Well, I don't like seeing myself as a victim of circumstance.
   I'm aware that a majority of what is "myself" is a construction
   and I've been in the process of deconstructing myself to figure
   out "what's left" for some time. But I try not to deal in
   Universals with humans too much. What I apply for myself, I
   wouldn't necessarily apply to all of humanity. Free will allows
   for both free will and no-free-will beliefs to co-exist.
   No-free-will restricts the situation to "no-free-will" or
   "delusional" (or illusion if someone is nice). I don't care for
   that set of options. == Oh, not on convenience. I'm
   intellectually honest, but I don't play logic games using the
   same scripted analogies with people often. I _can_ but they can
   be tiresome. == Phrases like, "So you admit", "That's a
   fallacy", bringing 2+2=something into it - these are common
   scripts that you're using, I like getting past the common
   scripts and have a conversation. I've been in this roleplay many
   times. Most common is when I tell people I'm agnostic. You
   should see the script-reading I hear then. == Re: agnostic -
   Yes, I knew it would. We'd tussle for an hour down the same
   road. I know it well. It strikes me that perhaps *you* might not
   have as free of a will, but perhaps I do. Of course, you will
   argue that I do not know what it means. I know the game. Played
   many times. I know your lines, but I go off-script and usually
   end up being referred to as "disingenuous" or the script is,
   "I'm tired / bored / of dealing with...[insert insult]" How's
   that for an effective paragraph? I've just saved us both a lot
   of typing smile emoticon == I find the straightest path is to
   see each other as people across the glass divide. THAT is the
   most efficient because it doesn't matter whether we agree or
   disagree on this topic: it's just something to do on the
   Internet instead of sleeping. = But I'll play if you like. == I
   haven't seen perfection. I'm awed by a lot of things but
   perfections depend on my expectations which are likely just a
   byproduct of my cognitive systems simplifying my observations
   and experiences of the world around me and myself. == It's all
   in the realm of pure speculation both in the question and in
   anybody's choice of answers. It's fundamentally an absurd
   question that I wrote to bring people out into a discussion. It
   has so many flaws to it but mostly the limitations of "thought
   experiment". All thought experiments are fictional and likewise,
   was the question and likewise , all of our answers. == Oh please
   do! That will be fun. But you can do it without the irritation
   now smile emoticon I'm always up for a learning experience, and
   i never know who is my next teacher. == Wait, then is it
   possible that you NEED to be irritated by a very wrong question
   in order to produce an output? I _am_ quite serious about the
   question by the way, because I'm agnostic and for me, it is
   PERFECTLY in the realm of possibility that we might be able to
   figure out an answer to: "What computer language did God use to
   program logic into the fabric of the Universe?" ==