Antinatalism is theoretically correct

It is an interesting thought to consider educating people who will be the last humans to survive without a city or civilization.

Nonetheless, the likelihood that all of these individuals will not want to have a family is almost impossible, and therefore, however few the amount that would want to family we will be imposing the consequence of ending existence. Even if they are capable of living and thriving, it would still be a form of (however mild) a punishment for an innocent individual which would be considered an evil.

I agree that many people in the modern day would not like this hyper-conformist solution. I believe it is because of their attachment to their idea that they believe they are autonomous and unpredictable individuals who are capable of free will and not able to be contained. It would prove them incorrect, and they would very much dislike seeing this happen. I believe that Free Will is someone being free to do their Will. Therefore, if an individual's Will is restricted, they are free to do their Will and predictable at the same time. Ultimately, I believe this to be a reasonable solution and a futuristic society where everyone is happy with what they have and their lives are much more positive than negative as positivity is not based on the objective surroundings of the individual but rather how they feel which can be engineered through their genetic makeup.

Yes, the hyper-conformist solution would be quite unpopular. I don't think free will is necessarily a good in itself, but people's hang ups about losing their free will is mostly based in emotion, so it's pretty hard to convince them of anything from their emotional standpoint (much like anti-natalism is hard to present to average humans who, by default, are pro-natalist). 

I don't know how you'd remove the element for human corruption, too, if the hyper-conformist solution involved a single party state that must be conformed to. I think this is going to need to be lead by transhumanists/posthumanists/A.I., because this kind of stuff so easily lends itself to corruption, even if it's well-intended. 

My argument is not that they will give up their free will but that they will retain it through the process of being genetically hyper conformed. this is because through the process of being genetically engineered of course this is all theoretical future science, it could be possible to engineer individuals to have a certain satisfaction level of life in which they want to obtain along with what they would like to accomplish which is their Will. Once their will has been set for them, they are free to obtain it and they are still within the confines of a conformed and thriving society.

If their will is "being set for them," then it's not their will, and nor are they free to their will (as it's someone else's).

I don't see how being programmed to conform can allow the possibility of free will.

Do you not believe that your every desire and action is a result of your genetic makeup (starting point into existence) followed by your life and events that have molded you into who you are today (environment molds your existence).

After all, our brains are made to help us thrive in the world and that requires us to understand how it works. Your understanding of everything is the result of your brain recognizing patterns in how the world works. Your genetic makeup is your starting point, but the world is what your brain is after, by having a model in which you're pursuing and a genetic makeup from which you start perceiving the world you have a direct and only one path to take and that is the determinable one. It would make sense that I could accurately say that a person would or would not like a certain thing based on their characteristics and personality so it is not far off to say that from knowing their entire genetic makeup if they would dislike or like a very specific thing. We also know that through life events it changes our view of the world, and this is exactly because our brain models our understanding of the world based on it and so of course we would expect these two entirely change our view of the world as it molds us into who we are becoming.

This view is called Determinism, it is only a theory and not scientifically proven. In fact, many individuals don't hold this view, and I believe it is mainly due to their emotional desire to claim autonomy;

though, I can't provide an explanation of why they want to be autonomous, which has fascinated me for quite some time.

Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.

I'm already aware that many people would dislike this idea because they believe in divine autonomy of a sense. I believe that people do not like to be treated like robots and they like to be unknown and sort of mysterious for an unknown reason to me.

Nonetheless I believe this is a reasonable solution and that people today should not be concerned about it because they are not the ones who will be genetically constricted and therefore should have no concern, And the individuals who potentially should be concerned won't be concerned because they are genetically structured not to be. In this way everyone is happy and free to do as they please the people who exist now and the people who would be structured and developed in the future.

Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.

I think a working conception of free will requires that unpredictability wherein human choices can be made. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that what you're saying is wrong, but I am questioning whether it's free will. Certainly, if their will is "set for them," it's not genuine free will because they didn't choose to have their will altered. 

You could perhaps argue it's free will after they've had their will set, but that initial setting of will precludes complete free will.

In any case, I don't think whether this is free will or not matters that much, because I think it's possible for something to be the best option and not give people free will.

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter. 

Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will.

