculated how possible it would be and what movements to make.

Scientific evidence that you probably don’t have free will

Scientific evidence that you probably don’t have free will

Humans have debated the issue of free will for millennia. But over the past several years, while the philosophers continue to argue about the metaphysical underpinnings of human choice, an increasing number of neuroscientists have started to tackle the issue head on — quite literally. And some of them believe that their experiments reveal that our subjective experience of freedom may be nothing more than an illusion. Here's why you probably don't have free will.

Indeed, historically speaking, philosophers have had plenty to say on the matter. Their ruminations have given rise to such considerations as cosmological determinism (the notion that everything proceeds over the course of time in a predictable way, making free will impossible), indeterminism (the idea that the universe and our actions within it are random, also making free will impossible), and cosmological libertarianism/compatibilism (the suggestion that free will is logically compatible with deterministic views of the universe).

Now, while these lines of inquiry are clearly important, one cannot help but feel that they're also terribly unhelpful and inadequate. What the debate needs is some actual science — something a bit more...testable.

And indeed, this is starting to happen. As the early results of scientific brain experiments are showing, our minds appear to be making decisions before we're actually aware of them — and at times by a significant degree. It's a disturbing observation that has led some neuroscientists to conclude that we're less in control of our choices than we think
article

[Bleid]

Well yea
there has been research about the decisions we make, and it has been found
that most of our decisions (you can't rule them all out) have been made for us in a subconcious part of our brain before we are aware of them. You might suddenly burts out in random awesome dance (lol) but your brain has already calculated how possible it would be and what movements to make.


article

Yes. I was aware of these neuroscience experiments.

However, there's also the issue that Free Will isn't necessarily of a physical nature. The discussion of Free Will is typically understood in a metaphysical framework, which implies that scientific conclusions wouldn't force an impact on there being or not being Free Will.

[darthearth]

Immortal spirit influences? ._.



Yes. The central issue is really phenomenal awareness, or p-consciousness. Consider looking at a blue sky. Since you can communicate through your mouth that you are phenomenally aware of the blue sky, something that is phenomenally aware has some control over your brain. How can mere particles and forces be phenomenally aware? How can they "see" a blue sky? The best materialists can do is say p-consciousness is some type of mysterious emergent property of the physical system. However even if it is, this "property" must have a causal impact on the brain. So if we try to get out of p-consciousness conundrum by postulating an "emergent property" we actually arrive back in the same conundrum when explaining how that "property" can physically influence the brain without being physical in the traditional sense itself to begin with. See the problem for materialism?

Now consider a non-physical spirit. Things become easier because we are defining a non-physical entity that in some inexplicable manner can influence the quantum probabilities of the brain. Yes, this entity is still subject to the "free will" question as pointed out by Bleid, but now we are free to separate completely p-consciousness (a property of the spirit) and the brain and further reason that this spirit has the ability to report about its phenomenal perception. To me, it's more simple and straightforward than materialism, therefore a preferable choice. Now, the influence of this non-physical spirit would theoretically be measurable. This dove tails back into my comment. The effect would be very hard to find, but theoretically possible and some researchers are looking for it.

And by "non-physical", I formally would have to say that it is just not of the nature of anything physical that is currently known. There may be other dimensions at work here or other unknown things, at one point I believe the non-physical and physical must somehow merge into one entity because of the origin being in something that is necessarily existent, this is why I consider myself to be a monotheistic panentheist.

[Miserabilia]

Yes. I was aware of these neuroscience experiments.

However, there's also the issue that Free Will isn't necessarily of a physical nature. The discussion of Free Will is typically understood in a metaphysical framework, which implies that scientific conclusions wouldn't force an impact on there being or not being Free Will.

Okay, you still can't rule free will out; but the fact that we already knost most of our decisions are made subconciously, makes me wonder what decisions aren't: if you were to give yourself a decision, "consiously", say, you go to a set of two open doors, and you let yourself choose one; you feel like this is a decision of free will. But you can't deny that, when choosing a door, you are thinking about your choise. And your thoughts can't make a choise instantaniously, your thoughts are a chain. And everything that happens to you can change your thought chain. (Sorry I don't know how else to name it sounds weird /:)

In a simpler example, you may make the decision to buy ice cream. But this decision comes from your thoughts/thought chain.
You may have been thinking about ice cream (or at least subconciously) because you saw an advertisement, or maybe you were thinking about when you were on holiday in florida or something, at that beach were you ate that delicious ice cream. It can be any influence from anything that ever happened to you.

