Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[Skwim]

This is a large word salad of irrelevant things that address nothing stated. I understand what cause and effect are.

From your posts I wasn't that sure.

Explain to me the infallible laws of nature, or at least the laws a human being have given to nature. A finite human being with a brain that dies in a short time frame explaining infinite nature existing for infinity should be compelling. It would also be compelling for you to have examined the entire universe and know that the same laws apply everywhere in it.

Sorry. but I'd rather not try and take the thread off track. Maybe if you created a new thread it would be worthwhile.

.

 

[Repox]

Ever hear of a Bandwagon Argument? You just presented one.


Thing is, common sense ain't all that reliable. Consider the flat earth, or believing the guy who says "Nah, I'll pull out in time." And this is why evidence, hopefully incontrovertible evidence will be presented. Or lacking evidence, a damn good argument.


Not that interested, In fact, not nearly as interested as in hearing your explanation for

"how your 'freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect,"
​

Going to give it a shot or just continue to stonewall it?


Nah, it's because you have nothing else. You can't give us the "why," and everyone here knows it.

.

You ask for me to explain how free will exists "without using chains of cause and effect" when in reality everything is based on cause and effect. In case you don't understand, free will is based on cause and effect because it is part of the causal world, ha. ha. When one makes a free will choice it "causes something to happen," thus, cause and effect.

I am waiting for evidence for brain determinism, or, for a better description, human robotic behavior. The evidence for free will is overwhelming. However, if you live in a cocoon it may not be clear.

Blu 2's proposal for brain determinism must be one of the most far out, out of touch with reality theories ever proposed. Where is the evidence?

Oh, you must inform the owners of this religious forum that 1) God doesn't exist 2) humans are not responsible for their actions 3) The Bible is a joke, millions of believers are fools, 4) Proof is not required for one to believe, and last, but not least, idiots want to take over the forum.

 

[Skwim]

You ask for me to explain how free will exists "without using chains of cause and effect" when in reality everything is based on cause and effect. In case you don't understand, free will is based on cause and effect because it is part of the causal world, ha. ha. When one makes a free will choice it "causes something to happen," thus, cause and effect.

I am waiting for evidence for brain determinism, or, for a better description, human robotic behavior. The evidence for free will is overwhelming. However, if you live in a cocoon it may not be clear.

Blu 2's proposal for brain determinism must be one of the most far out, out of touch with reality theories ever proposed. Where is the evidence?

Oh, you must inform the owners of this religious forum that 1) God doesn't exist 2) humans are not responsible for their actions 3) The Bible is a joke, millions of believers are fools, 4) Proof is not required for one to believe, and last, but not least, idiots want to take over the forum.

How sad. How very sad.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Profound Realization]

I'd like to, but I need my brain to keep working. Or at least, I think I do.
Correct, from our PoV. But when we work backwards we learn more and more about the how, and the chemistry of the how. We work out how neurons cooperate. We work out how the units of the ant heap function together as a gestalt. And as we understand, we understand in better and better defined sequences of cause&effect. Not (at least at this stage) in exact descriptions of the complex; but in small, and then larger groups; and in more and more precise generalizations.
The biochemical brain, which produces the sense of self. I haven't brought myself right up to date for a while now, but when last I looked the 'global workspace' hypothesis of consciousness was the favored one, having already made a few satisfactory predictions, as a good hypothesis should.
But we're a pattern. Death is the collapse of the pattern because the biochemicals making it possible have lost their necessary coherences.
We know we're good at survival, because we're each one end product of an unbroken chain of life going back 3.5 billion years or more.

And we know we get some basic moral tendencies from our genes because every culture, we find, has these basics in common: child nurture and protection; a dislike of the one who harms; fairness and reciprocity; loyalty to the group; respect for authority; and a sense of self-worth or virtue through self-denial.
Not so. Otherwise the gestalt of the ants' nest is, in your terms, inexplicable.
How could they be anything else? Every brain, every group culture, is different ─ in its history, its elements, its capacities and so on.
And were that to happen, truth would change. Truth is simply our best understanding for the time being. It was once true to say the earth was flat. because that was the best opinion of the day.
What is the evidence of free will (free in the sense of being independent of complex chains of cause&effect)? I've been asking Repox for a step by step description of a brain making a decision independently of its biochemistry, but he can't do it. Can you?

