A computer being as conscious as us? As in falling in love and feeling sad? Making decision based on ideas and emotions..? I'm sorry but that is science fiction and has absolutely no logical bases. Also:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second-of-human-brain-activity-takes-82944-processors

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/66537/20150706/scientists-build-computer-works-more-human-brain.htm

I also mentioned how animals brain have chemicals and electrical signals but like us but they lack human-like conciousness. As I said in my first post, it is something that we don't fully understand, and science as of right now has no comprehensive answer or explanation. Only observations.

I think I'm done now. I don't think I can add more. I really enjoyed the topic. :)

You literally provided the link that proved your own claim wrong. We can and have simulated the human brain. It just takes an immense load of power. It's right there in your post.

It's funny, because you say that it has absolutely no logical bases, yet it's quite the opposite. Saying that a computer can't be as concious as we are has no logical bases, because all evidence out there shows that the brain works in ways we can simulate in a computer.  Falling in love is just certain chemicals in your brain interacting in a certain way. It's completely possible to simulate that in a computer. It doesn't sound very romantic, and that's perhaps what makes it hard to accept, but it's true.

The difference between animal brains and human brains is just the complexity of the chemical reactions and electrical signals. Besides, many animals have shown signs of being self aware and concious. They aren't as smart as humans, but to think that our brain works in a different way than theirs is just rooted in arrogance and flat out wrong. Humans are animals.

*Sigh*

No, that's not at all what this means. You aren't ordering your brain to continue debating. The chemical reactions in your brain end up with a result that leads you to continue debating. It just means that the external stimuli that would cause you to stop debating aren't significant enough to disrupt the ongoing chemical processes in your brain. Really, this is such a poor argument that I'm surprised to see it coming from you Rol. Like, literally nothing about it holds water.

But keep in mind, your teacher will also have no choice but to complain and tell your parents, who will have no choice but to ensure there are some reprimands. Depending of course on how the genetics and the environment that your teacher and parents grew up in (both of which they had no choice in picking), which will influence the end result. Similarly, you have no choice but to continue writing sarcastic and amusing comments on the forum. And when or if you stop, you had no choice there either. It was all a result of other factors affecting the chemicals in your brain which leads to you doing one thing and then the other.

Of course, you are just joking here with this post, yet it's the closest you have been to being accurate in this thread.

If you are genuinely interested in knowing more, I could point you in the direction of a lot of material that could probably do a better job at explaining this than I have.

Can someone explain in detail how these chemicals and stimuls work and is it proven fact that you can't willfully make those stimuls to create thoughts for you? Is human brain, consciousness and even meaning of life really that figured out already? Why is there even a debate whether free will exists or not?

It's a debate for the same reason that we have a debate about whether a god exists or not. There is nothing to suggest that there exists a god, and it would require something supernatural and unscientific to exist for there to be god. But supernatural things are impossible to disprove, just like one can't disprove that there's and invisible, completely inobservable teapot that is unaffected by everything, floating around in orbit around earth where all the lottery numbers that will ever be are written down. That does of course not mean that this teapot exists.

In the same way, some people believe that there is something metaphysical that exists that allows us to have free will. Others don't believe in anything metaphysical, but just don't accept the notion that we don't have free will, maybe because it's very difficult to accept. Ignorance is bliss in this case, because the implications of not having  free will can be hard to wrap your head around.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. It should be noted that you don't have any control of your conciousness either.

But this is not the same as a debate about god. Because you actually think and make decicions every day, so it's more than likely that thoughts exist. If you make a claim that it's all an illusion, I want to hear proof. There has been plenty of things people considered supernatural before scientific discoveries found natural reasons for them. That's why I ask again, is the functionality of human brain, consciousness etc researched and figured out completely and are there facts scientists agree on? Or is there something about thought process and human brain that hasn't been discovered yet?

If you will, I'd be happy to hear as detailed explanation as possible to how these chemicals and electical stimuls work. And if it's proven that you can't, for example, focus your mind to imagine things in great detail and make those electrical stimuls create thoughts for you.

That computer in the link did simulate the human brain for one second.

Only interested in that bit because I think the other parts are clear enough. This is exactly my argument. Our brains function in the same way like other biological beings, but we are the only who have something like appreciation of beauty and sense of humor. Why?  Complexity of the chemical reactions? How and why? Was each chemical reaction linked to a certain behavior? Such a statement cannot be thrown like that without factual evidence. It brings more questions than answers.

I've never said thoughts don't exist. They exist and are very tangible things: electrons and chemicals interacting in your brain. That's what thoughts are. Making a decision is just a reaction having a certain outcome. There are tons of facts about the human brain that scientists agree on. We don't know everything, because we don't know how all the reactions interact, but that has no effect on wether we have free will.

"And if it's proven that you can't, for example, focus your mind to imagine things in great detail and make those electrical stimuli create thought for you." I'm not sure what you even mean by this. When you are focusing your mind, that is just chemicals and electrical signals moving about. That can in turn trigger other electrical signals and chemical reactions. But what triggered the chemical reaction in the first place? Was it some willful decision? No, it was external stimuli from the rest of the world.

You are asking me to prove a negative. That's impossible. But there is no evidence suggesting the positive. Can you prove that the teapot I was talking about doesn't exist? Can you prove that a God that is impossible to observe doesn't exist? No. You can't, because it is impossible. That doesn't mean that neither the teapot nor God exists. Which makes sense, because it doesn't conform to the laws of physics.

If you are interested in hearing detailed explanation of how the chemicals and electrical signals in your brain work, then I'm not the one to give them to you. I'm not a neuroscientist. I just know the very basics of it, but that is enough to see that free will doesn't conform with the laws of physics.

But I suggest you check out this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will/dp/B007HI3AVY/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1466875174&sr=8-1

I linked you the audio book edition, because it's free (if you use a free trial or something like that), but you can buy the paperback or hardback edition if you want.