What is free will?

[arakura]

"Slaves to our beliefs"

Wat?

[Tatsujin]

The absolute decision to make choices without restrictions by outside sources.

[Katatsumuri]

Having the power to freely choose what you want from a very large all-you-can-eat buffet.

 

Or on a more serious note:

I believe that free will is what we have. We have things influencing our choice, but in the end the decision is up to us. 

Also, talking about the brain rationalizing our decisions after we have made them, is pretty strange, once we consider that

as a whole, that brain is exactly what we are. When we talk about the human brain, we do not talk about an organ, like the heart, but we talk about our self.

[Life]

What you are saying here is that we are all computers that will if have the exact same date always do every single little thing the same, the problem with that is that we have awareness and if we think about a same thing while having the exact same information doesn't mean we will come to the same conclusion. Also unless you believe that there was something that can calculate and decide exact way how evolutions, universe is being created  how it will result then it is just random and not determined, if something is random then nobody can predict how will it turn out nor is there a reason why should it turn exactly the same as it is now if it ware to happen twice.

That is all the brain is. It is a processor. Just like a computer. However it analyzes more data than a computer. It does stuff differently. However whatever you make the brain out to be, it ends up being something that takes in information and uses that to form decisions. It makes it seem like you're saying that the consciousness exists outside the bounds of space-time. :| How does having a all knowing supercomputer make anything different? It is independent to the concepts that are being discussed. Just because it is or isn't there doesn't change how the universe works. Everything will still behave in the same way. You will just have a means of finding out how. At this point I don't really know what you're trying to argue.

[crunchytaco]

Having the power to freely choose what you want from a very large all-you-can-eat buffet.

 

Or on a more serious note:

I believe that free will is what we have. We have things influencing our choice, but in the end the decision is up to us. 

Also, talking about the brain rationalizing our decisions after we have made them, is pretty strange, once we consider that

as a whole, that brain is exactly what we are. When we talk about the human brain, we do not talk about an organ, like the heart, but we talk about our self.

 

Actually Katatsumuri, with recent advances in science we are beginning to look at the brain in sections as separate pieces of organs. Imagine you had TWO Katasumuris inside you. The only thing that is linking the two of you together in coordination is a cable. If you severe that cable, the two Katasumuri's would no longer be able to communicate. They run freely on their own, are capable of learning on their own and are able of creating their own experiences in life. This is exactly what the experiments on cats and mices have shown. 

 

The question now is, who controls you and if there is such a thing as a single you in there? 

[Katatsumuri]

Actually Katatsumuri, with recent advances in science we are beginning to look at the brain in sections as separate pieces of organs. Imagine you had TWO Katasumuris inside you. The only thing that is linking the two of you together in coordination is a cable. If you severe that cable, the two Katasumuri's would no longer be able to communicate. They run freely on their own, are capable of learning on their own and are able of creating their own experiences in life. This is exactly what the experiments on cats and mices have shown. 

 

The question now is, who controls you and if there is such a thing as a single you in there? 

 

There isn't. After all, you need parts to create a whole. We are made up of atoms and such already, so it isn't that strange that the brain would be made up of smaller parts, no? In the end though, even if there were 2 "me" in my brain, they would still need to have some sort of "understanding for each other" to fully operate the body. so unless there was a classical "two people in one body" scenario, those two parts would still be "me" as a whole. (I might've misunderstood your post though, so my answer might not be conclusive for it)

[crunchytaco]

There isn't. After all, you need parts to create a whole. We are made up of atoms and such already, so it isn't that strange that the brain would be made up of smaller parts, no? In the end though, even if there were 2 "me" in my brain, they would still need to have some sort of "understanding for each other" to fully operate the body. so unless there was a classical "two people in one body" scenario, those two parts would still be "me" as a whole. (I might've misunderstood your post though, so my answer might not be conclusive for it)

 

I agree that the sum of our parts makes up who we are, like the tiny hamsters running wheels inside our heads.

 

It's just that the definition of free will here is stretching to what it applies to,  and I'm not sure if you're aware of it.

 

Let me run a rewind a bit to freshen memories.

