Free will

What is your definition of free will? Mine is this: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
Because there exists outcomes based on actions (I say again) does not provide any sort of scientific evidence that the observed outcome was a direct result of those choices made. Using the results to judge the value of the variables in this equation is not scientifically sound.

Now, let us reintroduce the omniscient being paradox. You insist that an omniscient being (let's call him Bob from now on) would have to have knowledge of every single variable leading to an outcome. If this is truly the case, then we would be (again) traversing an infinite regress because, according to your statements, all results are based on the results immediately preceding those. To avoid the impossibility of an infinite regress, one must suppose that there is a truth independent of your stream of events that initiates the origin of that string. In theology, that theory would be used to prove the existence of Bob. However, if we have to have Bob in order to prevent infinite regress, the existence of Bob disproves free will, because – the whole reason for this argument – there was only one solution to the equation the entire time.
However, omniscient is defined by infinite knowledge, which would extend in both directions. An infinite stream of knowledge would cancel out infinite regress because the independent truth would never have to exist. If there is no starting point, or independent truth, it would not be plausible to state P[SUB]1[/SUB] is a direct result of P[SUB]2[/SUB]. Does Bob cancel out Bob in this aspect?

....and now we are back at square one because there is no answer to this question

 

I honestly have no idea what you meant with this part. If Bob knows you will have chicken for dinner tomorrow, is there a possibility to eat a steak instead? If not, do you have free will? Does it matter how Bob knows it? Does it matter if Bob is the cause of your craving for chicken or not?

 

I'm assuming you think I am a militant atheist? Or just an atheist? According to the word's definition I might have the characteristics but I do not call myself one nor claim to be one, and never will. I just am who I am, without the need to have some preconceived concepts and ideas attached to my being. This way I see myself and others clearly. If there's something I don't like about my opinions or there's something that needs some work then that's easy to do, but others I can't change and so regard them according to their actions and opinions.
Why don't you like it? Checked out what it exactly is and I don't see anything bad about it. After all, why take fantasy as reality? The result is never good anyway.

Of course not, there's always at least a bit subjectivity.
A god would. One definition of "god" might be that of just a very powerful and smart being, but what it means to people in general is that of a creature to be worshiped, to be bowed toward. There's a difference between a "powerful being" and a "god". Since one is just regarded as powerful, that one could be taken as equal in some manners, but if it was regarded as a god... different regard shown, and not the good kind.
I'm not associating anything with human characteristics, I'm associating it all to life as a whole. And what would be best for a people if there truly was a "god". I'm simply looking at things objectively.
There are all kinds of old stories of gods doing this and that, saving people, killing people. Not just killing but making others do it instead, and other stupid things. This is what I mean by human characteristics. The gods represented in these many stories depict a creature that has yet a lot to learn. A creature like that would know so much better. After all, hey are supposed to be smarter than us, yet are shown as just as stupid or even dumber.

It's our genetics that hasn't evolved that much, our mind has evolved a lot. The mind is not like the body. How much information do we have about the world we live in compared to thousands of years ago? From zero to something, isn't it? That knowledge is the difference of our minds in relation to those that were a long time ago.
A long time ago things were made up, they were immediately taken as true. They were passed onto new generations. Times went on and people saw they weren't really so, they were this way or that instead. New again ways passed onto even newer generations. So on and on and on it went, from all kinds of beliefs and superstitions, from first true knowledge of the world to this point. People explained the world, taught the new generations, got most of it wrong till they didn't so much anymore, they began to see the world more and more clearly. This all, seeing the world, is essentially the evolution of the mind. But the mind does not grow on its own like the body, it has to first be shown and told how things are (a person's upbringing from birth to a point), so it could begin seeing and concluding on its own. Then there's the issue of bias, indoctrination, and brainwashing... extremely bad stuff.
Ideas from religions should not be taken as real, not now, not ever. Doing that has done nothing good to humanity. If there is no evidence backing up the claim, there can only be probability, and by probability all that should be said is it might be so, and might as well not.
"We" cling? Not I. Religions give false meaning to life, and a sense of morality that isn't worth even cow cakes. If a person is good then the person is good because just is good, not because some dogma or whatever it is says to be so. After all, pedophile priests... Morality my ass. People should be given a chance to develop their own mind. Religions give an excuse to do bad things as they can be "forgiven". Or by doing an innocent mistake, or something simply from ignorance, somehow magically be condemned to eternal suffering. And raising with religion usually creates a biased and underdeveloped mind, as "god" is basically an answer to everything - discourages critical thinking.