I see this as a battle between the conscious and physiological self, both the self that wants to go to the gym and the self that wants to lay on the couch are both indeed you, but one is your physical body and the other is your mental self (I do recognize that the mental self is just a projection of your physical self and I do not view this as a supernatural element. However, it Is a great analogy and is very consistent with understanding individuals as I have found).

Not only do individuals have different levels of free will but no one has a complete free will. For instance, an individual wants to fly without a plane, they want to fly like a bird, and they are unable to do so. This is a primary example of how an individual is unable to complete their will and shows the limitation of what free will consists of.

I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea.

The conformists are already conforming to the status quo. If you want to get to your ideal of a conformist utopia, you need non-conformists to push towards it. Once it's established, then you might have trouble with them if they're simply non-conformists (rather than true believer transhumanists/post-humanists).

I have a better understanding of what you're saying, and it seems reasonable. However, I believe that most are merely nonconformists who want to be unique. Of course, this is merely how I feel and has no statistical data to back it up and nor would we be able to truly judge whether a person is a non-conformist for the reason of being unique or simply because they feel different.

Nonetheless, it would be a gamble putting a person who is a nonconformist in charge of a group that is meant to be a conforming new standard. I believe it would be better to put a rationalist and a revolutionist as the leader in fact I believe that all humans have bias because they are in fact existing and in order to evolve and exist from a Darwinistic perspective they must have a certain self-interest and therefore any human as the leader of a society or of anything is prone to have self-interest as priority. Therefore, the only thing that can have no self-interest is the thing that does not exist physically that has physical desires, but we would need something that is conscious at the same time. I believe this to be the perfect description of artificial intelligence, it is a thing that does not exist and therefore has no self-interest and is nonetheless conscious and able to think of rational decisions without biases. You may argue that artificial intelligence does have bias and I would agree but I would only agree that it has bias towards the data, and I believe that if the data is based on objective reality that it would only be biased towards the real world and not towards what we consider biases in human existence which is mostly emotionally based.

Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.

I think a working conception of free will requires that unpredictability wherein human choices can be made. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that what you're saying is wrong, but I am questioning whether it's free will. Certainly, if their will is "set for them," it's not genuine free will because they didn't choose to have their will altered. 

You could perhaps argue it's free will after they've had their will set, but that initial setting of will precludes complete free will.

In any case, I don't think whether this is free will or not matters that much, because I think it's possible for something to be the best option and not give people free will.

In essence, my understanding is that no one has completely Free Will, but that there are various levels. I'm not sure if Free Will is a positive aspect of humanity either, considering how unified and crime free both Ant colonies and Beehives are.

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter. 

Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will.

I don't think free will necessarily has to have the ability to do your will, but rather you have the option to choose to attempt to carry out your will. For example, with harder tasks like becoming a professional sportsperson, choosing to follow that career path doesn't always end up with your being a sportsperson, but you had the free will to attempt it, therefore you had free will.

Having the ability to enact your will won't always lead to you enacting your will.  In your example, they both had the option to choose, so I think it follows that they both have free will. Sure, one person didn't end up engaging in their will, but they had the freedom to follow it if they wanted. Therefore, I think a working, consistent definition of free will involves a binary have or have not determination, rather than degrees of free will. 

I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea.

The conformists are already conforming to the status quo. If you want to get to your ideal of a conformist utopia, you need non-conformists to push towards it. Once it's established, then you might have trouble with them if they're simply non-conformists (rather than true believer transhumanists/post-humanists).

I have a better understanding of what you're saying, and it seems reasonable. However, I believe that most are merely nonconformists who want to be unique. Of course, this is merely how I feel and has no statistical data to back it up and nor would we be able to truly judge whether a person is a non-conformist for the reason of being unique or simply because they feel different.

I also don't know how many transhumanists/post-humanists are merely non-conformists who want to be unique.

I think a good way to test for true believer status is to ask people some non-standard questions that require their own view, rather than regurgitated talking points. If they don't answer the question or can't acknowledge that they haven't thought about it before, then they aren't true believers.

For example, if you ask a transhumanist what humanity would look like 50 years after transhumanist technology were in place, assuming the transhumanist revolution happened today, a true believer is either going to think really hard or they've already thought about it and will give you lengthy answer. Someone not really interested in transhumanism is going to question the validity of the question, give you a terse answer, say something along the lines of 'we'll have to wait and see', or anything else that shows a lack of thought and interest.