 

On a conscious level, you believe you are here discussing with me using your conscious effort. But as I have explained, the left brain works in retrospect. It is the conscious part of you that narrates the story in your mind. It tries to make sense of things even if it has to make up facts to do so (refer to the chicken shed response). Outside of split brain experiments, this is proven to happen during investigations when the same testimony changes details each time it was repeated to fit the narrative in the testifier's head without them even realizing it. 

 

Your body has made every decision before you're even aware of it because your consciousness is the slowest reacting part in your brain. It's once these actions become visually apparent in front of the left brain that you begin processing it on a conscious level. Yet it is the conscious part of your brain that convinces you it's the one in control of all your decisions. Each part works on such a different level, with such distinct job functions, it's fascinating that we even consider them one and the same brain.

 

If we are not aware of our choices, but we still classify that as free will, then this is no longer the classical definition of free will that we know it as. 

[Okami]

Well that's certainly the easiest and cheapest way to sidestep the contradiction, instead of thinking where you might be wrong just label any choice that results in a contradiction as an impossible choice.

That's kind of similar to what happened with the Church and Galileo. When he pointed out that the observations contradicted the Church's opinion that the Earth was the center of the universe, rather than think they might be wrong they declared that it's impossible for it to be any other way. Just something to think about.

Not really, while judging how correct a person's opinion is based on how well they phrase it is a pretty bad idea, someone who speaks coherently is more likely to be right than someone who can barely string two words together. Also speaking incoherently increases the chances that even if your opinion is correct, people will misunderstand it.

 

This has noting to do with what I said, I am not saying that it is an impossible choice I am saying that it is not a choice at all those are two different things.

Here you are just taring to turn my words around in order to show that I am wrong rather then thinking if I really am wrong.

 

You can't expect a person who talks in foreigner language to speaks as coherently in that language as person who speaks in his native language, and by what you say it it would mean that the one who speaks in his native language is more likely to be right witch is just stupid.

 

 

 

Um, okay? All I was saying was that your argument was terrible. You're tripping over yourself a lot and don't seem to know much about what you're talking about at all. If you can't see that, perhaps it's best I just leave you be.

 

First you said you didn't even read all the posts but now you are trying to judge my arguments while you didn't even read all of them? And no I am not tripping over myself at all if you think otherwise feel free to point out where you think I am.

 

 

 

That is all the brain is. It is a processor. Just like a computer. However it analyzes more data than a computer. It does stuff differently. However whatever you make the brain out to be, it ends up being something that takes in information and uses that to form decisions. It makes it seem like you're saying that the consciousness exists outside the bounds of space-time. :| How does having a all knowing supercomputer make anything different? It is independent to the concepts that are being discussed. Just because it is or isn't there doesn't change how the universe works. Everything will still behave in the same way. You will just have a means of finding out how. At this point I don't really know what you're trying to argue.

 

Your whole theory, to me it all just sounds like fate/god theory just without god and I found your arguments very week. First you ware saying that everything has to be the same even if there was an alternative universe if it started the same because people would have a same opinions because they would have same memories/live the same lives but then you said that everything else has to be the same too and you are trying to convince me that it would be the same as long as it starts the same witch is based on nothing but your opinion that it would be the same if it starts the same because people have a same memories witch creates a chicken and egg question situation. If by now you still can't see it I really don't know what else to say.

 

As for brain being a computer that uses information to form decisions is also wrong as it would mean that if we come in question of something completely foreigner that our brain has no information on it or anything similar to it  it couldn't make a decision witch is obviously wrong. While you can say that a grown up person can't really come in contact with something that is completely foreigner that is different when we are growing up as when we are born our brain has no information about things around us until the first time we experience it or something similar to it. I am not saying that information we have don't have any  influence on our decisions but it is not the only thing that does.

[Flutterz]

First you said you didn't even read all the posts but now you are trying to judge my arguments while you didn't even read all of them? And no I am not tripping over myself at all if you think otherwise feel free to point out where you think I am.

You're doing exactly what he's talking about (tripping over yourself) right here:

 

This has noting to do with what I said, I am not saying that it is an impossible choice I am saying that it is not a choice at all those are two different things.

Here you are just taring to turn my words around in order to show that I am wrong rather then thinking if I really am wrong.