They could say that, but it would be from pure bias or indoctrination, or both. After all, I'm not one who needs preconceived ideas as a basis to view the world and make conclusions.

I've never said things couldn't be determined, just needs significantly more advanced science and technology.
Assuming those existed, you look forward how you're looking forward changing something you saw in a further looking forward that would cause something disastrous. And so on.

It's not an illusion. If you consciously look at the buttons, and decide which ones to press then it is from free will. The only part that could contain subconscious decisions could be the hand moving down to the button and pressing it, or seeing the buttons and anticipating the next movements for more smoothness or something. The participants consciously took part of the test. They knew what was coming didn't they?
We do not consciously move our muscles, we just decide what we want to to, then sort of give the subconscience command to start working toward it. The decision to press the button is made consciously, otherwise you'd go crazy abusing it... Subconscience has no reason whatsoever to press any buttons ever.

This part about us is not supposed to be about free will. This is about survival, it is an absolute necessity that the right genders meet and have children. But still, with our minds involved it can be resisted by choosing the wrong one. Or someone grows up in the wrong mix of environment and characteristics, the mind forms wrongly, and the result is attraction toward wrong gender.
With animals such a thing as homosexuality does not exist. They have mating seasons, if it's time to hump they go for it, not matter the gender really, especially if they go desperate without finding one in time. Or they get excited and happy and just go for it. Pleasure and happiness and excitement have common characteristics. Animals also do not have any kind of bias or concepts like homosexuals, theists, and everything else, they just live.
What is the main difference between humans and other animals, the one that separates us from them? The mind, of course.

When it comes to free will then only the mind matters, no other physical aspect.
Past experience would make no impact. Whatever happened in the past can be learned to avoid, or accept, rather accept.
A conscience to limit choice or give preferences to oneself is part of having a free will, it a necessity, this part must be.
Or the one bullied is very intelligent and fights back with intricate plans that can completely destroy the lives of those who bullied him. Also, sharp and light weapons would also be an easy choice, but could go too far... Or involves grownups. Or pays someone. Or manages to get a following of other weaklings to just run the bullies over. Or uses psychological attacks against the bullies, probing their lives and who they are. Or similar to blackmailing.

A person like that couldn't exist, if somehow did then would just be and do nothing. Assuming the person was a blank slate. If wasn't, already had some preferences and wants then would choose something.
Life is the reason.

I've never said they are clear.
It is relevant where it comes from since if it's the mind that's the cause then could change it. They could assume control. But getting to that point would be another issue.

 

I think you're describing meme theory.

 

Actually, there are relatively recent news stories that a gene that is strongly associated with homosexuality in men, is strongly associated with high fertility in women. So the reduced success of the gene in men is overridden by the increased success of it in women.

 

I think you have an overtly optimistic attitude. If it's caused by psychological issues, it doesn't necessarily mean we would be able to change that. Certainly would take a lot of effort.

 

Soviet Union had state religion. Either way, just because someone claims to be an atheist does not necessarily mean the person is smart as well.
There are a lot of atheistic politicians, for example, and all they really do is just sit around and talk a lot when a question is answered but somehow never get to answering it. Just because someone wants to do something good does not mean they possess the necessary qualities to get it done.
It's like you're relating atheism to totalitarian systems, as if those two go together. Clear bias there, I'd say.

Not just things I would do, things that would make sense in such a scenario and with these certain qualities. Someone like that could see everything, know everything. If you had that kind of power would you interfere with your creations, if they had the ability to choose for themselves, and as the result hinder their development or damage it for a long period? Would you enslave your creations? Or would you want them to have the best chances of becoming someone who can manage on their own, without the help of superior power?
Comparing yourself, having such power, with the present stories can reveal flaws, and downright refute them. It's not my fault human characteristics are ascribed to these so called gods. I just look at myself with those qualities with the help of some creative thinking.

Individual mind learns and thus improves thanks to our ever advancing collective knowledge. If some children were taken into complete isolation, and let grow old they wouldn't be much different from those alive thousands of years ago. The mind's progress is in a different environment.

