Compatibilism

>>2398686
There are many alternatives to free will besides predetermination. For example, even if the future was not determined due to the future being contingent on a random quantum event, thus not predetermined, a random quantum event does not qualify as free will; just randomness.

>>2398686
Depends on how you look at "needing" and "urges".
I think it's more of a perspective issue, when needing something you are thinking about it (obsessively) and so are much more likely to take an action regarding that need. It doesn't mean you HAVE to take a action that takes care of that need but much more likely.

The needs/urges are pretty predetermined in chemical brain issues thingies. though the action taken is the consciousness question {What is it? Does consciousness determine reality, is it something that defines everything, is it free will, how does it even work?}.

It's like opening the refrigerator filled with beer, the changes that I get something from this refrigerator that is a beer are very very likely because everything I can get from it is beer. {But hey I can still close it and do something completely different, or drink some water from the tap, warm soda from outside the refrigerator}.

Determinism, free will and compatibilism are stupid questions based on physics that haven't yet been discovered.

>>2398686
For the millionth time, free will is not in any way related to determinism. It cannot exist, determinism or not. I wonder if it's the same person makong these asinine threads or if there's an infinite pool of new asshats.

The ego, our seat of autonomy, doesn't even exist until we're around 4, and by then our minds have already been completely fucked by culture, so no

>>2399437
Further it is impossible to distinguish between conscious and unconscious behavior.

The brain is a biological and chemical machine, which makes decisions based on the information it receives from the external world through the senses connected to it. That machine is also you. That machine makes a decision and therefore you make that decision. The brain, of course, abides to physical laws and its behaviour is predetermined in the same sense as the behaviour of physical systems is predetermined.

This whole conversation just boils down to a hand-wavy 'definition' of free will. Y'all oughta study neuroscience if you want to make conclusions about the nature of consciousness and decision making.

Sam Harris is a crackpot.

>>2399521
What's the science behind inspiration?

>>2399522
Truth be told, we really don't know yet.
However, given that everything to date we've observed follows the same laws of physics, chemistry, etc., I'm inclined to believe the same about all human organs, including the brain.

Just because it's undiscovered, understudied, and complex doesn't mean that it has to have some trans-physical status. It very well could, but it's infinitely less likely.

>>2399574
But it seems that inspiration comes from processing information and reorganizing it over time until it is repackaged as an idea that corresponds with the world you've been absorbing.

>>2399522
Inspiration is a difficult concept to tackle. My hunch would say that since ideas usually combine numerous previous experiences, memories and ideas, during an epiphany or an inspiring experience some sort of cascade of ideas erupts where a previous idea triggers the next one. I'm not really sure.

As for the science, there really isn't a scientific definition for an 'idea'. The concept of a memory is under active study.

free will is a impossibility because it supposes that you can somehow effect the universe while being simultaneously unaffected by anything that happens (despite obvious empirical arguments to the contrary such as involuntarily becoming sad when your family dies), but this doesn't make you some sort of slave, to make an analogy, atoms aren't slaves to the laws of nature, atoms enforce the laws of nature

and nothing is predetermined because the sum of everything in the universe is impossible to fully predict and therefore determine, which is not to say that anything happens "at random"