Rainbow Dash

I think therefore I am.

People influence their environment without believing that their environment has free will. This is not a performative contradiction.

Consciousness is not meaningless. It was considered a meaningful feature to the aliens who engineered us, even though I am aware that most people reject this. I believe that this is getting away from the topic though.

I don't understand what you mean by the second line. I also don't understand the implications. You may need to spell it out for me.

This would mean that reality and I are mutually exclusive. That would also mean that I can't be considered part of reality. I believe that this is a likely possibility, but even if this was not the case, I don't see how that would imply free will. Even if your actions were determined by a combination of neurons firing and previous consciousness, I don't see how this would imply free will. If your actions occur with no explanation, I don't see how this would imply free will. I am not sure under what scenario free will could be a reasonable explanation.

No I was not trolling. I think it is important to define our terms so we don't refer to different things. For example, if I am playing chess against a computer, I may say something like, "oh look, the computer chose to play knight to C3" which is a reasonable use of the word chose in normal conversation, but I don't think this definition of chose is what you mean by chose in this forum. It is important we distinguish between these definitions. You imply that a coin would need to be able to flip itself to be able to have choice, but that would imply that a coin with a built in robotic arm that could flip itself without intervention could choose, which I don't think is what you mean by choose. People give over simplified explanations of key words and it makes it hard to have a conversation on these topics when we don't have agreed upon definitions. Edit: people keep accusing others of misinterpreting their viewpoints, and I just want to bring clarity to both sides, and this process starts with defining the most basic terms to remove as much ambiguity as possible.

Experiencing unpleasant feelings is not mystical. Making claims about the universe based purely on unpleasant feelings is. I don't think that an illusion of free will is in any way mystical; It's the claim based purely off of it I think might be. Edit: unpleasant feelings are by definition what you experience so experiencing something unpleasant means your unpleasant experience exists. The same can't be said for free will because free will describes the behavior of the universe. I thought a cause and effect that takes place over time is equivalent to a continuous series of snap-shot causation, making the difference between the 2 unimportant since one relies on the other. What is your alternative explanation to causation that occurs over time if it is not what I described?

Can someone please answer this. Christians sometimes give similar reasons for believing in God. They say that they feel the presence of God in their lives, and that this experience is evidence for God. I don't see how saying we are the cause of our actions because we experience it that way any different then the argument for God. If there is a difference please explain.

Do you have evidence of this?

Red can be classified as a specific hue on the color spectrum.

I thought causality meant that effects were determined by their causes, and that the causes were the past state of the universe, and that effects were the future state of the universe. When you say "effects have causes", is that different from effects being determined by causes? I think it is bad to assume that you can't find an answer to something, because then you stop looking for an answer. Even if we can't fully explain consciousness with a series of variables, figuring out some variables can be beneficial. We categorize different emotional states, and we can give quantities to emotions. We can call these different emotional states and quantities with them different variables. This is incomplete and not very precise, but useful. I also don't see why this can't be analyzed from a deterministic perspective.

Kevin, This explanation seems to imply that animals have free will, because they have consciousness, which can't be reduced to matter and energy. This conflicts with other explanations of free will. Can I get some clarity? I will respond to more of your post when I have more time.

Although debating determinism is ban worthy, I see nothing against arguing for an absence of free will, so you can get around it if you are careful with your wording.

The rules seem vague on whether mentioning determinism is ban worthy or if debating determinism is ban worthy. My intentions are to understand how free will differs from determinism, not to debate free will vs determinism.

Can you give an answer to my question? or did you just say Hydrocephalus and Progeria without checking if they can actually explain all of the anomalies of the Starchild skull?

Can you show me an example of a human with a number of mutations in their FOXP2 gene that is anywhere near what the Starchild skull has? Because I don't believe one exists If you were able to comprehend the numerous large differences the Starchild skull has with humans and life on earth in general, in addition this skull fits the general description of a gray alien, and that Hydrocephalus and Progeria can't explain all the anomalies of the Starchild Skull, you would find it is a reasonable conclusion.

How do either of those things even explain the first thing on the list from the link which states: "The bone is like no other bone on Earth. Its biochemical signature is much richer in collagen than regular bone."?

If you can show me an existing theory that can explain every anomaly of the Starchild skull listed here: http://starchildproject.com/the-project/skullbasics , I would love to see it.

More recent and accurate DNA testing from 2012 disproves the older DNA tests. Please respond with up to date information.

If you still consider the idea of the Starchild skull not being human as "highly specious" and are stating that the skull is simply "malformed", I am not going to waste my time giving an explanation.

If we are unable to know the exact location of a quantum particle, does that mean the exact location of a quantum particle is meaningless? If a tree falls and no one is there to measure the sound it makes, is its sound meaningless? Determinism explains this with the idea that perfect information is unobtainable, thus we can't predict the future with perfect accuracy. This applies to all objects, and does not make special exceptions for humans. Does free will explain how we can't accurately predict the behavior of quantum particles?

I sent you what Kevin sent me.

Can you link me a couple of these proofs you mentioned?

I think you made really good points. I would like to hear someone else give a response to this.

We can create life; its called giving birth. "If my consciousness is dependent on matter or energy, then if my consciousness causes my choices, doesn't that mean that matter and energy makes my choices?" No because my assumptions were false, or because my conclusion is false assuming my assumptions? Is it self contradictory for matter and energy to make my choices, or do you just not believe it is possible?