Then jump in because Descartes and Nagel are all over this.

Yeah you’re right. God is to me what William James called a dead hypothesis. Free will is off the table because it’s impossible. Panpsychism remains on the table for me because I believe both matter and consciousness are real. That’s enough to get me from atheistic to barely agnostic on it.

Again though, you make a valid point that I’m a little more forgiving of the unlikelihood of panpsychism. It’s not exactly the same but it is really ****ing close.

how ****ing stupid can you be?

Do pool balls have brains? I'm sorry. I haven't been keeping up with the conversation enough to really contribute.

It's exactly the same because both theism and panpsychism rely on a lack of information for validity.

The rejection of free will is because you don't think choice can be congruent with influence.

Edit: I'd argue that choice is dependent on influence.

Similar but not exactly the same like I said.

Not just influence but direct cause and effect.

Choice would be a more complicated version of cause and effect where the cause is the information gathered by awareness and the effect is how we react in anticipation for the future.

All there can be is cause and effect

I just gave you an example of choice being cause and effect.

There’s no such thing as choice