Then you may think, well I can just decide (by free will) to think of something else, right?
Well, think about this: you'd only be deciding to think of something else, because you were thinking of free will and wanted to proove it. Without this whole debate you may have not been thinking about it at all.


Yes. The central issue is really phenomenal awareness, or p-consciousness. Consider looking at a blue sky. Since you can communicate through your mouth that you are phenomenally aware of the blue sky, something that is phenomenally aware has some control over your brain. How can mere particles and forces be phenomenally aware? How can they "see" a blue sky? The best materialists can do is say p-consciousness is some type of mysterious emergent property of the physical system. However even if it is, this "property" must have a causal impact on the brain. So if we try to get out of p-consciousness conundrum by postulating an "emergent property" we actually arrive back in the same conundrum when explaining how that "property" can physically influence the brain without being physical in the traditional sense itself to begin with. See the problem for materialism?

Now consider a non-physical spirit. Things become easier because we are defining a non-physical entity that in some inexplicable manner can influence the quantum probabilities of the brain. Yes, this entity is still subject to the "free will" question as pointed out by Bleid, but now we are free to separate completely p-consciousness (a property of the spirit) and the brain and further reason that this spirit has the ability to report about its phenomenal perception. To me, it's more simple and straightforward than materialism, therefore a preferable choice. Now, the influence of this non-physical spirit would theoretically be measurable. This dove tails back into my comment. The effect would be very hard to find, but theoretically possible and some researchers are looking for it.

And by "non-physical", I formally would have to say that it is just not of a the nature of anything physical that is currently known. There may be other dimensions at work here or other unknown things, at one point I believe the non-physical and physical must somehow merge into one entity because of the origin being in something that is necessarily existent, this is why I consider myself to be a monotheistic panentheist.

How can mere particles and forces be phenomenally aware? How can they "see" a blue sky?

They can't. These are all human names for what we think we experience, by the illusion of conciousnes.
You could say the same thing about all senses.

So if we try to get out of p-consciousness conundrum by postulating an "emergent property" we actually arrive back in the same conundrum when explaining how that "property" can physically influence the brain without being physical in the traditional sense itself to begin with. See the problem for materialism?

No, I don't see it. I don't even know what you mean, sorry.
(difficult english words aren't my best quality xD)
All senses are attached to nerves which bring singals to your brain which is basicly a giant ball of nerves. Your brain processes it al and decides what best, while we are just in our conciousnes, enjoying the show rather then actually making decisions.

Now consider a non-physical spirit. Things become easier because we are defining a non-physical entity that in some inexplicable manner can influence the quantum probabilities of the brain.

*sarcasm* yeaah, considering something that magically doesn't physicaly exist, and in ome inexplicable manner still influences things (but you don't know how and it is appearently unaffected by cause and effect) totally makes things more logical and easier. *sarcasm*

The effect would be very hard to find, but theoretically possible and some researchers are looking for it.

I could say the same thing about vampires.

at one point I believe the non-physical and physical must somehow merge into one entity because of the origin being in something that is necessarily existent, this is why I consider myself to be a monotheistic panentheist.

So in other words, instead of working with what we know and can proove, you decide to trust something non-physical, which you cannot proove, you don't know how/where it is or how it came to be.
Sooo basicly religion.

[darthearth]

No, I don't see it. I don't even know what you mean, sorry.
(difficult english words aren't my best quality xD)
All senses are attached to nerves which bring singals to your brain which is basicly a giant ball of nerves. Your brain processes it al and decides what best, while we are just in our conciousnes, enjoying the show rather then actually making decisions.

But this entity that is phenomenally aware (our p-consciousness) is able to affect the physical brain to communicate that it is phenomenally aware, it isn't just a passive bystander. To communicate this is to make a decision. It makes decisions and is therefore probably the entity that is responsible for free will in general. But "free will" here is only in the sense of the physical body, given what Bleid pointed out the phenomenally aware entity may not have free will, but this line of thinking really questions the validity of the very concept of free will itself, not if anything has it or not. This "emergent property" hypothesis materialists have proposed has trouble because they must go from the purely material (physical system), somehow generating a property that is not really material (p-consciousness) with that property that isn't really material having to influence the purely material (physical system) again.

*sarcasm* yeaah, considering something that magically doesn't physicaly exist, and in ome inexplicable manner still influences things (but you don't know how and it is appearently unaffected by cause and effect) totally makes things more logical and easier. *sarcasm*

It IS affected by cause and effect, it sees a blue sky (cause), it causes the brain to report this perception (effect). "Inexplicable" does not mean inscrutable, it just means we currently have no basis to determine the precise way it influences the quantum probability. I would speculate it is through the quantum zero-point field (the background fluctuation field that exist everywhere), how it might influence the quantum fluctuation field is another question.