You're explaining everything biophysically, which is fine by me. But it all breaks down when you can't explain the root cause from the external environment, particularly the cosmos. It's like stating that you know the origin of all and it's intent, that the laws are similar everywhere throughout all the unknown depths and fabrics and dimensions, that the quantum scale is all known. Perhaps the universe or God or whichever one wishes to call it, determined there to be free willed particles combined with deterministic particles. Or deterministic particles that can change into free particles or vice-versa. Ignoring the issues don't make them go away.

The collapse of a pattern and breaking up of the coherent biochemical bonds of "life" is an alternative way of saying: human beings and/or life are very unique, in fact the only kind known to exist in the universe, it is logical for them to have at least some laws that differ from their entire external environment.

You have given simplistic basic biophysical examples yet at the same time sneak the word "complex" in there, without explaining the complexity since it is unknown, while willingly admitting we can't predict. It's like the basis of your argument is this:
"The human brain and universe are so complex, unique, unknown, unable to predict so that means strict determinism."

It is not plausible for strict determinism to be all, yet chaotic human beings desiring justice and having a justice system not being a problem. It doesn't avoid this problem by stating "survival." It is just as valid as if I stated that animals/human beings evolved the capacities tied with free will in order to survive, capacities like generating options for themselves, contemplating over which is the best option, and having the will to then stick to their choice. Biological laws cannot be ruled as strictly deterministic from the observable level of brain function/nerve signal transmission.

We already know of free-particles that cant be predicted yet to suit your way of belief we just pretend they don't exist or assume one magical day down the road we will know they truly aren't free, but this isn't sufficient. It's the uncertainty principle. There is also chaos theory. Are you saying that uncertain and unpredictable particles do not exist within a human being?

That is a misleading statement, cause and effect are intermingled with free-will. I'll speak from an "academic-minded" perspective. A few things must be so for "free-will." 1. A random alternative possibility. 2. Adequate determination of the best action taken. There comes a point in time where things are "new," "fresh." You gave a wonderful example of one with truths changing. A random fresh, new thought or idea arose in someone(s) mind by chance. That thought was that the Earth may be spherical. There is your random alternative possibility that generated into someone's mind and the choice of action taken was evidently ultimately adequate, as it was pursued and as the outcome has changed many minds into believing/having knowledge of a spherical Earth, breaking the chains of cause and effect and starting a new series. The thought was free, the will was determined.

Example:as you've stated 3.5 billion years ago a random alternative possibility occurred, breaking the chains of cause and effect from the prior billions of years. Something new and fresh arose randomly by chance(so many say)...that is life. There really isn't a need to explain in further detail the adequate action of a fresh and brand new cycle of unique life the universe willed. Or was that strictly determined(predictable and caused from the beginning, and what was the causer?)

That is why it is misleading to give an example of free will without cause and effect, because they are together. Just as it would be dishonest of me asking you for the contrary. It's like past and present existing together. There is a cumulative string of causes and effects that occur in the past. An alternative random possibility of brand newness occurs in present mind. In examples, "life" and "brand new thought that never existed of a spherical earth".... those were very adequately pursued/willed. A new string of cause and effect occurs. In essence, the freedom is in our mind/thoughts... the will is then determined.

From your posts I wasn't that sure.


Sorry. but I'd rather not try and take the thread off track. Maybe if you created a new thread it would be worthwhile.

.

These unanswered questions are very integral in the beliefs of strict determinism and/or free will, my point primarily that it's not logically possible to determine strict determinism, so it wouldn't be off track.

 

[Profound Realization]

Kind of you to say so.
The reason that life forms (and their neural systems and their behaviors) are like they are is examined, described and largely explained by the theory of evolution. One little self-replicating cell armed with luck and evolution and three and half billion years to play with can travel to astonishing places.
No, it comes from the subtle rearrangement of biochemicals through evolution.

I like that word, "subtle."

Luck is another word for chance and random, another refute to strict determinism.
Unless you can state the universe or "God" or whatever determined "life" from the infinite reduction of cause. Strict determinism is another way of saying that everything happens for a reason. The reason for life is profound? Does their need be an intellectual reason or cause?

That is what I want you to explain and have been getting at. I keep mentioning the brain and its functioning coupled with the external environment of the cosmos from which it came. I want to know where those arrangements came from, from the external environment. A brand new fresh idea that randomly generates into someone's mind. The complex cells of "free-will beliefs/knowledge." From where in the external cosmos did those cells/biochemicals that contain information to even think or define "free-will" arrive from? Where did "illusionary cells/bio-chemicals arise from in our external environment? Were they armed in that one self-replicating cell?