Not at all a bunch compared to what we have now. Getting to know animals is easy, just spend years watching them live.
Which plants are edible, trial and error... then the knowledge passed onto others, generation after generation.
That we don't know some of it anymore makes sense, better methods of acquiring food were developed. And so, what was known before became rather useless.
Argued, but without results. They didn't know what we know now. Based on present knowledge those questions can be answered, definitely to a much better extent than then. Logic is a good tool once known how to use properly.

The Soviet Union might have claimed to be atheistic but that does not mean it was. And in truth it wasn't.
Clinging to any point of view is not good. It makes a mind biased. It's best to simply look at the world outside any views, and look for the cause of why something is as it is.

If they contribute more, then it is because they are essentially brainwashed to do so, not because they really want to. If atheistic people contribute to charity they do it because they truly want to do it.
Have less alcohol/drug problems? This sounds like biased information, it makes no sense (there are more religious people than there are atheistic... yup, biased indeed). Also, a religious mind is not as developed as a nonreligious, as those religious don't really have a reason to think as much, they just read the book or ask a priest (not all but most definitely). The same about crimes.
Behave worse? Overall perhaps not, but it doesn't change the fact that taking fantasy as reality is not good for anyone.
Charity? How about a moneyless society. People work because it is necessary for the progress of the species, and if they didn't all the comfortabilities they so like they would not have. Also, whatever someone needs is free, just go and get it, 'cause after all, products are made for being used not for being sold. In other words, charities are idiotic together with current system.
Drugs/alcohol. If the ones mass-producing drugs didn't get any money out of it they wouldn't be doing it. It wouldn't remove the problem altogether but it would reduce it significantly. The same about alcohol, and smoking. And the only reason why one should drink is because likes the taste - has to do with the sense of beauty, similar to staring at pictures. Drinking simply for drinking or to get drunk or because others do it too is, honestly, idiotic as well.

And how many are atheistic? All the rest, which also is the majority.
Its similar, just as an example, to "there are 10 000 vegetarian athletes worldwide. And all the rest, 1000 000 are meateaters." (Actually saw this kind "argument" once trying to justify vegetarianism as "better", then just to have a reply saying all the rest eat meat.)
I am a little surprised to see an argument of the exact same caliber again. Sad.
What I said is true, like it or not. Religion hinders mental development, there're less reasons for a religious person to think about life then it is for one who's not religious. And then many religious organizations oppose science, because science refutes many things written in their precious book. And since there are people who follow those religious they will also listen to those organizations, not all but many.

Do something you would strongly dislike. There ya go, that's how I know.

There wouldn't, there's isn't.
I don't believe anything or anyone. I know or don't, trust or don't, then there's also probability which is in essence equivalent to "there might be or might not".
A point in human existence? Like what? Eating cabbage sounds like a good idea. There is no point, it just went this way that life sprung and gave birth to humanity among other creatures.
There is no point, none at all. If you truly want one then look at what life is doing all around us. Surviving, trying to stay in existence.

Determining human behavior requires free will to do so. What would be the point of determining something if you didn't have free will?
It can be determined, takes knowing the person to know how he/she will behave.

It doesn't matter what the test showed or not. If they decided to press one button or another using one hand or another then they consciously did it. They weren't dictated by anything or anyone. They themselves made a choice and acted upon it.
Consciousness and subconsciousness are connected and work together. Whether subconsciousness is active or not does not make a conscious act subconscious. If you knowingly did it then that says it all.

Morality is subjective anyway. From biology, and if basing morality on biology then morally as well.
The basis is up for us to decide, if we want to.
It would have reasons to make choices. Free will is not about what your basis is, it is about having the ability to choose whatever you'd want to, or wouldn't, and even go against them.

You didn't get what I meant. You have to look at the reason why they hump their own gender.
Somewhere I read that they might do it also to show who's the leader.

The beginnings of creative thinking. They don't know better, they cannot know better, they don't have such capacity.

Less than we do. They are mostly ruled by instinct and what their survival demands.

In practice as well. If something is possible in theory, assuming all necessary factors are accounted for, then it is absolutely possible in practice.

In what way? You think not being able to choose one's preferences is having more free will than otherwise? It makes no sense.

