the will is free

[lordoflight]

Think free will is real because, no way for supercomputers to predict our every move (which is a relief, thank jebus.) Because of this, free will exists on a quantum level.

[Dan~]

That's random will, not free will.
Random will is even worse than structured fate.

[lordoflight]

That's random will, not free will.
Random will is even worse than structured fate.

Helps if you watch the videos. The videos explain it better than I ever could.

[Prismatic567]

Yes, there is free will but ultimately whatever is deemed free is always conditional and relative, thus not absolutely free.

If one is a prison, one has the free will to sleep, talk, shit, etc but only limited to the walls of one's cell.

For a person on Earth, s/he has free will to do whatever is humanly possible but it is limited by gravity to fly by oneself. One is not free to fly into outer-space unless conditioned by the appropriate apparatus and one's own capability.

So there is free will but it always limited thus not absolutely free will but rather it is limited by various conditions and one's own limitations.

The will is not free [relatively free but not absolutely free].

[Artimas]

I’d say will is free (thought), but choice is not free. A. You cannot choose whatever you want or think, B. Your choice has a reaction.

[Silhouette]

Think free will is real because, no way for supercomputers to predict our every move (which is a relief, thank jebus.) Because of this, free will exists on a quantum level.

Your argument is that free will exists because supercomputers can't currently predict humans?

First of all, in certain games like "chess" and "go", or even in Starcraft and other video games, AI *can* predict your every move and beat you almost every single time + each time a human does beat it, it gets massively smarter for next time.

Second of all, even if supercomputers couldn't predict the every move of a human now, these things are getting more powerful all the time. You need some way to prove that no matter how powerful they got, they still couldn't predict your every move.

Third of all, what Dan~ said.

Fourth of all, you probably need to define more clearly what you mean by "free". Free from what? Free to do what? (similar to what Prismatic567 and Artimas are getting at).
Yes there's will, but either there can be a reason for you to choose one way or another - in which case your choices are not free from your prior experiences, your cognitive ability, and/or your current proclivities to perhaps mess around or not with what prior experience and cognitive ability cause you to deem the best choice... or your choices are free from these things, in which case it's not your will: it's something else that makes the decisions for you.
I.e. either will, but not free, or free but not will. Never "free will".

Will most certainly is not free, unless I'm missing something vital here, but all the evidence, experient and extended argumentation seems to align against its freedom.

I've come across certain people who cannot let go from the idea of "free" will at an emotional level - to the extent that they cannot even begin to critique it at an honest and open minded level. It can be a particularly unpleasant experience dealing with these kinds of people, so I do hope you are not one.

[lordoflight]

Because if somebody (a rich person) goes up to a supercomputer (Apple) and asks it to predict its future. The person will say "What happens if I buy apple stocks instead of IBM" the supercomputer is responding to a choice to begin with. The supercomputer wiil say buy Apple, in order to self-preserve itself. Then somebody (a rich person) goes up to a supercomputer (IBM) and asks it to predict its future. The person will say "What happens if I buy apple stocks instead of IBM" the supercomputer is responding to a choice to begin with. The supercomputer wiil say buy IBM, in order to self-preserve itself.

A. The computer's choices affect the future. Its lack of free will (self-preservation instinct) actually cause free will (in humans) to occur. The foundation is that if you can ask a super-computer the future, that means there are different future outcomes, depending on human choices. If there are different outcomes, determinism is not real.

B. If the future is fixed it creates a Paradox. Because as soon as the computer predicts the future, and tells someone about it, the future is changed, because the person has the free will to change the future. Therefore the computer will see a future where it tells someone the future, but then it is changed, causing an infinite iteration where it can never predict the future. If choices could not be made, then the supercomputer would simply narrate a future. But as soon as it does, the future it narrates could be changed. Therefore it can never narrate a future. The computer also has the free will to choose whether or not to narrate a future.

[Meno_]

Even a supercomputer forgets an infinite future, at a finite point short of infinity, no, he does not forget, but takes an infinite time to get there, for she has not attained that cloudy realm above , so it can remember.

[Artimas]

I think the ancients deemed free will as being conscious of instincts(subconscious). Consciousness of environment and the effects of it and the effects of self in it. Choice regardless is still limited.

[Silhouette]

there are different future outcomes, depending on human choices. If there are different outcomes, determinism is not real.

So your argument is that a human being determined to choose one way determines one future outcome, and a human being determined to choose another way determines a different future outcome, and due to this Determinism, Determinism is not real?