I could say the same thing about vampires.

How do vampires theoretically have a measurable effect on our physical world that we can look for?

[Miserabilia]

But this entity that is phenomenally aware (our p-consciousness) is able to affect the physical brain to communicate that it is phenomenally aware, it isn't just a passive bystander. To communicate this is to make a decision. It makes decisions and is therefore probably the entity that is responsible for free will in general. But "free will" here is only in the sense of the physical body, given what Bleid pointed out the phenomenally aware entity may not have free will, but this line of thinking really questions the validity of the very concept of free will itself, not if anything has it or not. This "emergent property" hypothesis materialists have proposed has trouble because they must go from the purely material (physical system), somehow generating a property that is not really material (p-consciousness) with that property that isn't really material having to influence the purely material (physical system) again.



It IS affected by cause and effect, it sees a blue sky (cause), it causes the brain to report this perception (effect). "Inexplicable" does not mean inscrutable, it just means we currently have no basis to determine the precise way it influences the quantum probability. I would speculate it is through the quantum zero-point field (the background fluctuation field that exist everywhere), how it might influence the quantum fluctuation field is another question.




How do vampires theoretically have a measurable effect on our physical world that we can look for?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

But this entity that is phenomenally aware (our p-consciousness) is able to affect the physical brain to communicate that it is phenomenally aware, it isn't just a passive bystander. To communicate this is to make a decision. It makes decisions and is therefore probably the entity that is responsible for free will in general. But "free will" here is only in the sense of the physical body, given what Bleid pointed out the phenomenally aware entity may not have free will, but this line of thinking really questions the validity of the very concept of free will itself, not if anything has it or not. This "emergent property" hypothesis materialists have proposed has trouble because they must go from the purely material (physical system), somehow generating a property that is not really material (p-consciousness) with that property that isn't really material having to influence the purely material (physical system) again.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/1f40e38dc9ecb2bcaa0b85de5f708f58/tumblr_my83bf9lxa1t7io4qo1_500.png

Concider this image. (determinism)
Let's say the grey lines are possible choises.
The black line is the path we actually take.
We are actualy aware of the choises we take and the ones we could have taken. When you look back at something and think "Ohh I shouldn't have done that!" you can be reasured: you were ment to do it. With the current activity in your brain, no other option was possible.
Tho next time, in a similar situation, you may act differently, because you conciously remember the previous time, when you made a mistake. This is the evolutionairy purpose of conciousness; instead of making a choise based on what you sense at that moment, you combine it with your memories and past experiences.

Imagine your brain being like a big office, and every week all departments have to make reports of everything that has happened in that department.
You, are the boss.
You are in one room of the office, but you can never leave it.
All you can see is the reports given by your empoyees, and you summarize them into a big book of reports.

While your employees run most of the company, you just watch and feel in charge of the whole situation. There is only one thing you can do; in case of need, you can give the summary you made back to the employees, and point out a past experience that must be taken into account.
The employees take it from there.

You see that the boss (you) is not as in charge as you might think?
You just get to see a summary, while your company works for you.
This doesn't mean you can't feel free, since the whole process of summarizing all the departments is so complicated, predicting the companies next move is near impossible.

Only if you were to know the exact function and input of each worker in each department, you would know what the company will do.

https://24.media.tumblr.com/3f144847913f5312135f7a740afccd45/tumblr_my841a6zSQ1t7io4qo1_500.png

Now concider this sketch. (free will)
The lines represent every possible choise you could make.
The black lines represent the choises you actually made.
There is no single path; the path goes in all possible directions.

Imagine the company that belongs to this pair of brains;
again, you will have several fast and hard working departments, bring out reports to the ceo.
The ceo is still locked up in his office; all he sees are reports the departments give him. But there is one other thing he can do; whenever the company must make a decision, he can completely freely take over complete command, ignore all the summaries, and make a decision.



Now, why wouldn't this brain work in real life?
The thing is that, the boss never saw anything else from the company then the summaries/reports.
He doesn't know anything else then what the company decides to tell him;
therefore, every decision he makes will have to be based off the report.


-----
how it might influence the quantum fluctuation field is another question.

*another question that you can not answer.
Also, another reason the free will theory is based on guessing rather then research.


How do vampires theoretically have a measurable effect on our physical world that we can look for?

"The effect would be very hard to find, but theoretically possible and some researchers are looking for it. " is what you literaly said.
I can say the same thing.
"Vampires would be very hard to find, but may theoretically exist and some researchers are looking for it."

