Any will is free. There is no such thing as an 'unfree' will. I shall demonstrate this through a thought experiment. The basis for the experiment is that free will is something that has to do with how we act or think. If we did not have free will, we should be able to know that <I>without</I> having to know the details of how our universe (our reality) works- whether it is deterministic, random, or something else. This is more of an interactive experiment, so I expect responses (different ones according to your different views), and I'll continue the discussion accordingly.

Suppose that our universe <I>is</I> deterministic (Yes, I think it is, but don't get stuck on that point). Now, those of you who believe that free will is impossible in such a universe, please try to explain how we would know, what we would feel, when our will is being "restricted". Now obviously, physical restrictions don't figure in this. Binding someone in chains so that he cannot move doesn't restrict his freedom of <I>will</I>; it restricts his freedom of <I>action</I>. So don't go on about physical laws like gravity. How would it feel to not have free will. Give a real description. I'm not talking about a description of what would "happen" (metaphysics), as in how thinking is just a lot of chemical reactions and how that is essentially particle interactions and thus based on physical laws and causality. I 'm talking about a description of what would be felt by someone when his will was being restricted by causality or something else.

Now, on to agent causation. This, as I understand it, is the theory that free will enables an agent to be the cause of an action, without any preceding cause. Now tell me what this would feel like, how it would feel different from what would happen in a deterministic universe, in which an agent's action can be a cause alone, without being the effect of a previous cause. Again, I'm asking what it would feel like, not what would appear to happen according to another observer.

If we did not have free will, we should be able to know that without having to know the details of how our universe (our reality) works- whether it is deterministic, random, or something else.
this statement does not follow from any logic, and thus is invalid.

your argument is essentially that "if it feels like free will, it must be free will." that is not true, you could think that you have free will when you do not.


try not to waste people's time. your arguments should me more thought out before you post.

I agree with cato... your argument is flawed basically in the first 3 lines or so.

Before I go any further discussing this, I want you to think about this real hard. And do not just read it, give it 2 seconds of thought and post your reply disputing my purported stance (which might seem fairly obvious).

Say you have choice between door 1 and door 2. You do not know what is behind them and you have to pick one. You are FREE to pick which ever door you want. Say you pick door 2. That's fair and all, but here is the twist. Rewind time... same exact conditions, everything is equal to what it was when you were given the choice. All atoms in the universe the exact same positions, planets in the same places, same doors, same distance you are from the doors, no pressure. You have no knowledge that in the "parallel world" you chose door 2. Would it have been POSSIBLE for you to choose door 1? Could you have made a different decision? I want you to explain to me your answer.

Any will is free. There is no such thing as an 'unfree' will. I shall demonstrate this through a thought experiment. The basis for the experiment is that free will is something that has to do with how we act or think. If we did not have free will, we should be able to know that <I>without</I> having to know the details of how our universe (our reality) works- whether it is deterministic, random, or something else. This is more of an interactive experiment, so I expect responses (different ones according to your different views), and I'll continue the discussion accordingly.

Suppose that our universe <I>is</I> deterministic (Yes, I think it is, but don't get stuck on that point). Now, those of you who believe that free will is impossible in such a universe, please try to explain how we would know, what we would feel, when our will is being "restricted". Now obviously, physical restrictions don't figure in this. Binding someone in chains so that he cannot move doesn't restrict his freedom of <I>will</I>; it restricts his freedom of <I>action</I>. So don't go on about physical laws like gravity. How would it feel to not have free will. Give a real description. I'm not talking about a description of what would "happen" (metaphysics), as in how thinking is just a lot of chemical reactions and how that is essentially particle interactions and thus based on physical laws and causality. I 'm talking about a description of what would be felt by someone when his will was being restricted by causality or something else.

Now, on to agent causation. This, as I understand it, is the theory that free will enables an agent to be the cause of an action, without any preceding cause. Now tell me what this would feel like, how it would feel different from what would happen in a deterministic universe, in which an agent's action can be a cause alone, without being the effect of a previous cause. Again, I'm asking what it would feel like, not what would appear to happen according to another observer.I agree with you, free will is that we can will anything that we can think of, thus free will is inherently free and our fantasy is the only hinder from what we can will.