You're ignoring the fact that no matter what you want to call it, "impossible choice" or "not a choice" the point is exactly the same, you're using the special pleading fallacy. Under your definitions anything can be a choice but the choice to have sex leads to a contradiction. So instead of having to bother and figure out why you have a contradiction, you just call it "not a choice" and there's no problem.

[Life]

Your whole theory, to me it all just sounds like fate/god theory just without god and I found your arguments very week. First you ware saying that everything has to be the same even if there was an alternative universe if it started the same because people would have a same opinions because they would have same memories/live the same lives but then you said that everything else has to be the same too and you are trying to convince me that it would be the same as long as it starts the same witch is based on nothing but your opinion that it would be the same if it starts the same because people have a same memories witch creates a chicken and egg question situation. If by now you still can't see it I really don't know what else to say.

 

As for brain being a computer that uses information to form decisions is also wrong as it would mean that if we come in question of something completely foreigner that our brain has no information on it or anything similar to it  it couldn't make a decision witch is obviously wrong. While you can say that a grown up person can't really come in contact with something that is completely foreigner that is different when we are growing up as when we are born our brain has no information about things around us until the first time we experience it or something similar to it. I am not saying that information we have don't have any  influence on our decisions but it is not the only thing that does.

I never said that everything began the same way just because peoples memories and experiences are the same. Quite the contrary though.  I wouldn't really call it an opinion. There are 12 elementary particles in this universe that everything is built upon. Each of them behave and interact with one another in a specific manner. Somebodies memories and experiences are not special. It is just information. It is the external factors which influence the memories. Using those memories, the human brain then takes in that information and processes it. The processed information allows you to make a decision and take on the next course of action. That affects other external factors and that gives rise to more memories. It is supposed to create a chicken and egg situation. There is nothing wrong with the chicken and egg situation. You grow a tree. Tree produces seeds. Plant seeds. Repeat. Lets try make things simpler. You throw something. It will fall with a certain acceleration because of gravity. No matter how many times you repeat the experiment, unless you change gravity itself, it will always fall down at the same rate. Gravity is an independent variable in this case. However in a real situation, there are so many independent variables that cause different results. If every single one of these were controlled then the same result will occur. If you apply this to the start of the big bang, then you will get the same result. (To anyone else, yes I know I am neglecting quantum but I am just trying to get a point across) It does not matter because as long as anything about the human brain does not exist outside space-time, it won't be possible for the results to change. Even if it is encountering something foreign, it is still a processor. It is similar to adding an extra piece of code into a system saying "If stimulus is unknown, gain sufficient data" or something like that. 

[Yeah Way]

You can't expect a person who talks in foreigner language to speaks as coherently in that language as person who speaks in his native language.

Maybe you shouldn't be surprised when no one agrees with you in a discussion about free will, then? In all seriousness, this is a subject that requires coherent speech in order to express your views and be taken seriously.

You're doing exactly what he's talking about (tripping over yourself) right here:

You're ignoring the fact that no matter what you want to call it, "impossible choice" or "not a choice" the point is exactly the same, you're using the special pleading fallacy. Under your definitions anything can be a choice but the choice to have sex leads to a contradiction. So instead of having to bother and figure out why you have a contradiction, you just call it "not a choice" and there's no problem.

Thanks for saving me the effort, Flutterz.

[Okami]

You're doing exactly what he's talking about (tripping over yourself) right here:

 

 

You're ignoring the fact that no matter what you want to call it, "impossible choice" or "not a choice" the point is exactly the same, you're using the special pleading fallacy. Under your definitions anything can be a choice but the choice to have sex leads to a contradiction. So instead of having to bother and figure out why you have a contradiction, you just call it "not a choice" and there's no problem.

 

No I am not tripping over myself you are just failing or refusing to see my point, deciding to grow up wings and fly in the sky is impossible choice deciding to fall on the ground when you are pushed from airplane is not a choice at all. And no not anything can be a choice like refusing to chose it's not a choice if you don't made it.