Nonetheless, it would be a gamble putting a person who is a nonconformist in charge of a group that is meant to be a conforming new standard. I believe it would be better to put a rationalist and a revolutionist as the leader in fact I believe that all humans have bias because they are in fact existing and in order to evolve and exist from a Darwinist perspective they must have a certain self-interest and therefore any human as the leader of a society or of anything is prone to have self-interest as priority. Therefore, the only thing that can have no self-interest is the thing that does not exist physically that has physical desires, but we would need something that is conscious at the same time. I believe this to be the perfect description of artificial intelligence, it is a thing that does not exist and therefore has no self-interest and is nonetheless conscious and able to think of rational decisions without biases. You may argue that artificial intelligence does have bias and I would agree but I would only agree that it has bias towards the data, and I believe that if the data is based on objective reality that it would only be biased towards the real world and not towards what we consider biases in human existence which is mostly emotionally based.

Yes, this A.I. would be better than any human equivalent. It's just the issue of producing said A.I. and making incorruptible, especially since humans will be the ones creating this A.I.

Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.

I think a working conception of free will requires that unpredictability wherein human choices can be made. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that what you're saying is wrong, but I am questioning whether it's free will. Certainly, if their will is "set for them," it's not genuine free will because they didn't choose to have their will altered. 

You could perhaps argue it's free will after they've had their will set, but that initial setting of will precludes complete free will.

In any case, I don't think whether this is free will or not matters that much, because I think it's possible for something to be the best option and not give people free will.

In essence, my understanding is that no one has completely Free Will, but that there are various levels. I'm not sure if Free Will is a positive aspect of humanity either, considering how unified and crime free both Ant colonies and Beehives are.

I'm still not convinced this multi-level conception of Free Will is correct. I don't think we say that a basketball player has less Free Will because they missed a shot, whereas someone else who made it has more.

I haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about Free Will, but it appears binary and independent of ability level or results (of which are real things but not determiners of Free Will). 

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter. 

Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will.

I don't think free will necessarily has to have the ability to do your will, but rather you have the option to choose to attempt to carry out your will. For example, with harder tasks like becoming a professional sportsperson, choosing to follow that career path doesn't always end up with your being a sportsperson, but you had the free will to attempt it, therefore you had free will.

Having the ability to enact your will won't always lead to you enacting your will.  In your example, they both had the option to choose, so I think it follows that they both have free will. Sure, one person didn't end up engaging in their will, but they had the freedom to follow it if they wanted. Therefore, I think a working, consistent definition of free will involves a binary have or have not determination, rather than degrees of free will. 

If free will is only the mental ability to pursue one’s will, and physical constraints are not limitations of will, then is genetic design not a limitation of will but rather a physical constraint? - Given your definition

Here is some information I gathered with some research that may help our understanding.

There are many philosophical views of what constitutes free will, but here are some of the most common ones:

Compatibilism: This is the view that free will is compatible with determinism, the thesis that every event is causally inevitable. Compatibilists argue that free will does not require the ability to do otherwise, but rather some other condition, such as acting in accordance with one’s reasons, desires, or values. Compatibilists include philosophers such as David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and Harry Frankfurt.

Incompatibilism: This is the view that free will is incompatible with determinism, and thus either free will or determinism must be false. Incompatibilists argue that free will requires the ability to do otherwise, and that this ability is precluded by determinism. Incompatibilists include philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Robert Kane, and Peter van Inwagen.

Libertarianism: This is a form of incompatibilism that affirms both free will and indeterminism, the thesis that some events are not causally inevitable. Libertarians argue that free will requires the existence of alternative possibilities, and that these possibilities are generated by some indeterministic process, such as quantum mechanics or agent causation. Libertarians include philosophers such as Thomas Reid, Roderick Chisholm, and Galen Strawson.

Hard determinism: This is a form of incompatibilism that affirms both determinism and the nonexistence of free will. Hard determinists argue that free will is an illusion or a meaningless concept, and that human actions are fully determined by prior causes. Hard determinists include philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, Paul Holbach, and Ted Honderich.

