[MrMcCall]

And yet he cannot explain where the impulses come from.

As to argument against free will: do you not have the ability to choose between giving the next homeless person you see some money or being rude to them? Of course you do. You are also free to believe and then claim that the world is flat, but that don't make it true.

We can each choose to be compassionate, callous, or cruel -- to whomever we choose, to whatever extent we choose. The choices most people make are usually no more than the inertia of our cultural inheritances, which are, themselves, usually born of generational ignorance of the importance of active compassion and service to others' happiness.

The inertias of our world cultures are rife with ignorance of the fact that the happiest people are those that care for those around them. Of course, if worldly success is your only benchmark, then you are free to choose Musk's or Trump's path to "success", but you aren't going to find happiness there, no matter how easy it is to climb that ladder in this world's assbackwards value system. I challenge you to look at Jimmy Carter's or MLK's smiles for observable experience. Such a smile is earned and evidenced over our lifetime as obviously as a tree's growth rings reflect its experiences. Ours are indicative of our cumulative choices, for we are the only beings on Earth that have a moral compass and the imperative to choose accordingly.

[criddell]

> he cannot explain where the impulses come from

His explanation is that your next action is determined by everything that came previously. It's not predetermined - you could roll a die and base your next action off that - but it isn't magic either.

[eightysixfour]

> And yet he cannot explain where the impulses come from.

It isn't necessary to explain where they come from to argue they are not, by our definition, freely made. Either they are causal, we can rewind time to the exact moment, where everything is the same, and you would make the same choice again, or there is a level of randomness inserted, which is also not free will.

If you introspect, you will find that you do not have anything that actually looks like free will. If you are asked to pick your favorite philosopher, you will have a few names pop into your mind, but you will not have control over those few names. You could continue to try and summon names, but you don't have control over which ones arrive either.

> As to argument against free will: do you not have the ability to choose between giving the next homeless person you see some money or being rude to them? Of course you do.

No, because the decision to do so is the sum product of all the things that have happened to me. If I choose to give money to the next homeless person I see as a result of this comment, it was not free-will, but the sum of all of those things and my response to this comment.

The flip side of this is that it need not be a negative thing. The will of the homeless person is also not free, the knowledge of which should expand your compassion for them as their situation is not the result of an endless series of bad choices, but the unfortunate chance outcomes of their existence in this environment.

[me-vs-cat]

Why would you encourage another person to expand their compassion while you simultaneously believe that person doesn't have free will?

[MrMcCall]

> If you are asked to pick your favorite philosopher, you will have a few names pop into your mind, but you will not have control over those few names.

Free will is not about choosing what comes into one's head after sending an inquiry out into the universe, it is solely about what we do with our physical body. That is part of why choosing to focus on the highly cerebral work of programming is so difficult.

> because the decision to do so is the sum product of all the things that have happened to me

So a three-pack-a-day smoker cannot quit? A lifetime racist cannot jettison those beliefs and choose to understand the truth that we are all just human beings? A believer in selfless love cannot become a child molester or otherwise oppress others?

Inertia in life is very, very real, but we each have the power to change. You could even accept the truth of what I say. We are not mechanical machines driven by the past; our wetware is impressionable but not fixed, as it is "wet" -- i.e. fluid -- and we can either continue to flow into the ever-present now, or merely ossify into preset patterns. That is why curiosity and humility are so important to becoming an intergrated human being tuned to positivity. No, we are not born at such a level, for we are each somewhat selfish from go; we must choose to learn how to be such a person, and then choose to do what it takes to become such a one. Yes, it is difficult in this selfish world of myriad physical/mental/emotional pollutions, but having such peace and happiness makes it not only worthwhile, but indeed the only path worth choosing, always. As the wise Bob Marley said, "Those that feel it know it not." And yet we live in a world where people run away from the truth. Those that taste the fruit of all-consuming selfless compassion never shy away from plucking another grape from that vine.

> If I choose to give money to the next homeless person I see as a result of this comment, it was not free-will, but the sum of all of those things and my response to this comment.

But you must still choose to do such loving service, at the time the opportunity presents itself. In those moments, once your mind presents you with the possibility to manifest generosity, you must engage your free will, reach into your pocket/wallet, and give the money. It is solely up to you, and that is the truth of the fact of the matter, as is the fact that the ignorant love to follow the ignorant, because it makes them falsely feel that they are superior to the wise, which is not only silly, but commonplace. Dunning-Krueger is yet another sadass gospel of truth.