Free will is FREE! Hurray! Let's party!

It's just stupid trying to argue against free will, I admit I did it when I was a child, I did some things just because I thought that it couldn't be predetermined (like doing something totally spontanious and unthought of), however I could allways find a pre existant cause for it (usually it was "oh, now I can test free will!", or "I bet you won't see THIS coming!".


(I should point out, that those exercises didn't make it any less free, since I actually COULD think of anything that I could think of, and I could take it any direction I wanted).

Since the free will matters to me and not the universe, then from all I am concerned I really do have free will.

Also, see it this way, if you do something really nice, then it was meant to happen! How nice wouldn't it be if you would do something nice to make the universe be nicer to you?

Don't you see? The universe has to follow you! Or you have to follow the universe, but then make sure you follow the good things it has to offer!

I agree with you, free will is that we can will anything that we can think of, thus free will is inherently free and our fantasy is the only hinder from what we can will.

Free will is FREE! Hurray! Let's party!

It's just stupid trying to argue against free will, I admit I did it when I was a child, I did some things just because I thought that it couldn't be predetermined (like doing something totally spontanious and unthought of), however I could allways find a pre existant cause for it (usually it was "oh, now I can test free will!", or "I bet you won't see THIS coming!".


(I should point out, that those exercises didn't make it any less free, since I actually COULD think of anything that I could think of, and I could take it any direction I wanted).

Since the free will matters to me and not the universe, then from all I am concerned I really do have free will.

Also, see it this way, if you do something really nice, then it was meant to happen! How nice wouldn't it be if you would do something nice to make the universe be nicer to you?

Don't you see? The universe has to follow you! Or you have to follow the universe, but then make sure you follow the good things it has to offer!


Ok then , tell me where this "Free will" part of you is located so that it is independant of the universe, as to make sure nothing interfers with it being free? How does it communicate with the brain? Or is the brain magic too?

Ok then , tell me where this "Free will" part of you is located so that it is independant of the universe, as to make sure nothing interfers with it being free? How does it communicate with the brain? Or is the brain magic too?It doesn't matter where it is located, it is still free will if you observe it to be so. It is free will by the definition of free will which is that you are free to will whatever you can think of (even things that you don't really feel satisfied with can be 'willed').

So why don't we have free will?

It doesn't matter where it is located, it is still free will if you observe it to be so.

How do you recognize free will? If you cannot recognize it then you do not know if you are observing it.

It is free will by the definition of free will which is that you are free to will whatever you can think of (even things that you don't really feel satisfied with can be 'willed').

Free will - (noun) having freedom
Is that what you are saying? Robots then can have free will because we will give it freedom to do what it is programmed to do (like we tell it to take out the garbage... preventing it from doing so would restrict it's freedom (free will) even though it is pre-destined. That makes no sense.

So why don't we have free will?

Because we are machines in a systematic universe.

How do you recognize free will? If you cannot recognize it then you do not know if you are observing it.I recognize it with the ability of me doing and thinking what I want to think, and not feeling any restrictions in the will of mine, even if I feel restrictions on the way to use that will.

The restrictions on the way to use that will, however is just a way of me not doing and thinking every perceivable thing or any impulse that might get into my "room of thoughts" and those thoughts that I feel is meaningless are often activly hindered by me - by using my free will to change the line of thoughts so that they don't go in to a meaningless berserk of utterances.





Free will - (noun) having freedom
Is that what you are saying? Robots then can have free will because we will give it freedom to do what it is programmed to do (like we tell it to take out the garbage... preventing it from doing so would restrict it's freedom (free will) even though it is pre-destined. That makes no sense.It only makes sense if the robots have subjective experiance of reality, and feel that they have options to do what is possible to the world they perceive. If they know one thing is possible but don't feel the ability to actually do it, then that is a limit to the free will in such a way that it isn't free anymore.