There are still people looking for vampires, and hey, maybe vampires existed all along as some mutated form of humans that hide in mountains and legends were based of.

[darthearth]

This is the evolutionairy purpose of conciousness; instead of making a choise based on what you sense at that moment, you combine it with your memories and past experiences.

Consciousness is not required for a computer to access information from past experiences in order to achieve a result.

The question that should really be asked is whether "free will" is a valid concept in and of itself, not necessarily if anything possesses it or not. Once we figure out if it is metaphysically valid, then we can discuss if anything has it. I understand what you are trying to say with the tree diagrams.

The point I was trying to make is that something that is non-material (phenomenal awareness) must influence something that is physical (the brain) in order to report through the mouth that there is phenomenal awareness, since particles and forces in and of themselves have no phenomenal awareness. Do you understand this?

[Miserabilia]

Consciousness is not required for a computer to access information from past experiences in order to achieve a result.

The question that should really be asked is whether "free will" is a valid concept in and of itself, not necessarily if anything possesses it or not. Once we figure out if it is metaphysically valid, then we can discuss if anything has it. I understand what you are trying to say with the tree diagrams.

The point I was trying to make is that something that is non-material (phenomenal awareness) must influence something that is physical (the brain) in order to report through the mouth that there is phenomenal awareness, since particles and forces in and of themselves have no phenomenal awareness. Do you understand this?

Consciousness is not required for a computer to access information from past experiences in order to achieve a result.

That's because a computer didn't evolve from animals that didn't yet have that function.

The point I was trying to make is that something that is non-material (phenomenal awareness) must influence something that is physical (the brain) in order to report through the mouth that there is phenomenal awareness, since particles and forces in and of themselves have no phenomenal awareness. Do you understand this?

I understand what you are trying to say, but:
"phenomenal awareness" is just a feeling, and it in fact does not have influence on the brain.
When you see a blue sky, the nerves in your eyes see light, send signals to your brain, your brain sends signal to your mouths which move the muscles to make you speak.
Nothing else is involved. Awareness is just a feeling, it has no infleunce on this process.

[darthearth]

That's because a computer didn't evolve from animals that didn't yet have that function.


Consciousness is not required to assemble information from past experiences, evaluate them and achieve a result and action. Please tell me how consciousness is required to do this? I don't even understand your response. What about the subconscious, think about that. It makes decisions just fine based on past experiences without conscious awareness, does it not?

I understand what you are trying to say, but:
"phenomenal awareness" is just a feeling, and it in fact does not have influence on the brain.
When you see a blue sky, the nerves in your eyes see light, send signals to your brain, your brain sends signal to your mouths which move the muscles to make you speak.
Nothing else is involved. Awareness is just a feeling, it has no infleunce on this process.

How can you make the statement "awareness is just a feeling", if what is aware has no ability to influence the brain such that a statement is made that communicates the existence of awareness? Particles and forces are not aware at all. There must be something else responsible for awareness and this something else must be able to influence the brain to make the statement that it exists. I don't know how much more clear I can make it.

[Miserabilia]

Consciousness is not required to assemble information from past experiences, evaluate them and achieve a result and action. Please tell me how consciousness is required to do this? I don't even understand your response. What about the subconscious, think about that. It makes decisions just fine based on past experiences without conscious awareness, does it not?



How can you make the statement "awareness is just a feeling", if what is aware has no ability to influence the brain such that a statement is made that communicates the existence of awareness? Particles and forces are not aware at all. There must be something else responsible for awareness and this something else must be able to influence the brain to make the statement that it exists. I don't know how much more clear I can make it.

Consciousness is not required to assemble information from past experiences, evaluate them and achieve a result and action. Please tell me how consciousness is required to do this? I don't even understand your response. What about the subconscious, think about that. It makes decisions just fine based on past experiences without conscious awareness, does it not?

In humans, the brains are far more complex then any other species. Yet, we keep very primal urges and instincts, that have high "authority" over your body. For example, anger is a very primal emotion, making you feel tense and aggresive; people can murder because of anger, in the heat of the anger forgetting all about the consequenses.
These emotions, instincts and primal urges are all feelings a person can have at a moment,and the body will want to react instantly.
But when we have conciousnes, we can see past them, and instead of goin on full instinct, we can combine feelings with experiences.


