Poll: Free will, does it exist?

[Sad Robot]

The brain is aware of itself. It can modify its structure and state to a limited degree. Because it is both aware of itself and can manipulate itself, it can direct those manipulations without causation from external stimuli. Hence, it can choose how it manipulates itself, but naturally within the confines of its physical structure.

That is free will, the ability to choose to do A instead of B.

That's if you imagine a hypothetical environment that stops influencing you for a moment. You can't draw the conclusion that it isn't dependent on external stimuli if you cannot test such a scenario. And you can't.

Furthermore, how does choosing A over B constitute free will? Isn't it bound to choose A because it considers it a more suitable option due to its biochemical structure, even if it were in such a hypothetical state that no external stimulus could affect it?

Our sense of self is not, I believe, limited to our brains but our entire body.

So as long as we have something that is aware of itself and can affect its own functions even to a limited degree, we have free will.

How so? Free will, I assume, means that you could have decided not to reply to my post. I don't believe you could have. If indeed you'd have chosen not to, that would only be due to random movement within atoms, no? Since all the stimuli and your body would've been exactly the same, in this hypothetical scenario.

As I have understood it, you propose there is no free will, that everything is a product of physical laws, with a degree of random chance.

In that case, why did you choose to eat for example cereal for breakfast, instead of coffee and bread? Why did A happen, and not B? Of two equally possible outcomes, what is the deciding factor between the two happening? Or does one not exist?

I don't believe there is "one deciding factor", it s a result of everything I am and everything that has lead to that situation that determines the probability and inevitably the outcome of the situation. Whatever lead to choosing this hypothetical cereal for breakfast, I don't believe it was a choice I could've made, only that it feels like I made a choice.

I propose that free will of living beings is one such contributing factor, when it comes to possibilities affecting their actions. The entity chooses to do A, instead of B: Therefore A, and not B.

I consider "free will" not a contributing factor but the freedom to choose A or B. I don't think we have that freedom. I do think all our emotions, thoughts, opinions and actions are technically involuntary, although, for all practical intents and purposes, they do appear to be voluntary. If by "free will" you mean some natural change within the brain that leads to an entity choosing A over B, that is broadening the definition of free will to something it is generally not considered to be.

But it is. Seperately, hydrogen and oxygen are gasses in STP conditions. Yet water is a liquid. Take 2 mols of hydrogen and 1 mol of oxygen, mix them and the result is still gasses, with some amouts of water forming spontaneously. Yet the water phase behaves in an entirely different manner than the gas phase.

Does water behave differently from gaseous oxygen and hydrogen? Of course. However, this isn't some magical emergent property of water that makes it something more than hydrogen and oxygen AND the covalent bonds between them. It is this bonding that is the reason for most of the emergent properties of water. This does not mean a water molecule has special properties that aren't derived from its parts.

The difference is entirely due to the structure.

Yes, so?

What is the difference between pure fuel coal and a diamond: According to you, apparently nothing! Both are made of pure carbon and according to you the structure it has formed does not matter!

I did not say that. The fact that there is a discernible difference in behaviour, doesn't mean it can't be explained by looking at its parts.

Then how on earth do you define something, if not by the properties it has? How do you separate between a chair and a table made from uniform synthetic materials, when the properties of the matter forming them are absolutely identical?

Technically, I don't. For practical purposes I do, but again, that's different from theory. From the point of view of physics, human beings are categorically not very different from glue.

You cannot, not without using properties such as height, width, form and overall mass as identifiers.

Or are you willing to claim that the chair and the table are one and the same?

Again, in practical terms, no. But they are slaves to the same laws of physics.

If you are not, then you are implicitly admitting that the structure as well as the materials define what something is and what it isn't.

Depends on your point of view. Are you looking at it from the point of view of physics or chemistry? Nevertheless, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the OP.

 

[Zacharine]

That's if you imagine a hypothetical environment that stops influencing you for a moment. You can't draw the conclusion that it isn't dependent on external stimuli if you cannot test such a scenario. And you can't.

Which is why I openly admitted earlier that I cannot prove free will.

Furthermore, how does choosing A over B constitute free will?

"That is free will, the ability to choose to do A instead of B."

"free will:noun, the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." COED 11th edition.

By these definitions, if you have more than two possible alternatives that could happen, but based on your own choice make one of them happen instead of the others, you have excersiced free will.