As to this point of time, I never heard of a robot that has subjective experiance (and don't try to say that we are just robots - sure there is a obvious physical nature of us but robots are too crude of a term to be used in place of humans or even some animals).

Because we are machines in a systematic universe.We are machines in such a way that our body functions through physical processes.

However, we are more than machines because we can perceive of things that isn't physical. We are also more than machines because of the 'subjective experiance', not known to any other machine in the history of mankind, thus cannot be attributed to "machines" in general and there is yet to have arrived any conclusive evidence for subjective experiance to be made through physical means only (which is the way of defining it as a property of machines).

The "systematic universe" that you speak of, has more to it than you think.

I recognize it with the ability of me doing and thinking what I want to think, and not feeling any restrictions in the will of mine, even if I feel restrictions on the way to use that will.

Can your wants not just be predetemined cause and effect chains of the chemicals in your brain and your brain is programmed (or conditioned) in a way that makes you think you are free? Is your consciousness where free will lies? Doubtful, as a study was done. They found that any voluntary actions were found to happen 400ms BEFORE they hit the conscious. Thing is with this, your arguements about recognizing free will and my arguements about the same are just going to go in circles so I don't think we will get anywhere. :bugeye:

The restrictions on the way to use that will, however is just a way of me not doing and thinking every perceivable thing or any impulse that might get into my "room of thoughts" and those thoughts that I feel is meaningless are often activly hindered by me - by using my free will to change the line of thoughts so that they don't go in to a meaningless berserk of utterances.





It only makes sense if the robots have subjective experiance of reality, and feel that they have options to do what is possible to the world they perceive. If they know one thing is possible but don't feel the ability to actually do it, then that is a limit to the free will in such a way that it isn't free anymore.

As to this point of time, I never heard of a robot that has subjective experiance (and don't try to say that we are just robots - sure there is a obvious physical nature of us but robots are too crude of a term to be used in place of humans or even some animals).

We are machines in such a way that our body functions through physical processes.

However, we are more than machines because we can perceive of things that isn't physical. We are also more than machines because of the 'subjective experiance', not known to any other machine in the history of mankind, thus cannot be attributed to "machines" in general and there is yet to have arrived any conclusive evidence for subjective experiance to be made through physical means only (which is the way of defining it as a property of machines).

Again all I would do is just question all the assumptions. But I think we could build a computer that can perceive things that are not real. Just because it has not happened yet does not mean it could not ever happen. Humans just have not come up with a way to build a computer complex enough to do such a thing (like the human brain) yet simple enough for use to put together. Suppose a human built a real human brain, but made of transitors. And set it in a robot. Does this robot have free will? How do we know it does not have free will? What is a requirement for free will? What does this robot's brain say about human free will?

The "systematic universe" that you speak of, has more to it than you think.

Like what? I see particles in their places with a calculatable momentum. Or strings with known vibrations and lengths if you are into string theory. Eitherway or someway, the universe is made of a lot of somethings that are predictable in behavior.

Where is rosnet? Come in here and post your comments :)

...Now, those of you who believe that free will is impossible in such a universe, please try to explain how we would know, what we would feel, when our will is being "restricted".

The answer to how we would feel is, "We would feel whatever we feel." Because our will is always "restricted." Our feelings are whatever they are because of what has happened before.

Well, that was clumsily said. I'll try a different approach: our thoughts are simply a product of our environment and history. So the way we feel in a "non-free-will" universe is, in fact, the way we feel right now.

What is more interesting I think, is how are our feelings/thoughts/actions changed by "knowing" we don't have free-will?

Well I personally have never seen God or the creator of the universe of any kind, so I have to say that deep down I have no idea of what you are talking about. All I know is that we are a subsets of the universe and as such we are subject to its rules, whatever they may be.

Well to think of free will as the act of being spontaneous, then i suppose you would be sort of right. But free will is not limited to this. Free will is a contradiction of peace, but not a random act.

But are you suggesting that free will is determined by destiny or destiny is determinded by free will?

