to say he had no freewill you would need to find out his reason for robbing the bank ,then you would need to break the cycle some how ,like give him choices so if it was just about money and you offered him millions not to rob the bank or some other criteria that should sway a rational person and he continued to rob the bank every time than yes you would have a case even then you would need to repeat the time travel test with a range of people to see if it happened every time all the time .

Another thought , it could also be as simple as , the decision to rob the bank was one made by freewill ,but the past is immutable.

Hmm... A "definite maybe" doesn't sound very convincing

Anyway, as I see it the brain is fully capable of making decisions even without any input from the "outside", as a decision really isn't anything else than millions of synapses colliding (both consciously and uncounsciously). But it really only leads us to the original problem. The only way for you to have a fully independent free will is if it does not consist of atoms (like a soul, or any similar supernatural matter). As I see it, at least, the brain consisting of atoms is what limits everything and makes every decision explainable (no matter how extremely complex it would be to actually explain them).

However, I must admit that I'm not an expert in English, so I might have just missed your point entirely xD. If so bear with me.

It's a definite maybe because I don't know enough of brain research and cognitive psychology to give a definite answer either way :)

But, my point is that if you want to go to the (sub)atomic level, you need to change your definition of free will. And because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the quantum effects, you can never go to the (sub)atomic level and then construct the system back from there.

In other words, precisely because free will is not (or can't be proven to be) different from matter, it needs to be looked at as a system, not as a singularity. So the question is: does the system, as a whole, have free will as per your definition? And remember, a system is, by definition, a collection of dependent elements so it does not matter how the system functions in the inside.

I don't know if I can explain what I mean well enough. I'm just working with your definition of free will, and that definition combined with what we know of the brain and our consciousness leads me to the conclusion that our consciousness can be autonomous and independent. That the internal processes are both deterministic and random does not matter based on that definition.

I would say "no". The fact that there even is a system means that the free will isn't free but is directly dependent on that (unimaginably complex) system.

So, in a way, I guess that the free will has just as much evidence, to support its existence, as God and the flying spaghetti monster, as I see it.

You are wrong. If you go back in time you will see that the dude who "likes" to rob will always steal from the same person over and over and over again, unless other factor is added into the event, like a time traveling intervening, just to put an example. But that doesn't mean that thief did not have free will.

You are talking about from a point of view in which the events have already happened, and you are traveling to a point in which the decision to steal has already happened; and from that point you are saying that, the thief while being in that situation will always rob certain person. What you are saying is like "He had a heart attack because he was fat and a heavy smoker". It is so damn obvious that the event will happen in those situations for that person, but the thing here is that you need to understand what made them to be in those situations, and there is where free will takes place.

Every action has a reaction, so a person who have certain experiences (action), will do things according to how he interpreted those events (reaction), and that will depend on how they where raised (or maybe due to some genetic diseases, by how he developed during pregnancy, which will depend of what choices the mother make, and who she choose to be her mate, etc,etc,etc).

Staying with the same example, the guy robbed some dude because he was in the "perfect" moment to do so and because he had the motivation to do it because of certain events on his life that leaded that person to that point of decision in which he resolve to rob certain dude. If you travel at the same exact moment over and over again, it will always happen the same and he he will rob the same dude, because the experiences have not changed.

And also it will be the same because you are going from a time in which the events already happened; it is like watching a recorded event, it will happen the same every time you rewind it; unless you interfere.

Time travel funny thing: If the event changes, that means that in "your present time" you would have no reason to go back in time to see the 1st event, because it did not happened. In the beginning what motivated you to travel back in time was the result of the 1st event; but that event is no more, in other words you would have no reason to do so. XD

Except for the part where you said I was wrong, you are right :D

You just fully supported the determined world view which is the only path in which you always makes decisions free from randomness. The will is still not free though as all of your future decisions were determined even before you and your parents were born.

As for that last paragraph, I guess you've been watching "The Big Bang Theory"?

Ok, the problem I have now is that you're not working with your own defition. Basically, you're adding the requirement that free will is a singularity. Again, I'm trying to work based on your definition of free will, and nowhere does it mention singularity (or being separate from matter, either).

Basically, you're arguing that free will must exist at all levels of complexity of the universe, or it doesn't exist at all. My argument is that free will is, for a lack of a better description, a feature of our consciousness, of a system. And that system can be, per your definition, autonomous and independent.

lol XD.    I havent watched an episode related to time travel.....yet, but I have read novels about it, and if you think about it what I said makes sense :D

back on topic, the decisions made before the existance of your parents were made, were made because of the free will of others, and if that changes somehow, you would not even be born, and we would not be having this conversation lol :D.  As I mentioned before its an action-reaction "thing", and it doesnt count to "not having Free will" the fact of being unaware of the existance  of "reality", because when you are aware you will try do things by though or instinct, but you may not be able to do it because you are in the womb of your mother lol.     An example would be like being in prison, you cant go out and buy an icecream, but if you want to escape and buy an ice-cream, you will get shot in the head, so after thinking the possible scenario you decide not to do it (unless you want to get shot in the head lol).   It does not mean to not have free will, it just means that their free will is restricting yours, but you still have it.

XD

Well, yes. That is the whole point of this thread. I am trying to prove that it does not exist (although that is just as hard to prove as God's existence). In other words, your argument that our free will would be a part of our consciousness falls according to my definition. If it is a part of a materialistic consciousness then it is directly affected by either determined chain-reactions (on atomic levels) or randomized by quantum effects.

I guess you either missunderstood my definition or my definition has changed during my thought-process.

I understand your argument, and I think it is the case of changed definition. So, please, define free will again as you understand it now.

And, just for clarity, I'm not arguing that free will exists or does not exist, as that is totally irrelevant. If you want to prove the free will does not exist, then you have to define it in such a way that you can actually prove it. Your current, outspoken definition does not seem to support proving that.