Isn't it bound to choose A because it considers it a more suitable option due to its biochemical structure

And thus the brain, aware of the alternatives, makes a choice to follow the more suitable option, instead of the less suitable.

How is this not free will?

Free will, I assume, means that you could have decided not to reply to my post. I don't believe you could have. If indeed you'd have chosen not to, that would only be due to random movement within atoms, no?

And this is where we disagree. My brain chose to respond to your post, decing to activate neuron group A instead of neuron group B, or not activating any neuron group at all.

I don't believe there is "one deciding factor", it s a result of everything I am and everything that has lead to that situation that determines the probability and inevitably the outcome of the situation.

So everything you choose was predetermined before you were even born, because your genetic template was determined by you parents, your growing environment was determined by their pre-determined 'choice' to live where they did etc? All with the chance of quantum level fluctuations of course.

As I said, I do not believe this and it is a philosophical question mostly. Also as we established, pure determinism doesn't exist within a purely materialistic worldview.

Whatever lead to choosing this hypothetical cereal for breakfast, I don't believe it was a choice I could've made

So it was pure chance that determined your 'choice' between hypothetical breakfasts. Because it could not have been determined at the beginning of time, at some point the possibility for you choosing the hypothetical coffee and bread did exist. But since you actually cannot make such a choice, something else must have realized the outcome in favor of the hypothehical cereal. Something, if you will, must have collapsed the wave function for either of the two being your breakfast.

And you think this to be the inherent chance in the laws of physics? Just to be clear on the subject.

I do think all our emotions, thoughts, opinions and actions are technically involuntary, although, for all practical intents and purposes, they do appear to be voluntary. If by "free will" you mean some natural change within the brain that leads to an entity choosing A over B, that is broadening the definition of free will to something it is generally not considered to be.

I consider free will the ability to choose between to possible outcomes. Since we are dicussing if we have free will or not, we must examine the basis that potentially gives the ability to choose.

Wht is the difference between cause and effect? When does one become the other?

When does a change in brain chemicals that leads to an entity choosing become free will, the ability to choose? A line in the water, I would say.

Does water behave differently from gaseous oxygen and hydrogen? Of course. However, this isn't some magical emergent property of water that makes it something more than hydrogen and oxygen AND the covalent bonds between them.

And yet earlier you said

Water is not more than hydrogen and oxygen.

clearly discounting the structure they are at. The bond between them is more than just oxygen and hydrogen. The bond is an emergent property of structure, of the relative locations of for the atoms and their mutual interaction, making the total sum called 'water' more than just the physical elements that make it up. One cannot understand the behaviour and properties of water entirely by simply studying oxygen and hydrogen.

You seem to understand this, but do not apply it.

If we reduce the brain to simply neurons and study them individually, naturally we do not see consciousness or free will. And yet, on the basis of a single neuron you are prepared to discount the whole entirety of brain as something without the ability to choose.

Just as water is more than just the sum of its parts (oxygen and hydrogen), I believe the brain to be such also: free will, the ability to choose, is an emergent ability of the brain as a whole, the result of millions of neurons (individually incapable of decision making) forming an intricate and complex struture that is more than just simple neurons bunched together; where the structure is just as important as the elements that it is formed of. Something that gives us the ability to think and choose not because it somehow defeats the laws of physics, but because it uses them in a way no individual part of it could.

It is this bonding that is the reason for most of the emergent properties of water. This does not mean a water molecule has special properties that aren't derived from its parts.

The bond between the atoms belongs to neither. It is a function of structure the two atoms create in suitable conditions.

Technically, I don't. For practical purposes I do, but again, that's different from theory. From the point of view of physics, human beings are categorically not very different from glue.

Only if you discount the entirety, ignore the structure in favor of individual elements isolated for study.

For some reason I am getting the feel that you hold theory and reality to be separate from eachother. As you said, you technically do not see any conceptual, theoretical difference between a chair and a table. If this is the case, How can you have a theoretical difference between the door and the house it is in?

If, in theory, everything was made from uniform matter, you say you would see no theoretical difference between the road and the car. And yet admit that in practice this is not the case.

You sir, have a faulty theory. If reality contradicts it, the theory must be modified or discarded.

Or you must choose to not apply scientific principles to that theory. Which in turn puts that theory on equal footing with every other that contradicts reality, including the flat earth and that the sky is naught but a solid dome around earth, one where the stars are fixed upon.

