That seems to be self-evident.
I don’t even understand what this means.
That’s factual. Most classic philosophers talked about it.
I have no idea what we’re talking about. We are not all born equal. On the contrary. We are all born with different genetic make ups.
That is what I was saying too. Equality isn’t real or actual.
Forget about it V, you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. But I don’t really care about this topic enough to bother pursuing it. It was a minor point anyway.
“Conscious” decisions that are arbitrary and have no real impact on anything again volchock. Is there an experiment that shows that an important decision is made subconsciously before we are aware of it yet, and that we cannot ruminate on it, are all thoughts final, and hence all actions then final, or do we get to decide if they are the best way to proceed, I mean as I’ve gotten older I have learnt not to go with gut instinct most of the time when things are important, it has served me well? No didn’t think so this is just a repetition of Libet’s work, isn’t it. Well ok, not much more than the same as the last Libet stuff. You need to have experiments where the people taking part are actually drastically effected by the results, to the point where they could actually win or lose something they care about. Otherwise choosing 1 from 2, in a decision about which you prefer based on the x or y, that pretty much has nothing riding on it that you really care about, means that people don’t think too much about things that have no real impact on them. Amazing, I can prove that all decisions are arbitrary if all outcomes are completely unimportant to the subject. It’s not a matter of determinism (which I think is unlikely but beside the point, or dualism which is pretty illogical at the best of times) it’s a matter of good science, exhaust all possibilities, don’t exhaust only one over and over again.
Edit: all sciences - strong ones at least, psychology is horribly weak as a science, young, opinionated, living in its mothers basement - are now using more stochastic methods to predict results, if this is an accident then reality is far more bizarre than anyone imagined.
I haven’t even read the Libet article. The conclusions some people reach based on his experiments are often quite absurd though.
That is false.
We all know we have to take responsibility, and determinism does not have a get out clause.
But if any one is interested I argue that a full and frank acceptance of determinism is vital for the progress and future of our penal system.
A deterministic world view accepts that there are underlying causes from crime, and that punishment can be engineered to help prevent more crime.
Right now the whole emphasis is on the false claim that we freely choose to commit crime, and no steps are taken to prevent recidivism.
A determinist knows that what you do before and after the crime can be used to reduce crime.
A determinist also knows that the idea of culpability is one of those tools. Yes, just one tool out of many…
I understand what you’re saying but I’m questioning if you understand what determinism means. It doesn’t seem that way jujding by your previous question. Non-determinisms are as concerned about causality as determinists are.
In that sense, no, it isn’t. But do you contest that ?
I’m pretty sure I was agreeing with you when I made my earlier post.
Now, I didn’t perfectly completely explain it, but I thought what I wrote was enough.
Then it was almost as if you saw it as me trying to contradict you.
Maybe you see so many contrarians that you, by default, expected me to be the same.
I feel you are right about some things. My understanding of you is finite, but,
It is a bit disturbing as well, to see some of these things.
It is as if some people at ILP can’t even successfully have a conversation with someone else.
Of course they are. I’m feeling similar to Dan at the moment…
I can post it if you want to, even Libet says that the results are by no means conclusive. They are though to some people.
Volchok already posted it! Just no time.
Ah k. 
Libet’s results have been replicated dozens of times with different methodologies and experimental designs. The sum of those experiments is conclusive regarding the following : Decisions are made before they emerge into consciousness.
If you want to argue that that does not disprove free will, that’s fine. I think you’re wasting your time and clinging to a silly notion that you don’t need but it’s your prerogative.
It’s not the results I have a problem with it’s your conclusions which actually disagree with Libets. Scientist, man you aint even close. 
Wait till you get out in the real world, your ass is grass if you keep your attitude, I’m not even joking, no one who has an attitude like yours will survive five minutes in science, seriously, they will tear you apart, and the ridicule will depress you. Don’t get me wrong a lot of people go through this I am now somewhat educated I have all the answers phase. Send me a postcard from 2040.
I am not arguing it proves or disproves anything, ffs how many times do I have to say it. I am arguing it proves nothing except arbitrary decisions have arbitrary results. Wow give them them the Nobel prize for stating the obvious. Jesus h Corbett on a unicycle it’s like talking to a brick wall.
Quit science take up gardening, honestly, you will do much better doing something with your hands if you cannot do something with your skills, you are clearly intelligent but clearly a little green. If I may say.
Scientists like an easy target: someone claiming say free will is false, or true for that matter, they will rape you, and leave you for dead. This is meant as constructive criticism but I have seen the hyenas attack, it is not pretty. Do not express an opinion as fact, unless you know it is irrefutable, they will kill you. On a philosophy forum you have no real challenge you can just wax lyrical about philosophy. The real world will break you.
I just love it when people don’t know what to say, or how to counter-argue, or what evidence to present and instead go on a tirade about how “things are different in the real world” and say things like " you’ll be torn apart" and “you’re dogmatic” and so forth. And they usually follow this with an ad hominem masqueraded as piece of advice:
Good job on being pretentious and predictable.
Let me know when you actually have something of substance to say.
Determinism is the basis of science. If you don’t agree with it you need to seek employment elsewhere. Even Quantum indeterminacy implies a deterministic world.
Existence and reality is a complexity of cause and effect, introducing something like freewill is the assertion of an uncaused cause. That’s for the church of god, not the church of science.
You are the cause of your will, you are determined by who and what you are. How else could you ever make a decision?
For any law to make sense, the universe has to have the quality of uniformitarianism. Laws cannot be capricious.
The whole unconscious before conscious thing doesn’t really say as much as is presumed. It is merely revealing that Bills go through the House before the Senate… surprise, surprise.
And their passing is determined by the facts of causation that could stop them or let them through.
The analogy is not that the King says what the conditions of the bill are or are not. The King just sees the bills pass by thinking that they are all his doing.