If free will was not real

[RoadRunner79]

---

Will has nothing to do with decisions, at least as I define it.  It has to do with intent.

You can apply all this thinking to every aspect of personhood, not only free will.  The sense of self is also an illusion, and even consciousness itself can be thought of that way-- just a byproduct of brain function.  Even a solid surface exists only as an idea.  But these are all things which are part of human existence, and pretending they're not there is like saying, "Sand shouldn't exist. . . so all that sandy stuff out there is bullshit!"

But this isn't a very interesting view of reality.  My view is based on experience, not on an interpretation of a model of the universe.  I go out, walk around, and do whatever seems good according to my nature.

It's a strange question to ask me, since I've never asserted that free will means breaking the causal chain.  My terms have been well defined, I think, so asking me to answer on your terms is a little pointless.

You seem to assume that you decide what your intention is. You don't. Your intention originates in your brain (or you) however your brain/you still follow the causal chain therefore your intentions aren't free either. Your intentions are also fully determined, and if indeterminism is true and affects your intention then it's partly random and there's no free in random except free from determinism but not free for choice. So even by your definition "free intention" doesn't exist either in other words your intention isn't free.

Yeah, you're totally correct. Everything is the same thing in a sense, water is water not because it isn't made of the same thing fire is made of (in this context I'm talking about particles, that's the important bit) but because the particles that make water are organized in a unique way forming water, differentiating it from fire, we're just describing them with words. So, yes you can say everything is just an idea. I am a human being, the earth is a planet, we're called different words because we have different properties (the particles we consist of are organized in unique ways, giving us different properties) it's just our way of communicating. But fundamentally we're the same thing. I have as much free will as the earth has, we're both just a set of particles acting/moving according to the universe.

Talking about consciousness. If consciousness didn't exist a human would still be able to make decisions, act etc. It would just not be aware of it. Why? Because every single action is just the result of particles moving e.g your neural net interacting making your arm go here and there, you get the point. We're just conscious observers. I personally believe that consciousness is just a by product. Complexity and intelligence doesn't necessarily require consciousness afaik.

Anyway, sand does exist. When I say sand ultimately you can say I'm refering to particles organized in a certain way forming what we describe sand as. In the end they're all just particles organized in different ways forming different properties that we refer to with different words.

---

And it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, whether it's an interesting view of reality, if it's true it's true. And when you evaluate and something seems good to your nature even the process of that evaluation isn't ultimately your decision, it was either partly random or bound to happen exactly the way it happened.

Well then, if you agree that you cannot break the causal chain, problem solved. All your intentions, actions, desires and such are a part of the causal chain and you cannot do anything to do otherwise but you can imagine different things to do. However even those imaginations i.e what you'll imagine would also be a part of that causal chain, in other words not under your control ultimately speaking.

I gather, from your post, and a number of posts from others, that what is being expounded on here, is that choices are entirely a mechanistic process brought about by physical forces within the brain.   That given X in you will get Y out (with a  very complicated equation in between).   Wouldn't this also apply to any logic or rational you are using to determine this?   If what you are saying is true, then it would seem that you also have to free will to say whether yours or benny's logic is right or wrong.  Or that you can say it, but have no way to determine if one is more correct than the other.  Would you agree?