Can your wants not just be predetemined cause and effect chains of the chemicals in your brain and your brain is programmed (or conditioned) in a way that makes you think you are free? Is your consciousness where free will lies? Doubtful, as a study was done. They found that any voluntary actions were found to happen 400ms BEFORE they hit the conscious. Thing is with this, your arguements about recognizing free will and my arguements about the same are just going to go in circles so I don't think we will get anywhere. :bugeye:Do you really mean that "voluntary actions occured before they hit the conscious"?

I don't think so, rather I think you mean that the brain started reacting to the 'will' before the person was conscious of that will.

(I assume this is what you meant, since if the actions are voluntary then there is a necessary step that we are conscious of it, to make it voluntary, and we are conscious all the time, not necessarily 'of everything' but conscious nontheless, so what did it matter that we were conscious of it after the initial steps of the will?). (I think I heard that certain areas lighted up before the person actually 'willed' something).

However, that doesn't matter much to our discussion, as we are discussing if we have free will, not when it reaches consciousness.

If the chemicals and bindings are arranged in such a way that to make me think I have free will, then why not? If I can do and think freely of anything then it really doesn't matter to me what process gives rise to it.

However, one should beware of stripping away too much of things just because they don't find the 'hard evidence' for it.




Again all I would do is just question all the assumptions. But I think we could build a computer that can perceive things that are not real. Just because it has not happened yet does not mean it could not ever happen. Humans just have not come up with a way to build a computer complex enough to do such a thing (like the human brain) yet simple enough for use to put together. Suppose a human built a real human brain, but made of transitors. And set it in a robot. Does this robot have free will? How do we know it does not have free will? What is a requirement for free will? What does this robot's brain say about human free will?If you could somehow make all the arrangements so that what is perceived by the robot and the choices that are apparent with what it perceives are available also as choices that the robot can make. Then the robot have necessarily free will, as it can do anything it can perceive of that is possible in the scenario.

However if the robot doesn't have subjective experiance of that free will, then it wouldn't be free will for the robot, and as such wouldn't be free will at all as experianced by humans as the concept of 'free will'.



Like what? I see particles in their places with a calculatable momentum. Or strings with known vibrations and lengths if you are into string theory. Eitherway or someway, the universe is made of a lot of somethings that are predictable in behavior.Yes, it has. But it also has more of somethings that are totally unpredictable to us.

Since we are (more or less) a closed system in reality then we are more unpredictable than other things. A rock on the ground is pretty predictable since it just sits there if nothing else changes it's state. However we humans have brains and we can change our own states without necessarily need for outside forces (or the outside forces are not as tangible to change the state of us than it has to be to change the state of the rock).

Thus there are different levels of predictability in the universe, where closed systems have to be taken into concern. Also there is the possibility of a closed system behaving more or less like it's own universe, thus is scewed from the perspective of the universe in the sense of predictability.

And here I thought that statement "any will is free" means if it's not free it's not a will, but instead an order...

Do you really mean that "voluntary actions occured before they hit the conscious"?

I don't think so, rather I think you mean that the brain started reacting to the 'will' before the person was conscious of that will.

(I assume this is what you meant, since if the actions are voluntary then there is a necessary step that we are conscious of it, to make it voluntary, and we are conscious all the time, not necessarily 'of everything' but conscious nontheless, so what did it matter that we were conscious of it after the initial steps of the will?). (I think I heard that certain areas lighted up before the person actually 'willed' something).

However, that doesn't matter much to our discussion, as we are discussing if we have free will, not when it reaches consciousness.

Read my first few posts here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55153). I just find it odd why our will could not be synced with the body. Oh well :rolleyes:

If the chemicals and bindings are arranged in such a way that to make me think I have free will, then why not? If I can do and think freely of anything then it really doesn't matter to me what process gives rise to it.

However, one should beware of stripping away too much of things just because they don't find the 'hard evidence' for it.

Well I do not really understand your question. But if it is the chemicals in your brain that make you think and do things, what room is there for free will? Maybe you could think freely, but not have free-will because your thoughts do not sync up with your actions. Might be like someone putting your whole body on remote control for someone else to control.