This may be due to a very common misunderstanding of Determinism as Fatalism. Fatalism is to have one outcome regardless of how you get there, Determinism can have many outcomes - what matters is the mechanics of how you get to each one one, so your thought experiment doesn't disprove it.

But if by Determinism you mean Hard Determinism, however, that is Determinism which is pervasive such that only one outcome is going to be determined to occur, not because of fate, but because of a rigid set of mechanics. However, your thought experiment still doesn't disprove this because the scope is larger than your presentation of it.
Under Hard Determinism, the supercomputer is going to be determined to give one answer either way, and this answer could be given in the knowledge that it will be either wrong or right. That is whether it gives an answer at all: because if it calculates that giving one answer results in a different answer, and giving that answer results in the previous answer it will get stuck in an infinite loop. However, it may still be able to foresee this possibility, and give a different answer that doesn't result in an infinite loop, perhaps even at the cost of knowingly giving the wrong answer, knowing the effect that this will have on the human to cause the answer to turn out wrong. It may even delay the answer until such a point that the infinite loop will no longer occur, which may be after the point at which foresight will be useful. It may simply tell you that giving the answer will change it, which is probably always going to be the case.

So you're asking the wrong question about your thought experiment.

The better question will be whether asking a supercomputer about the future is of any use - and this goes for whether it can predict the future or not. Even if it can, as I explained it doesn't guarantee that asking about the future will result in any answer at all, or even a right answer when the supercomputer foresees the paradox of giving the right answer. Neither would mean the supercomputer can't predict the future, only that giving an answer about it may or may not be problematic.

I think the ancients deemed free will as being conscious of instincts(subconscious). Consciousness of environment and the effects of it and the effects of self in it. Choice regardless is still limited.

You are probably right, which is why I raise the necessity of defining what you mean by "free". Free from what? Free to do what?

If free will is merely will that is free from sticking to the "id", then free will is merely the "ego" - no less constrained by Determinism etc. and thus not free beyond such a narrow scope, therefore posing itself to be a problematic term at a philosophical level.

[lordoflight]

There would be certain futures that would return an "error" or recursive infinite glitch.

Some futures it could predict. But that implies there are multiple options of futures. Including futures that would return an "error" if trying to compute them. Such futures are non-deterministic, since they cannot be determined.

[Silhouette]

There would be certain futures that would return an "error" or recursive infinite glitch.

Some futures it could predict. But that implies there are multiple options of futures. Including futures that would return an "error" if trying to compute them. Such futures are non-deterministic, since they cannot be determined.

No they can be determined, just not communicable in a meaningful way.

"Error" doesn't mean "can't compute", it means "can't give a meaningful output". After reaching such an answer, it still might know very well what your every move will be. Telling you what it will be is the problem, not the ability of the supercomputer to know it.

[Artimas]

there are different future outcomes, depending on human choices. If there are different outcomes, determinism is not real.

So your argument is that a human being determined to choose one way determines one future outcome, and a human being determined to choose another way determines a different future outcome, and due to this Determinism, Determinism is not real?

This may be due to a very common misunderstanding of Determinism as Fatalism. Fatalism is to have one outcome regardless of how you get there, Determinism can have many outcomes - what matters is the mechanics of how you get to each one one, so your thought experiment doesn't disprove it.

But if by Determinism you mean Hard Determinism, however, that is Determinism which is pervasive such that only one outcome is going to be determined to occur, not because of fate, but because of a rigid set of mechanics. However, your thought experiment still doesn't disprove this because the scope is larger than your presentation of it.
Under Hard Determinism, the supercomputer is going to be determined to give one answer either way, and this answer could be given in the knowledge that it will be either wrong or right. That is whether it gives an answer at all: because if it calculates that giving one answer results in a different answer, and giving that answer results in the previous answer it will get stuck in an infinite loop. However, it may still be able to foresee this possibility, and give a different answer that doesn't result in an infinite loop, perhaps even at the cost of knowingly giving the wrong answer, knowing the effect that this will have on the human to cause the answer to turn out wrong. It may even delay the answer until such a point that the infinite loop will no longer occur, which may be after the point at which foresight will be useful. It may simply tell you that giving the answer will change it, which is probably always going to be the case.

So you're asking the wrong question about your thought experiment.

The better question will be whether asking a supercomputer about the future is of any use - and this goes for whether it can predict the future or not. Even if it can, as I explained it doesn't guarantee that asking about the future will result in any answer at all, or even a right answer when the supercomputer foresees the paradox of giving the right answer. Neither would mean the supercomputer can't predict the future, only that giving an answer about it may or may not be problematic.