If he could choose to like the beatings, and chose so... no sane person would make that choice. It's similar to taking a knife in the heart because the person chose to like that in a an encounter with a bad guy, instead of fighting back or trying to get away alive. A sane person would not voluntarily choose the beatings, or death.
Absolute free will cannot without very strong intelligence. A person like that would either choose a purpose, and considering the intelligence then it would be something very many would eventually benefit from, or commit suicide. Intelligence is required to see all the possibilities available. If not intelligent then the choices would be as good as random, and as such the person would be practically insane.

I just settle for the best possible I can manage, unless there are some changing factors like tiredness. No psychological issues, I've always been more aware of myself and others.
Psychological issues can truly be dealt with only by thinking over what caused them.

 

Admitting the problem and identifying the causes are just steps in the process of healing. They aren't the final steps. What is your view on pedophilia? Is it a psychological problem as well? At least experience has shown that we have practically no way of healing them. It also doesn't seem to make sense from a genetic point of view.

 

If they did it in the past it was because they weren't smart enough to do it right, and not because they claimed to be atheistic.
Totalitarian systems and atheistic mentality have no connection. Being an atheist means the person doesn't believe in any gods, that is all.
It's honestly surprising you say they were far worse than the crusades and what religion was directly responsible for in the past. For one, there weren't as many people to kill in the first place, as the population wasn't as numerous. I get the feeling you also fail to include witch-burnings and inquisitions, not to mention the systematic removal of anyone who opposed the organized religion too much without taking it all back in time. Population hit the first billion at around 1800, during WW2 it was between 2-3 billions. By percentage, what religions caused was far worse. Looking at just the numbers of deaths is not enough, you have to consider as many relevant points as you can.
The reason Russia could kill as many was because there were more people to kill than compared to previous times. And honestly, what Russia did to others is nothing compared to what it did to itself, and still is doing. The place is a mess and always has been.

All I do is think logically.

They go together.

Maybe we both like arguing.

Not because I don't like results, but because they don't make sense. How many religious people are there? Now how many atheistic people are there? About 5 billion religious, perhaps about 1,5 billion nonreligious. Are you really saying most atheistic people are alcoholics or drug users? I doubt they included the same amount of people from both groups, and even if they did the chances that one gets more people with problems than the other is very much possible. These studies do not reflect reality, as not everyone is included.
Even if it was true it would make little difference. As I've said before, taking fantasy as reality is good for no one. Even if it is accompanied by some seemingly positive influence.
Also, why should nonreligious people have more problems with alcohol and drugs and crimes?
It wouldn't be the first time I saw biased studies trying to make religion look good. Whatever the results are, the negatives outweigh them by far. A person should not be indoctrinated or brainwashed into a certain kind of behavior or way of thinking, especially if what the person is subjected to is based on fantasy.

It is never beneficial to regard fantasy as real. If someone truly cannot live without then that person is not sane. By whom are those studies made, who ordered them?
Less addictions? On the account of what? A messed up sense of reality?
Less mental problems? Are you kidding me? Do you know what a delusion is? I bet you do. It describes religious people very accurately. Thinking something to be true while it really is not is not having a healthy mind.
More happiness? Ignorance is bliss. They have their book or priests to turn to when in doubt, some literally repeat things like "Jesus is my savior blah blah blah" (have some experience with one like that on a forum, that person was, and probably still is, quite literally insane). They don't bother thinking about the world, they don't bother seeing it more clearly, they just live in ignorance (not all but most).
More charity? There are far more religious people anyway, in billions.
Not good because those people are delusional when it comes to the world. They take some particular fantasies as real, yet not all the rest. There are so many versions but they cling to just one. What makes that one so special in the presence of so many others with equal value? Them believing that nonsense is the same as believing in Harry Potter. What would you think of someone, or some people, who took Harry Potter the same way current religious people take their nonsense?

Unfortunately we don't.
Not do the best with what we can but strive for the best we can manage and that is not capitalism. Current system literally enslaves the people, by covering it up with an illusion of freedom and a chance to become "rich". Being rich means nothing if others suffer because one likes to hoard resources and not do anything useful with them. There are enough resources, there is enough workpower that everyone could live in good conditions, the only reason they don't is because money keeps it that way and because there are greedy morons who are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

Most scientists are atheistic as they do not believe in any gods. Atheistic not atheists.