 

 

I never said that everything began the same way just because peoples memories and experiences are the same. Quite the contrary though.  I wouldn't really call it an opinion. There are 12 elementary particles in this universe that everything is built upon. Each of them behave and interact with one another in a specific manner. Somebodies memories and experiences are not special. It is just information. It is the external factors which influence the memories. Using those memories, the human brain then takes in that information and processes it. The processed information allows you to make a decision and take on the next course of action. That affects other external factors and that gives rise to more memories. It is supposed to create a chicken and egg situation. There is nothing wrong with the chicken and egg situation. You grow a tree. Tree produces seeds. Plant seeds. Repeat. Lets try make things simpler. You throw something. It will fall with a certain acceleration because of gravity. No matter how many times you repeat the experiment, unless you change gravity itself, it will always fall down at the same rate. Gravity is an independent variable in this case. However in a real situation, there are so many independent variables that cause different results. If every single one of these were controlled then the same result will occur. If you apply this to the start of the big bang, then you will get the same result. (To anyone else, yes I know I am neglecting quantum but I am just trying to get a point across) It does not matter because as long as anything about the human brain does not exist outside space-time, it won't be possible for the results to change. Even if it is encountering something foreign, it is still a processor. It is similar to adding an extra piece of code into a system saying "If stimulus is unknown, gain sufficient data" or something like that. 

 

You are saying that if you start something it will end the same like in principle with letting a rock fall into the ground but what about let's say loto, you put 30+ balls in a same order you push them with a same strength and you let the "box" they are in vibrate for the same time with the same force but you never get the same result. In a rock trowing there is very few factors involved so you can determent the result but in case of loto there are too many factors involved and it's to easy for something to go differently from the first time, so the only thing you can calculate is that every ball have a same chances of being a chosen one, knowing that you can know that even if you do it twice or 10 times chances are minimal that you will get a same result, in a universe case there are far more factors involved and even more of them are completely random so getting a same result is even less likely to happen.

 

Also while you say that your theory should have a chicken and egg situation chicken and egg situation is not an answer it only shows as that we don't have an answer, we can say that chicken comes from an egg and that egg comes from a chicken but we don't know how did first egg or first chicken come to be,  we can make theories but we can't know for sure and we can make theories because we know for sure that chicken comes from an egg and that egg comes from a chicken. In your theory even the process is a theory and explaining a process that is a theory based on unknown is not really convincing and it only shows that you believe it but don't rally have an answer as to why would everything fallow the same way.

[Yeah Way]

No I am not tripping over myself you are just failing or refusing to see my point, deciding to grow up wings and fly in the sky is impossible choice deciding to fall on the ground when you are pushed from airplane is not a choice at all. And no not anything can be a choice like refusing to chose it's not a choice if you don't made it.

 

 

 

You are saying that if you start something it will end the same like in principle with letting a rock fall into the ground but what about let's say loto, you put 30+ balls in a same order you push them with a same strength and you let the "box" they are in vibrate for the same time with the same force but you never get the same result. In a rock trowing there is very few factors involved so you can determent the result but in case of loto there are too many factors involved and it's to easy for something to go differently from the first time, so the only thing you can calculate is that every ball have a same chances of being a chosen one, knowing that you can know that even if you do it twice or 10 times chances are minimal that you will get a same result, in a universe case there are far more factors involved and even more of them are completely random so getting a same result is even less likely to happen.

 

Also while you say that your theory should have a chicken and egg situation chicken and egg situation is not an answer it only shows as that we don't have an answer, we can say that chicken comes from an egg and that egg comes from a chicken but we don't know how did first egg or first chicken come to be,  we can make theories but we can't know for sure and we can make theories because we know for sure that chicken comes from an egg and that egg comes from a chicken. In your theory even the process is a theory and explaining a process that is a theory based on unknown is not really convincing and it only shows that you believe it but don't rally have an answer as to why would everything fallow the same way.

wat

[Okami]

wat

 

When you are pushed from an airplane you fall to the ground it's not a choice the same way fallowing you instincts and having sex is not a choice as you didn't make it it is something someone made for you, in first case person who pushed you from an airplane and low of gravity in second case your instincts in both cases you don't make any choices but just let things go the way they are going without influence of your free will/intelligence/opinions/decisions.

[Yeah Way]

When you are pushed from an airplane you fall to the ground it's not a choice the same way fallowing you instincts and having sex is not a choice as you didn't make it it is something someone made for you, in first case person who pushed you from an airplane and low of gravity in second case your instincts in both cases you don't make any choices but just let things go the way they are going without influence of your free will/intelligence/opinions/decisions.

wat

 

You've already been told why the whole sex thing isn't a good argument. You're point is just lost on me and, it seems, yourself at this stage.

