It's your idea that everything is determined, so our conversation isn't the fruit of our free will.

There's nothing we can do about it, it'already been determined.

I know (well, I can't know for certain, but I do think so), but you don't. And neither does everyone (or even close to the majority) in this thread.

I was just pointing out how your predetermined actions are irrational.
Why would you ask someone to do something if he doesn't have any free will?
But of course it isn't your fault as it was all determined

I also wanted to know what you think about all the stupid/irrational things that human beings do. From what i've understood of your theory future actions are the result of the past so everything can be determined and logically deduced. But how can you logically deduce something irrational? How can something stupid be the natural consequence to something? And what about inventions? How can you rationally deduce something that doesn't exist? Please correct me if i have misunderstood your theory

If you want to argue for determinism, then you can not shrug off quantum effects. While it is tempting to think that the universe acts in a predetermined fashion, that is simply not the case. For determinism to work, the whole universe needs to be deterministic, down to the smallest particle. Yet we know for a fact that quantum effects can have profound implications on the macro level, otherwise we couldn't have quantum computers, for example. Hence the universe is not deterministic, and human behavior is not deterministic either.

However, things are not that black and white. The overwhelming majority of the universe that we perceive behaves as though it were at least reasonably deterministic: we observe cause and effect, and usually can be pretty certain that the same cause will have the same effect. So, perhaps 99.9% (or some other percentage) of the universe is behaving deterministically, and the rest is random. But, due to the complexity of the "deterministic system" even slight randomness will accumulate and result in widely different end results, i.e. the chaos theory. However, we usually can't observe these random elements, so we experience a deterministic universe.

All of this doesn't answer your question of free will, and it really can't, at least not under the limits you have posed. If you consider our brain as the unit containing our consciousness (the apparatus making decisions based on input), how would you categorize events that occur within that unit? By definition, input is external, but we know the brain has a huge amount of internal "feedback": areas of the brain communicating back and forth, synapses firing at least seemingly randomly, brain cells dying etc? In fact, the brain is perfectly capable of generating "fake input" if real input is absent. So, does everything come down to pure randomness? To answer the question of free will, you must first account for how consciousness is born.

From a purely scientific point of view, I think that we are a combination of random and deterministic processes. I specifically don't believe that the universe is deterministic as a whole. The end result, I believe, is a world that is chaotic and, ultimately, unpredictable. And we seemingly have a free will to decide upon our actions, whether it is an illusion or not.

The thing is though that my theory did include quantum effects as an option, and that even then the will wouldn't be free. Like you said, lots of things that we cannot control happens in our brain which affects our final decision. So does random or determined events that we've witnessed earlier in our lives.

You did bring up the quantum effects, but you've since stated that you believe in determinism. And I'm not really arguing about whether we have free will or not, as that is irrelevant. We perceive ourselves as having free will to make decisions. Ironically, the cause for that perception does not matter.

However, using your definition of free will (autonomous and independent, as I recall. Correct me if I'm wrong.) the situation is not as clear cut if you consider how our consciousness is born. Autonomous to do what, and independent from what? What about random events that happen within the consciousness? It seemed to me you defined free will as akin to a point source, which is most definitely is not, if it exists.

If you "rewind" and the robber changes his decision, you just proved that there is more than one possible solution.

But if you rewind 1.000.000 times and he always robbed... that would still not be a proof that he couldn't decide differently the next try. You just showed that the chances for an other solution are very small.

You just can't prove non-existence with logic.

Well, I wouldn't separate random things that occur within and outside of our consciousness as they both ultimately does nothing but affect our decisions (and thus, our "free" will). In other words: For the will to be free, it cannot be materialistic, which is why I don't think that there's a free will to begin with. I think I explained that as a paradox earlier by saying something like "The only possible way for us to actually have an independant will (that is unaffected by randomness) is if the world is entirely determined, which makes the will dependent of something else."

Bolded: But how is the will free if he keep making diffent decisions?

Underlined: Then simply rewind time several times "next time" to see if different results occur???

Italics: That's true, but you can disprove non-existent matter. I'm not saying that I have (other than in my misleading/attention-seeking thread title), but at the moment I see no valid counterarguments.

For the sake of argumentation, lets assume that our consciousness and free will are inseparable and that both exist. (Just so I don't have to write a disclaimer every time I mention free will :)

If the free will is not a point source but rather a volume in space, then there is a very big difference between inside and outside since it is the totality of what goes on inside that gives rise to our consciousness/free will. Since you didn't correct me, I'm assuming that your definition of free will is that it is autonomous and independent. By that definition, free will is possible if it, as a unit, is autonomous and independent with regards to the outside. What happens in the inside is totally irrelevant. The question then becomes: is our consciousness capable of making decisions sans any input from the outside? Based on what I've read of brain research and cognitive psychology, the answer is a definite maybe. Sensory deprivation quickly leads to hallucinations, i.e. the brain making up input, which then leads to some kind of reactions and decision making processes.