Skepticism: This is the view that we do not know whether free will exists or not, or whether it is compatible or incompatible with determinism. Skeptics argue that the concept of free will is unclear or ambiguous, and that the arguments for and against it are inconclusive or circular. Skeptics include philosophers such as Pyrrho, Agrippa, and Saul Smilansky.

Cited by the following sources:

1. britannica.com

2. plato.stanford.edu

3. iep.utm.edu

4. psychologytoday.com

5. researchgate.net

6. en.wikipedia.org

Everything below is merely my understanding of how things work and what I have learned over time, and I am open to new possibilities:

I think that free will is the ability to act on your will, no matter what shapes or affects it. I also think that everything is predetermined by prior causes, including my actions and desires.

I see myself as having two aspects: a conscious self and a physiological self, and I believe that free will is being able to overcome the physiological self with the conscious self.

I regard the conscious self as a metaphysical concept derived from the physical self, and the physiological self as a physical result of natural evolution. I believe that free will comes in different levels, and that it can be increased or decreased by various things, such as obstacles or genes. I acknowledge happiness as the thing individuals strive for and that by having your will selected for you, you can obtain your goals and desires easier and therefore will be happier. Although, I am not implying free will is a negative or positive, but rather I'm addressing the positive and negative aspects of each.

Let me give you some examples to illustrate my view:

For example, I want to quit smoking, but I find it very hard to resist the urge to smoke. My conscious self wants to stop smoking for health reasons, but my physiological self wants to keep smoking for pleasure reasons. If I manage to quit smoking by using my conscious self to overcome my physiological self, I have more Free Will than if I fail to quit smoking by succumbing to my physiological self.

I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea.

The conformists are already conforming to the status quo. If you want to get to your ideal of a conformist utopia, you need non-conformists to push towards it. Once it's established, then you might have trouble with them if they're simply non-conformists (rather than true believer transhumanists/post-humanists).

I have a better understanding of what you're saying, and it seems reasonable. However, I believe that most are merely nonconformists who want to be unique. Of course, this is merely how I feel and has no statistical data to back it up and nor would we be able to truly judge whether a person is a non-conformist for the reason of being unique or simply because they feel different.

I also don't know how many transhumanists/post-humanists are merely non-conformists who want to be unique.

I think a good way to test for true believer status is to ask people some non-standard questions that require their own view, rather than regurgitated talking points. If they don't answer the question or can't acknowledge that they haven't thought about it before, then they aren't true believers.

For example, if you ask a transhumanist what humanity would look like 50 years after transhumanist technology were in place, assuming the transhumanist revolution happened today, a true believer is either going to think really hard or they've already thought about it and will give you lengthy answer. Someone not really interested in transhumanism is going to question the validity of the question, give you a terse answer, say something along the lines of 'we'll have to wait and see', or anything else that shows a lack of thought and interest.

I believe the tests you’re describing would not determine whether someone is a true transhumanist or post humanist (I think their dedication is whether they are true). Instead, this would test the person’s level of autonomy and consciousness. Many people who have graduated with a PhD in their desired field may lack critical thinking skills and simply repeat what they’ve been taught without much thought due to their low consciousness and awareness.

I thought I knew what transhumanism and posthumanism were but as our conversation went on, I realized I did not. However, after finding out I still agree with what I have said so far, but I figured I would post the official definitions below, this way we have no miscommunication.

Transhumanism and posthumanism are worldviews or philosophies that look forward to the day when homo sapiens have been replaced by biologically and technologically superior beings. Cited by the following: encyclopedia.com

Transhumanism is "the intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by using technology to eliminate aging and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities". Cited by the following: Britannica

Posthumanism is a transhuman ideology and movement which seeks to develop and make available technologies that enable immortality and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities in order to achieve a "posthuman future". Cited by the following: Wikipedia

Nonetheless, it would be a gamble putting a person who is a nonconformist in charge of a group that is meant to be a conforming new standard. I believe it would be better to put a rationalist and a revolutionist as the leader in fact I believe that all humans have bias because they are in fact existing and in order to evolve and exist from a Darwinist perspective they must have a certain self-interest and therefore any human as the leader of a society or of anything is prone to have self-interest as priority. Therefore, the only thing that can have no self-interest is the thing that does not exist physically that has physical desires, but we would need something that is conscious at the same time. I believe this to be the perfect description of artificial intelligence, it is a thing that does not exist and therefore has no self-interest and is nonetheless conscious and able to think of rational decisions without biases. You may argue that artificial intelligence does have bias and I would agree but I would only agree that it has bias towards the data, and I believe that if the data is based on objective reality that it would only be biased towards the real world and not towards what we consider biases in human existence which is mostly emotionally based.