[Okami]

wat

 

You've already been told why the whole sex thing isn't a good argument. You're point is just lost on me and, it seems, yourself at this stage.

 

Nope, I have been told an opinion about it and I encountered it in order to prove it wrong and that it is a good and valid argument.

 

Argument doesn't become week ween a person against it tells that it is week, if just telling someone that their arguments are week would truly make their arguments week then we wouldn't have a discussions in a first place.

 

And if you can't fallow my point that's your fault i explained my self pretty clearly.

[Flutterz]

Nope, I have been told an opinion about it and I encountered it in order to prove it wrong and that it is a good and valid argument.

Pointing out a contradiction =/= an opinion. Unless you think that saying "2 = 3 is wrong" is also an opinion.

 

No I am not tripping over myself you are just failing or refusing to see my point, deciding to grow up wings and fly in the sky is impossible choice deciding to fall on the ground when you are pushed from airplane is not a choice at all. And no not anything can be a choice like refusing to chose it's not a choice if you don't made it.

As for this, you're comparing two different things. With the technology we have right now, it's completely impossible to grow wings and fly in the sky and completely impossible to do anything but fall to the ground from an airplane if you don't use some sort of other flying machine. It doesn't matter what you choose to do or not to do, those things will not happen by themselves and they will not happen if you try to do something to make them happen. Unlike sex, which even under your own definitions can happen if people follow their instincts.

 

But all of that doesn't even matter. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean you can't choose to do it.

For example: 

Case 1: I am standing in an empty room with a bottle of water. I choose to drink the water. I take the bottle and I drink it. I made a choice and the result was successful.

Case 2: I am standing in an empty room with a bottle of water, but there is also a person in the room whom I do not know about who will shoot me as soon as I try to drink. I choose to drink the water. As soon as I take the bottle the other person shoots me. I made a choice and the result was unsuccessful.

This shows that whether or not my actions as a result of my choice were successful or not, I've still made a choice.

Case 3: I am standing in an empty room with a bottle of water, but there is also a person in the room who I know will shoot me as soon as I try to drink. I choose to drink the water even though I know I will be shot, and as soon as I try he shoots me. I made a choice knowing that the result would be unsuccessful.

Hence, I can choose to sprout wings and fly away, but no matter how much I try to do it (unless I'm a brilliant genetic engineer or something) I will fail and I know it.

 

At the same time, not making a choice is also a choice because it all depends on your point of view. 

Let's say you're pushed out of a plane with a parachute:

You can choose to open the parachute, or you can not make the choice to open the parachute and do nothing.

But at the same time the opposite is true.

You can choose to not open the parachute, or you can not make that choice and open it like you normally would.

 

Now just replace the situation with sex:

You can choose to have sex, or you can not make the choice to have sex and do nothing.

But at the same time the opposite is true.

If you feel that you want to have sex you choose to not have sex, or you can not make that choice and not resist the desire to have sex.

 

If you still can't understand (or rather don't want to understand), I don't think I can break it down any further to make it even simpler to understand.

[Okami]

Pointing out a contradiction =/= an opinion. Unless you think that saying "2 = 3 is wrong" is also an opinion.

 

As for this, you're comparing two different things. With the technology we have right now, it's completely impossible to grow wings and fly in the sky and completely impossible to do anything but fall to the ground from an airplane if you don't use some sort of other flying machine. It doesn't matter what you choose to do or not to do, those things will not happen by themselves and they will not happen if you try to do something to make them happen. Unlike sex, which even under your own definitions can happen if people follow their instincts.

 

But all of that doesn't even matter. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean you can't choose to do it.

For example: 

Case 1: I am standing in an empty room with a bottle of water. I choose to drink the water. I take the bottle and I drink it. I made a choice and the result was successful.

Case 2: I am standing in an empty room with a bottle of water, but there is also a person in the room whom I do not know about who will shoot me as soon as I try to drink. I choose to drink the water. As soon as I take the bottle the other person shoots me. I made a choice and the result was unsuccessful.

This shows that whether or not my actions as a result of my choice were successful or not, I've still made a choice.