 

[Skwim]

These unanswered questions are very integral in the beliefs of strict determinism and/or free will, my point primarily that it's not logically possible to determine strict determinism, so it wouldn't be off track.

Rather than go down avenues I don't feel are productive I've chosen to present my position by video.---just came across it a couple of days ago.

The following pretty much mirrors my thinking on determinism and free will (It's only 10 minutes long, and quite well done).

ENJOY

.

.​

 

[blü 2]

you can't explain the root cause from the external environment, particularly the cosmos.

What do you mean, root cause? It seems reasonable to me that the universe is made of energy ─ some would call it mass-energy ─ and everything in the universe is a form or property of it. That's the root of everything, from the existence of the dimensions and time, to the forces, to the whiskers on a mouse.

Perhaps the universe or God or whichever one wishes to call it, determined there to be free willed particles combined with deterministic particles.

For want of credible options I'm a materialist, Jack Smart and David Armstrong defined materialism as the understanding that the only entities and processes that exist are those known to physics at any particular time, That makes excellent sense to me: all the rest are hypotheses with greater or lesser likelihood of being true. When we have no reason to think something exists, we have no reason to spend too much time fretting it. Should it turn out to be a real problem we can deal with it then. In the meantime it'd just be a game.

Or deterministic particles that can change into free particles

That could only mean particles that normally behave deterministically but sometimes might behave randomly, no? What else could it mean?

The collapse of a pattern and breaking up of the coherent biochemical bonds of "life" is an alternative way of saying: human beings and/or life are very unique.

More accurately, they're of a kind, with individual variations. Nothing we presently know requires them to be the product of more laws of nature than we presently know,

You have given simplistic basic biophysical examples yet at the same time sneak the word "complex" in there, without explaining the complexity since it is unknown

Surely you've seen maps of the brain? Descriptions of neurons and the way they make and unmake connections in response to the stimuli of other neurons and their own environment? There are billions of neurons and their interplay is rightly called complex. But it's all within the bounds of biochemistry. No special pleading for magical categories has been found necessary to date.

It is not plausible for strict determinism to be all

The argument from incredulity is a fallacious argument. If you want to say it's too complex for biochemistry, find some reputable science that shows this.

That is why it is misleading to give an example of free will without cause and effect, because they are together.

Okay, talk me through an example of a brain making a decision using cause&effect and this extra something that isn't randomness ─

What is it?
Where does it come from?
How does it interact with the biochemistry?
By what internal process does it make up its own mind to interfere in one particular way rather than another?
How do you know?​

 

[Profound Realization]

Rather than go down avenues I don't feel are productive I've chosen to present my position by video.---just came across it a couple of days ago.

The following pretty much mirrors my thinking on determinism and free will (It's only 10 minutes long, and quite well done).

ENJOY

.

.​

I can appreciate your perspective. I know of determinism and it's evidences, it's just not logical for me to say all is strict determinism without it being a belief. The video however doesn't address a lot, granted it is short.

It uses "Libertarian" free-will as if that's the only explanation a mind has conjured up.

It uses the word "feeling" as if "feeling" didn't evolve. We are supposed to not trust something we evolved from. If I can't trust my own feelings, why is it logical to trust that guy in the videos feelings? If feelings can't be trusted, the "physical" universe from which feelings evolved from can't be trusted. If feelings are complex biochemicals, I cannot trust the biochemicals from where they came.

It uses the word "physical" in determining most of its logic, when there isn't even a consensus as to what "physical" means and when closer to 100% of the universe is an unseen world of unknown. It also doesn't address all of the unknown in which I mentioned earlier.

If I am wrong, a moron, irrational, illogical, illuded, deluded.... well that means the universe from where I came is also such things. And if the universe is no such thing, yet I am...that means I am at least somewhat free from the universe.

This is all intellectual thinking anyhow... when everything is defined, labeled, judged, micromanaged/controlled to the extreme by human beings...a mind is no longer free. I can truly see why many aren't free anymore.. this world sucks many right into its death of strict determinism. The more I take no thought or ask why, simply being with no rhyme/reason, not needing answers.... that feels damn free and great. That is living to me. Free from the chains of control, chains of need. The more I take part in defining, conceptualization of everything, making judgements upon everything, micromanaging everything..it feels like death. That is when I feel like a machine of strict determinism. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective from the beholder. I know that I reside in both, sometimes you just know and there needs no explanation, perfect free contentment. Ultimately I am content with that so will leave it as such.