How can you make the statement "awareness is just a feeling", if what is aware has no ability to influence the brain such that a statement is made that communicates the existence of awareness? Particles and forces are not aware at all. There must be something else responsible for awareness and this something else must be able to influence the brain to make the statement that it exists. I don't know how much more clear I can make it

Particles and forces are not aware at all
yes, which is pretty logical concidering awareness is a feeling, caused by your brain. It's a set of stage magic; made to look like it's really there but only the magician (the brain) knows how the trick works.
Awarenes is a feeling no other then anger or happynes.
You might aswell saw "See, atoms and molecules can't be happy. There must be something else responsible for making us feel that way"
So really, you're only making it less clear.

[rogoshtalmour]

There is limited free will.

[Miserabilia]

There is limited free will.

elaborate please.

[rogoshtalmour]

Well free will but with rules. For example you can will yourself to fly but the laws of physics say you won't. In our country we have freedom of speech but it is a limited freedom in that I am not legally allowed to verbally abuse another person at least not without consequences.

[Miserabilia]

Well free will but with rules. For example you can will yourself to fly but the laws of physics say you won't. In our country we have freedom of speech but it is a limited freedom in that I am not legally allowed to verbally abuse another person at least not without consequences.

?
This is something completely different then the point of this thread.
I am talking about a more philosphical free will vs determinism:

if you make a choise, is it really your own, or was it all determined to happen because the world works with cause and effect.

[rogoshtalmour]

ohhh well. Thats an age old question too. I mean personally I believe in Free will but I also think people will do things based on their situations. So i think there is both free will and determinism at the same time. Determinism doesn't necessarily stop you from having a choice it just makes it more likely what you will choose. In some cases determinism does limit the possible choices though. Hope that all made sense

[Bleid]

So i think there is both free will and determinism at the same time.

Reminds me of a quote about compatibilism,

"Of course we have Free Will, we have no other choice." - Unknown

[rogoshtalmour]

I suppose the only other choice is just a depressing one. The idea that everything has been decided for me.

[Camazotz]

There isn't good enough evidence for me to take a side on hard determinism vs. soft determinism vs. free will. Each theory has their flaws and none particularly stand out to me.

[darthearth]

In humans, the brains are far more complex then any other species. Yet, we keep very primal urges and instincts, that have high "authority" over your body. For example, anger is a very primal emotion, making you feel tense and aggresive; people can murder because of anger, in the heat of the anger forgetting all about the consequenses.
These emotions, instincts and primal urges are all feelings a person can have at a moment,and the body will want to react instantly.
But when we have conciousnes, we can see past them, and instead of goin on full instinct, we can combine feelings with experiences.

Why do you feel that consciousness itself has anything to do with this rather than it being a part of the brain that just happens to be conscious?

yes, which is pretty logical concidering awareness is a feeling, caused by your brain. It's a set of stage magic; made to look like it's really there but only the magician (the brain) knows how the trick works.
Awarenes is a feeling no other then anger or happynes.
You might aswell saw "See, atoms and molecules can't be happy. There must be something else responsible for making us feel that way"
So really, you're only making it less clear.

One more time.

Let's try another argument form. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements, please explain any disagreement.

1. Phenomenal awareness is immaterial, because what is material (mere particles and forces) cannot be phenomenally aware.

2. In order for the verbal communication function of the body to speak the sentence "awareness is a feeling", this function needs to have access to information that indicates the concepts of awareness and feeling exist.

3. Therefore, the verbal communication function of the body requires information originating from what is immaterial.

4. Therefore, what is immaterial must influence the verbal communication function of the body.

5. Therefore, since the verbal communication function of the body originates physically within the material brain, that which is immaterial influences the material brain.

6. Therefore, the immaterial phenomenal awareness is not just a passive bystander, it is an active component in the utterance of "awareness is a feeling".

This seems to refute the idea that: "phenomenal awareness" is just a feeling, and it in fact does not have influence on the brain.

[Bleid]

There isn't good enough evidence for me to take a side on hard determinism vs. soft determinism vs. free will. Each theory has their flaws and none particularly stand out to me.

A short, few sentences could be provided as your demonstration of flaws for each of those?

Such as:

Flaws of soft/hard determinism:

Sentence 1, 2, 3.

Flaws of the claims of those who believe we have Free Will:

Sentence 1, 2, 3.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

More and more I'm beginning to think that everything is predetermined. Not by a supreme being, but just by the way the universe expanded. We can break everything that happens on planet earth down to two categories: Naturally occurring events, and the way we react to those events. One could argue that at the beginning of time this atom bumped into this atom and because of that this bumped into this, etc, etc, until bam a tornado forms. I could say that it was determined at the beginning of time that that tornado would be formed at that exact moment. Now we go onto the idea of human response to these events. When you think about it though, aren't humans naturally occurring events? Really, we're just a well coordinated series of chemical reactions and electrical signals (which are chemical reactions in themselves). We make our decisions based on past experience. I think it could be argued that we make these decisions and experience these events because, at the beginning of time, one atom/molecule/subatomic particle bumped into another in a certain way. Our brain chemistry, which is the reason we act/react the way we do, was determined at the beginning of time.

