Is free will an illusion?

... is also an idea that is formed by how things came contact through our senses.

Though we cannot ultimately reject that all things may be simple sensations or ideas,

it is absurd that one may post or join in a forum when he believes that he is the only reality.

In the mind. Right. All in the mind.

How female, go for the ad-hom personal attack. How boring.
We must, however, note your inability to refute what I said, your inaccurate personal representation in that I do not believe that I am the only reality, which you would have known was absurd if you ever managed to read anything that I have written here. But for a shot in the dark, it stank. And also bears no weight on the accuracy of my initial statement.

This is why I mentioned that a response was unnecessary, as without evidence, you (as you have shown) have nothing fruitful with which to respond.
nameless out

it's all rather persuasive.

and solipsism isnt very persuasive

There is evidence of an external world,

There is actually a whole world of evidence for an external world: everything in it is evidence.

It may well be that all of the impressions I have of the external world are in my mind only - i.e. the evidence is inconclusive.

However there's more evidence.

There are objects my consciousness known to me as 'others', other people. These impressions behave...

in much the same way the impression of my body behaves under similar situations. For instance, when the impressions I have include visible things making audible jokes, it makes me laugh and others too, giving evidence that there are other things like my actual self outside my self... in an external reality.

Again, not proof, nothing conclusive (they could be imaginary friends that take on some of my characteristics), but certainly evidence for the argument for an external reality.

And I could go on and on listing evidences, none conclusive, none constituting proof, but taken together and in the absence of any evidence for the existence of no external reality (for we always have to think up some way of explaining how impressions upon my consciousness seem to accord to the idea of an external reality in order to maintain there is none), it's all rather persuasive. But never conclusive. Very little is.

Sorry, that is nonsense. Everything that you perceive to be "in it' is perceived in the mind. Everything that you see is in the mind, everything that all the senses perceive is 'in the mind'. You perceive NOTHING that is not perceived in the mind. There is no evidence possible of the existence of anything beyond the mind.

Sorry to mess with your 'beliefs'.

Not inconclusive, but NO EVIDENCE AT ALL! Inconclusive? Haha! The only evidence (whether you would consider it conclusive or not) is of existence in mind.

Poor thinking, poor logic and totally fallacious. You anecdotal "impressions" remain in the mind. Have you never laughed at a thought of your's?

No, it isn't. Your feelings and impressions do not constitute any actual evidence at all. All you have offered is what is in your mind and notyhing more. Perhaps all of that constitutes 'proof' and 'evidence' to you, and that cannot be denied, but as far as actual scientific/logical evidence, not even close.

Again, if it works for you, I have no refutation or argument,

To avoid the red faces, little balled fists at the sides of the outraged 'believers', to avoid the messy and ugly emotional responses, to avoid the irrational responses, to avoid the inevitable ad-homs that are the 'cognitive' tools of the trade of 'believers', i will only respond to any actual evidence (look it up) of existence beyond the minds perception thereof. My response, in that case, will be to gladly and readily recant my words as error.
Until then...

(and 'solipsism' has no relevence here, but is, again, a poor attempt at what is essentially a straw-man fallacy, cause you simply got nothing better!.)

(and 'solipsism' has no relevence here, but is, again, a poor attempt at what is essentially a straw-man fallacy, cause you simply got nothing better!.)

...

throwing around words like erronous, fallacious, poor logic, etc. etc. doesnt make you look any better, or true at that.

Since you have offered nothing of relevence, nor met my challenge to provide evidence in support of your fantasy (you never will or can), there needs be no further response.
I feel free to repeat the truth that you cannot refute.
If you ever come up with any real 'evidence' (of course you'd have to know what 'evidence' means), let me know and I'll eat my keyboard.
Otherwise, good day.

(Actually, as I know that you can never meet my challenge, and your responses, so far, have caused me to despair fruitful discourse, you are now on my ignore list.)

This is a philosophy forum, (insert ad-hom insult here), and those 'words' that so bother you are used all the time in philosophical discourse.
I'm simply calling a spade a spade. Deal with it.

And, 'Guh!', thanx, but I know what solipsism is.

We can easily reject the notion of an 'external' 'reality' through simple lack of evidence.

Well as I just entered the topic, can I hopefully add something not already posted?

I really think free will is an illusion, we are restricted in what we do all the time by laws of the state.

Does God or evolution allow for free will,if you believe in the ten commandments, then it is a No as far as God goes, Most of the ten commandments are "thou shalt nots"

If we look at evolution, likewise I do not think we really have a real free will. Remember Marslows hierarchy of needs. If you have no water after a day or two it will supplant all your other needs and thirst will consume your mind. You might even kill to get a drink

The next need maybe food, then shelter etc, etc

Is there an overlap between these needs and free will I really think so.

How many of you guys are familiar with the psychologist Marlow?

I think that the answer to whether or not we have free will is dependent upon how you define the word free. I define freedom as being liberty or volition in the absence of aggression or coercion. The ability of a rational agent to make choices without being forced by another rational agent's will.

hue man



Then free will is subjective and relative

But I am not disagreeing with you it is all about where we draw the line and who draws it for us

for example if I hold evil thoughts in my thinking, a balancing will take place in my consciousness, where toxins will build up in my body, blocking the flow of life, allowing cancers to form.