What is free will?

The question is not posed by ME you ignoramus freaking aberration the question is the CURRENT standard in Neuroscience you god damned fool...you are no less then a pathetic clown unable to grasp the root of what is being said.

1 - Consciousness or awareness can be needed and work as a mechanistic determined process for facilitating memory of relevant data...a bi-product of how the unconscious deterministic processes need relevant information to be buffered n stored for posterior use in the chain of causal decision making...it is speculative of course but is a on the spot attempt to explain the most important question on this problem

2 - Science is not predicated on free will get your facts straight...LAW n responsibility are social standards that do not reflect the scientific assumption of cause n effect goes well behind the subject to original conditions...in every department of science you chose to look at systems work on the presumption original conditions constrain the all mechanic process by which machinery operates...same goes with programs the calculation of the Mars position in space 4 years from now and so on...

3 - Your third question on if ideas do matter is to put it bluntly moronic...because if ideas do or do not matter ads **** to the problem of free will...ideas can matter n still be determined...in fact your awareness on ideas, even if pre determined, may be needed in the process of a causal chain to which you have no control, we simply don't know the answer to that...but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that because we are aware of ideas they do must matter in the sense we which it to for a free willed decision. That is just a leap of faith, an assumption being made without any foundation.

4 - Why do I care ? that ought to be the worst question of the bunch pal...I care because I do, I am programmed to care..."awarengly" caring is probably a very good way for buffering the information on a ready to use mode...does that say anything about free will ? No...again all you have is more jumping to conclusions...

5 - Because there is no explanatory model for randomness...randomness intends not to explain anything...this is not a question of how do I know but a question on which models attempt or not attempt to explain the world...randomness works good for mathematical statistical predictive modelling it has no other purpose...furthermore free will best know advocates don't choose indeterministic modelling to justify free will is well know n documented...again do your reading n get to know your facts straight...

6- Ask around to any well know scientist why is complicated and mechanically impossible to have 2 systems of behaviour with the same substance...this IS YOUR WORST QUESTION from the intellectual point of view it just gives away how stupid you are...

7 - Darwinian systems have nothing to say on the free will problem, again you are jumping to conclusions...the only thing Darwinism implies is the survival of the fittest and not that such survival necessitates free will...you can see the work of Darwinian modelling in the most simple micro-organisms and yet no one would suggest these simple minded creatures have any sort of free will...in fact the relation you try to establish here only shows how deep your ignorance and misunderstanding runs...

Wow, you just skipped over "social standards" as if it has no meaning.

It's amazing how your thinking can overlook such simple concepts of our environment which includes "social standards."

Since when "social standards" are a substitute for science eh ?...slavery was a social standard not so long ago but that of course did not make it right...what is right and wrong is not subjected to a democratic inquiry !

Just in case anyone wonders why I sometimes don't answer some questions, let me give you a little hint on it, its not because I don't have the answers, n there are only 2 reasons to why I mostly opt to do so...first and foremost because those which I chose to not answer are irrelevant or properly well composed questions, and secondly because I am getting old and lazy n rather chose to only answer pertinent well thought out questions...unfortunately given my personality I rather give the wrong impression to the casual reader, (to hell with casual s anyway) then wasting my time.

1. no reason provided for a self-conscious system. Buffering is done all the time in computers and computers don't wonder about to be or not to be... Therefore the question remains: why conscience?

2. Science IS predicated on free will, on the free use of reason to observe and understand the world and derive hypotheses and test them further. Automatons cannot understand the world, they can't come up with hypotheses, they don't do research. A scientist without free will is not a scientist, it is a machine saying what it's programmed to say, not what the observed facts were and what his imagination is capable of inventing in terms of explanation.

3. In what sense do ideas matter if they are predetermined? How do they matter? For what?

4. You're programmed hence you don't need to justify your behavior... That must be the basis of your belief in determinism then: it relieves you from any sense of responsibility. Must be swell....

5. Science does not explain, it describes stuff. Randomness actually describes a lot of behaviors, including that of any gas in any closed space. If you are looking for why this world exist and why it is partly random, look to religion.

6. LOL... "complicated and mechanically impossible" to have 2 systems of behaviour with the same substance. That's so funny. Do you ever think before you post?

Any substance will behave very differently, depending on whether it is in solid, liquid or gaseous form...

