The idea of the matrix is not wrong, but there's nothing wrong also with focusing on what we can sense even if it's limited. It comes to the point of which one can you live with.

1. Not wrong
2. The mind controls all, but we can only control consciously a few. This is to distinguish the auto mode vs the conscious mode. Example. Breathing as you watch tv is automatic, but you can slow it down or breathe fast. Thinking before doing and stopping a thought becoming an action if bad for us; is probably the highest form of it.
3. Not wrong. I observe we can be convinced to believe a lie. But we can also change our minds if we're shown the correct measure.
4. The act itself is not denial of free will but believing in falsehood or a non fact
5. The mind rarely exercises it since most of the time were in auto mode. Only when we exercise the act of stopping to think and deliberate action non action do we exercise it.

My guess is, it's best to understand what we know now and see where it leads us than things we can't comprehend yet.

Atleast until we have the means via test.

The first cause in science is unknown for now. We have guesses, but it's really hard to say we know for sure because we can't go back in time.

What science has to offer is in the how. Like proximate causes.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a movie, you were not in from the beginning, but there in the middle.

In the middle you probably understand a portion of the story and can make a good guess based on the story so far, but can't say for certain how it all started.

And let's say a movie has a director. If we only saw the movie, it's really hard to imagine the director and how it came to be from the filming, actors, acting; synthesis of the final cut for distribution.

To me a God is that which nothing is greater. So that something greater, is not something I can comprehend. But I can observe what I can see and make sense of the present. Like I have an idea of using a camera, there are actors, etc., And the story the theme, the journey.

If they are scientists, then they will be convinced by experiments.

I think you're not wrong. I also think we can't really function if somethings are not automatic. That's why it's really hard to make a synthetic lifeform.

My guess is we simply didn't have the capacity to disprove it before. Now we have experiments capable of checking the chemicals in the brain.

The chemicals makes us do stuff. And stopping that is not automatic.

So the process will be don't move, think before you do. Think before you do.

Yes, you will have to stop your nature if you truly want to.

Like I have this instinct to slap mosquitos because I once had dengue. So I consider them the enemy. But if at one time I choose not to slap them, that's pretty much against my instincts.

Yes, not doing bad is the way. Not doing is the exercise. As we did the thought experiment. It is not easy. It's hard. Haha

They act based on instinct/patterns. As we do too. Except upon exercising the don't.

It's the common template of most stories.

Hero is at his place of origin. Evil comes and hardship happens. Hero has to leave home and overcome trials. From those trial, he applies what he learns to beat the evil; when evil is broken, he then can return home a changed man/woman.

Most stories are like that. Imagine star wars 4-6. Or lord of the rings 1-3. Pendragon. King Arthur. Most myths in one way have this formula.

You're not wrong. There has been similarities in the stories. It's like there is a template and has been spread and based on the current readers; they make it their own.

As we are able to think critically, comes progress. Exercise of imagination and the like. And the base format of that is in the stories.

Familiar with the heroes journey?

Some interpret God to be like man. I think this to be wrong.

If God is that which nothing is greater then; such being I can't understand. I can only appreciate what I see and feel and express the free will.

Also believing in that definition; I fear such a being. Simply because said being can do what It will; and I have no say.

A simple example would be, if I am to dumb it down to something I can understand. If an author writes a story, does the written characters have a say?

As for the Bible or holy texts, whether they are factual, I honestly love them for the idea of accountability.

Because of my belief that nothing is 100% certain or knowable; I can't say its not written by people influenced by such a power.

The idea of hope - to be saved; the nearest thing I hold unto this is a saying by Marcus Aurelius and that is - this too shall pass.

If I am to liken myself to characters in the Bible, I honestly feel that - we should be in awe, frightened if such a being exists, and exercise that free will and enjoy the time we are here.

I don't mind. I think religion is not wrong if it teaches us to be accountable.

I see nothing wrong with believing in a God also based on the above.

It also aligns with the idea of free will.

Think of it this way, if you do something and it is good according to your observations, and if you don't stop it; then who ever controls you; is doing good thru you.

And if doing bad, you stop that, then you exercise free will.

Of course this will depend on your perception.

As for the idea of creation, I honestly don't know, but there must be a source. And I'd like to think, I think I've been influenced by reflexivity that, God is that which nothing is greater.

Not wrong. But I think we can have this thought experiment also.

If the thought is something positive, defined as what is good for you, you can let it be. Sure it may not be free will but we don't have to suffer by default.

But if the thought is bad, killing someone with no reason or basis, instead of doing it, we can hold ourself accountable and not do it.

This of course means the idea of good or bad is based on our own personal ideal or nature.

It's hard to practice. We think, then not do. At least for me, for now. I need to work on it.

Atleast based on this experiment. Free will is the act of not doing what you thought to do first. I mean it's the easiest way to stop doing something.

It makes me idle and then pause to think what should I do right now.

Thought experiment.

You have to first think of something to do, then not do it.

How did this fare for you? Or did you try it?

Not in terms that were able.

Probably something like 1/0=error.

It reminds me of the idea. If we are 2 dimensional beings and limited by all 2 dimensional limits, the God is 3+ dimensions, based on your definition. It's not something I can fathom.

This is where experiments come into play. For which can be programmed into something. But the ability to make iterations will be the test.

Yes, they can mimic, but that will always be based on existing data. The thinking part would be to create something new.

If we can program something that can imagine, then truly, all that we are has been passed.

Yes, the ability to be in specific, to imagine.

If I make a mimic - like human. It must be programmed to do auto random stuffs. I think by so many iterations it can make human like results. But not like humans.

If then else for the functions. Then random act or crunching knowledge to make something new.

Creativity, probably is the highest for our level.

Not wrong. I think what separates use from AI is the ability to imagine and act on those. The ability to think; therefore I am.

A byproduct of evolution. By our ability to mix and match what we experience. I think in a way, the idea came about.

Also based on what we talk, I guess imagination of something new, not just recall; is another free will ability.

Not wrong. I guess the brain also does all things we know are automatic, heart, breathing, blood flow, etc., Organs. And the part where we try to exert our conscious behavior is left for the dependent one.

Because chemicals interact causing us to do stuff, and we act a few seconds later and all we perceive in a way as present is really the past.

A higher being molding us?