David: I accept what I experience and that is enough for me.
> > 
> > Romansh: David this is not an attribute I would share with your more scientifically astute readers.
> 
> David: There are experts who agree with me. Your opinion is equal to mine, no more.-This I think is plainly false.
I would trust your opinion more than mine regarding a medical issue, and I would trust mine more regarding the beneficiation of metals from ore.-There is no reason to believe intrinsically that our abilities to handle logic and assess data are equal.-The fact that there are experts that share our opinions is moot. There are "experts" that disbelieve anthropogenic global warming too. There are experts who believe in the literality of the Bible.-But if your experts accept their experience and claim that is enough for them too, I would not share that particular homily with their readers

David: I accept what I experience and that is enough for me.
> 
> Romansh: David this is not an attribute I would share with your more scientifically astute readers.-There are experts who agree with me. Your opinion is equal to mine, no more.

David: I accept what I experience and that is enough for me.-David this is not an attribute I would share with your more scientifically astute readers.

DavidI've not paid for access. It smells like they trust Libet's findings, which have been rejected by some.
> 
> Romansh:It would be foolish to completely discount the results of Libet.
> 
> Here is a quote from the earlier article
> >> Peter W. Halligan David A. Oakley: Even if you look carefully at your own experience of decision making, it is evident that you don't make up your own mind—if you are honest, and you take the time, you discover that your mind makes itself up.
> 
> This captures in part why I keep asking what would confabulation look like for you.-I don't accept their view and if I took time I could drag up opposite opinions. I accept what I experience and that is enough for me.

I've not paid for access. It smells like they trust Libet's findings, which have been rejected by some.-It would be foolish to completely discount the results of Libet.-Here is a quote from the earlier article
>> Peter W. Halligan David A. Oakley: Even if you look carefully at your own experience of decision making, it is evident that you don't make up your own mind—if you are honest, and you take the time, you discover that your mind makes itself up.-This captures in part why I keep asking what would confabulation look like for you.

David: It smells like they trust Libet's findings, which have been rejected by some.-Is that like the stench that comes from the Discovery Institute's interpretations that have been rejected by most knowledgeable scientists?-Really David, you should know better.

Romansh: Going back through the New Scientists I have been remiss in reading:
> Came across this:
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730340-200-consciousness-evolved-for-the-great... 
> and it leads to:
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16822653-700-greatest-myth-of-all
&#... 
> I presume we have access to the complete opinion pieces.-I've not paid for access. It smells like they trust Libet's findings, which have been rejected by some.

dhw: it would also apply if we adopted the default position of "We don't know".-I have found the best answer to your discussion: see the bolded line:-"Of course, Plato wins every argument hands down, though his interlocutors generally fail to see that. For instance, in a well-aimed chapter on the pretensions of contemporary neuroscience, Plato volunteers as a subject in a brain-imaging experiment. The smug and overbearing Dr. Shoket treats Plato and philosophy with jocular contempt, all the while demonstrating his utter ignorance of that whereof he speaks. Plato has no trouble refuting his naïve reductionism, according to which there are no persons, intentions, beliefs or other psychological states but only synapses firing mechanically in the void. The neuroscientist is confusing the physical mechanisms that make mental phenomena possible with mental phenomena themselves. I recommend this chapter to all those zealots who think they are on the verge of replacing traditional philosophy with brain science."-http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579395281102610124