If you could somehow make all the arrangements so that what is perceived by the robot and the choices that are apparent with what it perceives are available also as choices that the robot can make. Then the robot have necessarily free will, as it can do anything it can perceive of that is possible in the scenario.

However if the robot doesn't have subjective experiance of that free will, then it wouldn't be free will for the robot, and as such wouldn't be free will at all as experianced by humans as the concept of 'free will'.

So you are suggesting it is possible (not that we know how or may never make one) to make a robot that has free-will?

What is the key difference between a free being and a non-free being? I think we can all agree that ants do not have free will. Perhaps frogs do not have free will.. or birds. What about man's closest cousin, the gorilla? What about dolphins? They seem pretty intelligent.

Perhaps the link between free-will and distribution among everything in the universe is intelligence. No? What about those mentally retarded? A lot of them seem to have no control over their body.. (at least in my experiences). Maybe the line is an IQ of 60 or above (assume IQ is a test of intelligence, anyway)


As I am, I am sure you are getting tired of this conversation. I am probably going to slowly die my arguments down. As I pointed out in other posts, in 5 days or so I had about enough of free-will. Haha ;)

All hell breaks loose!

Listen! I've been through this before. And Absane, I read your example and I've really thought about that before too. You're not getting the point. The point is that even if you rewind time, you would not <I>want</I> to choose that other door. If you really did rewind time, and chose the other door this time, then that is just random will, not free will (athough random will is free too, because as I've been saying, any will is free).

When you say that your will is not free, what you mean is that you cannot choose what to want. And it makes no sense to do that. Okay, you can say, "this is what I choose to want", but what made you choose to choose to want that? The first, most basic want is determined by other factors, and you can neve choose that. But that doesn't make your will any less free.

Okay, if you still don't get it, then do what I asked in the first post. Give an example of a "really" free will, which is different from Deterministic Will and Random Will.

this statement does not follow from any logic, and thus is invalid.

your argument is essentially that "if it feels like free will, it must be free will." that is not true, you could think that you have free will when you do not.


try not to waste people's time. your arguments should me more thought out before you post.

No, that's not my argument. What I'm trying to say is that there is no example you can give of a "truly" free will- one that is free from causality, and also not merely random (I'm not saying that that is not possible in this universe, but that you cannot think of any type of universe where it is possible). An escape from causality is not freedom. Go ahead and define Free Will (as distinct from ordinary Will (free or otherwise)).

All hell breaks loose!

Listen! I've been through this before. And Absane, I read your example and I've really thought about that before too. You're not getting the point. The point is that even if you rewind time, you would not <I>want</I> to choose that other door. If you really did rewind time, and chose the other door this time, then that is just random will, not free will (athough random will is free too, because as I've been saying, any will is free).

My example might be poor (I am not really sure if it is or not) but the point was to get one to think if one COULD HAVE chosen the other door. It wouldn't be possible to rewind time to verify this but the point is: was there really a choice to begin with? Or is is just a series of events that must follow?

When you say that your will is not free, what you mean is that you cannot choose what to want. And it makes no sense to do that. Okay, you can say, "this is what I choose to want", but what made you choose to choose to want that? The first, most basic want is determined by other factors, and you can neve choose that. But that doesn't make your will any less free.

I never said your will is not free. That would be like me saying you have will, but it is not free. And "wanting," in the sense that you use it is a derivative of free will. Maybe I misinterpreted you.

Okay, if you still don't get it, then do what I asked in the first post. Give an example of a "really" free will, which is different from Deterministic Will and Random Will.

A free thought comes from a source. And this source is capable of independance from all influence outside this source that would alter its ability to produce thoughts. Trying to figure out the nature of this source is a task. I would not know how to come up with an example, just a definition of a free thought.

My definition it probably bad and missing a lot of points, but it is hard to really define the nature of free thoughts, where they come from, and how they even came about inthe first place.

