I agree, our higher faculties seem to be the product of evolution, but evolution itself may be proof of flourish. Every species with the progression of time becomes better suited for the environment and all the weaker species perish. Could this be the 'flourish' aspect of nature?

I agree, but despite the dynamic expression of this, in different types of societies, that desire is still there. A person may say that less is more however in having less you actually have more, more freedom of movement, more independence and more self reliance. The prospect of more seems to be imbued in the human condition now whether or not it is organic I don't know?

If you think that your desires are merely rooted only to your physical needs you clearly haven't
fully investigated this. Take the practise of psychology for instance, quite a fair share of experiments have enabled us to pry into the human psychology and infer that evidence to most of the human population. Now some of it may be inaccurate and not appealing to scientific procedures but we still have somewhat of a stencil in understanding human behavior. You can stand aside and say that your particular desires are distinct from the collective and it may appear that way I am not disputing that, but your preferences and desires are always modulations of the culture and society that you inhabit — Fumani

I don't see your point here. How does the study of psychology disprove my claim that desires are rooted in physical needs? You know we are all very similar physically, so this would account for the fact that people throughout the population have similar desires.

Now I did not say that these negations will be blatantly obvious to you I did say 'overtly' and in most cases it is overt. If you look at the root word of decision Latin it means to cut off, meaning cut you off from any other course of actions but the one you chose, even language demonstrates this. As I said the word negation may be a bit crude but my point is that when you make a choice you are eliminating all other choices that you weren't necessarily conscious of. — Fumani

This is completely different from what you argued before. You said that when we choose one thing, it is because the others are unappealing. Now you have changed to say that choosing one thing cuts you off from the others. This doesn't support your argument now, that we have no freedom to choose what we want, we are forced to because the other possibilities are what we do not want. And this was fundamental to your claim that there is no free will involved with such choices. Since it is now clear to you that we are not forced to choose what we do, because we apprehend the other possibilities as unappealing, do you see that we really do have free will?

I agree, our higher faculties seem to be the product of evolution, but evolution itself may be proof of flourish. Every species with the progression of time becomes better suited for the environment and all the weaker species perish. Could this be the 'flourish' aspect of nature? — Fumani

Evolution, some say, has no goal. It's purposeless, blind and is simply random mutation of genes interacting with a changing environment. The ''higher'' forms of life - reptiles, birds, fish, mammals (humans) - are most susceptible to environmental catastrophies. On the other hand microbes are more resilient and the most likely lifeforms to survive severe changes in the environment. So, it seems humans aren't at the top of the life-pyramid as you suggest. So, I don't know what to make of ''evolution itself may be proof of flourish''.

I don't see your point here. How does the study of psychology disprove my claim that desires are rooted in physical needs? You know we are all very similar physically, so this would account for the fact that people throughout the population have similar desires. — Metaphysician Undercover

Its disproving by the fact that they are not merely rooted by your physical needs, they are rooted in your psychological needs as well, I find this to be blatantly obvious. You are not just a physical creature, you possess an intellect and higher faculties and they are heavily influenced by society.

This is completely different from what you argued before. You said that when we choose one thing, it is because the others are unappealing. Now you have changed to say that choosing one thing cuts you off from the others. This doesn't support your argument now, that we have no freedom to choose what we want, we are forced to because the other possibilities are what we do not want. And this was fundamental to your claim that there is no free will involved with such choices. Since it is now clear to you that we are not forced to choose what we do, because we apprehend the other possibilities as unappealing, do you see that we really do have free will? — Metaphysician Undercover

I really do not see how my argument has changed, I have just altered the wording that's all. Cutting off all other possibilities and focusing on one does not imply free will, the decision you made could have just be an unconscious trigger driven by a desire that you cant really say is yours. I did not say we are forced the correct word would be influenced, all your desires and behaviours have influences and that is where I argue that free will is incompatible with the way things actually are. If my desires are continuously influenced by those around me can I ever state that my desires exist in isolation, segregated from society at large? No, its just a new modulation of the collective, Negation also means and implies an absence of all other potential choices that you had, if you say yes to something your invariably saying no to something else, even if there is an absence of investigation or conscious awareness.