You can find meaning in whatever you like, and you can bring in as much energy as you like, but energy, cells, letters as individual units will not produce the brain or King Lear unless they combine in a certain way, and that is what most of us mean when we use 'emergence' to indicate that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
> 
So very simply what I am saying is (trying to say):
The left hand side of the equation equals the right hand side.
so if:
The whole is greater and does not equal the sum of the parts
Fix the equation.
> 
> I agree with your conclusion ... we should neither believe nor disbelieve. But your definition of free will is: "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe". That is not the same as questioning the degree to which our decisions are influenced by chemicals etc. If the universe did not exist, we would not exist and the subjects of our choice would not exist (the endless chain of cause and effect), therefore your definition makes free will impossible. My definition allows for what most of us FEEL we have ... namely, the ability to control the above influences, and even to choose between them if we are aware of them. (My body says: "Chocolate!" My reason says: "Weight!" My will decides.) Experience sometimes teaches us that "feelings" are more reliable than reason, so they should not be dismissed, but as I see it, whether we have control or not depends initially on there being an immaterial part of the self (see later).
> 
The degree to which they are influenced by chemicals etc?
Yes my definition does make free will impossible or at least an incoherent concept. We can redefine it all we want ... the original concept of doing things independent of cause and the consequences of this does not go away.-Skirting the issue with alternative definitions does not avoid determinism.-> I do not believe for one moment that when faced with a choice in your pragmatic day to day activities you turn yourself into a zombie and allow all your subconscious influences to take you over. They may do so, but I'd be shocked if you said you did not FEEL responsible for your decisions and act as if you were.
>
In my pragmatic life on observation I am surprisingly zombie like . 
Its fun watching the moment I get out of bed ... how I choose it.
Yes I have a sense of 'moral' responsibility. I also have a sense of the colour blue. Do I think the colour blue actually exists. I have my severe doubts.-> Of course it is flawed, and I said so in the passage you responded to. If there was a theory without flaw we'd have nothing to discuss and we'd all know the truth. However, I did not say that the something "immaterial" does not respond to cause. If it did not respond to cause, there would be no choice to make. 
I would argue and yet rivers 'choose' a path as the meander across a plain. Of course you will say they are not conscious. David might say everything is conscious, I say the concept of conscious is irrelevant. Whether I have conscious or not it is responding to cause. 
> The question is (a) whether it exists, and (b) whether as a part of the unique combination of elements that is "me" it can overcome the influences we have listed and can control my decision-making process. I don't know the answer to that, but yes, I take it very seriously, because I don't know the source or nature of consciousness, and I don't understand vast areas of human experience, including some so-called psychic experiences. If you don't take this seriously, and since we are all clearly dependent on the universe, may I ask why you do not actively disbelieve in free will?
> 
The unique combination of phenomena that is me does not arbitrarily stop at my epidermis dhw. It took a whole universe to make you and each everyone of us.-If I don't take this seriously? I perceive myself as taking it seriously. Indeed. Otherwise I would not be here?-I have explained this ... simply because I can never be sure and I take an agnostic stance. But end of the day in the pragmatic world I have take up the mantle of a believer or disbeliever. I have chosen the latter; because I trust my logic more than I trust my perception. And this is despite 'feelings' can sometimes be right. I have very little control over my feelings other be aware of them and accept them for what they are.
> I would suggest that if you managed to convince everyone that nothing they do is their responsibility, you might find yourself living in a society that is even more chaotic than the one we live in now. But if you are prepared to limit the discussion to a philosophical level, I would say the default position ought to be that we just don't know.-This is utter supposition. The sun is responsible for hurricanes. Do you wish to argue against this? You put, I would say, a very poor interpretation into my mouth and then try to beat it. I am sorry if this comes across in a negative way.-I could argue we might live in a society without retribution and guilt ... much of the nonsense that traditional Abrahamic religions give us.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the disagreements between us boil down to matters of definition.
> 
> I have given two examples of what I mean by this. 1) If it's true that we are nothing but our cells, a few billion cells combined higgledypiggledy will not produce the mental capacities of the organized combination we call the brain. This particular combination ADDS something to the collection of cells, and that is the sense in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 2) A few million letters combined higgledy-piggledy will not produce the same effects as those letters combined into King Lear.-True but then you have forgotten to add the enrgy that goes into assembling the the brain cells. When I get a dendritic crystal of copper growing in an electrolysis experiment it would be churlish of me to omit the energy that goes into making that crystal ie energy should be included sum of the parts side of the equation. Similarly for arranging 'cells into a brain'-And should I find meaning in Shakespeare's words, I also find meaning in a crystal.
> 
> .... definition of free will: "an entity's conscious ability to control the decision-making process within given constraints" ... the latter being imposed by the situation and by Nature (no problem), but also by factors connected with the decision-making process itself, i.e. chemicals, heredity, our environment, experience etc. It is the latter category that causes us so many problems. 
You will have to make this clear to me ... 
especially in the light of the following sentence.
> Your definition is like an atheist defining God as "a power that does not exist". If your definition precludes discussion, there is not much point in having a discussion!
I am asking is there anything we can do that is not influenced by: 
"i.e. chemicals, heredity, our environment, experience etc."
All of which are part of the universe. You are asking here exactly the same question as I am. My answer is I don't see how. So I should not hold a belief in free will. (Note I did not say have an active disbelief).-As far as I can tell, while philosophically speaking you have an agnostic position on free will (as I do), but pragmatically in your day to day activities you are with the free will side (it's OK the universe shaped you that way, ) Whereas I have been shaped to be less pragmatic about the prevailing belief.-> 
> By my definition, being "truly" conscious still doesn't mean we have free will, since we do not know the extent to which our consciousness is influenced by factors beyond our control.-This is only true-> ROMANSH: I would like to hear your explanation for free will that does not fall into either of those camps.
> 
> I argued that both theories (compatibilism and libertarianism) were flawed. So is your own theory, or supposition, that we are entirely physical. You cannot explain consciousness, and by entertaining the possibility that we are not conscious, you fly in the face of all experience (which in my view is not a factor to be ignored until it is proven to be fallacious). However, the explanation for free will would have to be the libertarian belief that there is an immaterial form of mind that can influence the chain of cause and effect rather than be coerced by it. I can't subscribe to that, any more than I can subscribe to the idea that my awareness of my "self" and of my ability to make decisions is a delusion. I can only echo your own well chosen words in the article: "...just because I cannot see a mechanism for free will, it does not mean free will does not exist." That is why I remain agnostic on the subject.-While my position may well be flawed, a position where something "immaterial" that does not respond to cause and yet can cause effects is also more than just a little flawed. I sincerely hope you are not suggesting we should take this at all seriously?-So my question remains why should we have free will as our default position in our pragmaticism? Can we not take up a lack of free will as default position?