My example might be poor (I am not really sure if it is or not) but the point was to get one to think if one COULD HAVE chosen the other door. It wouldn't be possible to rewind time to verify this but the point is: was there really a choice to begin with? Or is is just a series of events that must follow?

No, I couldn't, and wouldn't have chosen the other door (since, as I said, I think the universe is Deterministic). But what I'm trying to say is that this does not conflict with free will. Since I wouldn't want to choose otherwise. The Deterministic nature of the Universe does ultimately decide your wants (or your impulses or actions). But even if this weren't so, things would not be different as far your will is concerned. Something has to decide your wants, after all. You yourself can't obviously (not only in a deterministic setup, but in any setup). Which is what I'm saying. You cannot will what you want. You can only do (or try to do, or try to try to do, or so on) what you want.

“ When you say that your will is not free, what you mean is that you cannot choose what to want. And it makes no sense to do that. Okay, you can say, "this is what I choose to want", but what made you choose to choose to want that? The first, most basic want is determined by other factors, and you can neve choose that. But that doesn't make your will any less free. ”



I never said your will is not free. That would be like me saying you have will, but it is not free. And "wanting," in the sense that you use it is a derivative of free will. Maybe I misinterpreted you.

No, that's not what that meant. I speaking generally and saying "when you say that...". I didn't mean you, but a general reader.

But you second statement, I think says exactly what I was saying. If you have a will, it is free. And I definitely have a will, "I think therefore I am"! It does not matter that it actually is a complex chain of chemical reactions.

Read my first few posts here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55153). I just find it odd why our will could not be synced with the body. Oh well :rolleyes:I have a really nice thing to say here, so stay with me on this:

What if the subconscious give us the potential to do something, but it may be interrupted by our free will, if the knowledge was given to us that we are about to move the finger.

The example that you gave in your post (in the link referenced) told us that there was a 2 second potential rise before the actual action, it explained that we normally don't need that much time in preparation to move a finger, however it gives us just about time to stop the movement to ever happen if we knew of it (like a lamp starting to flash when the potential starts rising), it is my true belief that if we saw that lamp we could decide to *not* move the finger. As such the conscious must have ultimate power over our control of the finger, even if subconscious might rise a potential to make us move it.

I see the potential as a 'wish' of the subconscious, and it is by our free will that we decide to fulfill that wish or not, cause if the subconscious was everything then we couldn't stop the movement of the finger even if forewarned. (this I feel is *not true*, we could stop the movement). It also shows that the conscious has the ultimate role in giving in to the potential of what it can do, or not.

Even if you say that (this is a imaginary quote) "well, how could you know it was a wish if it only happened in the subconscious??? How could you then have any decision in fullfilling it or not?? Now tell me!!! TELL ME!!!"

Even if you say that I have a answer to you, and it is that we *still* do know of the potential, as experianced by us! Before you decide to move a finger, the potential of doing it is rising to you! Not 2 seconds before it's time, but you can feel the potential nevertheless, within the scope of time needed to hinder it, if necessary. (like if you suddenly realise that you *shouldn't* move the finger on that hot plate, and you win over the potential and give rise to the potential to move the finger away).

I have felt this potential many times, and also recognizes it as a potential.

When I am chocked by something, I can feel this potential change into a "flee situation" for example, that potential then effects the whole body like a stream of potential, trying to do anything it can to stop the current movement and reverse it (if I walked out on a street and realises it comes a car right at me, for example).


Well I do not really understand your question. But if it is the chemicals in your brain that make you think and do things, what room is there for free will? Maybe you could think freely, but not have free-will because your thoughts do not sync up with your actions. Might be like someone putting your whole body on remote control for someone else to control.If there is only chemicals in your brain that make you be aware, where is there room for awareness??? I ask you! Why don't people get this?

You are aware aren't you?

How then can the actual awareness be physical? If everything is physical then where is there room for awareness?

That we so well know exists.