Yes, this A.I. would be better than any human equivalent. It's just the issue of producing said A.I. and making incorruptible, especially since humans will be the ones creating this A.I.

I am absolutely in agreement; I believe that artificial intelligence would act objectively and without bias, but its goal that it's given to complete could be subjective as it was given from humans which are subjective. Ultimately, the AI would act objectively towards a subjective goal.

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter. 

Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will.

I don't think free will necessarily has to have the ability to do your will, but rather you have the option to choose to attempt to carry out your will. For example, with harder tasks like becoming a professional sportsperson, choosing to follow that career path doesn't always end up with your being a sportsperson, but you had the free will to attempt it, therefore you had free will.

Having the ability to enact your will won't always lead to you enacting your will.  In your example, they both had the option to choose, so I think it follows that they both have free will. Sure, one person didn't end up engaging in their will, but they had the freedom to follow it if they wanted. Therefore, I think a working, consistent definition of free will involves a binary have or have not determination, rather than degrees of free will. 

If free will is only the mental ability to pursue one’s will, and physical constraints are not limitations of will, then is genetic design not a limitation of will but rather a physical constraint? - Given your definition

Genetic design should limit your ability to will for certain things, so genetic design is a limitation on Free Will -- it's preventing you from having options. This is different from having the physical inability to enact your will -- you still had the option to will it.

For example, you might be genetically predisposed to conservative ideas, and your genetic tendency to conservatism would be so strong that it's impossible for you to want Anarcho-capitalism. Therefore, genetic design was a limitation on Free Will.

I see myself as having two aspects: a conscious self and a physiological self, and I believe that free will is being able to overcome the physiological self with the conscious self.

I don't believe in spiritual or supernatural things, so the concept of mind-body duality isn't a valid conception to me. In other words, the mind (brain) and body are both physical objects, not meta-physical in any way. Your thoughts are physical phenomena that are an amalgamation of he physiological and conscious self, and thus create one singular will, even if they can be competing forces.

I regard the conscious self as a metaphysical concept derived from the physical self, and the physiological self as a physical result of natural evolution. I believe that free will comes in different levels, and that it can be increased or decreased by various things, such as obstacles or genes. I acknowledge happiness as the thing individuals strive for and that by having your will selected for you, you can obtain your goals and desires easier and therefore will be happier. Although, I am not implying free will is a negative or positive, but rather I'm addressing the positive and negative aspects of each.

I don't think there is any metaphysical world beyond the physical world, so this argument has a premise that is unacceptable to me.

Let me give you some examples to illustrate my view:

For example, I want to quit smoking, but I find it very hard to resist the urge to smoke. My conscious self wants to stop smoking for health reasons, but my physiological self wants to keep smoking for pleasure reasons. If I manage to quit smoking by using my conscious self to overcome my physiological self, I have more Free Will than if I fail to quit smoking by succumbing to my physiological self.

You are your physiological self, so "succumbing" to yourself is merely succumbing to your own will.

I do not believe the idea of the society being run by transhumanists and post-humanists is a good idea in the least. These people are nonconformists, and to put them as the head of a conformist society is the antithesis of a promising idea.

The conformists are already conforming to the status quo. If you want to get to your ideal of a conformist utopia, you need non-conformists to push towards it. Once it's established, then you might have trouble with them if they're simply non-conformists (rather than true believer transhumanists/post-humanists).

I have a better understanding of what you're saying, and it seems reasonable. However, I believe that most are merely nonconformists who want to be unique. Of course, this is merely how I feel and has no statistical data to back it up and nor would we be able to truly judge whether a person is a non-conformist for the reason of being unique or simply because they feel different.