[Miserabilia]

More and more I'm beginning to think that everything is predetermined. Not by a supreme being, but just by the way the universe expanded. We can break everything that happens on planet earth down to two categories: Naturally occurring events, and the way we react to those events. One could argue that at the beginning of time this atom bumped into this atom and because of that this bumped into this, etc, etc, until bam a tornado forms. I could say that it was determined at the beginning of time that that tornado would be formed at that exact moment. Now we go onto the idea of human response to these events. When you think about it though, aren't humans naturally occurring events? Really, we're just a well coordinated series of chemical reactions and electrical signals (which are chemical reactions in themselves). We make our decisions based on past experience. I think it could be argued that we make these decisions and experience these events because, at the beginning of time, one atom/molecule/subatomic particle bumped into another in a certain way. Our brain chemistry, which is the reason we act/react the way we do, was determined at the beginning of time.

This is exactly my point! Thanks for understanding.
This thought it called "determinism" and in my opinion it is extremely logical, and makes sense with what we know of the world.



Why do you feel that consciousness itself has anything to do with this rather than it being a part of the brain that just happens to be conscious?



One more time.

Let's try another argument form. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements, please explain any disagreement.

1. Phenomenal awareness is immaterial, because what is material (mere particles and forces) cannot be phenomenally aware.

2. In order for the verbal communication function of the body to speak the sentence "awareness is a feeling", this function needs to have access to information that indicates the concepts of awareness and feeling exist.

3. Therefore, the verbal communication function of the body requires information originating from what is immaterial.

4. Therefore, what is immaterial must influence the verbal communication function of the body.

5. Therefore, since the verbal communication function of the body originates physically within the material brain, that which is immaterial influences the material brain.

6. Therefore, the immaterial phenomenal awareness is not just a passive bystander, it is an active component in the utterance of "awareness is a feeling".

This seems to refute the idea that: "phenomenal awareness" is just a feeling, and it in fact does not have influence on the brain.


"1. Phenomenal awareness is immaterial, because what is material (mere particles and forces) cannot be phenomenally aware."

- Phenomenal awareness is JUST A FEELING. Just like emotions.
You can say a bunch of spiritual stuff then, so NO, I do not aggree like I have said several times now.

"2. In order for the verbal communication function of the body to speak the sentence "awareness is a feeling", this function needs to have access to information that indicates the concepts of awareness and feeling exist."

- Awareness is a feeling -> we can say awareness is a feeling.
Emotion is a feeling -> we can say emotion is a feeling
See same thing.
So yes, I aggree, we need acces to that information, and we DO have acces, right in our brain.

"3. Therefore, the verbal communication function of the body requires information originating from what is immaterial."

No, see, this is where you completely space off.
Awareness ≠ immaterial, it is a feeling originating in your brain.
Like emotions. And tho awareness is in a more complicated part of the brain,
it took us long to figure out how emotions work too, right?
And now we know exactly what chemicals cause them.
Just because we don't know exactly how awarenes originates in the brain yet, doesn't mean it does not at all.
So no, I do not aggree.

"4. Therefore, what is immaterial must influence the verbal communication function of the body."

See what I said earlier. So, nope.

"5. Therefore, since the verbal communication function of the body originates physically within the material brain, that which is immaterial influences the material brain."

See what I said earlier. So, nope.

"6. Therefore, the immaterial phenomenal awareness is not just a passive bystander, it is an active component in the utterance of "awareness is a feeling"."

See what I said earlier. So, nope.

[darthearth]

"1. Phenomenal awareness is immaterial, because what is material (mere particles and forces) cannot be phenomenally aware."

- Phenomenal awareness is JUST A FEELING. Just like emotions.
You can say a bunch of spiritual stuff then, so NO, I do not aggree like I have said several times now.



Yes, you CAN say a bunch of spiritual stuff then. Isn't REALITY wonderful?

"Phenomenal awareness is JUST A FEELING" What does this even mean? What is so hard to understand about the fact that we can see a blue sky whereas mere atoms and electric fields cannot? If you cannot understand something this basic I can't help you. I give up.

[Miserabilia]

Yes, you CAN say a bunch of spiritual stuff then. Isn't REALITY wonderful?

