ok, let us suppose still you insist you are not free for the reasons you stated above. But would you not admit that there are huge part of your life which is free? Such as drinking water instead of beer, going for a walk instead of sleep etc etc? In that case should you not then say, at least some part of your life is free, while you feel the other part is not? Would it not be more accurate claim? Outright claiming life is deterministic sounds somewhat confused inaccurate and untrue claim.

There is part of your life which is deterministic, but there is also part which free. This seems more accurate claim and truth.

Organisms do not have the ability to make choices that are free from their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. All choices made by all organisms are determined and constrained by their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:
1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, and food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Be able to teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will I would have already done the above tasks.

1 and 2 sounds like the biological or ecological topics. 3 4 5 6 sounds like the magical abilities only possible in the Harry Potter movies.

You were still free that you woke up this morning, powered on your computer or phone, visited the forum, read posts, and wrote your replies. No one or no genes or anything forced you to do so.

You could have done other things such as gone shopping, meeting your friends, going for a drive, taking out all your books from the shelves and organising them or reading them. But you chose to do otherwise. You have been free. You are free.

To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:
1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, and food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Be able to teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will I would have already done the above tasks. — Truth Seeker

Just because one is unable to accomplish certain actions does not mean they lack free will. Free will means that they have the knowing ability to choose to attempt these actions, not that they succeed. Hence it is called free will, not free action, i.e. omnipotence.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I clearly don't have free will because my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I clearly have a determined and constrained will instead of a free will. My genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences compelled me to post the posts I have posted on this forum. If you had my genes, my environments, my nutrients, and my experiences you would have been typing these words where and when I am typing these words. Conversely, if I had your genes, your environments, your nutrients, and your experiences I would have been reading these words where and when you are reading these words. We are all prisoners of causality living inevitable lives, making inevitable choices, and dying inevitable deaths.

I would have thought your genes may control your personality, traits, looks and bodily immunities, but not your momentary actions, speeches, and daily life patterns.

You may argue or presuppose under the same genes of the other beings or species for your determinism, which sounds too far fetched anyway,  but you cannot push that presupposition to even to the same brain structure and content.  Even in the case of brain transplant of you with some other person or other species, it is doubtful if your actions, speeches or decisions will be dictated by the content of the transplanted brain. Anyhow this is too sci fi topic, which I am not even familiar or knowledgeable with. I am only an amateur hobby philosophy reader, not a biologist, ecologist or definitely NOT a sci fi expert.

It would be like saying, if you had a dog's body, dog's genes, and dog's brain, then youI would bark rather than talk.  You would be far superior in smelling things than humans.  Of course, you would, but where is philosophical point in those sayings?

I am not blaming you for having different thoughts from me. We don't choose what thoughts occur to us. Our thoughts are the result of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences interacting with each other. I have done many experiments to test the effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I recommend that you study physics, chemistry, biology, genetics and neuroscience to help you understand more.

Thank you for your recommendation.  I would love to read and learn about all those subjects, but my interest in reading only lies in Philosophy and Psychology, and it is enough to fill my spare time.

Yes, they are all different subjects, and you might already know their topics, and methods of studying are totally different from each other.  For instance, if you read and study Physics, you would need all the laboratory instruments costing tens of thousands of pounds. 

For instance, if you are researching radio waves, and its characteristics under solar storms etc, then you would need radio frequency receivers, transmitters, chokes, dummy loads, SWR meters, generators and various types of antennas installed and set up for your studies and research.

Philosophy doesn't need all these mechanical electrical instruments, because as you might already know, it uses reasoning, logic and common sense, and it is interested in analysing whether someone's claims are making sense, logical, valid, reasonable or even commonsensical.

Philosophy is not about blindly and pointlessly agreeing with someone's illogical, unreasonable and delusional claims or ideas.  It is not about showering people with sugar coated consolations and positive encouragement for life, as some people do.

Philosophy is about seeking logical, reasonable and objectively true solutions to the problems by critical analysis.

I would recommend you to read "The Central Questions of Philosophy" written by A.J. Ayer on this particular topic.

I am interested in everything that is true. That's why I study, research and think about truth constantly.

There are many limitations to philosophy. That's why I use science in my search for the whole truth. Unfortunately, we cannot know anything to be objectively true. Some truths are exclusively subjective e.g. what it is like to be me and what it is like to be you or what it is like for an elephant to be an elephant. Other truths are shared subjective e.g. our perceptions of being on a planet called the Earth in a galaxy called the Milky Way in a universe.

