Free will is probably the only assumption I personally make about the universe.
The act of proving something requires freewill, so to prove freewill you have just triggered a paradox.
This is much like the chicken and the egg thing so if one wants to move on one must assume one or the other.
The assumption allows a launching point to discuss things such evolution, genetics etc.
The lack of assumption just sticks you in a loop discussing the same things over and over again.

"If there is no free will then you know nothing, even that there is no free will. "

Begging the question. Your premise for your argument sucks.

Bo, you have proved once again that you are not capable of rational debate. Three strikes and your out. I won't waste any more time with you.

curious:

Dice. good point .. do you suggest then, that our choice is the response of our stackings of "either/or" neurological storm resposonses to a stimuli, calculating odds based on past encounters, and then outputting a decision based on a spontaneous throw of dice?

There are weighted odds to this dice throw though, yes?

immeninant danger gets three roles, where sexual pleasure only gets 2 .. .. this woman's resemblance (in all of our perceptions) to past women we have had 'emotional' success with adds the role of those dice .. and instantly more ... hundreds of thousands of dice are rolled, and a choice is outputted, which we determine to be .. 'what we want' .. that all makes sense.. to me ..

Sri Aurobindo suggests though, that our responses to 'contacts' with the universe are learned.. and that we can reprogram ourselves .. to experience pleasure against contacts that we use to experience pain.. to exeperience sadness through encounters we use to experience joy.. and yes, that sounds VERY possible and true to me.. so where is it free-will that consciously determines to reprogram the calculating/experiencing mind? or is that a random divergent die cast as well.. ?

I figure I will explain some of Rene's post since you failed to understand at least some parts of it.
This is to be expected since you have different concepts of what logic is about.
First of all Bo, you did open with ad hominem.
>Rene, like Ayn Rand, you are actually quite illogical.
Its starts like an observation but it turns into an ad hominem when you fail to explain
exactly what he was being illogical about immediately afterward.
"You & Ayn are being illogical because...<really spiffy explanation here>...."

>First, you did an ad hominem attack,
Rene did not use an ad hominem, it was an observation that in past history
you do not follow HIS rules for debate.
"logical debate" is something different from the correct application of logic.
He was not discrediting your logic with this statement, just your application of HIS rules for debate.

It seems that ad hominems are even against YOUR rules (of debate) so why do
you violate that rule yourself. More people are bound to see your way
if you consistently apply the rules you choose for yourself.

Next You follow up with a few more ad hominems of you own.
And again these only become such because you can not offer an explanation.
You did not know Rene when he was a child so you can not possibly make the
determination that his pattern of thinking failed to change since then.
At the very best you can only compare his current state with that of other people you know.
Still its is pointless for logical argument even make this observation
because it fails to further your own logic.
Its only purpose is to discredit the person you are debating,

Anytime there is a point where deterministic forces have neglected to dictate an outcome
there is an opportunity for something non-deterministic (free) can play a roll in the outcome.
Usually that non deterministic thing is chance (randomness). No will is behind randomness so it is "unwilled".
It is also possible some WILL that had not been previously accounted for could also play a role in this situation.

When Rene shows that something has the possibility of a random outcome he is also showing that it can be
also affected by a will that you did not account for.

A determinist's task is difficult because he must then show how each and EVERY one of the these "free" wills has been constrained to a decision based on existing determinations.
Bo, Do you think you can account for all the reasons that
Rene became a follower of (or heavily influenced by) Ayn Rand.
Can you determine exactly what it will take for him accept your position on "free" will.
If it is determined that you will never convince Rene, why do you even bother with this exercise?

Bo,

do you actually state anything?

You're like the kid on the basketbal court who doesnt know how to play, so he just fouls everybody. State an argument, something! make a point..