If there is no free will, then there is no sense in guilt for we would not control anything. Hence the question of free will is singular and most important question.

yes
feels like it
arguments to the contrary presuppose naturalist causation is true and not just a model, an entirely unfalsifiable position

>>40746958 (OP)
Yes, but very limited.
You have exactly one choice.
Accept that nothing is under your control, and you are purely an observer.
Or reject this fact, and delude yourself into thinking you have agency and control.
This is your one area to enact will.
It affects nothing.
Which is why it is free.

>>40746958 (OP)
Yes, free will is a thing, you get to choose to be good, evil, or anything in-between.
But just like freedom of speech, it doesn't mean freedom from consequence, and there are definitely benefits and drawbacks to choosing up down left right or center.
The key is figuring out who you are, and in doing so figuring out how you can best help everyone, including yourself, grow.

Yes.
Proof: If there was no free will you could predict the future. Nobody can predict the future because you can do the opposite of what is predicted, you are an active participant that can decide if what's predicted for you happens, or not.
Now, whatever you decide to do, there's a story already written out of the outcomes, that's why you have the future being like a cone of information flowing to the past, and it always seems like that was the decision you were going to take, but you could have taken a different one, with a different prewritten future.
Watch the movie Mr. Nobody to see how's it like.

you need free will to even give a fuck about free will, if we had no free will, it wouldnt even be a subject of conversation

>>40747222
Absolutely retarded take. There are many 'random' processes that are predictable. Short-term, but still. The reason we can't tell "future" is because there's too much processes going on in the world, thus we barely can see order in all that chaos. The more info we will be able to process, the more events or behavioral patterns become predictable. If humanity will ever reach those levels. We are literally learning to crawl right now.

>>40747472
Thats not what he's saying.
Without necessarily realizing it he's referring to the fact that your consciousness is computationally irreducible.
To predict your future would require someone to live it, because its so uncomputationally complex.
Its like trying to calculate Pi to 50,000,000 decimals, the only way to do that is to calculate it, and every time you make a choice, thats what you're doing.
No one knows what the next number in the decimal will be until you choose, because no one else is you.

>>40747544
exactly
reason why many scientists become theistic and/or determenistic is their ability to find those pieces of order in chaos around us, painting bigger picture of the world with each tiny step
"I" is just another part of much greater equation

>>40747544
Throw a bucket of rocks on the ground and try to predict exactly where each rock will land. It’s impossible, but it doesn’t mean the rocks have free will.

>>40747544
>To predict your future would require someone to live it, because its so uncomputationally complex.
>meanwhile people are already able to predict diseases based on genes
lack of knowledge doesn't mean things aren't predetermined
and who said you have to live through someones life to see his 'future'? there are many other inputs you can make sense from if you find a way to process them

>>40747237
Consciousness, or the illusion of it, is truly the greatest of designs, is it not? "In the image of God." Ever wondered what those words truly mean?

Nah, I don't think so. To a certain extent I can accept arguments for willpower (I will not give up on life and kill myself, I will continue trying at work, etc.) but you're locked into most choices by backward pressure from your genetics (nature) and forward pressure from the circumstances randomly put into motion and laid out for you by the entire rest of humanity (nurture).
The backward pressure from genetics is easy to understand once you understand that the brain is an organ like any other, beholden to the same rules any other organ is. If you can be born with genes that code for a weak heart or a broad skeletal frame, you can be born with genes that code for a brain that leans toward you being violent, passive, analytical, objectionable, or any other behavioral quality. You can argue that this isn't true, but you probably see much of the same behavior your parents exhibit in yourself. You can argue that that is all nurture, but even then how could you have free will? An alcoholic raised by alcoholics could never break the cycle because he would never have been taught the skills and behaviors necessary to avoid alcoholism. A person in this situation could maybe receive help from someone and break the cycle, but even that person's presence in their life was ordained long ago by sequences of random events that forced the alcoholic and his savior together. While you could never predict exact actions and behaviors in a person without omniscience, that person's behavior patterns were predetermined by nature and are actively being sculpted by nurture.
cont.