> > > Romansh: Either way ... free will (the definition I use) is an incoherent proposition, even in David's hypothesis.
> > 
> > Please define your definition.
> 
> Romansh:The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe.
> 
> And my thoughts:
> http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/freewill.htm-Thank you for exposing us to that essay. as you know I view life, itself, as an emergent phenomenon from a bunch of chemical reactions. I view consciousness the same way. Yes, we are based on the apparent quicksand of quantum mechanics, but life has been invented to handle it. Note this article on Yoga changing the brain. it is this feedback arrangement that tells me our 'selves' are on equal footing with our underlying living mechanisms.-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-yoga-changes-the-brain/?&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20140319

The fact of the interplay of our actions, under our self-control and decision-making, dictate to the brain how it must develop, is a feed-back mechanism which refutes Romansh's contentions. Not just contrary, but really not accepting the import of current findings.-Here we assume a self to have free will.
Having said that there is an interative process within our brain and its environment does not negate my postion at all David. At least in my opinion. -I don't consciously control the how my brain is shaped. I may think that I consciously deliberate decisions but end of the day this is a perception my 'self' has.


> > Romansh: Either way ... free will (the definition I use) is an incoherent proposition, even in David's hypothesis.
> 
> Please define your definition.-The ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe.-And my thoughts:
http://www3.telus.net/romansh/juris/freewill.htm

ROMANSH: Either way ... free will (the definition I use) is an incoherent proposition, even in David's hypothesis.
> 
> dhw: David has asked you for your definition, though you gave it to us last time we discussed this topic. (It would take too long for me to find it and to find my own.) I see nothing incoherent in the proposition that we have the ability to make conscious choices. You don't believe the self can control its own mental processes owing to the endless chain of cause and effect. David presumably believes that an immaterial consciousness may be capable of influencing the chain of cause and effect (as opposed to being coerced by it). Two different beliefs. You may disagree, but that does not make the proposition incoherent. Your move.-The fact of the interplay of our actions, under our self-control and decision-making, dictate to the brain how it must develop, is a feed-back mechanism which refutes Romansh's contentions. Not just contrary, but really not accepting the import of current findings.-This study is in support of my view that we interact with our brain and can change what is memorized there:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-suppressing-unwanted-memories-unconscious-behavior.html-"Dr Pierre Gagnepain, lead author at INSERM in France said: "Our memories can be slippery and hard to pin down. Out of hand and uncontrolled, their remembrance can haunt us and cause psychological troubles, as we see in PTSD. We were interested whether the brain can genuinely suppress memories in healthy participants, even at the most unconscious level, and how it might achieve this. The answer is that it can, though not all people were equally good at this. The better understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying this process arising from this study may help to better explain differences in how well people adapt to intrusive memories after a trauma.'"