If you are not, then you are implicitly admitting that the structure as well as the materials define what something is and what it isn't.

Depends on your point of view. Are you looking at it from the point of view of physics or chemistry? Nevertheless, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the OP.

I am looking at it from the point of view of a naturalist.

Both physics and chemistry are subsets of the laws of the universe. Physics and chemistry simple deal with different areas of those laws.

Certainly you are not implying that in chemistry form and structure matter, but in physics they do not? That the laws produce different results depending on the point of view you have at them?

For reference, just in case you think form and structure are inconsequential in physics, ask yourself why the invention of the arch was such a revolution of construction in ancient times.

Form is consequential. The structure of the elements is consequential. This is an inescapable fact of reality.

As to what this has to do with free will? Quoting myself: "I believe... free will, the ability to choose, is an emergent ability of the brain as a whole, the result of millions of neurons (individually incapable of decision making) forming an intricate and complex struture that is more than just simple neurons bunched together; where the structure is just as important as the elements that it is formed of. Something that gives us the ability to think and choose not because it somehow defeats the laws of physics, but because it uses them in a way no individual part of it could."

 

[SpeedyPig1]

Technically, you only take the path that you think will give you the most happiness, so you do not really control what you do, and i challenge anyone to make an exception to that theory.

 

[Zacharine]

Perhaps free will is just random will.
Atoms act without thought as far as we know, and our minds are made from atoms. Does this make it random will?

You may wish to read:

"On Indeterminism, Chaos, and Small Number Particle Systems in the Brain" by Lewis and MacGregor

http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~lewis/LewisMacGregor.pdf

The beginning of the abstract:

'This paper presents rational, theoretical and empirical grounds for doubting the principle of determinism in the nature and in the brain, and discusses the implications of this for free will and the chaos model of the brain.'

 

[Sad Robot]

And this is where we disagree. My brain chose to respond to your post, decing to activate neuron group A instead of neuron group B, or not activating any neuron group at all.

Yes, but what determines what your brain chooses? Physics.

So everything you choose was predetermined before you were even born, because your genetic template was determined by you parents, your growing environment was determined by their pre-determined 'choice' to live where they did etc? All with the chance of quantum level fluctuations of course.

Yes.

As I said, I do not believe this and it is a philosophical question mostly. Also as we established, pure determinism doesn't exist within a purely materialistic worldview.

Like I said, I never claimed "pure" determinism. But, this is an argument much like the "god" argument. You can't prove anything either way, but I see no compelling proof of free will, so I do not assume one exists.

So it was pure chance that determined your 'choice' between hypothetical breakfasts. Because it could not have been determined at the beginning of time, at some point the possibility for you choosing the hypothetical coffee and bread did exist. But since you actually cannot make such a choice, something else must have realized the outcome in favor of the hypothehical cereal. Something, if you will, must have collapsed the wave function for either of the two being your breakfast.

And you think this to be the inherent chance in the laws of physics? Just to be clear on the subject.

Yes.

And yet earlier you said

Water is not more than hydrogen and oxygen.

clearly discounting the structure they are at. The bond between them is more than just oxygen and hydrogen. The bond is an emergent property of structure, of the relative locations of for the atoms and their mutual interaction, making the total sum called 'water' more than just the physical elements that make it up. One cannot understand the behaviour and properties of water entirely by simply studying oxygen and hydrogen.

You seem to understand this, but do not apply it.

I agree there are perceivable emergent properties, to claim otherwise would be madness. I don't consider the bond between them to be more than oxygen and hydrogen, it is how they react given how their electrons are distributed. To me "more" assumes 1+1=3, when in chemistry everything always balances out.

If we reduce the brain to simply neurons and study them individually, naturally we do not see consciousness or free will. And yet, on the basis of a single neuron you are prepared to discount the whole entirety of brain as something without the ability to choose.

Reducing them to simply neurons isn't equal to studying them individually. See my previous point.

Just as water is more than just the sum of its parts (oxygen and hydrogen), I believe the brain to be such also: free will, the ability to choose, is an emergent ability of the brain as a whole, the result of millions of neurons (individually incapable of decision making) forming an intricate and complex struture that is more than just simple neurons bunched together; where the structure is just as important as the elements that it is formed of. Something that gives us the ability to think and choose not because it somehow defeats the laws of physics, but because it uses them in a way no individual part of it could.