I think the ancients deemed free will as being conscious of instincts(subconscious). Consciousness of environment and the effects of it and the effects of self in it. Choice regardless is still limited.

You are probably right, which is why I raise the necessity of defining what you mean by "free". Free from what? Free to do what?

If free will is merely will that is free from sticking to the "id", then free will is merely the "ego" - no less constrained by Determinism etc. and thus not free beyond such a narrow scope, therefore posing itself to be a problematic term at a philosophical level.

Well choice is different from will, so we must be able to differentiate.

If will is thought and choice is the choosing between multiple possibilities or options, then in the same system of having to make a choice, is one not free to make a choice to not make a choice? Which leaves open all possibilities? Is this not a choice to make to have or continue a free will? If every choice has a reaction then what is the reaction of not choosing? Freedom, wouldn’t it be, where or what are the restrictions of not choosing, that one may not experience?

Well define experience, is an experience imagined not still, an experience?

Understanding and knowledge reveals more possible choices that one did not know previously, so if one chooses for their satisfaction to be knowledge, where do restrictions lie outside of bodily desire? Knowledge will always be and always continue, it never ends, so if you put it as your hearts desire, you will always be happy and you will always be free in a sense.

So let’s think, Based off of the arguments of people arguing against free will due to choices being made out of “satisfaction”, so if one always chooses to be satisfied, where does knowledge come from if one is always comfortable? One must endure great pain in ‘hopes’ to reveal knowledge and understanding. Is knowledge or understanding not painful? So if one chooses to know or understand are they not making a choice out of choosing suffering instead of satisfaction? The satisfaction is not set in stone, due to what one may not know, may kill them. So at the risk of death and choosing to learn of what one may not know (which is where fear stems from), satisfaction does not play a role because the satisfaction of one reaching knowledge, is not known to happen for sure if one chooses a path of the unknown, which the unknown may possibly lead to knowledge.

To choose what is known is to choose comfort/satisfaction. The unknown is not satisfaction and thus knowledge exists.

All this arguing over satisfaction determining everything is kind of self defeating due to knowledge existing as the very discomfort one may have in knowing/understanding.

The body and physical realm, is merely a test of our desires, the determinist system of entrapment. If I choose a path of knowledge then it is revealed to me that desires may be the trap of which defeat a free will.

Do you understand what I may be getting at?

To have more knowledge is to know of more possibilities, to have more possibilities is to have more choices, to have more choices is to be free in will, by will.

Knowledge is the very thing that sets people free from a system of determinism by being able to observe how it functions. Will and knowledge is infinite so to try and bind knowledge is naive, which will complies with knowledge/wisdom if one uses the correct model of thought, which is the point of philosophy.

I’d say more so, free will is being able to choose what the Id may manifest ‘as’.

[Meno_]

Artimas, the thing is, it is far more probable to get into an eternally recurrent tube, then it is to seek a way out, even the most advanced computer system imaginable.

And that is a problem almost identical to a thesis of lets say finding a modus operans to salvage the econo-politocal vestige point of the rest of society's 98%.

There is virtually no two way mirror in this fun house.

For one thing , even the necessity of a possible congruence lands one in a never never land of simulated nonsense.

[promethean75]

Excuse me... but lordo flight... why do you assume that because a future can't be predicted, it necessarily follows that antecedent conditions prior to that future did not cause that future to happen in the way that it did?

I'll tell you why this freewill/determinism debate is such a bitch for philosophers. It's because the conclusion of causality must be inferred. It's not something that comes from experience or observation, so it's not empirical knowledge. You can't get there either deductively or inductively. Causality belongs to the rationalists, not the empiricists. You have to intuit it based from a line of reasoning which shows how indeterminism is infintely more ridiculous... so you HAVE to conclude with causality. And when you accept causality... you gotta go the full distance. None of this 'well there's a little freewill here because chaos and randomness whatever whatever.'

None of that detracts from the fact that causally sufficient antecedent conditions exist for everything and anything that happens in the universe. Doesn't matter if no order is perceived, or no predictions can be certain, or it's logically possible for you imagine yourself turning left rather than right. These things don't change the fact of causality.

