Proof of nonexistence of free will

Evaluate the premises. Determine if they are true or not. If they are true, then decide if they are good reasons for the conclusion. Hand-waving them away is not a counter-argument.

Some events that closely follow a behavior in time can make it more likely that that behavior occurs under similar conditions again in the future. Experiments support this statement. You could say the statement is false, but I think you will be hard-pressed to discount decades of peer-reviewed research that show consequent events changing the future probability of behavior. When consequent events to behavior increase the future probability of those behaviors, the effect is called reinforcement. Behavior can generalize to new conditions. The new conditions will share stimulus features with the conditions that were present at the time the behavior first occurred. "First occurred" may also need further explanation because the behavior may have developed from a series of smaller, prior changes. Processes of equivalence and adduction have also been demonstrated in experimental and applied conditions. As a distinct organism, you are changed by your experiences, and there are interaction effects from the lifetime of changes you have experienced. You can display a tremendous diversity and novelty in the things that you do. Because you are able to observe states of your body at the time you behave, you likely attribute what you observe as the cause of the actions you take. That's natural. Consistently observing one event (thinking) preceding another (doing) naturally leads people to believe that the cause of their doing was the thinking that preceded it. However, I'm sure you are aware of the post hoc fallacy.

People also don't believe that the tremendous diversity and novelty of creatures on the earth are possible from the processes of variation and selection of phenotypes by means of natural selection. Some people believe that a great and powerful Mind planted all the creatures of the Earth here; despite the evidence to the contrary.

I belief leans towards what scientists are telling us about how we evolved.

Thankfully we behave for reasons that are not capricious or random. If we, as naturally occurring phenomena in the universe, behaved for truly random reasons, then science could not say anything about human behavior. If our behavior never changed, then there would be no need for science. Given that our behavior falls between the extremes of never changing and randomness, it is susceptible to scientific study and analysis.

This is no different than it is for any other naturally occurring phenomena in the universe. However, we are not inanimate objects that do things solely for reasons that chemistry and physics have explanations. Many of the arguments made on the topic of free will seem to be ones based on Aristotelian logic. I don't think this is going to be a topic one will find the answer to a priori.

I think social science and psychology may be able to identify all the things we humans are capable of doing, but all of us are subjective animals from learned behavior since we were born. Much of how we live our lives are based on our culture, race, environment, education, and the wealth of the society in which we live. As an American born during the Great Depression, I've seen a good part of this planet from my many travels. Having visited all seven continents and 132 countries in some ways makes my experience of life somewhat unique. At least, that's what I believe. My travels were based on "free will" from the fact that being born in the right country at the right time made that all possible. My sister tells me, I have been "blessed."

That depends on how you define free will, and something
That is considered right or wrong is the end is made up of parts.
The thing that the person doesn't like or likes what others doing is the only difference between the words. Even if you define them differently
The definitions are still only a product of what you like or don't like
And because the words only by definition represent your likes, well or other peoples too and or.
And dislikes that is all they can be. Everything in the universe interacting
Or not, an object interacting with another, and words describe what occurs and that is only what occurs that is all right and wrong can ever describe.

On Self and lack of free will, a bit closer to truth...

More on computation, the fermi paradox, alien intelligence and of course the implications for free will:

...people, we, you, the "I" is so alone that it is alone of itself own being...just a collection of parts entangled together...

...of course, you can go the other way around and state that loneliness cannot be by definition when the "self" is an illusion.

Moreover, it is the phenomena of perception of unity on the "I", the "self", that matters, the phenomena is a real phenomenon...therefore, contact, love, interaction and even our perception of freedom of being what we must be is its own kind of "real"...

Anyway, does this change anything? No! There never was any kind of freedom that we longed for that is transcendental or out of this realm of reality.
How can you wish for something that you can't describe or even start fathom about?

The kind of contact that we have in this illusion of self, society, and human action, was all along, the kind of "freedom" that we wanted and always got from Nature.
Compatibilists emphasize that, even if not in the most intellectually honest form...

My youtube reply to Stephen Wolfram interview by Lex on the AI channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez773teNFYA

Lex, there is no emergence, not even an actual computation or motion...there is no principle of computational equivalence if we take the pov that the future projects the past and not the other way around...we got rid of this silly creepy "emergence" if maximum complexity in the far future accounts for all the possible phenomena emerging from the past forward. Again, go back to understanding Parmenides.

A computation is a process in time, but if time is not fundamental and a maximum number on N phenomenon exists timelessly in a sequence that repeats all possible outcomes, a sort of multiverse, a Rubicks cube, then we have understood that emergence is an illusion, computation as in motion processing is an illusion, and there is only the ORDER, the final Ratio, of things timelessly. Infinity is just a loop not an endless set of emergent phenomena that never ends without qualitative boundaries.


To the point really, I mean REALLY make use of Occams razor and get rid of qualitative Infinity and emergence...stick to fractals and loops...even size seems not fundamental.


The REAL question you want to ask is, Where does quality (not quantity) come from? Well, guess what it was always there. Take the timeless pov.

freedom is the most important thing a person has

All those choices are binary. There is always a free will choice.

I would say this: in nature there are two forms. Pleasure and suffering. We automatically run away from suffering and are drawn to pleasure.
And if we refuse this pleasure only so that we get something better from it afterwards. Hence her free choice passed.

Freewill is what separates humans from animals. Animals are programed to do what they do, some call it instinct. Humans have the ability to choose which can be taken for granted. Whatever you choose will have a reaction, good or bad.
Example: To smoke or not to smoke, that is the question. It is usually faced when you are a teenager. There is no obligation involved. It is a freewill decision. But according to medical authorities, it is a decision that could have serious repercussions in your life. It could even determine when and how you die.
After reading this you may choose to quit smoking, eventhough it may be hard and painful. Point is, we have choices and the ability to make them.

Gut bacteria affect human behaviour, the only free will there is the bacillus’.

I don't believe that one bit. There are times when I'm at peace with myself and the world. It's not pleasure or suffering; it's serenity, quiet time or leisure from any mental or physical activity.

Don't go on and tell "them 99.9% of their DNA is not from them but from virus and bacteria without which they could not be alive to start with...then they will freak out a lot more!

When your design for biological life is good from the start, why would you change it? So it should come as no surprise that we share the same design paradigm as the earliest biological life.

Its good when its good as things change over the Aeons and there was no adequate adaptation 99% of all species that ever existed went extinct...or maybe in your version went to "Heaven"...

Anyway I was referring to your microbiome, that is the stuff that is upon and inside you with DNA and also the fossil DNA in your DNA, altogether 99% of it is not actually yours!

Now why would a an intelligent designer design a human without its necessary microbiome? As you pointed out, it couldn’t live without it.