Case 3: I am standing in an empty room with a bottle of water, but there is also a person in the room who I know will shoot me as soon as I try to drink. I choose to drink the water even though I know I will be shot, and as soon as I try he shoots me. I made a choice knowing that the result would be unsuccessful.

Hence, I can choose to sprout wings and fly away, but no matter how much I try to do it (unless I'm a brilliant genetic engineer or something) I will fail and I know it.

 

At the same time, not making a choice is also a choice because it all depends on your point of view. 

Let's say you're pushed out of a plane with a parachute:

You can choose to open the parachute, or you can not make the choice to open the parachute and do nothing.

But at the same time the opposite is true.

You can choose to not open the parachute, or you can not make that choice and open it like you normally would.

 

Now just replace the situation with sex:

You can choose to have sex, or you can not make the choice to have sex and do nothing.

But at the same time the opposite is true.

If you feel that you want to have sex you choose to not have sex, or you can not make that choice and not resist the desire to have sex.

 

If you still can't understand (or rather don't want to understand), I don't think I can break it down any further to make it even simpler to understand.

 

I actually think that you are the one who doesn't want to understand I think that you know that I am right you just don't won't to accept that I am witch is why you are giving arguments unrelated to my own and trying to turn around my arguments, but i still give you more proofs that I am right in case that you are really not understanding rather then refusing to understand.

 

In case of you taking a glass to drink a water you can make a multiple choice but in case of sex and being pushed out of airplane you can't because only one choose is the one you can make others are made for you and therefore not the choice at all. In case of being pushed out of the airplane you can chose to use your intelligence to think and to not stand where someone could push you out of it or you could just let the things happen on their own witch is not influenced by your choice therefore not a choice at all. Same in having or not having sex there is only one choice you can make otherwise it's made for you and therefore not your choice. Choice is only when you yourself chose something using your intelligence, if you let someone or something other choose for you it's not a choice as you didn't made that choice using you intelligence you let things play out without your influence.

 

You say that it could be also viewed as not having sex as you not making a choice to have it but that is incorrect as your instincts will always tell you to have sex so unless you make a choice to not have it you will have sex because your instincts will choose for you but only you with your intelligence can decide to go against instincts and to not have sex, theretofore having sex is not a choice not having it is.

[Flutterz]

I actually think that you are the one who doesn't want to understand I think that you know that I am right you just don't won't to accept that I am witch is why you are giving arguments unrelated to my own and trying to turn around my arguments, but i still give you more proofs that I am right in case that you are really not understanding rather then refusing to understand.

 

In case of you taking a glass to drink a water you can make a multiple choice but in case of sex and being pushed out of airplane you can't because only one choose is the one you can make others are made for you and therefore not the choice at all. In case of being pushed out of the airplane you can chose to use your intelligence to think and to not stand where someone could push you out of it or you could just let the things happen on their own witch is not influenced by your choice therefore not a choice at all. Same in having or not having sex there is only one choice you can make otherwise it's made for you and therefore not your choice. Choice is only when you yourself chose something using your intelligence, if you let someone or something other choose for you it's not a choice as you didn't made that choice using you intelligence you let things play out without your influence.

 

You say that it could be also viewed as not having sex as you not making a choice to have it but that is incorrect as your instincts will always tell you to have sex so unless you make a choice to not have it you will have sex because your instincts will choose for you but only you with your intelligence can decide to go against instincts and to not have sex, theretofore having sex is not a choice not having it is.

So I guess you decided to completely ignore the part where I demonstrate (not just claim like you do, but demonstrate where the claim comes from) that pretty much anything is a choice, even if the action you take as a result has no chance of succeeding, and whether or not your choice influences anything it's still a choice, and both the water and airplane examples are the same in this regard. You can choose to not fall after being pushed out of an airplane, you can even try to make a makeshift parachute out of your clothes or something, but you will most likely fail and fall anyway, even though you made the choice to not fall.

 

Since you can't even be bothered to read my points, I won't post anymore since there's no point in it. But I probably knew before I made my first post that no matter what anyone says you won't be convinced, but I still made the choice to convince you, and just because there is absolutely no result doesn't mean I didn't make that choice.