And again, I think it gives us the illusion of free will, not free will as such.

The bond between the atoms belongs to neither. It is a function of structure the two atoms create in suitable conditions.

The bond is possible due to the properties of the atoms, and thus, can be predicted. It is a matter of semantics to argue whether the bond belongs to neither of them or in parts to both of them, but I don't see how this helps the argument of free will either way.

Technically, I don't. For practical purposes I do, but again, that's different from theory. From the point of view of physics, human beings are categorically not very different from glue.

Only if you discount the entirety, ignore the structure in favor of individual elements isolated for study.

Yes, which is what it all comes down to. The perceived emergent properties of the structures in our universe all obey particle physics, not the other way around.

For some reason I am getting the feel that you hold theory and reality to be separate from eachother. As you said, you technically do not see any conceptual, theoretical difference between a chair and a table. If this is the case, How can you have a theoretical difference between the door and the house it is in?

If, in theory, everything was made from uniform matter, you say you would see no theoretical difference between the road and the car. And yet admit that in practice this is not the case.

You sir, have a faulty theory. If reality contradicts it, the theory must be modified or discarded.

Just because it's counter-intuitive, doesn't mean it's false. Just because on a quantum level a door is no different from the house it is in, doesn't mean that on a molecular level it isn't.

If you are not, then you are implicitly admitting that the structure as well as the materials define what something is and what it isn't.

It defines what something is on the scale that we can sense, not necessarily beyond that.

Certainly you are not implying that in chemistry form and structure matter, but in physics they do not? That the laws produce different results depending on the point of view you have at them?

The laws of physics govern chemistry as well, however, there seems to be a terminological difference depending on your approach. Which seems to be our problem.

For reference, just in case you think form and structure are inconsequential in physics, ask yourself why the invention of the arch was such a revolution of construction in ancient times.

Form is consequential. The structure of the elements is consequential. This is an inescapable fact of reality.

I do not believe I have argued that "form never matters", if I said that, I misspoke and apologize. I felt that you seem to feel that emergent properties of molecular structures can control quantum level events, which I don't believe they can. I attempted to point out that whatever emergent attributes you can assign to a given structure, does not in any way prove free will. Alas, I failed.

As to what this has to do with free will? Quoting myself: "I believe... free will, the ability to choose, is an emergent ability of the brain as a whole, the result of millions of neurons (individually incapable of decision making) forming an intricate and complex struture that is more than just simple neurons bunched together; where the structure is just as important as the elements that it is formed of. Something that gives us the ability to think and choose not because it somehow defeats the laws of physics, but because it uses them in a way no individual part of it could."

Like I said, I don't find this proof of free will. And since you said you weren't trying to prove it... I'm not entirely sure what we're discussing here.

 

[Zacharine]

The laws of physics govern chemistry as well, however, there seems to be a terminological difference depending on your approach. Which seems to be our problem.

Which is partly why I said earlier that we agree on quite a lot, but view it from a different angle.

I felt that you seem to feel that emergent properties of molecular structures can control quantum level events, which I don't believe they can.

Neither do I, but I do believe that they can effect macroscopic events. Such as the firing of specific neurons over others.

I attempted to point out that whatever emergent attributes you can assign to a given structure, does not in any way prove free will. Alas, I failed.

And this is the philosphical difference between us. To me, counsciousness and ability to choose are emergent attributes of the brain, self-evident once you have the required complexity in a neural network.

From my point of view, you are choosing to ignore these emergent qualities and instead see them as some kind of lie or distortion of reality born from faulty perception and instead see apparent choices as inescapable results of a causational chain.

Like I said, I don't find this proof of free will. And since you said you weren't trying to prove it... I'm not entirely sure what we're discussing here.

We are dicussing our views on if free will exists or not. I never intended to prove free will, nor did I except you to prove there is not. As I said earlier, this is fundamentally a philosophical question that cannot be proven one way or another. You shared you reasons for not believing, now I have shown you my reasons for believing. I showed you (or at least attempted to show) possible holes and mistakes in your reasoning. I regard your arguments against mine as a welcome challenge of logic and a test on my ability to defend my philosophical views.

I must say, I had fun. Learning always is.