>>40747874
The forward pressure from the rest of humanity determines which paths your behaviors will make you take. Going back to the alcoholic and his savior, a very extensive and complicated network of events needed to happen to make sure the two were born in the locations and times there were born in. Another network of events happened to make sure they had the genetics that would push them in certain directions, and yet another network of events was needed to push the alcoholic and his savior together. The alcoholic needed to receive the correct pressures and influences to grow a brain that would be susceptible to change and recover, and the savior needed to be raised to want to help people, care about alcoholics, and have the skills necessary to provide that help.
Obesity is another good point of discussion against free will. Most of the problem with obesity these days is increasingly sedentary lifestyles and a reliance on food for a dopamine hit. Some people are born with backward pressure to be active and forward pressure that encouraged and allowed them to do so, but some people very obviously aren't. Even if a person is raised to become obese and then receives forward pressure to change it, the change is often not huge and is very often temporary. You only see permanent change in those who were given a very good reason to change; people in the military, losing a lover to a better looking rival, being bullied for your appearance. All of these are examples of possible "free will situations" in the form of the world's forward pressure and the result is always just the natural result of someone's backward pressure meeting that forward pressure.

tl;dr: all your decisions are natural product of your nature being pressed against circumstances outside your control and there is no free will

>>40747874
>randomly
except there is no random at all
if you were able to read all biochemical processes in the brain, you could read people's decisions and behaviors
if you were able to calculate motion of each fucking particle, you could see and actually change the future
we are all part of one flow
to read it and direct it is to be the god
that's why the occult and science are often interlinked

>>40748047
>except there is no random at all
I'm inclined to agree, I use the term "random" as a word people can generally understand. In this case, "random" just means "countless microinfluences throughout the entire universe all happening at once resulting in unpredictability by anyone but an omniscient being." Because you would have to be an omniscient and additionally omnipotent being to both predict and change outcomes, humans fundamentally don't have free will.

>>40747759
Look up kolmogorov computational irreducibility.
If you're trying to model a computationally irreducible thing you can't compress it and still have the genuine article.
Its why free will appears deterministic, but isnt. You choose how to engage.

>>40747633
I don't think you get the metaphor.
Take a bucket of informational snapshots of the universe at specific points in time and try to predict which one climbs out of the bucket first. Its impossible, because each of the snapshots is too complex to truly model completely, and you'd have to calculate all the symmetries between them which are constantly changing due to choice and correlational inputs.

>>40747633
Nobody is saying everything has free will, just that you do.
In the example, you are allowed to look at the prediction, then you get in a plane to the antipodes of that point, and throw the rocks so the prediction is as wrong as possible.
That anon had wrong what I meant, I didn't mean that if I write down ten numbers on a piece of paper that you can't predict them, you could, I meant that if I can take a look at your prediction, I can write down ten numbers so that each of your predictions are wrong, with ease.
That's free will, and the reason you can't predict if I'll write down a 0 or a 1 if that were my only options, because I just need to look at your prediction and write the other one.

>>40748347
>Its impossible
And even if it was possible, what I'm saying is that you can look at the prediction and avoid it, and it's always trivial to avoid.

>>40748371
You don't even need to be able to look at the prediction for it to be trivially easy to avoid.
You can literally just sidestep the prediction entirely into a new dimension of space that didn't exist until someone tried to predict it.

>>40746958 (OP)
I believe yes and no. Consciousness cannot exist in nothing, it is fed by information from the outer world. The outer world is a resolving physical reaction, whose transference of energy is already determined. Therefore, consciousness is also a part of this and has been determined.
The exception is your soul, not conscious or part of this world. An independant third party that can observe and react but cannot change outcomes. Your will, or your soul's observations and reactions are what you control.
You are watching a film through an organic camera, but only you can decide if the film is a comedy or a tragedy.

>>40746958 (OP)
If you can't see the future, then you have no way of knowing. So why do you give a shit?