Well...as Gibran said earlier on the subject, can you desrcibe me how a choice made with "free will" would be made? Just give us an example.

I decide I want a sip of water, then freely make the decision to pick up a glass of water, and drink from it. I just showed evidence that I freely and willingly satisfied my desire for a sip of water.

show me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Your body needs water to function. It'll send signals in your brain (not sure how it works, I'm not a biologist) that'll give you a desire for water.

Is that all you can think of?


Every action comes from a certain need. Those needs are the consequences of certain actions.

but that doesn't refute that I freely and willingfully made the decision to drink it, and you guys are arguing that I can't do that (it would imply free will... I didn't need water at the time I made the decision).

so where's your evidence to refute that?


I can think of several other examples, these are actions which show evidence. you guys are arguing semantics with no tangible evidence, just syllogisms.

If I made the active decision to go beat off, I don't necessarily need to, I just decided to, freely and willingfully. where's your example of how I needed to?

Well...you are saying you didn't need water at the time of the action. But it is not the case.

You did, indeed, need it. Or else why would you drink it? To prove me that you can drink it even if you don't need it? Well, that would be a form of need to...

because I wanted to, and I can.

You really believe that every decision is made on the surface of the conscious mind? You don't believe in the idea of subconscious, that there is choices that we make without knowing why (on the surface)?

You make the decision to go beat off because you have a need. Wich is to release stress, to enjoy pleasure, because it's a habbit also maybe. Or maybe because you are bored. All those things may lead to a desire to go beat off. There is your need, your cause/consquence.

again, this comes down to psychobabble (psychology); where's your evidence to support
your claim? do you see how ambiguous your argument is?

Then you drank water (consequence) because you wanted to (cause).

And you wanted to for a certain reason to... you may not know that reason, but it is there, somewhere.

the reason was the one I stated...because I wanted to.
to an outside observer, it could be for any reason; but I knew I wanted water, so I drank some.

semantics aside you can overanalyze the crap out of any given situation, but it doesn't take away
from the occurance that some things are done freely and willingfully.

So you want me to go and structure a whole experiment just for your own pleasure?

Pretty much everything is psychology is based on the principle that behaviors have causes. If you consider psychology to be bullshit, then I don't see why I'd continue with this conversation.

And where is YOUR evidence? You keep asking me for one, as if my logic wasn't complete. Where is yours? Prove me that your choice was made freely and not the consquence of previous events? You know that "because I know" isn't a solid argument, right?

absolutely
because it is someone else making a determination of someone else's experience, from a second-person point of view. there are too many ambiguities, and we could endlessly have circular arguments.

I could communicate that I wanted a drink of water, then pick up the glass and commence to
drink it. what's the issue here?
you're gonna have a more difficult task of showing that I actually needed the water at that time.

That doesn't prove in any way that it is a free choice. Only proves that you can make a choice, not that it is free of causes.

and what's that cause? can you define the origin of the cause?
is it subconscious? and what evidence suggests this?

Aren't you working in the fields of science or something? What if I told you than you can observe matter all you want, but the fact that you are not that particular thing you are observing, makes your whole observations meaningless?

Working in the fields of psychology doesn't mean that you have to guess what's happening in someone else's head. You make hypothesis, observations and experiments too. The idea isn't to guess what's happening in people's heads, but observe reactions to events, look for causes and effects. If you spent a little time observing people around you, maybe you'd notice those things.

perhaps

but what is the control group in these psychology experiments?

in science, there is always a control group, and it is a universal standard,
based on other machine measurements worldwide, with similar specifications (they have to be validated). this rules out instrumental error, and ensures objectivity.
what sort of quality control is implemented in psychology experiments?

I'm not a professional in the field of psychology and cannot answer you with a very precise answer. Maybe this can help you...

In psychology, control group:


Anyways, I would continue this dialogue, but it isn't going anywhere and I've got more important things to do.

perhaps it really is an issue of semantics. you don't think free will exists, just like I don't think 'purpose' exists...

some people have their mid-life crisis, and seek some sense of 'purpose', like they were put on this planet to do something purposeful; again, there is no way of showing evidence to support this stance. these intangibles leave speculation open to all sorts of interpretation. same with those who feel the need to believe in something of a metaphysical nature, religious or what have you.