I don't. And compatible they are not, but not completely incompatible. Science refutes so much of what is in the book of plagiarism (many stories there originate from even older ones), aside many other ones. The book that serves as the basis of the most prominent religions. There is very little compatibility. That book is nothing more than a collection of fantasy stories, and then to consider that there are religions based on it and that people actually believe it, that they take it as real.

You tried to prove a point by referring to a small number, disregarding everyone else. How was that objective?
I don't have an anti-religion bias. All I do is just look at how things are. I also think of how things could be better. I compare them. And make logical conclusions from all that. Religion has never done anything good, is not doing any good now, and neither will ever do, because there is something better available, simply has to be realized.

Majority of scientists are not religious. This is a fact you have to consider.
They might not see it as threatening but science does refute much, even most, of the basis of their religion.
Catholic Church doesn't? I bet they did at one point. After all, it does go against their book. But since science is actual knowledge they have no choice but to accept it eventually.
That most scientists were religious in the past is irrelevant. And that churches funded them? To an extent it didn't go too much against their book, no doubt. Churches used to be wealthy back then, but not anymore.

Exactly so.

I don't assume anything. I just say it as I see it at the moment.

This is about free will, right? Whether something can be determined or not makes no difference, if you yourself can choose how to live your life, what decisions to make, then you have free will.

The difference is that god does not exist. That we can choose for ourselves is real, that aspect does exist. We know about free will because we can make our own choices, because we gave that existing ability a name.

It's not.

No it wasn't.

Basically. If you couldn't choose for yourself then it would be a state very similar to slavery.
I probably meant something in relation to a god. Assuming one existed and we didn't have free will.

I don't believe...
I don't get what you mean by this as I have not said such a thing.

...

Are we slaves? Are you a slave?

What point?

To prove it is simple, make a choice. A stupid one, a bad one, one you preferably didn't want, or did, makes no difference. If you can consciously choose something then you have free will, there is nothing more to it.

Didn't then and don't now, neither will later.

Just because you can make something simple complex does not mean it actually is so.

It's a simple one. Free will is the ability to decide your own life, the course it takes, the choices you make, to whatever extent in the given environment, as we do not have the ability to change our environment with the touch of our minds. You have free will if you can consciously make decisions.

It wasn't an illusion. Makes no difference where the supposed brain activity was, if they made the choice then they made the choice. They could've as well not pressed any buttons, but that wasn't the purpose of the test, was it?
Just wondering, did the participants know details of the test, what they were supposed to do, beforehand?

It's a conscious act because you have control over it. Subconscious means you don't have control.

You can choose which thoughts to listen to. Which emotions to follow.
Subconsciousness creates these "concepts" that are directed to our conscious part, from a rather massive amount of data. Do you act upon every thought that comes from your subconsciousness?
Subconsciousness as well has an ability to learn, to some extent. Or rather it's like it listens to consciousness and tries to tune itself for better efficiency.

I didn't say is possible I said perhaps is.

I meant what I said, word by word.

Neither. It just was there, enabled by genetics, then began improving once I could think. Still is improving. It's not a preference, it's a quality every person has.

I just look at the world and conclude as logically as I can. That's all I do.

Didn't elaborate further as it should be obvious. Once the cause is found it should be easy enough to deal with, or at least see what must be done to fix it.

Pedophilia? Something's wrong in their heads.
There is a way... off with their balls, as most are men.

 

We should continue the debate over religion in another thread. From now on let's just focus on free will here and talk about religion only when it's relevant to the topic.

You are right by the way, we both really like arguing.

 

Different ways it can be explained... in reality there exists only one way it works. I try to go for just that one.

Closer??? Trying to place people under preconceived views, essentially biasing (at least a bit) your view of them. It's sort of like this, from the purest white to the darkest black, and everything in between. Do they cover the entire range or just some few defined areas?
I think for myself not simply believe what has already been thought up. The same way I do not care about any quotes from "famous" persons. They're all just opinions of other people.

I'm neither.

Of course I won't believe her. Instead I will know that she loves me. Knowing something is far stronger and saner, as such as well better, than believing.

"I probably meant something in relation to a god. Assuming one existed and we didn't have free will." Guess who didn't write that.

You cannot look at things without referring to the opinions of someone else?

You certainly are all over the place. Too over in my opinion.

