romansh

Well I would claim otherwise. Again this proof thingy … In the real world we don't deal in proof corroborating evidence yes. But if you are interested in this sort of thing I would suggest Robert Sapolsky's Behaviour.

Where is the evidence that it is not "chemical reactions"? Just stating it is not is not an argument. It is an opinion. Can one be a Christian without being agape? Can one be agape without having the other six forms of love?

OK I get this acceptance thingy … for me it an understanding, but that is OK. For example I might "accept" a behaviour [I don't like] in someone else, but I generally have a superficial understanding of that behaviour (and if I am lucky my aversion to that behaviour). I am not sure I understand this?

Is it a fact that Jesus existed?

My initial reaction is … it is not what it seems. I was asked the other day where does it come from? Well love in its various forms does seem to be an emotion that has come to be because of the evolution of biochemical reactions and genetics and is triggered by the environment. This in turn results in various actions that might be considered loving.

Well I am extrapolating from what I see of religion today and not some 2000 y old hypothetical. Perhaps … but for this to be "literally" true they would have to be pantheists. Even panentheists hold to some separation. Question away thormas. Note I never did claim we are totally are our actions. So what exactly are we? Thinking is an action is it not? God is a verb? Is god "totally" an action?

I have quoted a section from Rex Weyler's The Jesus Sayings number of times, I have never really discussed it in any depth. Well, here is in a little more depth … but I suppose it does not need to be that deep.

No one has a monopoly on the universe either. I don't even have a monopoly on my back yard. But the universe does shape us.

Here is Sabine discussing a particular aspect of free will.

The problem with this or these definitions is that my computer meets the criteria for free will. The question is not whether we make decisions … the debate is over the underlying mechanisms of making of those decisions. And whether having a mechanism for free will is an oxymoron of sorts. It's a nice sunny day, and I have a need to mow the grass. To me it is an amazing view of how the universe ticks whilst it unfolds. Why must there be more than no free will? Do you have your own personal homunculus that is free? And does your homunculus

'Chemistry' is doing the writing also, if this is what you are driving at.

And yet when I ask you to point to this 'more' it appears to be written in 'chemistry'. And here I include 'physics'.

And yet when we do this it blends into the autopilot state. Yes but it is more subtle than that. I might have decided to do something but not had the will to carry it out.

Is death trivial? There are over six thousand an hour on average (Google is my friend). Yesterday twelve years ago my son died. Yes I can find humour in this, but it is mine not anyone else's. I can find humour in A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic. I can even find a certain accuracy in this statement. As to Zhou's butterfly solipsism … each to his own I suppose. Yes regardless of what we do we are forced to play the game, even if it means tipping the board over. So do you think we have free will and what do you mean by free will?

And how much do we trust our consciousness? Or is it the confirmation bias for our unconscious chemistry? When I examine my day … I am in autopilot for much of the day.

OK in what way is will, want, wish different from a desire?

The interesting thing is that the belief in notions of g/God, free will and morality are actually unnecessary for us to function, although we may believe otherwise. One of the quibbles theists have with this statement is that it is not a "true" nothing, but real one we experience. Another difference is that atheists would dump this statement if better evidence for another proposition came along. Perhaps accept that our consciousness is imaginary? I imagine I have a consciousness is a tautology is it not?

So the question becomes how much do we trust our consciousness and is it as it seems? And because it is does not have an explanation it does not mean it is not a result of cause and effect. But we are thoroughly aware our so called consciousness is affected by chemistry. Oxytocin, psilocybin, anaesthetics, alcohol are examples.

Would you have wishes, actions, decisions without chemistry?

Exactly where is free suggested in "to wish"? Here Gales Strawson argues in an interview against free will using "to want".

Thank you Our genetics are more a product of our distant past environment, whereas our societal type influences are a product of our more immediate environment. Human genetics change (noticeably) over millennia and society over generations. Our nature and nurture are products of our environment.

No it's not.

That does not mean his chemistry cannot be influenced, should you have the chemistry to wish to influence.

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker is a good resource for Nature versus Nurture. What I took away from it was, if I wanted to influence my child's non inherited traits, I would look to place him in a teen peer group that reflected the values I wanted him to have.

To answer your question … no we don't have free will, … in the sense we could have done otherwise. The sense of control we have is an illusion. It stems from us being completely (more or less) oblivious to the underlying chemistry/physics. Basically arguments for free will are either semantic in nature or based on humans being magical in some way … being able to act independently of prior (or even current) cause. Nature and nurture … definitely. But they both are our environment (universe) but dislocated in time. There's already a thread you may wish to skim through here ps INTP