[Okami]

So I guess you decided to completely ignore the part where I demonstrate (not just claim like you do, but demonstrate where the claim comes from) that pretty much anything is a choice, even if the action you take as a result has no chance of succeeding, and whether or not your choice influences anything it's still a choice, and both the water and airplane examples are the same in this regard. You can choose to not fall after being pushed out of an airplane, you can even try to make a makeshift parachute out of your clothes or something, but you will most likely fail and fall anyway, even though you made the choice to not fall.

 

Since you can't even be bothered to read my points, I won't post anymore since there's no point in it. But I probably knew before I made my first post that no matter what anyone says you won't be convinced, but I still made the choice to convince you, and just because there is absolutely no result doesn't mean I didn't make that choice.

 

I didn't ignore them at all I answered them, I admit that bad choice that has no chance of succeeds is still a choice but it's a choice because you choose it, you didn't let others or something other choose it for you but you completely ignore my points and are claiming that choice that you don't choose is still a choice made by you without explaining or demonstrating why you think that, the things you demonstrated with a glass of water I newer questioned to begin with and I accept that they are correct but that and what I am talking about are two different things and I explained difference between them.

[Katatsumuri]

I agree that the sum of our parts makes up who we are, like the tiny hamsters running wheels inside our heads.

 

It's just that the definition of free will here is stretching to what it applies to,  and I'm not sure if you're aware of it.

 

Let me run a rewind a bit to freshen memories.

 

On a conscious level, you believe you are here discussing with me using your conscious effort. But as I have explained, the left brain works in retrospect. It is the conscious part of you that narrates the story in your mind. It tries to make sense of things even if it has to make up facts to do so (refer to the chicken shed response). Outside of split brain experiments, this is proven to happen during investigations when the same testimony changes details each time it was repeated to fit the narrative in the testifier's head without them even realizing it. 

 

Your body has made every decision before you're even aware of it because your consciousness is the slowest reacting part in your brain. It's once these actions become visually apparent in front of the left brain that you begin processing it on a conscious level. Yet it is the conscious part of your brain that convinces you it's the one in control of all your decisions. Each part works on such a different level, with such distinct job functions, it's fascinating that we even consider them one and the same brain.

 

If we are not aware of our choices, but we still classify that as free will, then this is no longer the classical definition of free will that we know it as. 

 

Ah, I see. I was very tired when I made my post, so It was pretty sloppy.

 

And it is also a very interesting concept, but In a way, my point still stands: Both our consciousness and subconsciousness still make up who we are, as well as every other part of us. While it is most likely truth in what you say about our consciousness only creating an explanation for the actions of the subconsciousness, isn't the Subconsciousness also "us"? After all, the subconsciousness (typing that word is a pain) making the decision is not a separate entity. It is a part of our mind. And if a part of our mind is what makes the decision, then we can reasonably say that it is still "we" who make that decision.

 

Whether or not it does fit the classical definition of free will though, is what makes this whole subject so interesting. My opinion is that in a practical sense, we have free will. In a theoretical sense however, we do not.

[Life]

You are saying that if you start something it will end the same like in principle with letting a rock fall into the ground but what about let's say loto, you put 30+ balls in a same order you push them with a same strength and you let the "box" they are in vibrate for the same time with the same force but you never get the same result. In a rock trowing there is very few factors involved so you can determent the result but in case of loto there are too many factors involved and it's to easy for something to go differently from the first time, so the only thing you can calculate is that every ball have a same chances of being a chosen one, knowing that you can know that even if you do it twice or 10 times chances are minimal that you will get a same result, in a universe case there are far more factors involved and even more of them are completely random so getting a same result is even less likely to happen.

 

Also while you say that your theory should have a chicken and egg situation chicken and egg situation is not an answer it only shows as that we don't have an answer, we can say that chicken comes from an egg and that egg comes from a chicken but we don't know how did first egg or first chicken come to be,  we can make theories but we can't know for sure and we can make theories because we know for sure that chicken comes from an egg and that egg comes from a chicken. In your theory even the process is a theory and explaining a process that is a theory based on unknown is not really convincing and it only shows that you believe it but don't rally have an answer as to why would everything fallow the same way.