And I am glad you freely chose to continue our discussion beyond a simple post or two

 

[Sad Robot]

As for whether this is a philosophical or scientific argument, I don't know. That's a terminological mess I'm not equipped to answer, so I might as well agree with you. Yet, I do feel it is, like everything, fundamentally a scientific question, but in lack of definitive evidence either way (like with the god debates; you can't prove that something doesn't exist and you don't have convincing evidence to the contrary) it ends up a philosophical battle of wits.

Neither do I, but I do believe that they can effect macroscopic events. Such as the firing of specific neurons over others.

I don't disgree with what you're saying here. Of course they can affect macroscopic events, I just find that these original actions as well as the actions they cause are, in the end, all quantum level fluctuation we have no control over...

And I am glad you freely chose to continue our discussion beyond a simple post or two

Ha! But yes, I enjoy chatting with someone who actually comes off as educated and reasonable, even if I ultimately disagree.

So often on these boards and elsewhere I get the feeling people are just taking the piss out of me...

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

To be honest, alot of what you and the person from whom you took that quote really just sounds like the ramblings of someone with waaaaaaaay too much time on their hands.

The person I translated the quote from is the professor of theoretical physics (previously professor of cosmology) at the University of Helsinki. He has has written several books that popularize physics for which he has won several awards. He has also been granted the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation Physics Award for his efforts in particle physics and cosmology.

I assume all of this is naturally obscure information for those who are not from Finland, but he is a relatively accomplished scientist nevertheless.

Besides, while the concept that the laws of physics dictate that the events of the universe are preordained sounds very convenient as a manner in which to make sense of the question why, it doesn't really seem to take into account enough variables.

What do you mean... variables other than physics?

Err... Let me explain as I was rather tired at the time of writing. Firstly one of the reasons that I don't quite agree with what this guy is saying is because while something like determinism might make sense in regards to a small number of particles, when you actually consider the sheer magnitude of atoms and such it would require to create a working brain it just becomes far too complex and the effects of chaos theory start to take hold, and the only thing you can really be sure of is that you aren't sure what is going to happen next. Secondly it doesn't really seem very much like a genuine science to me to be honest. What I mean by that is that it doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that you could put into the scientific method particularly well, and thus to myself, doesn't really seem like much of a science. Lastly, and this is actually a problem that I have with most all theoretical physics and whatnot, is that it bears absolutely no manner of practical knowlege, much like string theory, and the like, sure it is very interesting to ponder, but at the end of the day it really just seems like the jabberings on of a maddened marionette puppeteer.

 

[Sad Robot]

Err... Let me explain as I was rather tired at the time of writing. Firstly one of the reasons that I don't quite agree with what this guy is saying is because while something like determinism might make sense in regards to a small number of particles, when you actually consider the sheer magnitude of atoms and such it would require to create a working brain it just becomes far too complex and the effects of chaos theory start to take hold, and the only thing you can really be sure of is that you aren't sure what is going to happen next.

Erm, what? I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. Life is extremely orderly, and it replicates itself. How life came to be in the first place, is still something of a mystery.

And, as far as I understand, the quote makes not explicit reference to "pure" determinism and I think you're talking about something else entirely.

Secondly it doesn't really seem very much like a genuine science to me to be honest. What I mean by that is that it doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that you could put into the scientific method particularly well, and thus to myself, doesn't really seem like much of a science.

What doesn't seem like a genuine science to you? Physics and chemistry? SakSak argued that, given the lack of definitive evidence, this debate is more a philosophical one, and in a sense I agree. It is based on physics but it is not a fool proof theory, rahter what I, and some others, consider the most rational one.

Lastly, and this is actually a problem that I have with most all theoretical physics and whatnot, is that it bears absolutely no manner of practical knowlege, much like string theory, and the like, sure it is very interesting to ponder, but at the end of the day it really just seems like the jabberings on of a maddened marionette puppeteer.

This isn't really a argument against anything, is it? You're just stating your personal dislike towards a discipline. I wouldn't agree, however, as much as theoretical understanding of the universe may not always be directly applicable (though it often is) in any technological sense, it can help one understand more about the universe and that's sort of an end in itself, which goes on to shape one as a human being.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

This isn't really a argument against anything, is it? You're just stating your personal dislike towards a discipline.