Thank you for recommending the book. I look forward to reading it.

You are welcome my friend :) Ok that's fair enough.But please remember not all scientific knowledge is true.  It starts with premises or hypotheses which may be true or false.  Then they observe the phenomenon, to find the evidence to support their hypotheses.  If it does support, then they make it as theories.

But the experiments and observations are never conclusive or verifiable beyond doubt. There is always a chance that it may be not true, and get falsified. Because no one can experiment and observe the results under every possible different circumstances in the universe. And the affairs in the universe are all bound to change through time.

Anyhow, then new theories replace the old ones.  This is science.  I feel that there are many people who blindly trust anything if there is label called "Science".  Philosophers know about this, and they tend to be suspicious of all scientific knowledge. "Philosophy of Science" is a subject which explains on this topic throughly.

I agree with you. What we know through science changes over time as we refine our instruments and think of better methods for testing hypotheses. However, there are many limitations to science. Not all hypotheses can be tested. According to Hinduism, we are souls experiencing an illusion called Maya. Souls reincarnate according to karma into this illusion. It is impossible to prove or disprove this idea.

The fundamental problem with knowing anything objectively cannot be overcome unless one is all-knowing.

A lot of people consider shared subjective truths to be objective truths. Most people will say that the Earth is objectively real. It is not. The Earth is one of many things that are part of our shared subjective reality. Sentient beings could be souls plugged into a simulation of the Earth, the Milky Way and the Universe. This hypothesis can't be tested by science. Of course, just because it can't be tested it does not make it true but it does not make it false either. It just makes it untestable and unknowable.

Sure in that sense, Science is not much different from Mysticism. There are myriads of questions Science cannot answer.

For instance, they still don't know what is the origin of life, just lots of hypotheses and theories. Blackholes and galaxies? No one can even go near to them. Only see them through the telescopes. Big Bangs? How do you know? Were you there when the bang happened? No !! In all these cases, it is just full of speculations not much different from esoteric religions. :)

Please see https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/how-do-we-know-the-big-bang-actually-happened/zjn68xs to learn how we know that the Universe we appear to live in began with a Big Bang. The name is misleading as there was no sound involved. It should be called Tiny Beginning. It's true that we can't visit other galaxies or even other stars or black holes with our current level of technology. However, in a few hundred years we may be able to.

hmmm sci fi speculations.  Not sure on these.  They just fill the media spaces with these imaginative sayings so they can be paid for the month. :D  OK - they are a million light years away from earth.  How many generations of astronauts and what type of spacecraft will they need? Air and food supplies? Just to get there? :D  I opt to remain sceptic, and just enjoy reading Philosophy. :)

I am even sceptic if anyone can live in Mars even after hundreds years of trials. They are wasting crazy money on these projects, which actually does harm the Earth environment with the massive amount of fuel they burn each time they shoot the rockets. :sad:

What is sci-fi speculation? Big Bang? Other galaxies? Other stars? Black holes? Interstellar travel? Please clarify.

We have sent probes to the farthest planets of our solar system and even outside the solar system. We have sent people to the moon. Astronauts have lived for months at a time on board the International Space Station. The Russian cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov spent 437 consecutive days on the Mir space station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Polyakov We are preparing to send people to Mars and I am convinced that we will succeed within the next 50 years. I may not live to see it but my children probably will.

We could use generational ships for interstellar travel. These ships could grow food onboard and have facilities for having children and educating them as they grow and learn while travelling towards another star. We could do this with the current level of technology.

If we ever learn to build the warp drives used in Star Trek we could travel much faster than the speed of light. I know that this is science fiction for now. However, television, radio, computers, the internet and mobile phones were science fiction not long ago. They are all real now thanks to science and technology.

If a large asteroid were to strike Earth, the Earth could be destroyed and all living things here could become extinct. The dinosaurs became extinct due to asteroid strike. To increase the probability of human survival, we must become a multiplanet species. It would be even better to become a multi-star-system species and a multigalactic species and a multiversal species.

What is sci-fi speculation? Big Bang? Other galaxies? Other stars? Black holes? Interstellar travel? Please clarify. — Truth Seeker

I don't feel it is necessary or meaningful for me to clarify or define these concepts. Because they are not controversial, obscure, diverse, or esoteric in nature, as you might agree. They are simple words from Sci Fi, daily use of language and popular science, which everyone knows what they are. They are not controversial nature like the concept of God, afterlife or freewill. If you are really unfamiliar with those terms, and want to find out, then do some Google search, and they will tell you what they are instantly. I personally don't see any philosophical significance or points for defining them unless we are discussing Philosophy of Science topics with these concepts.