And that I most probably meant in relation to a god.
Or perhaps... a slave's life is decided for him/herself. All they can do is what is allowed to them, if they didn't there'd be severe consequences. No free will is similar as they can't choose their own life, as if it is chosen for them.

It should "I am not".
Natural law that is life's own quality to persist. But our mind nudging it around, as we, with our contradictions, are still too of life.

Something I wrote. "There is no point, it just went this way that life sprung and gave birth to humanity among other creatures. There is no point, none at all. If you truly want one then look at what life is doing all around us. Surviving, trying to stay in existence."

I don't need to understand any preconceived ideas, I'd much rather look at things myself. Probably came from having crap I did not accept, because they made no practical sense, being forced onto me while in school, years ago. So far it's going very well. You definitely don't perceive it as I do since our mentalities seem to be quite different.
That things could be determined does not mean we don't have free will. Something I said before. "I've never said things couldn't be determined, just needs significantly more advanced science and technology.
Assuming those existed, you look forward how you're looking forward changing something you saw in a further looking forward that would cause something disastrous. And so on."
And this too. "Rewind, reboot, makes no difference. If nothing is changed the outcome is exactly the same. Every time."

And... Still not getting it? I do not believe!

There are no laws that control, instead they simply are as they are. Particles simply influence and subject change to each other. If you could somehow determine their paths, then you could probably see yourself seeing determining the course, assuming you did more than once. That course could change only if something from outside the system came in.
That aside, right now, can you choose for yourself? Yes.

Not everyone can see how things could turn out in presence of one choice among many, we also cannot see behind a stone wall. We don't know everything, so of course there will be decisions like "should've made a different one".

No, it had not. Ever had instances of indecision? Are you saying the subconscious made the choice of indecision? In case it had already chosen then why the illusion of indecision? For what purpose? It literally makes no sense, unless we choose consciously.
Are you saying the subconscious of so many has ordered all these buildings around the globe built? All this technology created and science developed? If you viewed life as one "entity" and its underlying goal survival, then perhaps.

Hatred for science? You are imagining things.
The acts coming from subconsciousness are instinctive. They tend blurt out without giving a slightest regard toward your wishes. But even those can be controlled to an extent, eventually.
Science and conflict... As an example, what do you think of "time"? How do you imagine it, see it? What do you think it is? What causes it? Is it a basis of our universe, or something else entirely?

Or both.
I bet it becomes even fuzzier as we evolve.

Neither one.

Freedom points?

No, I'm quite human.

"Something's wrong in their heads."
If the cause is found it should be fixable. Unless the cause cannot be changed, but as science and technology advance I doubt there'll many limits one day.

It's very entertaining.

 

------------

 

QUOTED:
> 1) Homosexuality doesn't make sense from a genetic point of view.
> 2) Homosexuality can't have a genetic cause.

This is a pretty simplistic view of genetics. It certainly can have a genetic cause.

 

This assumes, as nearly all armchair discussions of genetics do, that a given trait is always single allele. We now know that even eye color, the classic example of single allele trait in humans, is in fact multi-allelic and can be affected by areas of the genome quite far removed. Add to this that there are many situations in which a gene that would intuitively remove itself from the gene-pool through attrition does not. Heterozygote advantage is perhaps the most well known of these situations. Can you think of no advantages to having a perfectly healthy, non-breeding, member of a family group? Does not a pair of hands unencumbered by offspring better the chances of the family unit. Remember that up until an eye-blink ago on the human evolutionary scale, we lived in small bands of no more than 20 individuals. The individual does not pass the genes on, but his brothers and sisters have a better chance of doing so because of his/her presence.

 

Yep; I've wondered for a long time of there's a survival benefit of having some adults in the family - that is, the same genetic group - who aren't focused on providing for their own offspring. But there's a simpler possible explanation that I touched on earlier in the thread: It's been reported in relatively recent news stories that a gene that is strongly associated with homosexuality in men, is strongly associated with increased fertility in women. The man has no children; his sister has extra children, more than enough to make up for the children that he doesn't have.

Adding the two together, I also wouldn't be a bit surprised if those children benefitted, in the past, from having an uncle with no children of his own. How often do fathers walk away? How often do uncles walk away from a sister that they grew up with, and her children? Is it possible that uncles are more reliable? And if no one walks away, and the uncle has a partner, that group of children could potentially have _four_ adults protecting and providing for them. And if there's war, starvation, or disease, four adults means that there are a lot of deaths to go through before those children are left with no protector at all.