"Phenomenal awareness is JUST A FEELING" What does this even mean? What is so hard to understand about the fact that we can see a blue sky whereas mere atoms and electric fields cannot? If you cannot understand something this basic I can't help you. I give up.

LOL! k.
Seems like you are the one that is being stubborn here.
A feeling is an illusion. It is not real.
It is not immaterial, it just is NOT.
Feelings are illusions. People used to think feelings were so complicated and deep too untill we found out chemicals to cause them.
Feelings are caused by chemicals.
The feeling of being aware = a feeling.
Atoms and electric fields cannot "see", and "understand" because these are words made up by people, people that exist out of atoms.
You see????
An object can have a shape, let's say square.
But still, the molecules and atoms that make it up can not be square.
Same thing.
But hey, if you are just going to repeat the blue sky thing and then (?) leave (?) that's okay too.

I suppose the only other choice is just a depressing one. The idea that everything has been decided for me.

It's depressing if you think about it that way.
But it is more logical, and sometimes the logical option is also a depressing one.
It doesn't have to change the way we live, too.
We still feel like we make our own choises, even if eventually it is predetermined.



Reminds me of a quote about compatibilism,

"Of course we have Free Will, we have no other choice." - Unknown

I'm going to put that in my signature xD

-please do not double post. -Emerald Dream

[Bleid]

I'm going to put that in my signature xD

Yeah. It's cute.

I remember it from some philosopher or another speaking about compatibilism (soft-determinism) in regards to how the compatibilist will agree with the hard-determinst as far as, "Yes, all our actions are determined." But yet, they still assert Free Will exists in that, somehow.

Another one of a similar tongue-and-cheek nature is,

"A compatibilist is a puppet that has grown fond of the strings that Will him."
Also heard that one continued after "A compatibilist" in a variety of forms, such as,
". . . is a prisoner that doesn't mind the cage."

[Miserabilia]

Yeah. It's cute.

I remember it from some philosopher or another speaking about compatibilism (soft-determinism) in regards to how the compatibilist will agree with the hard-determinst as far as, "Yes, all our actions are determined." But yet, they still assert Free Will exists in that, somehow.

Another one of a similar tongue-and-cheek nature is,

"A compatibilist is a puppet that has grown fond of the strings that Will him."
Also heard that one continued after "A compatibilist" in a variety of forms, such as,
". . . is a prisoner that doesn't mind the cage."

I don't think there can really be something in between like that.
I do not see how there could be determinism and free will at the same time.
Determinism kind of eilminates free will

[Bleid]

I don't think there can really be something in between like that.
I do not see how there could be determinism and free will at the same time.
Determinism kind of eilminates free will

Some people try to argue that our understanding of Free Will is simply a fantasy - that we define it to be akin to magic, how it could never be satisfied in the first place.

Like how we think of it as,

An agent is entirely free, unto itself to make its own decisions without any influence from outside forces.

The modern compatibilist will say that this is simply impossible to begin with, and that Free Will must be understood in terms of,

Yes, you are influenced, but this does not mean you don't have your own, individual choices to be made, in correspondence to your own thoughts and feelings.

Rather than the idea we might have, where it's, "Your thoughts and feelings are also influenced and determined by the environment, though."

More modern-day compatibilists will simply say, "But then your description of Free Will is impossible to satisfy."

Seems like a cop out? Kind of is.

[darthearth]

Some people try to argue that our understanding of Free Will is simply a fantasy - that we define it to be akin to magic, how it could never be satisfied in the first place.

Like how we think of it as,

An agent is entirely free, unto itself to make its own decisions without any influence from outside forces.

The modern compatibilist will say that this is simply impossible to begin with, and that Free Will must be understood in terms of,

Yes, you are influenced, but this does not mean you don't have your own, individual choices to be made, in correspondence to your own thoughts and feelings.

Rather than the idea we might have, where it's, "Your thoughts and feelings are also influenced and determined by the environment, though."

More modern-day compatibilists will simply say, "But then your description of Free Will is impossible to satisfy."

Seems like a cop out? Kind of is.

If free will genuinely does exist, I believe the nature of its existence is beyond our comprehension.

[Bleid]

If free will genuinely does exist, I believe the nature of its existence is beyond our comprehension.

Fair. How would it be beyond our comprehension exactly, though?

Such as, for a God being incomprehensible because it is transcendent and has all of the (omni)s. What would be the part of Free Will that prevents comprehension?

[darthearth]

Fair. How would it be beyond our comprehension exactly, though?

