You're making so many assumptions that this conversation just isn't worth it anymore.

Strange, because I pointed out a few holes in your argument and you ignored them, like you are doing here:

You're making so many assumptions, that this conversation just isn't worth it anymore. — Echogem222

↪013zen You're making so many assumptions that this conversation just isn't worth it anymore. — Echogem222

Okay.

I'm going to stop responding to you now. Have a nice day.

I'm going to stop responding to you now. Have a nice day. — Echogem222

:rofl:

Evidence you have won or lost a debate is not in the other person telling you, it is in your own understanding. If someone can address all of the points I made, not leaving anything important out when making a point, and prove to me why I am wrong, I will listen, but the majority of those who have responded to me did not do this, so I do not find it worth my time to respond to them anymore after engaging with them a little. So I challenge those who think they can actually disprove me to do so, those who are not looking for someone to tell them if they have won a debate or not, someone that does not have such shallow reasons to debate and are satisfied with that. Because it will be people like that I will see as mature, who are truly confident in their views.

I will listen, but the majority of those who have responded to me did not do this, so I do not find it worth my time to respond to them anymore after engaging with them a little — Echogem222

Many of us made more of your argument than what was written, because the OP is not well-written at all. There are many points that were brought up that address your argument directly with clearer language than what you give us. But yet you refuse to address them. It is more than clearly an admission of defeat.

Consider the below, Count makes basically the same argument as me.

Consider a universe of just one agent and a video game. At first, the agent has no freedom. They are in a tutorial mode during which they can only click on one bottom at a time as the game demonstrates how all the different buttons work. Through the tutorial, the agent gains true beliefs about what the buttons do. But they can't choose anything, they just watch. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You admit defeat here:

Since you're asking me this question after admitting that you had a hard time following my original post, you're essentially using the strawperson argument whether you realize that or not, so I'll end this debate with you here. — Echogem222

Simply because he had a hard time following the original post. That is not because he is stupid, he is smart, but it is because your OP is a visual mess.
You do that a few other times in this thread, all one needs to do is read through it to verify what I am saying. You take Banno's and wonderer1's snark as being the rule, but most of us are earnestly engaging with your thread.

I even go as far as granting you your absolute skepticism without having to do so, and yet, if we are being realistic about this, Count (and me) is correct, your argument does not follow. The fact that you replied to my objections with a flurry of related questions instead of actually addressing the objections is even more telling.

what I said had nothing to di with popularity. The thread topic is confused.

Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will. — Echogem222

Yes, the will is fixed to what the will has amounted to up to the moment. There cannot be a "truly autonomous free will" such as in not using the will, meaning that one is somehow a first cause, so that kind of 'free' is impossible.

The 'free' in free will needs to be defined. I gave one case of free versus fixed, but of course one cannot be free of the will, so that 'free' doesn't mean anything but to help emphasize the robot shock of the will being fixed to influences, etc..

Others might define 'free' as when not being coerced.

The court system's 'free' is as one being held responsible versus being not sane or being extremely emotional as temporarily not sane, and thus not responsible.

The religious might mean 'free' as that matching God's will.

Using 'free' to merely mean that the will is able to operate is trivial, with the 'free' not meaning anything.

Other words that want to take on a life of their own apart from their definition are 'infinite', as an amount or a number (the infinite never completes; one cannot have it) or 'Nothing' (an 'it' trying to be an it).

'No free will' seems to sound like some sort of a bad thing, on the surface, as if there was an alternative, such to be had by adding 'free' to it to make it magic.

The just plain will (with no adjective needed) is dynamic in time and so it can change, yet its still robotic and deterministic, but granting us consistency.

Your intro post is long winded.