We could use generational ships for interstellar travel. These ships could grow food onboard and have facilities for having children and educating them as they grow and learn while travelling towards another star. We could do this with the current level of technology. — Truth Seeker

If we ever learn to build the warp drives used in Star Trek we could travel much faster than the speed of light. I know that this is science fiction for now. However, television, radio, computers, the internet and mobile phones were science fiction not long ago. They are all real now thanks to science and technology. — Truth Seeker

Well I told you before, that you can imagine or infer anything from these scientific and technological appliances we currently have and use, but the current technology you seem to be impressed so much, and we use are not something which are miraculously complicated or sophisticated.  If you read and study about them a bit, then you will find that they are just technologies which are a bit more clever, and are perfectly possible to be manufactured, marketed and popularised under the normal Earth environments with the available resources.

But what you are imagining and dreaming as possible reality in the future are totally different in level and calibre of things that are beyond the limit of reality and the law of the universe.

Just because those technologies you mentioned are available to us within short space of time and the last few decades does not follow logically and realistically all the other possibilities such as living on Mars, visiting other galaxies will be possible by necessity.  If you read and study about the details of these ventures more, what is actually the case, and involved you will know why they are not possible in reality.

Your sayings are like "Because we built a 300 story building on earth, we could soon build a tower reaching Mars, Jupiter even the other Galaxies."  I would have thought your intuition would tell you immediately, that it is impossibility within the law of the physical universe.

You said in your reply to my post: "hmmm sci fi speculations. Not sure on these." That's why I asked you to clarify what you mean.

I know what the concepts mean so no need for me to look them up.

There is knowledge from over 100 PhDs that goes into making a smartphone. I don't think you are appreciating the years of research that went into developing these things.

You said: "Your sayings are like "Because we built a 300 story building on earth, we could soon build a tower reaching Mars, Jupiter even the other Galaxies."" This is not true. We already have the technology to build a generation ship. We already have the technology to go to Mars. We are trying to reduce the cost of space travel before making the journey to Mars.

Do you have any formal educational degree from a university in any branch of science, such as a BSc or BSc (Honours) or MSc or PhD or DSc?

You said in your reply to my post: "hmmm sci fi speculations. Not sure on these." That's why I asked you to clarify what you mean.

I know what the concepts mean so no need for me to look them up. — Truth Seeker

The Big Bang stories, other galaxies, and aliens ... these stories were in science magazines for teenagers a long time ago, and I used to read them with much interest when I was a teen.
Now, I am a sceptic, and tend to only believe what I can feel, think, observe and verify.

There is knowledge from over 100 PhDs that goes into making a smartphone. I don't think you are appreciating the years of research that went into developing these things. — Truth Seeker

Smart phones are just device which is slightly more clever and miniaturised Wireless radio communication device with the touch screens.  Wireless communication has been available since the early 1900s, and it is not really some esoteric black art technology.  Nowadays the companies have mastered how to make them smaller and also adding more extra features due to the digital technology.  But the point is that these devices can be manufactured by any developed country with the available parts and resources.  No need to be hugely impressed with the smart phones, broadband or electric cars ... how they work ins and outs are all in the internet, if you search for them.

And 100 Ph.d graduates in Physics and Electronics working for the smart phone technologies? But they don't know how the universe began, how and where from life originated, and they will all get old fast, and die one day just like all other humans and species on earth. What is special about them? :D

You said: "Your sayings are like "Because we built a 300 story building on earth, we could soon build a tower reaching Mars, Jupiter even the other Galaxies."" This is not true. We already have the technology to build a generation ship. We already have the technology to go to Mars. We are trying to reduce the cost of space travel before making the journey to Mars. — Truth Seeker

That was just to give you an analogy to what you were speculating for the future from the current technology, which sounds unrealistic and far-fetched.

You send a spaceship to Mars costing billions of dollars. It gets there, and it wheels around maybe a few hundred meters on the surface, and take some fuzzy photos and send them to Earth. Take some soil samples to analyse, and then it goes to Sleep mode due to signal failure, and dies. What benefit could these current space technology bring to the living humans on earth?