[promethean75]

and maybe this should be clarified again for those who like to get into these freewill/determinism debates... because it's a subtle detail that can be easily overlooked.

the doctrine of freewill is a version of determinism, since it asserts that there is something causing one's actions. namely, the person, who exercises an 'agent causality' when they 'choose' to act.

so here the determining force is switched from the natural laws to the person... who can do to his body (through that connection with the material that descartes never explained) what the natural laws do to all the other things in the universe.

so really the freewillist is putting forth an even stranger thesis than hard determinism; he's saying that there are two different kinds of causality operating in nature. one is the laws of physics and chemistry, and the other is the law of moi. and any time my body moves voluntarily, it doesn't result from the influence of the laws of physics and chemistry, but from the influence of causal agent moi. the moi acts on the body like the laws of physics and chemistry act on a tree, or a microwave, or an earthquake, or a solar flare, or a car wash, or a camel cricket.

it's like everything in the brain is moving right along according to these natural laws and then... suddenly... the whole thing seizes its gears and stops. why? because moi is thinking about ordering a number five with a sprite rather than the two piece dinner. a force field spontaneously generates around moi as he stands at the menu board, completely insulating his body from the natural laws. the very existence of space/time halts... waiting for the agent causation to pick up where the natural laws stopped, and put moi's lips in motion when he utters the words 'you know what, lemme just get an order of chicken tenders and a vanilla milkshake.'

[Artimas]

Artimas, the thing is, it is far more probable to get into an eternally recurrent tube, then it is to seek a way out, even the most advanced computer system imaginable.

And that is a problem almost identical to a thesis of lets say finding a modus operans to salvage the econo-politocal vestige point of the rest of society's 98%.

There is virtually no two way mirror in this fun house.

For one thing , even the necessity of a possible congruence lands one in a never never land of simulated nonsense.

The only way out is in. One must travel the tube before getting out if there is an out. That’s the point of evolution and life, the point of being diverse.. to manifest and explore everything from a point of nothing. If I can get out of my own mental traps via logic and reason (micro) then why can’t we believe or entertain the idea of a getting out in macro form or collectively.

existence is based off of a duality, if there is an in there has to be an out, that’s duality. There is always a balance, it’s how nature functions.

What we see as an eternity may not be an actual eternity to anything macro. It only seems such to us because we are the micro to a macro while we may observe a micro to our being macro.

We.. are the most advanced computer system so far as we know and we have yet to determine or find our limits as we continue to evolve. The out is the very infinity of possibilities to explore. Most stay trapped in their limited thinking and so they do not see an infinite of possibility. To see such one must examine from nothing.

[Meno_]

The 'in' is always' OUT' In fact it's way out. Way out where galactic black holes are vampirically are after more and more stuff to suck in.

Most are holdouts as to the danger.of This fear, for it is nothing but a fear It's self. When that transpires or configures , it becomes just another illusive delusion.

It's basis in the nothingness of it's form, is but a needless preoccupation with transcending it's self.

[Artimas]

The 'in' is always' OUT' In fact it's way out. Way out where galactic black holes are vampirically are after more and more stuff to suck in.

Most are holdouts as to the danger.of This fear, for it is nothing but a fear It's self. When that transpires or configures , it becomes just another illusive delusion.

It's basis in the nothingness of it's form, is but a needless preoccupation with transcending it's self.

It is scary but worth it in the end. Wisdom and reality are crazy. Indeed, it transcends on multiple levels simultaneously.

I just feel we live in both. A deterministic reality of which the will is free ultimately but to become free of traps, one has to sacrifice, an understanding must be earned through not satisfaction but instead much struggle and humility/just obligation, the satisfaction at the end is not even guaranteed. It’s between an understanding and suffering/death, the reward if one gets such is a possible satisfaction and more available possibilities/choices, but it’s possible to not be satisfied with the results as well, like Einstein with the Atom bomb.

The only reason we know of such comforts now is due to the many who have died and suffered to bring us here.. comfort is built off of suffering, thus it is not satisfactory in itself, you can feel pain to grow, or you can feel pain to rot and die in traps. Choose, wisely, thus, desire is an illusion. The one who appreciates what he has is often more happy than the one who always wants.

The very satisfaction is built off of pain and only an illusion due to fears of the unknown and wanting comfort due to such.

If everything works determinist, how are we separate from mass society? Are you saying they too do not have a choice or option to pickup a book and educate themselves as we did? The will can only become, more free through struggle and in having available so much responsibility at once one believes they are limited. When they are the universe of everything and nothing simultaneously experiencing and expanding itself while being aware of such.

If we aren’t separate from the rest in general public then why so much hate towards us whom think and the rejection of knowledge or criticism? Fear of unknown, some satisfaction that is. What you don’t know, may kill you.