 

I would say it's mixed.

Many people do have freewill; the rest just have no will of their own.

 

I truly don't give any fucks for libertarianism or anything else similar. I do not care about them because I do not need them. If someone has opinions then I'll view those, and if someone gives some preconceived views for me then it's best to just stop, 'cause both's time's wasting.
I've never been a follower, and never will be.

You certainly do like ignoring me. I've said many times I do not "believe". Is there something wrong with you? How can you not understand something so simple and so blatantly ignore it every time? Are you familiar with the concept of respect?
I said something about biasing a person's view of someone else by placing that person under defined, and as well limited, areas. What you are saying now is proof of that. You view the world according to the opinions formed by others before us, and you believe them. Then you try to place me under them by viewing my arguments, and as a result you get it all wrong! I am not a libertarian, neither am I a determinist, two facts of reality! What you need to do is to stop viewing the world by those preconceived ideas, throw it all aside, and just look at the world completely on your own!
A theory of my own? What have I done all this time? I have given my opinions, my own. I do not base my thinking on previously made up ideas, I look and form on my own. You should do the same, for your sake.

I'm still not believing anything. But you certainly do make yourself look stupid by ignoring me.
Arguing/debating is about the people involved sharing their individual opinions and comparing them, discussing them. I am doing that while you are simply saying the things you have read that other people have said, not a single opinion of your own. All you do is repeat.

How I would know? The way she would say it, how she would sound, how she would look while saying it, from all that could identify whether her words were truly genuine or not. That's how.

Are you serious?
One difference between us is that unlike you I throw away all the crap. I leave just that which is worth keeping, and then I never refer to where I got it, I won't even remember it. It's about improving oneself, not remembering who or where you got it from.
Refusal to look things up, knowing in advance it's not worth it, is acting intelligently. And if is not known in advance then a short glance over it will reveal its worth.

Evidence for free will... I've said it many times. And again. Just make some decisions that would be negative for you, because, if we did not have free will there would be no cause for those decisions to happen.
We could choose to render this planet a dead mass of rock, but that would be bad for us and life here in general, and as such the reason why we will not do it.
You and many others believe.
Factors beyond our control are those that are necessary for us to be alive and have free will. Those factors themselves have nothing else to do with any of it. You are built on top of them, and that's where free will lies. And yes, having free will, will eventually enable us to modify those factors (science and tech).

Unfortunately it is if you look at our current idiotic system.

Yes. Because you are a follower, you have less freedom of mind as you don't seem to be able to function well without referring to preconceived views, and with them you don't really function right either... And since you seem to know those so well you are very strongly attached to them. You probably remind yourself of them regularly, as if they are very important to you, and this arguing is part of it. Am I right or wrong?

I do not contradict myself. You think, sorry... you believe I do because your view of the world is based on previously made up views.
"Natural law"? What are you talking about? There is no such law.
You certainly are all over the place, you're assuming so many things of me without seeing me as I am. Partly because your mind is biased enough for that. I suppose I also haven't put things out clearly but ain't it that much more exciting? Connecting the dots, seeing why and how it could possibly be that way.

I still do not believe.
When did I say the subconcsious couldn't create something complex? For some reason "never" keeps pounding in my head... I wonder why is that...

Time travel is literally impossible. Is now, was before, and always will be. Although, in a sense, it might be possible to go into the future, but that's just one way travel. And not exactly "travel" either, more like standing into the future, unless in a ship that itself is moving.
Time is simple, really. There's all this stuff our universe is made of. Those things affect each other, influence each other, making them change in location, and in whatever other qualities. That change - the process - is what we perceive as time. Time is not something similar to a kind of force. It's just the effect of matter. As such the word "time" doesn't anymore fit right, unless you refer to clocks.

To some extent.

That's why I included "perhaps". I tend to include something like that whenever I do not know for certain, unless there are some factors influencing my performance.

Instead of saying "I don't know" I try to give something, in it including words like "perhaps", "suppose", and "might", generally.

You seem to have ignored completely "Unless the cause cannot be changed".

Don't see much point continuing this...