Such as, for a God being incomprehensible because it is transcendent and has all of the (omni)s. What would be the part of Free Will that prevents comprehension?

Because we can only think in terms of causal chains. How can we comprehend something that has no causal chain? Doesn't the concept of genuine free will necessitate a non-casual chain of events that are not random? That there is some entity (that which has genuine free will) that by nature is not entirely composed of casual chains and is not random either?

[Bleid]

Because we can only think in terms of causal chains. How can we comprehend something that has no causal chain? Doesn't the concept of genuine free will necessitate a non-casual chain of events that are not random? That there is some entity (that which has genuine free will) that by nature is not entirely composed of casual chains and is not random either?

I can see that. Certainly if Free Will does exist it must be beyond our understanding, since it must both be non-deterministic and non-random, which, is otherwise seemingly impossible.

[Miserabilia]

I can see that. Certainly if Free Will does exist it must be beyond our understanding, since it must both be non-deterministic and non-random, which, is otherwise seemingly impossible.

So it either just doesn't exist, or it somehow does and it is beyond our understanding.
But still, the choises you make must come from somewhere, and it has already been shown that they are already made for you in different parts of the brain, so why exactly would we need a free will, and where would it come from?
Because, our brain works with the same laws as the rest of the universe, so by cause and effect, making free will impossible unless it originates somewhere else then in the brain.

[Bleid]

So it either just doesn't exist, or it somehow does and it is beyond our understanding.
But still, the choises you make must come from somewhere, and it has already been shown that they are already made for you in different parts of the brain, so why exactly would we need a free will, and where would it come from?
Because, our brain works with the same laws as the rest of the universe, so by cause and effect, making free will impossible unless it originates somewhere else then in the brain.

Precisely, and those last few words are where the question sits. We might only know of the end result of a decision rather than the decision itself (which could be provided in some incomprehensible manner).

[Elvalight]

heck yeah, if I didn't have free will I wouldn't have eaten that piece of pizza the other day or even got out of bed XD you call the world logical? Have we forgotten wrecking ball? Or the government shutdown? Nope, the world is a load of illogical happenings brought on by free will.
If our actions were brought on by past experiences, how did they ever begin? Did someone teach us? How did they learn? If there's no free will, why does murder happen? How does it help our universe? Overpopulation? How does that happen if everything is in a perfect way of functioning? We indeed live in a strange world, but we are strange people, so that's ok XD

[Miserabilia]

heck yeah, if I didn't have free will I wouldn't have eaten that piece of pizza the other day or even got out of bed XD you call the world logical? Have we forgotten wrecking ball? Or the government shutdown? Nope, the world is a load of illogical happenings brought on by free will.
If our actions were brought on by past experiences, how did they ever begin? Did someone teach us? How did they learn? If there's no free will, why does murder happen? How does it help our universe? Overpopulation? How does that happen if everything is in a perfect way of functioning? We indeed live in a strange world, but we are strange people, so that's ok XD

I understand what you are trying to say, but we are talking of a different kind of free will and logic here ;)

Just so you know what it is about:

if I didn't have free will I wouldn't have eaten that piece of pizza the other day

Still an action that you did because of electrical impulses in your brain that originated from something else... For example, the pizza may have smelled good, which makes you want to eat it, and drives your body to create impulses in your brain that move you towards the pizza etc. (lol)
The problem of free will is whether or not this act was completely determined by electronical impulses, or if there is something else that has something to do with our conciousnes, that gives us completel free will.

You may think; well, I could have chosen not to eat that pizza, that day, right?

Well, the problem is, you can't proove that: since you already did that.
You already ate the pizza.
So it's basicly impossible to proof whether or not free will exists untill we know exactly how our brains work.

[Elvalight]

I understand what you are trying to say, but we are talking of a different kind of free will and logic here ;)

Just so you know what it is about:



Still an action that you did because of electrical impulses in your brain that originated from something else... For example, the pizza may have smelled good, which makes you want to eat it, and drives your body to create impulses in your brain that move you towards the pizza etc. (lol)
The problem of free will is whether or not this act was completely determined by electronical impulses, or if there is something else that has something to do with our conciousnes, that gives us completel free will.

You may think; well, I could have chosen not to eat that pizza, that day, right?

Well, the problem is, you can't proove that: since you already did that.
You already ate the pizza.
So it's basicly impossible to proof whether or not free will exists untill we know exactly how our brains work.

lol I guess we'll have to wait about 1,000 years before we know how our brains work XD

[Miserabilia]

lol I guess we'll have to wait about 1,000 years before we know how our brains work XD

yup lol.