Rainbow Dash

So is choice when a conscious creature has multiple possible future actions and he uses his or her consciousness to make his or her future action the action that leads to what he or she sees as preferable behavior? (Edit: preferable state, not behavior)

Can choice occur without preferred state? Is it possible to choose an non-preferred state?

So is choice when an action leads to preferred state? Am I getting closer?

Why is choice only applied to creatures with consciousness? This seems inconstant to me. Nobody claims gravity doesn't apply to creatures with consciousness.

I still don't understand what you mean by "choose"

Then can I accurately replace "free will" with "the unknown"?

"Free will is a place-holder for I don't know." (sorry quoting was buggy) Are you seriously telling me that you have been trying to explain something to me that you don't even know? Occam's razor has to do with the fewest assumptions, not the fewest conclusions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Most of those are conclusions, not assumptions.

Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is usually correct. If free will is so complicated that you couldn't accurately explain it to us by now, then free will appears to be an overly complicated idea. Since non-free will explains the universe well and is simpler, I think I will stick with non-free will until hear convincing reasons why I shouldn't.

I tried really hard to understand the free will point of view. Do you have any other ideas on how to get the idea across?

I think we may be arguing over semantics. If I am wearing a glove on my hand and I use my gloved hand to lift a cup, is my hand lifting the cup or is the glove lifting the cup? How I see it, matter and energy are the hand, consciousness is the glove, and our actions are lifting the cup. Does this metaphor help explain my viewpoint?

For consciousness to not be reducible to matter and energy, there has to be something additional that affects it. if something additional affects consciousness, then then depending on what that something else is would depend on what the consciousness was which would mean multiple consciousnesses would be possible for the same matter/energy combinations.

Sure, I would like to take part in that if someone on the opposing view would join. Or we could Skype and I could try to explain why I don't think determinism is depressing. My Skype is: wobbuffet222

Consciousness is what I am experiencing. Everything I see smell feel think and so on. So are you claiming that multiple conscious experiences are possible with identical matter/energy combinations? Which side of the free will debate are you on?

I still don't fully understand is what you mean by "making choices", but by now it seems that the concept just doesn't make sense to me and we may have to agree to disagree. I appreciate the time you spent and I am sorry you were irritated.

You can't make the same argument for determinism, because with determinism every instance of the universe is determined by the previous instance of the universe, up until the first instance of the universe. This does not go on forever, only up unto the beginning of the universe. Even if we don't fully understand the algorithm that determines the next instance of the universe that doesn't mean it can't exist. 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?

By not being forced, do you mean I am forcing myself to make the decision, or that nothing is forcing me to make my choices and my choices are determined by randomness? If I chose to make a decision, I first must choose to make the decision to make the decision, and before that I must choose to make the decision to choose to make the decision to make the decision. this leads to an infinite regression. (hypothetical example)If you are angry and I ask you "why are you angry?" and you say "because you called me ugly". then I ask "why does me calling you ugly make you mad?" and you say "because being insulted makes me mad" and then I ask "why does being insulted make you mad?", eventually I will get to a question you don't know the answer to. If you do things for reasons you don't know why, how can that be considered having control over your actions?

Forced upon me by what? And when you say "you" are you referring to the atoms that make up my body, or are you referring to the consciousness I am experiencing?

Can you explain what this means?

Hypothetically, if physical reality causes me to choose to lift my arm and choosing to lift my arm causes my arm to go up, would this be an example of free will or determinism?

Is it possible for free will to be deterministic? Why or why not?

What do you mean by "choose"? If I flip a coin and it lands on heads, did the coin choose to land on heads? How can I determine if an object's actions were determined by choice? When you say everything else in the universe is driven by physics, impulse and instinct, are you implying that choosing between truth and falsehood is not driven by physics, impulse and instinct?

I watched some of Stef's videos on free will, and he spends most his time arguing why it exists instead of giving it a clear and specific definition. Can someone help define free will for me? I am having trouble understanding what people mean by free will. *Edit* *Important* I am no longer allowed to post, I can only communicate through edits. I have been given no explanation as to why I can't post. Apparently FDR is a strong supporter of censorship.

I looked for debunkings, and the video I posted along with other sources supporting the Starchild make better arguments then the debunkings I found. If you found a source debunking it, then you are unwilling to spend 2 seconds posting a link. If you don't have a source debunking it then you have no evidence for saying it has been debunked. So you are either making an assertion with no evidence, or you are intentionally leaving out information.

When you say he gives no proof, do you have reasons for not trusting the experts he referenced that studied the skull?