It isn’t satisfactory or dissatisfactory. it is what it is, and it is what you make it. Desire is blinding.

If you let go of desire, you let go of fear, for what is there to fear if no loss? if you let go of fear, you let go of desire. For what comfort is there to strive for if nothing to fear?

see the loops, the trap?

Kind of off topic but is also a bit relevant. I wonder if Socrates saying he is wise for he knows that he knows nothing is a reference to the nothing of which also is everything, the humility it grants and is required in understanding is the claim of ‘being’ nothing, when one knows nothing, they also gaze into everything.

[Artimas]

and maybe this should be clarified again for those who like to get into these freewill/determinism debates... because it's a subtle detail that can be easily overlooked.

the doctrine of freewill is a version of determinism, since it asserts that there is something causing one's actions. namely, the person, who exercises an 'agent causality' when they 'choose' to act.

so here the determining force is switched from the natural laws to the person... who can do to his body (through that connection with the material that descartes never explained) what the natural laws do to all the other things in the universe.

so really the freewillist is putting forth an even stranger thesis than hard determinism; he's saying that there are two different kinds of causality operating in nature. one is the laws of physics and chemistry, and the other is the law of moi. and any time my body moves voluntarily, it doesn't result from the influence of the laws of physics and chemistry, but from the influence of causal agent moi. the moi acts on the body like the laws of physics and chemistry act on a tree, or a microwave, or an earthquake, or a solar flare, or a car wash, or a camel cricket.

it's like everything in the brain is moving right along according to these natural laws and then... suddenly... the whole thing seizes its gears and stops. why? because moi is thinking about ordering a number five with a sprite rather than the two piece dinner. a force field spontaneously generates around moi as he stands at the menu board, completely insulating his body from the natural laws. the very existence of space/time halts... waiting for the agent causation to pick up where the natural laws stopped, and put moi's lips in motion when he utters the words 'you know what, lemme just get an order of chicken tenders and a vanilla milkshake.'

Or maybe determinism is based off of a fear of responsibility and one being in control of self and all that isn’t and all that is, within universal law, due to a wanting to stay comfortable and not tread any further unknown.

All this debate is is a two sided coin being argued about which side is the only side. It’s a matter of your perspective. Both desire and fear can be killed or given power. Except, desire doesn’t come before fear.. so then what now do you think determinism is? Is it Still about Satisfaction? When both sides of desire are fear and pain?

[MagsJ]

From samsara to nirvana.. I say no more.

[Artimas]

What is love? Oh baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.

[promethean75]

Or maybe determinism is based off of a fear of responsibility and one being in control of self

for a great deal of philosophy, various defense mechanisms can be subconsciously enacted (e.g., rationalization) to bring us to beliefs that are most agreeable to us, but i wouldn't classify the philosophy of determinism as an example. i mean one doesn't believe in determinism because it 'feels good' or not. in the same way, one wouldn't believe that 1+1=2 or that atlanta is the capital of gorgia because they 'liked' these truths... and neither would one deny them if they didn't find these truths agreeable. granted, determinism is not a strictly empirical philosophy, but its line of reasoning follows logically from various deductive truths upon which it is based and found. if and when one is able to follow these lines of reasoning, the conclusion is not something you can 'argue away' because you find it disagreeable.

fortunately, most who believe in freewill aren't lying or playing tricks. they actually believe it is real, so we wouldn't charge them with a philosophical crime.

but what happens is, because most simply can't grasp the truth of determinism, they naturally suspect ulterior motives in the philosopher who endorses it... and they do this because they can't understand a belief in it for any other reason than for the purposes of deceiving themselves and/or others. it's analogous to one child calling another child evil because he doesn't believe in santa claus (or santa's clause). to the child who believes in santa, saying santa doesn't exist is simply preposterous and unheard of.

but no... think about what you're saying (we'll grant your point for a moment). do you think someone who really believed in freewill could lie to themselves and pretend to believe in determinism instead because they weren't comfortable with the truth of freewill?

if i wasn't happy with the fact that i can't fly, could i decide to no longer believe in gravity?

also, determinism doesn't denote a 'fear of responsibility and being in control of self'. instead, it changes how we conceive of the 'self' and the concept of 'responsibility' and 'control'. ironically, it rather greatly expands the capacity of the self as well as the identity; instead of you being an isolated acausal agency, you are an expression of a much bigger matrix (or ecology) of causes and effects that speak for a wider range of forces than a meager personal 'choice'. think of yourself not as a person, but an entire environment that interacts with countless causes and effects. that old notion of the private cartesian self 'inside the head' is dead, and your control extends much further than what you have the capacity to do with yourself. think of it like this; artimas is nature controlling itself through the proxy of a 'you'.

and because of that tremendous power, you are far more 'responsible' than you'd ever be if you only had freewill.

you like that irony, didn't ya? i'm pretty fuckin' tight with the ironies, man. got a whole library of em in my head.