Suppose you have landed on Mars. How long can you survive up there without the heavy spacesuit? How long your oxygen, water, and food supply will last? What if you suddenly need emergency surgery due to sudden medical problems? Can you even take shower? To solve all these issues, you need to transport maybe a whole cityful of gear, equipment, supplies and people with you to Mars? It is not logically impossible thing to imagine suppose, but realistically sounds too remote possibility. So where are the truths with 100% certainty you are seeking?

Do you have any formal educational degree from a university in any branch of science, such as a BSc or BSc (Honours) or MSc or PhD or DSc? — Truth Seeker

I am just a casual reader, and here to learn. :)

The Big Bang and other galaxies are as real as the Earth. The existence of aliens is currently unknown. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Designing smart phones is very different from knowing how life originated. You are not comparing similar things.

We are diverging from the topic of this thread so I will limit what I say.

I was not denying the existence of those extraterrestrial entities.  But I was meaning that they are out of reach, and unknowable, no one has been there, no one has tangible proof, so why not limit what we talk about them?  You are free to imagine whatever you want to imagine, but please allow others who are sceptical about them too.

In the case of the Big Bangs, I am surprised you believe they are real. Have you been there when it happened? Has anyone been there and seen it was happening? It is just a theory not much different from religious claims on some miracles. OK, they will bring all sort of inferences from the other galaxies and blackholes etc with so called "scientific inferences" from the observations made millions miles away, but the bottom line is it is just inference and presumption. It still lacks any type of critical concrete evidence. OK, you still believe it? I will not stop you.

The real bottom line here seems that my point is trying to limit the debatable subjects to what we can see, touch, smell, and hear, observe and verify in person directly, whereas your ideas mostly come from the media and imaginations.

It is ok to get info from the media if the subjects are tangible, and exist in daily life such as smartphones or electric cars.  But when the topics are millions miles away from Earth, and no one has been there, or seen on a daily basis (in the case of aliens), if you bring stories from the media, how much more accuracy of information can you get?

Bear in mind science and technology advances have done good to human life, but there is also an enormous amount of damage done to humans too - I will let you reflect on what they are.  For example Smartphones and your computer will trace everything you type and search on the internet, so your privacy is non-existent, no one in this age has privacy, and you have to admit, and allow that, unless you are someone in the Amazon jungle hunting and fishing for your daily life and family.
Yeah, the topic is digressing to popular science and technology for some reason. I think you started it :D. These are my least favourite topics, and I was only responding to your cry outs :D

Designing smart phones is very different from knowing how life originated. You are not comparing similar things. — Truth Seeker

It was not comparison as such, but again giving you analogy that the scope of knowledge of Phd in Physics or Electronics is very narrow and limited, while there are vast amount of topics in Science and the Universe we don't still know.

I agree that our ignorance is infinite and our knowledge is very finite but it is growing.

:cool: :ok:

Reviewing my position six months later ...
I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I know concepts e.g. what a square or circle or triangle is.
7. I know apparent facts about reality e.g. the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits the Earth.
8. I know how to walk, run, eat, drink, cook, shop, work, read, write, type, go to the toilet, cycle, swim, etc.
9. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
10. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I am almost certain of the following:

1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are sentient beings who feel pain.
4. Being a non-consumer is more ethical than being an autotroph, being an autotroph is more ethical than being a vegan/herbivore, being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian, and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms make choices but they are not free from determinants and constraints. Our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes may not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion. It is impossible to know with complete certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body on a planet in a universe or I could be a body without any soul - I don't know these things for sure, hence I am an agnostic. There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

Ok. And do you feel this framework helps? What comes next?

I am trying to know myself, others and the world. If I were all-knowing, I could know everything with complete certainty. The above framework is the best I have been able to do so far. If you or anyone else can improve it, I would be most grateful.

"I i think therefore I am" seems like the only justifiable 100% certainty to me — flannel jesus

The 'I' is the weakness in this statement. It is not 100 percent certain that the person thinking is you. As far as I can see, there is NO 100 percent certainty about anything, no matter how much we wish there was.

The above framework is the best I have been able to do so far. If you or anyone else can improve it, I would be most grateful. — Truth Seeker

I hear you. I have not attempted to identify what I know for certain. I also take the view that absolute certainty is not available. However I hold that I have no alternative but to accept that I operate in a physical world that I share with others. To not do this would likely result in catastrophe. The rest is blundering through. While there is no argument against hard solipsism, I don't think it is worth being concerned about, nor is the idea that there is no 'I' at the foundations of 'my' experince.

You could be all-powerful and/or all-knowing but unconsciously limiting yourself for some reason.