Determinism.....

[Violet]

This is the thing. The evidence doesn't show that the conscious mind "justifies" the decision made by the subconscious, but is told by the subconscious what to think. Your body made the decision, but that doesn't mean it was a free choice. You are oversimplifying the concept of free will by saying that all choices, irrelevant of where they are made, means the subject has free will. Thus you could argue that on this definition, all animals have free will, even those which we observe to act instinctualy.

Free will for me means that your conscious choice is the original (or deciding) choice. By my definition, we have no free will; by your definition, we do (but then so does everything, including a computer since it is also making decisions...)

The body made the decision? Really? Then why have a brain at all? I has smart body

The brain made the decision... something that thought about the choice. That means that the something that thought about the choice was free. Our personality, decisions, and everything in the body is controlled by our mind. There is no programed instinct in choice. None... because an instinct is no different from a computer: a simple program. A reflex. There is no choice in reflex.

Not all of life has free will... that is why I say that some life is a biological machine... and some machines are synthetic life. For it is possible to be alive... and still not live. You could not argue that an instinct, a programmed reflex, is any different than the subroutines of a computer. There is no choice in it, therefore there is no free will. Free will is 100% based upon the ability to choose.

No, but then if you go and write about how the sub-conscious can't think or isn't aware of our surroundings, I will call you on the bullshit. I don't insist I am right, unlike yourself. I use the evidence that scientists (mainly neuroscientists) have provided. You make it up on the spot.

You do insist you are right though. You argued against infinite limits to try to validate .9^=1 because it has a small mathematical following in that thread, and you are arguing against our ability to choose to validate that the subconscious is not us because this theory has a small neuroscientific following. Please stop arguing from 'establishment'... it's driving me nuts.

The subconscious, as I said in my last post... is inferior if it is labeled properly. It remains a part of us, and it is a subject that we do not yet have much more than theories and observations to support. You use evidence you say... so show me evidence. I am a skeptic by nature, and forgive me if I do not believe things just because I am told that 'scientists' think so. I must justify things by me... for I will not believe things without reason to. I may have written an observation off of the top of my head, but that makes it no less valid an observation than one idea written of the top of one's head, and edited 50 times to look better.

I never said the subconscious always did the "right" thing. I'm surprised that you think "right" and "wrong" are real concepts, when truthfully we can only say they are subjective. Without free will, I'd say that nothing is "wrong", and nothing is "right" either. We aren't in control of our actions at all. But that has nothing to do with the validity of the concept of us being a slave to the subconscious mind.

By 'right' and 'wrong', I mean correct and incorrect. I'm overlooked that you might have thought I was referring moral standing... I apologize for the miscommunication. For clarity, I'll call it 'correct/incorrect' from here. And yes, I do think that things can be correct or incorrect... for example: 1=10 is incorrect. 1=1 is correct.

You evidently didn't understand the experiment that I was talking about. The point is, the evidence doesn't say you can "take the initiative at the last moment and seize the blue one". It says that all the conscious mind is is a slave to the subconscious. Even if you were thinking at the last possible moment "I'm going to take the blue one", your subconscious had already made that decision moments before.

Ah, I see what you were trying to say in that instance. As a question of interest: Why does that make your choice any less valid? The subconscious is a part of you... That you decided on it before you acted: isn't that simply called 'wisdom'?

If you really think that the name of something bears total descriptive properties of that thing, then you are clearly a moron. Please don't embarrass yourself again by bringing up such a pathetic argument unless you want to explain how it has any bearing on what we are talking about here.

I think a name should be descriptive... for what other reasons would something have a name? If I call everything 'Chair'... then what does it mean? Not much, to be honest. However, if I use 'chair' to refer to a specific thing: then the properties of all chairs should be similar so far as the definition has placed. It has tremendous bearing on what we are talking about: The subconscious is a mislabeled word IF, and only if it is greater than or equal to consciousness. Simply: if consciousness is the subconscious's slave: then it is the conscious that is lesser, and the term 'subconscious' should be redefined to match what is being described. Call me a moron with an embarrassing argument if you wish... it does not make the argument any less valid.