I also don't know how many transhumanists/post-humanists are merely non-conformists who want to be unique.

I think a good way to test for true believer status is to ask people some non-standard questions that require their own view, rather than regurgitated talking points. If they don't answer the question or can't acknowledge that they haven't thought about it before, then they aren't true believers.

For example, if you ask a transhumanist what humanity would look like 50 years after transhumanist technology were in place, assuming the transhumanist revolution happened today, a true believer is either going to think really hard or they've already thought about it and will give you lengthy answer. Someone not really interested in transhumanism is going to question the validity of the question, give you a terse answer, say something along the lines of 'we'll have to wait and see', or anything else that shows a lack of thought and interest.

I believe the tests you’re describing would not determine whether someone is a true transhumanist or post humanist (I think their dedication is whether they are true). Instead, this would test the person’s level of autonomy and consciousness. Many people who have graduated with a PhD in their desired field may lack critical thinking skills and simply repeat what they’ve been taught without much thought due to their low consciousness and awareness.

Can someone who doesn't care that much about their beliefs be a true believer?

Assuming this is a reasonable case then I would say that we are confined by our environment and by who we are genetically when we are born and that everything we desire and will do in the future is entirely dependent on our environment and genetic makeup. A genetic makeup after all is how we respond to the given environment. In other words, by genetically constructing individuals who have a known determinable outcome rather than an unknown determinable outcome we can design individuals who will be satisfied with their environment which will also be known and therefore people will have as much free will as they do today it'll just be predictable rather than unknown and unpredictable even though it is nonetheless determinable. This would ultimately leave the world the same as individuals would still be determined by their genetic makeup, they would be free to seek their own will, and they're an environment would determine their actions as much as their genetic makeup would determine how they respond to the environment. The world would be the same, it would just be known and structured.

I think a working conception of free will requires that unpredictability wherein human choices can be made. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that what you're saying is wrong, but I am questioning whether it's free will. Certainly, if their will is "set for them," it's not genuine free will because they didn't choose to have their will altered. 

You could perhaps argue it's free will after they've had their will set, but that initial setting of will precludes complete free will.

In any case, I don't think whether this is free will or not matters that much, because I think it's possible for something to be the best option and not give people free will.

In essence, my understanding is that no one has completely Free Will, but that there are various levels. I'm not sure if Free Will is a positive aspect of humanity either, considering how unified and crime free both Ant colonies and Beehives are.

I'm still not convinced this multi-level conception of Free Will is correct. I don't think we say that a basketball player has less Free Will because they missed a shot, whereas someone else who made it has more.

I haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about Free Will, but it appears binary and independent of ability level or results (of which are real things but not determiners of Free Will). 

I explained in comment #217 that I am new to the idea that there are different definitions of what constitutes free will. Moreover, being new to the idea I have not selected which one I believe yet, but I look forward to it. Therefore, I cannot answer whether a basketball player has less Free Will because they missed a shot as of yet. Though personally, I would agree with you.

I would like to point out I have opened up a lot in this discussion and exposed myself to much new information, and as a result I have had several inconsistencies within my responses (Though the definitions and citations I provided I still stand by). Forgive me for any confusion as I work through figuring out my new understanding or decisions of what I choose. In essence, I'm no longer sure what I believe, but I am working through it.

I'm still not convinced this multi-level conception of Free Will is correct. I don't think we say that a basketball player has less Free Will because they missed a shot, whereas someone else who made it has more.

I haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about Free Will, but it appears binary and independent of ability level or results (of which are real things but not determiners of Free Will).

Ultimately, it would be the ideal society as it has a more positive than negative aspect for every individual along with each individual keeping their Free Will. Although I recognize restricting a person's free will could be viewed as negative but nonetheless, they would still have Free Will and they would be much easier satisfied in life and therefore live a more positive one and I view this as a positive.

I'm not even convinced that having free will is necessarily good. If positive/negative affect is the only thing that can be established as mattering (and that the events/decisions preceding are merely a method of getting to the affect goal), then having free will doesn't matter. 