> The will of the homeless person is also not free, the knowledge of which should expand your compassion for them as their situation is not the result of an endless series of bad choices, but the unfortunate chance outcomes of their existence in this environment.

I don't care how much their choices have caused their dire situation (although I fully agree that society's cruel callousness is more than likely the dominant cause of their predicament, as it is with nearly all of the world's poor). My decision with regards to how I treat any person is my choice and my choice alone, and the karma I earn for my action or inaction is mine alone to bear and has no bearing on their choices, only their happiness. We are each an island of choices made in a flowing sea containing other islands.

Further, I cannot will myself to be a billionaire and thus manifest crazy generosity. No, my free will must work within the constraints creation has placed upon me. All I can (choose to) do is be the most compassionate I can in every situation, given the opportunities presented to me, with the resources I have available to me, and, hopefully, in the way that is best for their situation. It's all any of us can do, understanding that we are only responsible for our choices, not those of creation, itself.

Choosing wisely requires us to first understand that we are continually choosing, and that such wisdom requires honest self-evaluation, exploratory learning, and effortful practice. One's happiness and peace is the universe's feedback mechanism to our choices (though our polluted/stressful environment can cause physical depression and other mental/emotional difficulties, too). Put another way: inner peace and happiness is the only important dashboard instrument on one's journey. Helping reduce others' misery, or otherwise increase their happiness, is the most important path to our fulfillment, as we are all in this together via the karmic equivalent to the Universal Law of Gravitation. It's the most sublime law of creation, operant only for we human beings, the only possessors of free will and a self-tunable moral compass.

[eightysixfour]

I believe we are talking past each other.

> So a three-pack-a-day smoker cannot quit? A lifetime racist cannot jettison those beliefs and choose to understand the truth that we are all just human beings? A believer in selfless love cannot become a child molester or otherwise oppress others?

I did not say a single one of those things, what I am saying is that each of those things happening were not done as a result of free will, they were the result of the sum of the things that preceded them. The smoker being fed up with family encouraging them to quit, the decades of anti smoking messaging finally pushing them over the edge, and the day they couldn't walk up the hill without taking a rest to breathe all resulted in them quitting. I believe replaying the universe from the big bang to that moment would result in the same thing, each time.

> But you must still choose to do such loving service, at the time the opportunity presents itself. In those moments, once your mind presents you with the possibility to manifest generosity, you must engage your free will, reach into your pocket/wallet, and give the money.

This is where we fundamentally, irreconcilably disagree. The decision to do so is not free, much like your favorite philosophers, it came forth when you "sent the inquiry into the universe." The meta "decision" to move from thought to action came about the same way. To be honest, I'm not sure what the rest of what you wrote has to do with what I said - I don't find belief in, or even a desire for, free will to exist to be a prerequisite for generosity, kindness, or happiness.

While I have considered this for quite some time, I found this discussion to be the one that "pushed me over the edge," since it helped to reconcile what I observed within with the way things work I understand them (philosophically at least) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u45SP7Xv_oU

[MrMcCall]

I apologize for treating you as I like to be treated. I like to learn and, as such, I share what I know to be true. That is what makes me the expert I am. And that is the deepest meaning of the Dunning-Krueger study: only in humility can we grow to reach our potential.

If you ever want to ask a question, I will do my best to answer you honestly, if that means to only to say that I don't know. Seeing as how you already know everything, you aren't asking any questions, so my work is done here. I am quite sure that the non-experts in D-K had no idea that the experts were experts; that is because they did not actually do the steps necessary to actually become an expert, their only development was in their confidence, choosing that instead of doing the humble, difficult work.

There are no unconfident flat-earthers because their overconfidence precludes their seeking the truth. There is a level of knowledge where one knows that one knows a truth. It's intrinsic to the universe and our integral place within it, but that's a different conversation altogether. Suffice it to say that once a person sees Jupiter rotating, it no longer became necessary to hear a flat-earther's arguments. All you have to do is contact the Creator of this marvellous, unfathomable universe, to learn how to get greater access to deeper truths. You are free to deny that you, yourself, have that access, too, but denying that human ability has only robbed you of your access, not mine. It's your choice, my friend.

"The Way goes in." --Rumi