A falling rock and lottery are fundamentally the same. Whereas one of them is based off of interacting with air, the other is based off interacting with other lottery balls. Both objects still obey the conservation of momentum and energy. Even though there are 'too many factors' there comes to a point where no other factor affects the outcome if every other factor has been taken into account. It isn't even a valid argument in my opinion. There may be too many factors for a human to understand but it still stands that under the condition you knew the velocity and what was influencing the lottery at the beginning you can figure the outcome. It is because these twelve particles interact in such predictable ways that makes it easier to predict how everything is going. The chicken and egg does have a definitive answer. In that case, the egg started the cycle due to mutations and natural selection. However with this case, it is the external factors that come first. If you think that the cycle didn't have a start that is just naive. From your logic if that is still a baseless theory... I really have no idea what to say. Everything ending up the same way is a logical assumption. The manner in which physics works only allows certain types of interaction. How do you not understand that? 

[Okami]

A falling rock and lottery are fundamentally the same. Whereas one of them is based off of interacting with air, the other is based off interacting with other lottery balls. Both objects still obey the conservation of momentum and energy. Even though there are 'too many factors' there comes to a point where no other factor affects the outcome if every other factor has been taken into account. It isn't even a valid argument in my opinion. There may be too many factors for a human to understand but it still stands that under the condition you knew the velocity and what was influencing the lottery at the beginning you can figure the outcome. It is because these twelve particles interact in such predictable ways that makes it easier to predict how everything is going. The chicken and egg does have a definitive answer. In that case, the egg started the cycle due to mutations and natural selection. However with this case, it is the external factors that come first. If you think that the cycle didn't have a start that is just naive. From your logic if that is still a baseless theory... I really have no idea what to say. Everything ending up the same way is a logical assumption. The manner in which physics works only allows certain types of interaction. How do you not understand that? 

 

If that ware the case then we would get the same result every time witch is clearly not the case, and no it is not just too many factors for human to understand there are to many factors witch makes every outcome having a same chance of happening when every outcome has a same chance of happening it means that having a same outcome comes twice is a low possibility, it's the same as with a world. Many things in this world don't have a clear results but just many possibilities witch is the biggest flow in your theory.

[Life]

You almost get it. =.= The only problem left is that you don't understand that it is almost impossible to completely replicate the same experiment twice. If it did and was able to control every independent variable then yes you would have the same outcome. You drop a ball from a building. Theoretically it will land dead in the center. That is with no external factors. However you have radiation, wind, every little thing helps move the ball of track. However if you knew the speed of the wind and how the radiation makes the ball vibrate faster etc. then you can potentially find where it lands. Having more factors will end up making no difference because having too many will only affect what type of factor. Say you add a parachute. As long as you know how the parachute is affecting the fall you can still figure out where it lands so having too many factors won't make a difference. You deviate from the theoretical value because there are other factors but if you take them into account you can still figure out how everything will end up. That is why I originally said that nothing can change thus, you will only make the same decision every time the universe starts the same way. 

[Okami]

You almost get it. =.= The only problem left is that you don't understand that it is almost impossible to completely replicate the same experiment twice. If it did and was able to control every independent variable then yes you would have the same outcome. You drop a ball from a building. Theoretically it will land dead in the center. That is with no external factors. However you have radiation, wind, every little thing helps move the ball of track. However if you knew the speed of the wind and how the radiation makes the ball vibrate faster etc. then you can potentially find where it lands. Having more factors will end up making no difference because having too many will only affect what type of factor. Say you add a parachute. As long as you know how the parachute is affecting the fall you can still figure out where it lands so having too many factors won't make a difference. You deviate from the theoretical value because there are other factors but if you take them into account you can still figure out how everything will end up. That is why I originally said that nothing can change thus, you will only make the same decision every time the universe starts the same way. 

 

No I don't think that if all factors are the same result will always be the same as there is alot of times when even if all the factors are the same there is 2 or more possible outcomes with the same possibility of happening witch results that even if you remake all the factors exactly the same chances of it happening the same are lower then it happening differently. I think that loto is a great example as you can easily remake all the factors, you put the balls in the same order in the same positions pushed them with the same strength and put vibrations of the same strengths, you use the box of the same size and set it on the same place, all factors are exactly the same it starts exactly the same but it has different results, and just to let you know that balls bouncing one of another or of box is not a factor you should count as it would just prove your theory wrong as you said that as long as something starts the same it will have a same result and balls bouncing one of another is something that happens during a process and not while starting.