Yargh, I've been caught. More or less yes, but that is mostly because I am trying to find fault with something I admittedly don't understand very well anyways (the theory not the concept of physics) I suppose my belief is that while yes our thoughts and whatnot are implemented through physics and chemistry, I believe that it works the opposite the way that the theory proposes it. After all if we can cause a ball to roll across a surface, why could we not cause our own minds to think?

 

[Sad Robot]

After all if we can cause a ball to roll across a surface, why could we not cause our own minds to think?

We do think, that's not up to debate, as far as I understand.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

After all if we can cause a ball to roll across a surface, why could we not cause our own minds to think?

We do think, that's not up to debate, as far as I understand.

Just go back and see SakSak's arguments because I read those and those are more or less what I think, and they are phrased better. Albeit I think the key difference between ideals in regards to us (and SakSak) is the scale we think on, and to be honest I believe you think too small. And that the Steven Speildberg Quantum Superhero guy that he posted is actually surprisingly relavent.

 

[Marcus Dubious]

If you need to ask then NO.

 

[munkyforce]

I think that perhaps there is in fact limited free will. (What a cop out I know). I feel that free will exists to the extent that our biological and socially driven needs can actually be in conflict. I think that where they are in conflict we have room to exercise free will.

 

[skyfire_freckles]

I agree up to the point where you say "could".

In any given situation we make choices, we don't truly make a choice, but instead choose based on so many factors, so many variables, we could never (as simple humans) understand what factors caused us to make the choices we did.

Maybe I chose to do something completely wild, because my personality wants to choose something wild, not because free choice exists.

This very thread creates patterns in our minds, which causes later choices in people.. if you choose to change your mind about any future choices as proof hat choice exists, you prove that it does not.. you were influenced by this thread to make the different choice, not chosen by yourself.

So what do you base this theory on?

Okay. To respond to both of you, tho I know it's much later.

I know I could have chosen differently, tho I probably wouldn't have, because there were other options to choose from. It's as simple as that. Either we are fated to choose a certain way because of all of these factors, and we have no control, or, as it seems to be, we constantly make decisions that affect future events and decisions. Knowing that I am required to accept responsibility for the consequences of my decisions convinces me beyond a doubt that I have free will.

Is this something I simply decided to believe? Certainly. I have no illusions about that. I edited my initial post to include some song lyrics that illustrate this beautifully. I will choose the path that's clear; I will choose free will.

My point being that it is utterly irrelevant if we don't have free will, because either we will act as though we do because it is fate, or we will act as though we do because it has the best results in our lives.

 

[Sad Robot]

Albeit I think the key difference between ideals in regards to us (and SakSak) is the scale we think on, and to be honest I believe you think too small. And that the Steven Speildberg Quantum Superhero guy that he posted is actually surprisingly relavent.

My sense of scale may be off, I'll give you that, I'm far from an expert in this field, I'm just going by what seems plausible to my partially educated mind. However, I don't think "thinking too small" is necessarily the error of the physicist I quoted in my original post, a professor of cosmology.

 

[Ryuk2]

He is right, but still we are our brains and we are what our brains tell us to do, so yeah, we have free will. If we had no free will, would that guy say something like that? We have the much control over our mind, we can act how we want in any situation.
If a car was driving my way the brain would say that i have to get out of the way, but i can still stand and way to get hit by the car. Or does that mean that molecules made a mistake.

 

[AutumnGold]

yes. im gonna exert mine right now by telling you your a fucking idiot

That you believe you are in control of your actions doesn't prove you are. It's only your experience of it.

riddle me this then eh? If i put a gun to my head whats stopping me from pulling the trigger? I am. Whose stopping me from walking down the street and mugging or beating someone? I am. We are each our own person and we are in control of what we do. Im not saying theres no God ( Im christian and all) but we are in control of our own actions and should be held responsable for such.

Tell me if theres something thats controlling us all like little marionettes in a play why would they let us even debate if we had free will? that would only lead to question and riot. If you were the puppeteer would you want your minions questioning your actions? thats where mutiny comes in.

We are our own people free to make our own decisions and we are different than everyone else because of it. Yes there is the government and the law that keeps us in place but thats police power at work. They're working for our good to keep us safe. And when people do deserve punishment thats where the judicial system comes in. Now i don't know if your from the US the UK or wherever the hell your from but you sure as hell have some kind of laws as long as your not typing from the middle of a rain forest or some place.

So what now smart ass? Wheres your bullshit logic now?