The notion that free will does not exist.

Point by point... "Difficult, yes, but you suggest that theoretically some algorithm would be able to do this. Unless you're changing your position and now concede we have something determinable after the fact but not before?" We're really splitting hairs here, in theory it's possible yes, but like many theories it is not realistic. If you, in real life, were there with a person every second of every moment and could read his thoughts and/or mood then you could definitely determine what he would do in that situation. However, since determinism is a constant force realistically it would not be possible to do that. I'm not conceding I'm just trying to give a clear picture of what I mean. "If the spectrum of preferences could be expressed in such a neat dichotomy, they could have arisen from the sort of conditioning you suggest, but you admit human will is more complicated. A rebellious person may choose red because he thinks you're secretly trying to make him pick blue by suggesting the opposite. Or he may think that choice is precisely what you're trying to make him think, so he takes it a step further and goes back to blue. Nothing can then predict where he'll end this chain of logic. It's not enough to say, "No one knows why he chose this, therefore there must be an unknown cause." If anything, wouldn't it be simpler (since you like the simplest solution) to say, "I don't know why he chose this, so perhaps this choice was indeterminable"?" I'm going to address this without directly speaking of the Bob scenario because it will undoubtedly become too confusing for either one of us to remember our own arguments. Is there truly such a thing as chaos? Or as is much more logical to accept chaos is simply a point to where there are so many factors that it is no longer worth it to calculate all the different factors and their effects on the system. I would say the same with a person's decision, there are too many factors to calculate realistically the person's choice before it happens; however, that doesn't mean that it is indeterminable. Just as there may be too many factors in a system to calculate what the system is doing but that doesn't mean that the system is in chaos. "There's plenty I don't understand about the subject, but it seems it's the indeterminate nature of a particle's state before observation that rocked the scientific community. Not only is the state indeterminate because people cannot determine it - it's indeterminate in that it literally exists in two forms initially, creating branches in the otherwise supposedly straight causal chain." I read an article that suggests that at the quantum level when you see what you just described "it literally exists in two forms initially" that the universe is splitting into two universes and that it does this constantly. I'm having trouble finding the article, it was on the Telegraph newspaper's website. Now this could explain why it seems random. Not that it truly is random but that it in it's nature splits constantly creating multiple realities. It's in no way verifiable but an interesting thought nonetheless and serves on my part to show that there very well could be a logical reason to the "randomness" of the quantum world. "Which means... everything is justified? Just confirming: you are claiming everyone is amoral?" Yes I believe morals are completely subjective. "Yet isn't there a struggle when a sufferer tries to overcome the forces within him? How would you describe that struggle? I would call it voluntary, rational will fighting involuntary, irrational, possible random urges. Furthermore, don't you agree that we perceive a difference between ourselves and such people driven by involuntary impulses? If no difference exists, what is this difference we observe and feel?" Your right some fight to overcome this specific cause and others accept it. So what caused the ones to fight and what caused the others to accept? Will itself is a cause to the effect of fighting. That will could come from a number of things teasing, not wanting to be identified by your disease, et cetera. I don't get your question. I think you're saying what's different between us and those who have these problems for which I've already stated that they simply have a longer list of causes. If that is not what you were trying to say please reword and ask again. "How is the absence of free will demonstrable? Quite apart from the difficulty of proving something absence, your original proof for its absence rests chiefly on absence of proof of its presence." It is not but determinism itself is and is the very definition of demonstrability. To show a direct correlation between two objects is our test for everything. In that way determinism is demonstrable thus meaning that it exists in all of the material world including the human mind and body. "Slipping a little off-topic now: how would you define consciousness?" Here's an explanation that's been sitting in my hard drive for some time now: "Being" (or, rather, who you are in your entirety) is not a substantial agent, much in like a foundation for a building. I believe that this thought is absurd - being is structured, but not upon itself, but rather, the material universe (the brain, the senses, et cetera), hence, fundamentally, the "I" is materialistic, not dualistic. It is in this sense that all actions of "being" are not actions of "being" itself. "Being", rather, is a categorical of all the causal relations, all inherently material in nature, given to play in any given context. What does this mean? What I mean is that there is no "I" from which all outside things accumulate around. My argument is that the "I" is an encompassing generalization of all the things external to our being which directly interact with the psyche through means of material deterministic causality, hence all aspects of our psyche are directly inherited from external material sources. Our psyche also has the ability to synthesize information, categorize, abstract, symbolize, et cetera - all of these processes, although perceivable "internal" to ourselves and "external" to the world around us are all done by material processes within the brain. It is here that we discover the duality from which many misconceptions about the self arise - self awareness. The notion of "internal to ourselves" and "external to the world" are creating a false duality of "being" as a substantial agent. The true fact is that, subjectively, all things absolutely are inclusive to the "I" (meaning anything that is thought, perceived; any phenomena is part of the 'foundationless' structure of our being), and, objectively, all of these subjective phenomena (the "I") are inclusive of the objective universe, meaning they are all material and temporal entities. This is the concept of Heidegger's "Dasein" - that the "I" is a temporal being that is not a substantial agent, but rather, context; the "I" is context (and I mean this very literately). The statement that all appropriations of our being (actions, decisions, choice) are determinable naturally follows, as it is included in all of the precepts of the definition of "being".