[Artimas]

Or maybe determinism is based off of a fear of responsibility and one being in control of self

for a great deal of philosophy, various defense mechanisms can be subconsciously enacted (e.g., rationalization) to bring us to beliefs that are most agreeable to us, but i wouldn't classify the philosophy of determinism as an example. i mean one doesn't believe in determinism because it 'feels good' or not. in the same way, one wouldn't believe that 1+1=2 or that atlanta is the capital of gorgia because they 'liked' these truths... and neither would one deny them if they didn't find these truths agreeable. granted, determinism is not a strictly empirical philosophy, but its line of reasoning follows logically from various deductive truths upon which it is based and found. if and when one is able to follow these lines of reasoning, the conclusion is not something you can 'argue away' because you find it disagreeable.

fortunately, most who believe in freewill aren't lying or playing tricks. they actually believe it is real, so we wouldn't charge them with a philosophical crime.

but what happens is, because most simply can't grasp the truth of determinism, they naturally suspect ulterior motives in the philosopher who endorses it... and they do this because they can't understand a belief in it for any other reason than for the purposes of deceiving themselves and/or others. it's analogous to one child calling another child evil because he doesn't believe in santa claus (or santa's clause). to the child who believes in santa, saying santa doesn't exist is simply preposterous and unheard of.

but no... think about what you're saying (we'll grant your point for a moment). do you think someone who really believed in freewill could lie to themselves and pretend to believe in determinism instead because they weren't comfortable with the truth of freewill?

if i wasn't happy with the fact that i can't fly, could i decide to no longer believe in gravity?

also, determinism doesn't denote a 'fear of responsibility and being in control of self'. instead, it changes how we conceive of the 'self' and the concept of 'responsibility' and 'control'. ironically, it rather greatly expands the capacity of the self as well as the identity; instead of you being an isolated acausal agency, you are an expression of a much bigger matrix (or ecology) of causes and effects that speak for a wider range of forces than a meager personal 'choice'. think of yourself not as a person, but an entire environment that interacts with countless causes and effects. that old notion of the private cartesian self 'inside the head' is dead, and your control extends much further than what you have the capacity to do with yourself. think of it like this; artimas is nature controlling itself through the proxy of a 'you'.

and because of that tremendous power, you are far more 'responsible' than you'd ever be if you only had freewill.

you like that irony, didn't ya? i'm pretty fuckin' tight with the ironies, man. got a whole library of em in my head.

I know both exist, it’s just a matter of perspective and words. How can we say what isn’t possible based from a level or step of ignorance of a future understanding? Determinism is a lack of control of future/present due to past or present (environment).

Understanding is a staircase of infinity, you can only see so much unless you -choose- to take steps, which more of will is revealed as you go. Determinism sounds like slavery to/of the mind to the system to me.

Nature is controlling me by the proxy of a me? Isn’t that what the subconscious was? Instinct without a viewing of it? So can you not control your instincts? The proxy is my body and subconscious I agree but consciousness grants us a stronger ability. We have many things we have yet to do and many things we should be doing to improve our understandings of multiple facets of and in reality, this continuous eternal conquest of seeking understanding through knowledge is what reveals the will to itself, consciously.. the more of which one travels the staircase to reach more complex understandings the more dangerous its traps of the mind.

I agree nature is all powerful though and it’s system but free will is conscious of which one does consent to reality by choice and it is far more complex than our being compelled of/by the attribution of value/desire or satisfaction being deemed more important than an understanding through and of struggle which leads to satisfaction only to repeat and do such again to reveal more of will. Both are temporary, what is not temporary is what we derive our of will and understanding, what we may create and push into objective existence, such is proven everyday by people who go through or have went through tremendous struggles who are now winning in life and with an understanding of reality especially.

But who’s truths are they? I can imagine many many if not an infinity of things possible of which I could choose and specifically manifest, if I sought the understanding that specific topic or manifestation of which we as a species could bring into existence, what’s limited about that?

[Faust]

The reason that the question of free will has never been answerd satisfactorily is not that it is a difficult question. It's that it's the wrong question.

Just what is the will supposed to be free from, if it's free?