You are.

The river isn't the water. Before long, all of the water currently in the river will have flowed out to sea. Yet the river will still be there.Physics accounts for the motion of water molecules in terms of the forces acting on them. Geography gives you a better account of why there is water there in the first place. I have not in any way suggested that waves could be conscious. I guess the internet doesn't exist, since there are only interacting particles.

That was to be expected, given that science has not resolved all of the problems yet.In any case, I think it was a good discussion. I hope you found it useful.

Are you implying that if we have free will, then we automatically have a soul? What makes free will seem difficult, is that most people take it as obvious that atoms, and things make of atoms, could not have free will. Rather, they are normally presumed to act in ways described by physical laws.Before we can consider whether we have free will, we must first consider what we are. I attempted to discuss that, starting in Message 39, where I suggested that we are systems of processes. What seems obvious about atoms not having free will does not seem to apply to processes. That doesn't mean that processes have free will, but it at least means that free will is not so obviously ruled out.We also have to consider what we mean by "free will." And there it becomes controversial, because people have very different ideas about what free will is.My own take on the question, is that "free will" is just the name we use for pragmatic choice. Thus we have free will to the extent that we are able to make decisions (I call them judgements) based on how well they will work for us. So I see free will closely tied with our ability to make decisions on a pragmatic basis.Computers, robots, etc, are usually taken as not having free will. Based on what I have suggested above, you can see why. For a computer makes its decision entirely on the basis of truth or falsity. It has no capability of making pragmatic judgements. And no software program can change that. The program can control which truth and falsity conditions are examined, but it cannot act in ways that would correspond to making pragmatic judgements.By contrast, biological system are well equipped for pragmatic judgements. Evolution itself is dependent on the pragmatics of natural selection.

To oversimplify, pragmatic judgements are based on pain avoidance and hunger satisfaction. (Toss in sexual gratification too, if you like).To get closer to a physicalist explanation, I see pragmatic judgement as being closely related to measurement. A biological system has many homeostatic subsystems. A homeostatic subsystem is, in effect, measuring its own state and using that in a feedback loop to control its behavior. I see the behavior of such a homeostatic subsystem as a "pragmatic judgement device" (analogous to a logic device). Biological systems are rich in these pragmatic judgement devices.

Not sure. I'm finding "the assimilation of what to do about things that need to be done" vaguer and more confusing than free will. I don't see how that helps.

I'm quite skeptical about time travel. However, this does not provide any basis for making time travel possible. I agree with you.

Okay. I was perhaps obtuse. I consider those to all be questions with a true or false answer.Compare to questions such as:

shall I have vanilla, chocolate or peach ice cream?

Shall I use a standard lens or a wide angle lens to take the picture?

​

These aren't choices that can easily be settled by true/false decisions.

You assert more than you can possibly know. This is unwise, and will get you into unnecessary arguments. At least you admitted lack of knowledge there. Be careful with that kind of argument. When we simulate something, we only simulate certain aspects. Software simulations of neurons don't simulate their chemistry. They only simulate certain behaviors that the programmer has assumed are the important ones. But maybe those aren't the important ones after all.