On the cusp of free will, might I add, I enjoy watching these videos for free, whenever I like.  I'm determined to take my free will and choose to watch one video per night.  Cheers

This is the kind of stuff that keeps philosophy in the classroom. Good lecturer who presents the arguments then deconstructs them using critical thinking.

Definitions of terms and phrases is the foundational ground for any scientific discourse.
One cannot begin a discussion on any scientific subject (either physical, or, metaphysical) without a vocabulary, and proper definitions of word/phrases.
So:
1) Free will must be properly defined (otherwise, opponents are simply talking past each other); and,
2) The definition must be proved, or, disproved.

To me, when I hear that an aspect of the physical laws is seemingly "random", I feel that we do not fully understand it. We may never understand it or have the means of doing so, but just because there doesn't seem to be an apparent law governing the exact position of an electron doesn't mean that there isn't a currently unknown force governing it. It is because of this that I am a determinist, and I feel that people who use quantum physics as an argument against determinism are simply wishfully grasping at something scientific that will justify their underlying feelings of having a free will.

4) All this is evidence of our acknowledgement that our lives are Deterministic, that we are on a ride we cannot get off of, and that things happen to one according to past events, and not freely chosen decisions.

determinsm and freewill always be interest topic

Isaiah 46:10

"Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish."

The point of the discussion is not whether people make different decisions at different times, or whether different people make different decisions during the same scenario, that’s obvious, yes they do. It’s about whether a persons consciousness has anything to do with the decisions they make, or if subconscious thought, and natural forces inform them.

By using words like ‘could’ all your doing is presupposing that either scenarios could happen without going back and changing previous causes.

To say that conscious thought debunks determinism, is to say the brain has particles that don't follow any set of physical laws. What is a thought? Just neurons firing in a sequence pre-determined by genetics, experience, initial conditions and external stimuli? Where does the element of choice come in?
Just because something is too complex to see a pattern, doesn't mean there isn't one

What going to happen is going to happen nothing can stop determinism and your choice is deterministic

Choice is an illusion, a concept, a perceived phenomenon.
All choices are pre-determined.

It was pre- determined that i would choose to comment.

I think this should be settled once and for all, there is no such thing as free will. I think the debate should be, should we pretend that there is free will or not.

The immobilization and unification of the world:

We know that matter want to find immobilization by knowing how our happiness works and we have to remember that we human are made of matters. Happiness is a state that we continuously want to feel. Which mean we want a immobilization state, because in a none immobilization state we are not satisfied, if we still have movement which mean we still have a goals, it mean we have to satisfy our goals to have none and find total immobilization. In that theory we would think that death is the perfect immobilization and total happiness but even in death matter has movement. So in order to find perfect happiness, matter has to continuously assemble itself in one single point where it will create the perfect immobilization and unification.

Well this is the theory that is really vulgarize and simplified by all me.

Totally agreed! Ethical (moral) responsibility is NOT contingent upon free will.
1) Because there is not such thing as free will (of course, a proper definition must be established here).
2) More importantly is the fact that free will is not the prerequisite for responsibility. A lawgiver and the law is the only prerequisite.

''Why is it so difficult for people to realize that free will is just an illusion created in the brain?''
Because human animals have an emotional investment in believing that they are not simply puppets of nature and this clouds their ability to think rationally and logically about these kinds of issues
''All choices are unconscious processes outputted to awareness after the event where it is woven into a 'story' to justify it''
Consciousness must be causally efficacious but still no free willl

The concept of self does exist, it's what separates one person from everyone else, if one wants to make a change in the world they have to recognize what separates them from everybody else. People who believe in "Causality" are followers while people who believe in "Choice" are leaders, when considering the definitions it makes sense: if you think things operate on cause and effect than reactions are all you'll do but if you understand the ability to choose you can choose your options

Self does exist, it what separates one person from everyone else, the manifestation of one's individuality. Self doesn't exist to those who don't believe it exist; In my opinion those who can make a change in the world are those who recognize the concept of "Self" therefore they are able to create the dramatic comparison gap between themselves and anybody else. People who believe in "Causality" are followers while people who believe in "Choice" are leaders

I have been determined to be free

3)  This is reflected in our taking charge of him and restricting him, it is an acknowledgement that he cannot help himself so that we must do it. His lack of culpability is reflected in our unwillingness to apply torture or other cruel or unusual "punishments" to alter his motivations. We recognize that he can't help himself and so that would be unfair, and we recognize such things as the Inquisition to have been immoral.

Trying to open door B which is locked, is a different action from trying to open door A which is open. While the end result might be the same, situation 1 and situation 2 are different and if you wanted to say you had no choice, you would say there would be no different situation.