The Chinese word for nature is Ziran, meaning that which happens of itself. they believe that nature is purposeless with no 'director'. Also, in English the prefix auto means self in latin translated, which echoes this chinese philosophy too. These points are actually also very similar to the scientific perspective of evolution, that it is just blind energy, just mutations with no direct goal. In my opinion, however you attempt to put down this vital energy of life in descriptions, it doesn't alter the fact that it is perpetuating itself with every resource possible. That requires what we colloquially call intelligence. the precision of every genetic coding to make you 'you' is close to impossible to be fathomed, but here we are. Nature may not have a clear purpose from our perspectives but we ourselves are descendants of that nature, so maybe through us evolution is developing a purpose.

so maybe through us evolution is developing a purpose. — Fumani

I'm in agreement here. I've said this many times on the forum: The universe is in flux, it's dynamic and changing every moment. To think otherwise - to have a static worldview - is an error. Here are a few issues I find are relevant to your point:

1. God may or may not have existed but God could exist in the future
2. Life may or may not have a purpose but it could develop one in the future
3. Suffering may or may not be a truth (pessimism) but it could be dealt with in the future.

God may or may not have existed but God could exist in the future — TheMadFool

Please further explain this?

Its disproving by the fact that they are not merely rooted by your physical needs, they are rooted in your psychological needs as well, I find this to be blatantly obvious. You are not just a physical creature, you possess an intellect and higher faculties and they are heavily influenced by society. — Fumani

As far as I can tell, my intellect and society present me with choices, they do not present me with needs. My physical body presents me with needs and desires, while my intellect and society present me with options (choices) for fulfilling those needs and desires.

Cutting off all other possibilities and focusing on one does not imply free will, the decision you made could have just be an unconscious trigger driven by a desire that you cant really say is yours. — Fumani

I can't fathom what you are saying. You are suggesting that I might make an impulsive, non-consciously driven decision, and that decision is driven by someone else's desire. How is that possible? The other person's desire would have to get inside my body (not my mind because it's a non-conscious decision), and cause my body to make this decision. That's nonsense.

Negation also means and implies an absence of all other potential choices that you had, if you say yes to something your invariably saying no to something else, even if there is an absence of investigation or conscious awareness. — Fumani

This is not true, and you don't seem to be able to grasp it. Saying yes to a particular option does not mean that you have said no to the other possibilities. You see a favourable option and you say yes. You are not saying no to all the other possibilities because they remain unknown to you. To say no to them you must consider them and reject them, but when you see a favourable option and accept it without considering other possibilities, this is not the same thing as saying no to the other possibilities.

Please further explain this? — Fumani

In a nutshell, the future is open, brimming with possibilities and one of them is that God can come into existence. Toning down on the omni-powers of God, we could have a Good, Knowledgeable and Powerful being in the future but the future is limitless in potential.

As far as I can tell, my intellect and society present me with choices, they do not present me with needs. My physical body presents me with needs and desires, while my intellect and society present me with options (choices) for fulfilling those needs and desires. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've just said what I've been telling you this whole time, society gives you the choices but your still saying that free will exists? Please analyse what you have just said here and refer it to my template example.

I can't fathom what you are saying. You are suggesting that I might make an impulsive, non-consciously driven decision, and that decision is driven by someone else's desire — Metaphysician Undercover

how many decisions do you make that are actually conscious ?

This — Metaphysician Undercover

The other person's desire would have to get inside my body (not my mind because it's a non-conscious decision), and cause my body to make this decision. That's nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your mind is more vulnerable than you think, if it infiltrates the mind it will coarsely infiltrate the body.

how many decisions do you make that are actually conscious ? — Fumani

None. You can decide but ultimately can never know how you decide. There is a deeper level of unconscious decision making that suggests itself. This motivation is the essence of the determined self.
You can do as you will, but you cannot will as you will.
Free will is nothing more than freedom from outside coercion. The will is not free of itself, but determined by antecedent causes.

Yes I agree, the will is not free itself, although it appears as if it is from the perspective of an illusionary self. Tell me what are your views on consciousness? Very broad question I know but its something that I have been truly interested in.