proof of free-will

Well are we not instinctive as well as rational? So what could we say about our brains? That it involves both free-will and something else? Granted we want to survive, so we use the best tools we have. How does this show that we have a will that is free?

Im having a hard time with this whole free-will thing. It might have something to do with a lack of definition, or poorly constructed definition. Just a thought.

Conflictive fusion of "code" ("pattern systems") in meaning often bring this kind of confusion in language conceptual imagery...poorly defined is the least it can be said on it...

True. This is why I do not address most of the threads involving free-will. No one really seems (including me) to understand what it means.

it's possible if there was only one culture, which is what is going to happen given humanity enough time, one way or another, one form or another.

"DNA and your upbringing"

for this I actually like to use the argument used for abortion by Marry Ann Warren, the 5 criteria to be a full-fledged member of a human moral community (which is communication, self-motivation, self-awareness, rationality, and consciousness). What I concentrate most here are to do everything consciously, and be self-motivating.
-----
note: though this argument in the reasoning for abortion/applied as a universal law, has some shortcomings, I actually agree with this and think this should be applied to some extent.

note2: I use the term "consciousness" here as not BE conscious (since we all sleep, and wouldn't want to be called not human just because we sleep! but instead use this as to DO conscious things. in another words, antithesis to subconscious rather than "not conscious".
-----

what you said is true; if everything is determined by DNA/Genes and our upbringing, yes, we don't have free will in my opinion.

(allow me to make a few modifications in the vocabulary so that I can flow your argument with mine.)

what you're saying is that if DNA is determining our actions, it is our Genes, and if it is our genes, it is our instincts, and in another word, it is our subconscious (whether it be desire for sugar, protein and fat, or to procreate or altruistic acts). So we need to use our consciousness to control our subconscious.

When you say upbringing, I will expand this to government, society, media, entertainment, advertisement, parenting, and every other external motivation. And we must control this and not allow any of this to be a motive and reason for what we think and do, so we need to be self-motivating, do what we think is right from our own selves and rational, rather than anyone else saying.

So I summarize,
If we are determined by DNA and our upbringing we do not have free-will. Agreed.
So,
If we are not determined by our DNA and our upbringing, we do have free-will.
Let us do things out of our own consciousness, and be self-motivating.

Lets get to work and earn our free will shall we?

personally i do not believe in fee will, most arguments for it go along the lines of "before i did X, i thought about X and made a decision on whether i should or should not do X" while it it is true that the action or inaction is preceded by the thought process, that thought process is preceded by the firing of neurons in the brain. this is where the buck stops, for free will you would need the neuron firing to be preceded by some kind of secondary mind, that controls the firing process and in turn would allow for free choice. however this mind would not be physical so some sort of spirituality is needed for this. the question of morals is a seperate issue, the fact that the person does not have a free choice in doing a wrong or immoral action does not change the fact that the act was commited and the person must still be punished if only to lessen the chance that they will do so again, and as a deterence to others who might do so, it would influence others, not by others freely choosing not to do so, but by the influence of external events, that all life forms are subject to.

personally i do not believe in fee will, most arguments for it go along the lines of "before i did X, i thought about X and made a decision on whether i should or should not do X" while it it is true that the action or inaction is preceded by the thought process, that thought process is preceded by the firing of neurons in the brain. this is where the buck stops, for free will you would need the neuron firing to be preceded by some kind of secondary mind, that controls the firing process and in turn would allow for free choice. however this mind would not be physical so some sort of spirituality is needed for this. the question of morals is a seperate issue, the fact that the person does not have a free choice in doing a wrong or immoral action does not change the fact that the act was commited and the person must still be punished if only to lessen the chance that they will do so again, and as a deterence to others who might do so, it would influence others, not by others freely choosing not to do so, but by the influence of external events, that all life forms are subject to...

The debate about free will is exactly the same debate about consciousness - if one exists, so does the other, and in the same degree. I put oncsiousness at 3% in the average person (without any scientific basis, that seems the right number to me).

I often wonder why those without free will strive to understand their will/consciousness so much.

Vikorr is not that we don´t have will its more like anyone is far to prove that such will is free....free from what ?

Consciesness and free will are two entirely different issues, and what do you mean by "3 percent"? What does that even mean? Why are you putting random numbers on things?