well the two decisions were based on two different lines of thinking. both of them have been considered by your mind at many points in the past. it would depend on which world view you subscribe to, for example "im going to treat myself yolo" or "too much sugar, i shouldnt."

I do understand that its not really speaking relative to the study structure. but in essence there's a lot more complexity that the decision is ultimately built upon.

there's no consideration to the effect of the subconscious on decisions you make and free will. No consideration to basal levels of brain activity, or basal levels of neurotransmitters, or possible gateway effects for amplification or neuronal signaling.

of*

So there is still a lot more research(if even currently possible) before we can truly determine if we can freely choose?

theres a lot more research needed to answer a lot simpler questions, before we ever have what it takes to tackle free will

So would you agree that siting this in an argument against a God given free will is actually futile because of its theoretical nature?

well, I wouldn't say its futile, but I don't think it will lead to a distinct result, it will have the benefit of it being an argumentative exercise i suppose

I just think that to lean on the side of biological determinism is to absolve yourself of the responsibility of making a choice. philosophically speaking I dont think its beneficial

What do you think of the Pangburn pleasure drive hypothesis?

I haven't looked into it or read

is there a link?

No but I'm sure if you ask Travis he'll gladly spell it out. I think he hypothesizes that the choice that you make will ultimately be the one that results in the most pleasure.

hmm, i wouldnt like to say what i think unless i know more about what he hypothesizes

because from what you said, one could easily make the counter-argument that people make choices that lead to miserable dead ends all the time.

It would seem that way at least a lot of the time

But I would argue that a moral foundation could counter the pleasure drive

again, I dont know the specifics of his hypothesis, but if its just as simple as you laid it out, then certainly that would be an argument.

I'm sure it is more than that but that is the basic principle as far as I can tell

Ther did no decision you can make that couldn’t be correctly categorized as an effect of causes that occurred previously in your life

But you don't think that the building up of a strong moral foundation could counter the effect of those occurrences?

Okay let’s go through this then

A strong moral foundation is just a schema for decision making

At even causes one to build up such a foundation? Your parents, society, natural temperament aka outside causes

So you don't believe an immoral person can reach a point in his/her life and choose at that point to become a moral person?

You could

But that would happen due to some shift in outside circumstance

One sees the error in their ways. But they see it for a reason. And they have to see it to change. Outside cause

And it would be inevitable then that the change would happen?

Given every other cause and effect that has occurred throughout all time? Yes

One Question to All..

Science, The Perfect Execution of It. Could it be Done be a Program, Computer program, Without Subjectivity ?

Could Science which Essentially is a Process be Compressed to a Formula ?

I am Interested how this Formula For Each of you would look like...

Could it be Automated if So.

Theoretically yes. But a computer couldn’t run all the experiments we can. It takes too much creativity to set up experiments and generate hypotheses

So You Say it takes Creativity to Exercise Science ?

I think it takes creativity and imagination to come up with the initial hypothesis before you test it with science.

It takes some science to generate hypotheses

Creativity*

Would You Describe Creativity as the Same MoveMent as Evolution ? Trial and Error ?