 

[blü 2]

Luck is another word for chance and random, another refute to strict determinism.

Yes, quantum randomness as we presently understand it affects pure determinism. That's why in other posts here I've been using the expression cause&effect/r (for randomness, of course). But randomness doesn't lead us on to freewill any more than cause&effect does.

Strict determinism is another way of saying that everything happens for a reason.

And when we add the /r, we get 'mostly for a reason'.

I want to know where those arrangements came from, from the external environment.

They came from evolution. Why not go and read about it and get an understanding why it's the overarching theory of modern biology?

 

[Profound Realization]

What do you mean, root cause? It seems reasonable to me that the universe is made of energy ─ some would call it mass-energy ─ and everything in the universe is a form or property of it. That's the root of everything, from the existence of the dimensions and time, to the forces, to the whiskers on a mouse.
For want of credible options I'm a materialist, Jack Smart and David Armstrong defined materialism as the understanding that the only entities and processes that exist are those known to physics at any particular time, That makes excellent sense to me: all the rest are hypotheses with greater or lesser likelihood of being true. When we have no reason to think something exists, we have no reason to spend too much time fretting it. Should it turn out to be a real problem we can deal with it then. In the meantime it'd just be a game.
That could only mean particles that normally behave deterministically but sometimes might behave randomly, no? What else could it mean?
More accurately, they're of a kind, with individual variations. Nothing we presently know requires them to be the product of more laws of nature than we presently know,
Surely you've seen maps of the brain? Descriptions of neurons and the way they make and unmake connections in response to the stimuli of other neurons and their own environment? There are billions of neurons and their interplay is rightly called complex. But it's all within the bounds of biochemistry. No special pleading for magical categories has been found necessary to date.
The argument from incredulity is a fallacious argument. If you want to say it's too complex for biochemistry, find some reputable science that shows this.
Okay, talk me through an example of a brain making making a decision using cause&effect and this extra something that isn't randomness ─

What is it?
Where does it come from?
How does it interact with the biochemistry?
By what internal process does it make up its own mind to interfere in one particular way rather than another?
How do you know?​

You have said it comes from the physical universe. Now think of a unicorn. It doesn't exist in the physical universe yet you're able to think of a unicorn. It is evident that you're free to think to an extent under no jurisdiction of the physical universe's laws. You are free to think of a unicorn. The physical universe is unable to place the thought of a unicorn in your brain, since it doesn't exist in the physical universe. You have just defied physical laws by thinking of a unicorn. You have stated that it came from the universe, once again contradicting yourself... since the thought of a unicorn doesn't exist outside of you. In fact, what is inside of you(the thought of a unicorn) is not in the outside physical universe, it is only in you. Magical categories exist in mind, yet no magic exists in the physical universe. Yet another common sense proof that the inner human being is free to at least an extent.

There is no such thing as a fallacious argument using your logic, as the universe would also have to be fallacious...from where fallaciousness first arose. Unless, of course one is free to an extent of the universe. If the universe is fallacious, how can you trust its physical property of fallaciousness?

You just keep self-proving and indirectly proving free-will with no awareness to it.

 

[blü 2]

It doesn't exist in the physical universe yet you're able to think of a unicorn. It is evident that you're free to think to an extent under no jurisdiction of the physical universe's laws.

Yes, you're free to imagine gods and unicorns and the uninstantiated number 2, and even freewill and Dumbledore if you like,

The physical universe is unable to place the thought of a unicorn in your brain, since it doesn't exist in the physical universe.

Self-evidently that's wrong. You and I and our brains are parts of the physical universe and our brains are able to imagine. You may be aware that part of your brain imagines doing the physical action you're about to do ─ makes a plan ─ so that the neural signals to the muscles are fast and unbroken, for example, so evolution gives us very useful tools.

 

[Profound Realization]

Yes, quantum randomness as we presently understand it affects pure determinism. That's why in other posts here I've been using the expression cause&effect/r (for randomness, of course). But randomness doesn't lead us on to freewill any more than cause&effect does.

And when we add the /r, we get 'mostly for a reason'.
They came from evolution. Why not go and read about it and get an understanding why it's the overarching theory of modern biology?