So you are suggesting it is possible (not that we know how or may never make one) to make a robot that has free-will?I'm not suggesting it is possible, I'm saying that if a robot were to be given free will, then many other things must be accomplished too, like having subjective experiance of reality (we are talking about a robot and not a computer program), also the actual will really has to be free, so that it can do anything that is possible within the situation. Sure the robot doesn't have to be able to fly if it don't have wings. That's not what I'm talking about, it has to be able to do anything that it can do that is given by reality, given the circumstance and the actual condition of the robot.

What is the key difference between a free being and a non-free being? I think we can all agree that ants do not have free will.We can agree on it, but that doesn't mean it isn't so. We have no facts that suggest that ants do not have subjective experiance and the options to do what is available in their world.

Perhaps frogs do not have free will.. or birds. What about man's closest cousin, the gorilla? What about dolphins? They seem pretty intelligent.The same scenario there as with the ants. I'm not suggesting anything, but we could agree on whatever, it doesn't change reality, it just changes how we treat them :)

Sometimes it might be better not to know...


Perhaps the link between free-will and distribution among everything in the universe is intelligence. No? What about those mentally retarded? A lot of them seem to have no control over their body.. (at least in my experiences). Maybe the line is an IQ of 60 or above (assume IQ is a test of intelligence, anyway)Interesting things you got there, hmm. let's examine this.

So you think that intelligence may be the determinating factor (a intelligent person is also more easily fooled by tricks, not to give you counter-arguments...), this is of course not true though, since it doesn't take intelligence to evaluate and make a choice made of that evaluation, or to make a choice based on no evaluation at all, or a choice made by poor evaluation. There is no constraint on free will in the scenario of intelligence, only on the ability to do a nice move.

There is more than intelligence to be considered also, we have wisdom for example, that I think is more subtle than the world of scientists would like to admit. Also we have inspiration, where intelligence may play a part, but only a part. Also we have intuitivity, where the best result may be determined in vague ways more visible for those people. Then we have experiance itself, that may play a huge factor. None of these determines free will alone, I would think, that it doesn't even determine free will together, but that free will is more like a part to them than them is a part of free will.

Free will do have more to do with subjective experiance than it has to do with intelligence factors, as the subjective experiance must somehow give us the choice of acting on what we perceive.

You also has to see this; the scenario put forth to us, is available longer than the 2 seconds it took for us to experiance the move made based on that scenario. So we had a long time even stepping into the room, to see the available options, and thus the movement of the finger happening "backstage" doesn't matter since we allready are aware of that option. Even if it wasn't decided until after the two seconds. But I do think that we got a hint of the potential rise before we actually moved the finger, giving us the option to stop that movement if necessary.

After all, the conscious side of us is just a small portion and can't be bothered with every possible scenario, even if we feel the freedom of every possible scenario.

It's like a servant saying; "I don't want to bother you with every possibility master, but you should know that you are free to do anything you have in mind"



As I am, I am sure you are getting tired of this conversation. I am probably going to slowly die my arguments down. As I pointed out in other posts, in 5 days or so I had about enough of free-will. Haha ;)Well, I get tired if it goes 'round and 'round, the circle stopped there for me and I found ways of seeing free will that is promising to me, thus the interest is up again for me. It's up to you if you want to continue this discussion though, as I realise that my interest isn't necessarily your interest.

Lol at your last statement. Very true. It will take me a bit to actually read your new post with my thinking cap on as I am not feeling to hot right now. Maybe later on tonight when I am hyper or something. :) I promise to reply though :)

Lol at your last statement. Very true. It will take me a bit to actually read your new post with my thinking cap on as I am not feeling to hot right now. Maybe later on tonight when I am hyper or something. :) I promise to reply though :)Ok, looking forward to it.

I didn't realise my last statement was funny when I wrote it, so I was quite surprised when I saw your post...I don't allways pay attention to what images I make in my writings :)

I'm glad you found it funny. We could talk sometime also about unintentional meanings, they seem to happen from time to time, sometimes they are funny, sometimes they have other meanings. However not all of them are positive, sometimes they can give rise to misunderstandings too.

However, since this is a 'free will' thread we should stick to that for now (a little side step I think is harmless though, if you want to comment on the above).