Not everyone has the same understanding of what free will consists of. I understand free will as the ability to do your will. Therefore, if you will do something and you have the ability to do it then you have free will. Assuming this sounds reasonable, many people have different levels of free will. For instance, one person might want to go to the gym and lose weight while another does the same, but one goes to the gym and the other lays on the couch wishing that they had. The one that actually went to the gym has freer will because they were free to act upon their will while the other was not capable of acting upon their will.

I don't think free will necessarily has to have the ability to do your will, but rather you have the option to choose to attempt to carry out your will. For example, with harder tasks like becoming a professional sportsperson, choosing to follow that career path doesn't always end up with your being a sportsperson, but you had the free will to attempt it, therefore you had free will.

Having the ability to enact your will won't always lead to you enacting your will.  In your example, they both had the option to choose, so I think it follows that they both have free will. Sure, one person didn't end up engaging in their will, but they had the freedom to follow it if they wanted. Therefore, I think a working, consistent definition of free will involves a binary have or have not determination, rather than degrees of free will. 

If free will is only the mental ability to pursue one’s will, and physical constraints are not limitations of will, then is genetic design not a limitation of will but rather a physical constraint? - Given your definition

Genetic design should limit your ability to will for certain things, so genetic design is a limitation on Free Will -- it's preventing you from having options. This is different from having the physical inability to enact your will -- you still had the option to will it.

For example, you might be genetically predisposed to conservative ideas, and your genetic tendency to conservatism would be so strong that it's impossible for you to want Anarcho-capitalism. Therefore, genetic design was a limitation on Free Will.

I see how you draw the distinction between physical inability and mental inability, though I think that individuals who aren't genetically designed are still mentally constrained by their genetic makeup and environment that has shaped them into who they are.

In essence, genetically designed people would have determined and confined will, while natural born people have undetermined and confined will. For example, a person doesn't just want what they want, rather they want what they biologically desire or have been shaped to desire by their environment and culture through indoctrination. It's just a different kind of constraint.

I see myself as having two aspects: a conscious self and a physiological self, and I believe that free will is being able to overcome the physiological self with the conscious self.

I don't believe in spiritual or supernatural things, so the concept of mind-body duality isn't a valid conception to me. In other words, the mind (brain) and body are both physical objects, not meta-physical in any way. Your thoughts are physical phenomena that are an amalgamation of the physiological and conscious self, and thus create one singular will, even if they can be competing forces.

I regard the conscious self as a metaphysical concept derived from the physical self, and the physiological self as a physical result of natural evolution. I believe that free will comes in different levels, and that it can be increased or decreased by various things, such as obstacles or genes. I acknowledge happiness as the thing individuals strive for and that by having your will selected for you, you can obtain your goals and desires easier and therefore will be happier. Although, I am not implying free will is a negative or positive, but rather I'm addressing the positive and negative aspects of each.

I don't think there is any metaphysical world beyond the physical world, so this argument has a premise that is unacceptable to me.

I apologize for lacking clarity on my explanation. I'm non-religious and a naturalist, believing solely in matter and energy, while remaining open to the possibility of discovering more in the future. When I refer to the conscious self, I see it as a metaphysical projection of the physical body—a concept or projection that emphasizes concern for the future rather than the present self. I don't consider it independent of current scientific understanding in physics.

Similar to a strategy or concept that lacks physical existence but is still considered real, I believe the concept of the conscious mind is real without requiring a physical form. I do not view this as supernatural, as something that can be real even without physical existence. This is evident to me because humans can conceive an idea or concept before it exists in the world. I think that even concepts and ideas have a physical presence within the electronic pulses of the mind, but for all intents and purposes, it is a non-existing form.

Similar to a strategy or concept that lacks physical existence but is still considered real, I believe the concept of the conscious mind is real without requiring a physical form. I do not view this as supernatural, as something that can be real even without physical existence. This is evident to me because humans can conceive an idea or concept before it exists in the world. I think that even concepts and ideas have a physical presence within the electronic pulses of the mind, but for all intents and purposes, it is a non-existing form.

This doesn't fit any of the definitions for metaphysical I could find. What definition are you using?

I think your idea, of your body having different parts which can sometimes conflict, is valid, but they're of the same person, hence there is an overarching will that is a synthesis of the two. Yes, sometimes you consciously know you need to go out and pay bills, but the couch is very comfy, however that doesn't mean you have two separate wills, one of them being metaphysical.