zapatos

It is a function generated by a specific configuration of physical properties, governed by the laws of physics. Just like everything else in the universe is. If you configure the physical properties a certain way you get a car, an animal, a reflex, or a free will. Just various levels of complexity. That doesn't mean that a car doesn't have unique functions and can be dismissed as 'just physics'. I mean, it can be, but that seems a rather simplistic view of a rather complex configuration of physical properties. On the other hand, if you want to say that free will is no more real than anything else in the universe I can get on board with that. But to single out free will from everything else in the universe seems arbitrary.

I responded in the thread you suggested.

I believe what likely controls me is my use of free will, which is a function of humans, implemented by chemical reactions, electrical impulses, structure, etc. Free will seems an ability of humans, just like an ability to do math, have emotions, or appreciate art. I didn't read all that you linked to, but what I did showed that it appeared some decisions under specific circumstances (quick decisions on choices for example) might be the result of chemical reactions prior to a conscious choice. But that to me is far from conclusive evidence that we have no free will. Just as bacteria can be considered part of human digestion, chemical reactions may be part of how free will is built into humans. The study you linked to may be more akin to a 'low level' of free will under certain specific situations, just as reflexes are a low level brain function under certain specific stimuli. I fully accept that free will is not some stand-alone, independent function, but it seems just as likely that it is not a remote controlled function either.

Sticking point for me too, but because I'm not convinced the chemical interactions control me. Does the chemical reaction cause me to choose something, or allow me to choose something? Theoretically if chemical reactions are the causes of my choices, then given enough data you should be able to predict everything I think, say and do. I have no doubt I'm influenced by things out of my control, but I'm not convinced they have total control.

Again, neither I nor anyone said it was. You said our control was an illusion and I showed where I had partial control, and you repeated that it was an illusion. You seem to move the goalposts back and forth from "it is an illusion" to "it is limited". I position myself differently depending on what we are talking about. I have more control over my drinking than I have over Western Culture. I don't think I claimed that my positioning on the spectrum leads to peace.

No, I understood your point completely. I disagree with it, and provided examples of the way in which I do have control. If you want to present an argument that my examples are in fact an illusion on my part, please do so. But just repeating that you are right and I am wrong is getting us nowhere.

Yes, I have some degree of control over my culture and my ability to alcohol. I can drink or not; my choice. I can drink some then stop. I can spread out my drinking so that I can drink longer/more. I can drink socially or to get hammered. All under my control. If I want to be able to drink more I can build up my tolerance. I can participate in aspects of my culture or not; my choice. I can help fund one part of my culture while withhold funds from another. I can actively work to make changes in my culture. All have an impact on the culture and the people in it. I can also work to develop inner peace. Whether or not some people gain inner peace is not something that is completely outside their control. I suspect that for some of those here, that inner peace is something they take some degree of responsibility for having.

You're going to have to start mentioning your constraints when you ask your questions, otherwise we're never going to get anywhere. If you want to know if we can control how drunk we get after a bottle of whiskey, then that is the question you should ask. You can't expect us to somehow know you were talking about someone spiking our drinks, when the thread is about inner peace. Acting baffled that we didn't somehow know that is what you were getting at is only going to piss people off (see any of koti's responses to you).

Much, much better! Thank you!

I have complete control over my ability to imbibe alcohol and limited control over my culture.

Seriously? You want me to answer this same question again? Or are you again trying to make a point that is only clear to you? I've followed your discussions on this topic before, and while I agree they are fascinating, I'm not sure that it's generally accepted that we 'likely lack freewill'.

Well, you never did concede the point though, which I think is what we are getting at here. You simply stated that I caught you on a technicality that would make your unfortunately worded point incorrect if I wanted to be pedantic about it, but continued to stress that you were fundamentally right and we were just taking things out of context. Bottom line is you think we don't really have any control over ourselves, and we think we do.

Can you please show me where I muddied the waters by claiming in any way to have "ultimate control of myself"?

Well, one of us is muddying the water here but I'm not sure it is me. Can you provide an example where I have no more control over myself than I do of you?

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, I have complete control over my ability to imbibe alcohol, but no ability to control your use of alcohol. Alcohol and culture have influence over me, however I can take steps to limit that influence for myself but not for you. Hence, I have more control over myself than I do others.

That is patently false and easily proven so. You should add the appropriate qualifiers when you make these statements.

This site is becoming almost unusable for me. Is this still a wide ranging problem for most?

You won't if you ignore my suggestion to read through the thread again. As I suspected you haven't really been paying attention to what people are posting and instead seem to be looking for a battle. I've already stated what it means to me in the third post of this thread, although others here have caused me to think more deeply about it.

I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but I'd suggest you start reading this thread again from the beginning, paying particular attention to Prometheus and dimreepr. They seem to have a good grip on the subtleties, but even a dictionary definition will be an improvement over what you are discussing. Also read your own posts; they are a great example of what inner peace is not. Using lobotomies in your examples, or couch potatoes vs. joggers, indicates you think inner peace is achieved by finding an activity your like, or feeling nothing at all.

I really don't think you understand the concept of 'inner peace'.

Ah, so the purpose of this thread was to give you another avenue to complain. Sorry I enabled you.

Given that Sanders is not a Democrat, was it unreasonable for the Democratic party to favor Clinton over Sanders?

It also cannot travel AT light speed. Which I think is what Silvestru was getting at.

Any chance we can get a citation? From what I can find it looks like many professional fighters feel that being angry puts them at risk of making mistakes, over committing, etc. Another reason to seek inner peace perhaps.

Yes, he should remain on topic like the past dozen or so posts were. Sometimes this place really makes me laugh.