If you throw a dice in a Las Vegas casino, it behaves randomly, for all we know (and you can fantacize that it doesn't, but you have no proof). If you insert that dice under the leg of a table in same casino to stabilize that table, it will behave quite predictably...

7. You haven't understood the argument about Darwinian systems, confused as you are. Look at it again: the domains to which such systems apply are very varied, beyond evolution. I am not talking of survival of the fittest species here, but of survival of the fittest idea.

The fact that you can keep insisting ad eternum to pseudo questions wont make me address them just because you pushed them out of your hat frenchie...this is not a competition on who makes the last post wins...my previous answers to your questions are answers provided under the scope of science...whatever you think or dislike about them is irrelevant to me so long they don't make a valid inquiry...get good sense making questions and I will provide good answers, otherwise get yourself a tutor. I am not your eldest brother.

Just so to make it clear let me give you people the scientific credentials for the Doctor in the video:
(I like facts rather then claims n lying claims are fought off with facts)

Oopies. Apologies.

Thanks for the laugh, Mr. "I'm-be-scared-shitless-by-infinity-so-decided-it-did-not-exist". Or should I call you Mr "Randomness-give-me-fits-of-panic"?

You're pathetically unable to make the difference between a scientific statement and a metaphysical or aesthetic preference.

They're digging too deep for the easy answer. Just look at all of humanity; they are all different in the way they make their decisions every day in what they wish to do by their actions. That's free will in a nut shell. The title "Professor" doesn't make them experts; just more stupid in their attempts to explain away the obvious.

Do you remember the thesis by a Harvard professor who wrote that blacks IQ's are the lowest and will remain that way?

He belongs on the "obvious" racial bigot group.

No one suggested being a professor gives you immediate free pass on reason...the point was your "friend" suggested some take on the actual position of science on this issue n lied...whether they are wrong or right remains to be seen...I just happen to agree with their opinions...I think I've said it several times now but I will repeat it once more, one should not appeal to authority but to rational arguments, I've made my best to present my opinion !
More then that, I have never denied my personal aesthetic preferences I just pointed the factual state of current day science on this matter aside my own position...they happen to match.

Maybe I am wrong but I think that CI would debate a professor of neuroscience but yet would seek help from one of his students if he needed any type of neurosurgery.

As many of us know already... this is very good advice... I too do this often.

What do you make out of the last couple of minutes of this video you shared? I am not sure that I understand him.

I disagree with the conclusion but agree with the importance of the question, in fact it is the only valid question to be made...I have provided a possible on the spot explanation on why self awareness may need exist although we live in a deterministic reality...I suppose the proper answer is a development upon my initial line of reasoning on it with more depth...in any case jumping to the conclusion that because self awareness exists then it must mean we have free will is just a bridge to far...

What was "funny" to me were the three professor's

Simply put, it's based on one's genes and environment. Trying to research the chemical triggers for how one thinks and acts can't happen without the socialization of the individual. That means being born will directly impact who the parents are, and the environment in which they live.

You know, it's okay not to have answers to a question, like why conscience?

Even if it is an illusion, seems to me it must have some utility, some purpose... But if you don't know, I don't mind too much. I have a plausible answer to that question.

Are you suggesting that decision making is influenced by something other than freewill?

By the way, what's a good question, one that makes sense?

Every time I ask an embarassing question, will you say it makes no sense?

The very idea that, in a determinist world, anyone could make sense, doesn't make a lot of sense. Computers, so far, don't really make sense, the deal with information, not what it means. But even the little knowledge, eg on chess, that we transfered to them comes from us, eg chess grand masters.

How do you account for the appearance of knowledge OF or ABOUT the universe, if we are puppets of the very particules composing that universe? Are we the universe looking at itself and reflecting upon itself??? And if yes, why does the universe need all this life 'apparatus' to look at itself? Why does the universe needs us for looking at itself in a deformed, cracked, imperfect mirror?

I'd rather go for the less strange idea that the world has certain patterns, making the discovery and use of such patterns by living forms -- especially animals cause they can move and the point of moving is to move to a better place -- a very strong darwinian advantage. The bacteria that can 'tell' in which direction is the sugar will survive best and multiply the most. Human knowledge (and therefore mind) must be simply a highly evolved survival skill.

If knowledge and minds evolved from a Darwinian process, if they function in social life (as in global science or economy) in a darwinian way, chances are that psychologically, in our mind, things also work in a sort of darwinian way: with first a random production of candidate ideas, compared and selected in a second step through reason or a mix of several selection criteria.