Correct, randomness/chance doesn't lead to strictly one or the other. No disagreement. It just leads to not everything being predictable which is the foundation of strict determinism, rendering it impossible to be accurate. If all isn't strict determinism, yet still suggests determinism to certain degrees, what other option is there?

 

[blü 2]

Correct, randomness/chance doesn't lead to strictly one or the other. No disagreement. It just leads to not everything being predictable which is the foundation of strict determinism, rendering it impossible to be accurate. If all isn't strict determinism, yet still suggests determinism to certain degrees, what other option is there?

And as I hope I made clear, strict determinism isn't my position. But determinism in the sense that our brains make their decisions as the result of complex chains of cause&effect/r is my position.

I should underline that actual quantum randomness interfering with the brain's chains of cause&effect isn't a routine thing as far as we know ─ rather, more a situational risk, like being exposed to radioactivity.

I'll look forward to your next post as you describe the X factor that introduces freewill into cause&effect/r decision-making, and as you talk me through an example of the process.

 

[Repox]

How sad. How very sad.

Have a good day.

.

Your insulting remarks gain you nothing.

 

[Repox]

Determinist are desperate to gain recognition, but they have nothing but a theory without proof. So, without proof, they resort to bullying tactics and a misinformation campaign.

It is amazing the things they don't know. They don't know there is time line to the universe, they know hardly anything about physics, such as virtual particles, and they ignore theological issues such as God and free will. They don't understand human nature and evidence for free will. They think people are anatomical robots. They go along merrily redefining reality for a "Deterministic Disney Land."

There are numerous ways to define free will, here is one. An important concept for understanding humans is “objective self awareness.” Contrary to other species, humans have symbolic communication abilities. They see themselves “objectively in the context of others.” As an example, I am told I lied about something. I know I lied because I objectively see myself in the context of others to interpret myself as a liar. There are numerous other examples, all of which inform us of a world of “comparative others.” In a civilized world, we conceive ourselves in comparative contexts with subliminal instinctual associations. In short, we are not lead to act by a determined brain, we are lead to act according to social contexts in which we compare ourselves to others based on values and norms of reference groups. Denying these realities is to deny evidence for free will.

The brain doesn't function without social stimuli, it uses social relationships and associations to structure thoughts and decision making. The thought process allows for free will choices, as evidence indicates.

As usual, I expect determinist on this forum to ignore my free will argument. They have assumed an adversary position without justification. They prefer to insult, distort and demean rather than fairly address an argument. I will however continue to remind them of the facts of free will. Truth is a funny thing, it keeps coming back on you.

 

[Profound Realization]

Yes, you're free to imagine gods and unicorns and the uninstantiated number 2, and even freewill and Dumbledore if you like,
Self-evidently that's wrong. You and I and our brains are parts of the physical universe and our brains are able to imagine. You may be aware that part of your brain imagines doing the physical action you're about to do ─ makes a plan ─ so that the neural signals to the muscles are fast and unbroken, for example, so evolution gives us very useful tools.

As are you free to an extent to also think and imagine. That is self-evidently wrong indeed under the model of strict determinism. The universe already would have determined who thinks what, who believes what, rendering no right or wrong in our thinking, beliefs, imaginations. More self-evidence we are free to an extent.

If our brains can imagine, but the external cosmos cannot...that also states the common sense fact that we are not under all of its physical laws. We would only be under a lot of its laws of determinism, yet not all. That would exclude the possibility for strict determinism. We are free to imagine whereas much of the external universe is not. If imagination once evolved from the cosmos, yet imagination is now extinct from the cosmos... it can reside in human beings without residing in the cosmos. Hence, the human beings imagination is free to an extent from the physical laws of the cosmos(where imagination doesn't exist.)(or does it?) Regardless, it's easy to see with no "magical" concoctions necessary.

Another one of my points that you also admitted: We are unique agents, there is no other "complex" compilation of these types of biochemicals, particles, virtual particles, biophotons, whatever other quantumness we have no clue exists. With that said, regardless if all this compilation came from the cosmos... we are chaotic, unique freaks of nature that are not under all and the same physical laws.

It is common sense to me, under virtue and morality "evolved" in me that if someone was raped, "my internal environment" cannot state to the victim, "no, you're delusional and thinking magically... you have no will, nothing was done against something you don't have, you are not a victim, nothing was done to you. It is a past compilation of causes and effects that lead you to being raped."

It is also common sense to me that if an experiment were permitted and "strict determinism" became a law of the chaotic Earth beings, and there could be no self-responsibility for any actions... that crime would rise in prolific magnitudes. More self-evidence that chaotic beings can control their will to an extent. (At least some can.)

