Electrons are very light so they are highly subseptable to quantum mechanics and if you don't know how the brain works there is nothing you have to say. You can't say we don't know and then say you are probably right when our common experience says that we have free will.  Smater people than you like Einstein disagee with you even though he didn't want to.   Occam's razor that is a laugh if someone said that to you to try to win an argument you would never acept it.  Physics and matter arn't simple we already have things like shodingers cat and the many worlds theor that are based on choices thoes aren't infalible, but since we know determinisim is bunk.  Since we don't actualy have a theory we can actually test the simple thing to do is belive in free will because that is our common experience there are many other factors that coul factor into fee will that would make it more likely, but we can't test any of them.   

So you don't get to say your right when you have nothing to back it up and you can't even say your likely to be right because we know too little to even come close to establishing a probability of anything.  I guess we can say I am waisting my time if you are just going to say your right  because most people don't want to change their minds or I could say you have no choice, but to be wrong because you have no free will.  That does sound strange what if I said you have no choice, but to be right then why would you even trust your mind if either were true.  

There realy is no point in arguing for the meaninglessness of the human mind because then we can't trust logic so if you even suceeded all your arguments based on that form of reasoning would be mute. Occam's razor would mean nothing because it was the invention of a mind that had no chice but to come up with it regardless of wheter it was true or false or even usefull. If no one has any control of their mind they can't stear it twords the truth.  Then why would we expect any reasoning done to be relible if it was garunteed to happen. There is not a single reason for a random scatering of atoms to produce any kind of truth as aposed to false hood if there isn't some kind of deciding factor because using the many worlds theroy in anouther universe you could be wrong and by what mesure between the two universes would you decide whithc one is right or wheather that theory is right.

Now I am going to sleep and I will read your reply tommorw then not respond because I choose not to waste any more time than that on arguing with somone who is trying to argue for their own meaninglessness.  If you have no proof you might as well believe in the better option or stop thinking about it and have some fun. Even if you are right it dosen't matter anyway because all things will perish and that thought will be forever lost and not a singe person will have benifited from thinking it while it still existed.  

So can you tell me what is the point of us arguing this pointless point besides wasting my time?  I supose I win by default if I make the choice to not waste any more of my time by not even reading your reply and you will never know wheather in the end if I choose to read it or you could choose to not make a reply. Why should  you or anyone who dosn't belive in free will care? You are going to do it any way wheather it is the right thing to do or not.  

Electrons are indeed susceptible to quantum mechanics, but the world not being deterministic but instead probabilistic doesn't mean we have free will. Unless you can influence the randomness of quantum fluctuations, then you still have no say in what the outcome is, so it doesn't matter. You end up with the same lack of free will.

Besides, Bohmian quantum mechanics, which recent experiments support, are deterministic to begin with.

Free Will Doesn't exist, God has a plan for all of us and we're just following it.

I'm not trying to win an argument, what would be the point of that. This topic interests me and amuses me while I wait for the water to boil for my cup of tea before I continue watching Dr Who.

Determinism is bunk, yet the world works on it. And no, I don't trust my mind or common beliefs. The mind is most excellent at making up excuses and reasons behind things, even altering its own memories of events to suit its theories. Everytime you remember something, you slightly alter the memory. Which makes it very difficult to actually determine how I got to a decision as after a decision happens the mind reinforces that decision by altering the facts. Is it simply trying to explain the decision like it tries to explain everything else we have no influence over. Or is there some agent applying free will. I find the latter harder to belief, and have no problem accepting that I am a product of my mind instead of some conciousness inhabiting my mind.

I don't see why that would be arguing for my own meaningless. I am making the decisions, weighing up pros and cons. Then why would we expect any reasoning done to be relible if it was garunteed to happen. Natural selection works as well on ideas as on evolution. Ideas that work live on, the rest is forgotten. There is control measured by success.

Anyway I still feel I'm in control of my actions, yet have a hard time taking credit for the sucesses in my life. The key decisions in my life all seem well coincidence, or out of my control, going along with the flow. I am pretty indecisive most of the time.

The water boiled 10 minutes ago, time for some other kind of fun.

This is ironic on two levels. I mean, even the irony here is ironic.

What if the physics as you say is the foundation to free will, not necessarily the destroyer of it.

Let me see if I understand the argument in general terms. If you set up a row of dominoes and tip one over, the rest of them will fall in succession. Our human existence is merely the result of 4*10^80 atoms reacting under the laws of physics for a span of billions of years as each domino falls into succession.

In which case, yes, everything is predetermined. If we could simulate the universe with 100% accuracy, nothing would change. But does that imply a loss of free will?

...

The biggest problem you have with this question is it is not falsifiable. There was often criticism to Freud's interpretation of the mind. If a child was not hugged enough it could explain why he is distant to his parents. But if a child was hugged too much it could also explain his distance towards his parents (to a degree). No matter the outcome, it merely confirms the proposed idea. Me replying, or choosing not to reply does not change anything of this argument. Rather, it is just my brain playing it's part in a scripted idea.

But even if it is that clear cut, then please explain to me a world where there would be free will? Would it be one where there is something legitametely random and cannot be measured under any possible means? And if there is a truly random event, then how could you establish an identity as being unique? If a random variable truly existed, then there would be no self identity. There would be no constant to which you could use the term "I." Thus there could be no free will, because there is no will to start with. You are not "you" because there is not a way to measure you, especially if it shifts in a truly random way.

Rather, our free will comes from a stable foundation. Perhaps we might even be mistaking this concept by thinking that Free Will =/= a predetermined state. Because no matter how you slice it, we have to make choices in our lives. Under both interpretations, those choices are defined by our identity and our neurons.

Or in example, our identity means we would make the same choice twice if all conditions were constant. It makes sense for our personality to choose the same thing twice because it follows who we define ourselves as. How could we even claim to have a unique (and dynamic) identity if we deviated from it?

It is tough because it is a catch 22 argument. There is only one choice we can make at any given time, and there are consequences to those choices. A future has to exist, and because of that it may seem reasonable to conclude that it would be the next domino in line. But that doesn't mean we lack a free will. Physics is the process to how the world works, and it would also make sense that it is the same process to which we debate our ideas and our self. It is the method. And how would we have an identity at all if our neurons weren't arranged in that order to begin with?

So I think a better question to ask is, how could we have a free will if there was not a system in place to make us who we are?If we were to remove ourselves from the universe entirely, the future would be different (Perhaps in some very minute way). So while they may seem like total opposites, perhaps they are one and the same. But since this will never falsifiable, everything is just speculation.