>So do we really have a choice? Or do we just obey what our mind perceives to be reasonable course in action?

I would phrase this as you respond to the challenge of the world at each moment

There was evidence in his own terms

That would also imply that we "obey"

"I would phrase this as you respond to the challenge of the world at each moment"

Am I truly challenging the world? Or am I just reacting to what I am supposed to do due to the pre-events determining my course of forming these sort of thoughts?

Are you even real people or am I asleep?

You are reacting

Let me give you solid proof

aight

Put your hand in icy cold water for an hour

Ah the reflex

Should be below 20 Deg Celsius Idk what that is for fahrenheit

Or something else

Just one of millions

alrite

Use heroin

Where is your free will now

Drink 7 beers in a row

Oh I guess your chemical state had a direct effect on your consciousness

i mean are you just saying we're subject to cause and effect...?

Yes

YES

There is NO

"Oh I guess your chemical state had a direct effect on your consciousness"

proof to suggest otherwise

Also YES on that thing

again, there are rationalist critiques of this stuff. David Hume posed epistemological problems for science which have never been overcome

On a side note, it is a rather deep feeling of acknowleding that we're part of a continuation of long past events.

That sense of continuity

dat dooty

The sooner you get over it the better

Yes I am quite happy to meet Schopenhauer.

However, nagarjuna

If you want to seriously argue against anything but strict determinism

You ought to analyze a mentally-handicapped person and observe his "free-will" and consciousness

>If you want to seriously argue against anything but strict determinism
what does this mean, if I want to argue against determinism?

If you want to suggest or imply that the world around us is not deterministic

Does a person intoxicated and doing shit he doesn't usually does

count as free will?

Or would it be within the purview of the brain's chemical's state?

I have no problem with determinism, fatalism is of course similar. to me the difference can even be expressed within science. If time is not a natural kind but rather an emergent property, then there is no determinism because there is really no temporal line in which one thing causes what happens "after" it. there is no after

I obviously cannot prove that time is not "real" but the topic does come up in science. for example there is no time for light i believe