It is also common sense to me that "self-control" and "self-responsibility," and "justice" exist in the world of chaotic human beings, alone defying strict determinism. Who is honestly that blind/dead to not see/be aware of such in reality?

Just how dead does a human being have to be to honestly believe this stuff regarding strict determinism?

 

[Profound Realization]

And as I hope I made clear, strict determinism isn't my position. But determinism in the sense that our brains make their decisions as the result of complex chains of cause&effect/r is my position.

I should underline that actual quantum randomness interfering with the brain's chains of cause&effect isn't a routine thing as far as we know ─ rather, more a situational risk, like being exposed to radioactivity.

I'll look forward to your next post as you describe the X factor that introduces freewill into cause&effect/r decision-making, and as you talk me through an example of the process.

Well, after all this time I have not been trying to counter what you've said. I already know that what you say is accurate. Much of the human being is deterministic, and cause and effect are coupled and interlaced with anything. I've been countering strict determinism.

I've already given you examples of when a free, brand new thought arises in a beings mind. Since it has no past, it makes the choice in the present and then creates a fresh brand new chain of cause and effect. The past only exists in someone's abstract thoughts anyhow. All is moving in a series of present in the chaotic human beings. The X factor is the brand new thought/idea that never existed. The only way around this would be to say that some external abstract entity sent a photon/virtual particle containing brand new information from who knows where in the cosmos that penetrated that human beings skin and entered within their inner environment giving them the brand new thought/idea. I don't think you want to go there . As I've said before, if we say the brand new idea/thought arose from someone(s) inner environment/brain... then that would mean that if the thought were of Santa Claus, then the cosmos already had programmed information of Santa Claus into its evolutionary accumulation of atoms/particles from the initial "cause" rendering the cosmos "conscious" to an extent. I also don't think you want to go there. After deducing, it is evident that the mind is free to an extent.

It is common sense that if chaotic human beings have awareness/conscious... and the external cosmos does not... we are independent and free to an extent. All laws do not apply to chaotic human beings, we are exempt from conscious/awareness laws of our external physical environment that does not have such. Which physical laws of external cosmic nature that are not conscious/aware completely control our minds that are conscious/aware?

 

[blü 2]

As are you free to an extent to also think and imagine. That is self-evidently wrong indeed under the model of strict determinism.

Determinism/r, which is what I'm talking about, is self-evidently not wrong, since it describes the universe as it is.

As I said, if you want to argue for a different reality, get some reputable science to back your claim.

If you're not able to talk me step by step through an example of your 'freewill' in action and answer the questions I asked in #427, thus making the substance of your argument clear to me for the first time, then I fear this conversation can't go anywhere it hasn't already been.

 

[Repox]

If deviant acts result from determined behavior, punishment or correctional measures for illegal acts are wrong. After all, the culprit, or deviate, is not responsible for his or her actions. Why do we have the rule of law if deviant or criminal conduct is not the consequence of free will choices? Could it be that government officials and founding fathers really know the truth? Humans are responsible for their actions. Bad conduct, according to values and norms of the society are subject to correctional measure because humans make free will choices. It is interesting to note according to criminal statistics in almost all areas of social conduct there are deviant groups. It appears there is a natural tendency for normal behavior, but a small proportion of the population prefer to make deviant choices.

 

[blü 2]

in reality everything is based on cause and effect. [...] free will is based on cause and effect because it is part of the causal world, ha. ha. When one makes a free will choice it "causes something to happen," thus, cause and effect.

But you have not the vaguest idea how one might make a choice using freewill in the sense of independence from cause&effecthaha.

It's fair to say, is it not, that you have no coherent idea of what you're talking about.

I am waiting for evidence for brain determinism, or, for a better description, human robotic behavior.

First, yours is a completely dishonest statement, since you've been given the argument from the start that biochemistry is deterministic and the brain is biochemistry, and you've never given a reasoned answer to it.

Second, determinism/r describes the world as it is, not some robotic parody of it such as you suggest.

Third, if you want to persist about determinism, it's time you learnt about the brain and how it works. Modern research is reported on the net (I've mentioned Science Daily, which is free) and you keep tripping over your own lack of relevant knowledge.

The evidence for free will is overwhelming.

Yet again I point out that all your examples are examples of freewill=absence of compulsion, and that's irrelevant.