What is free will?

The argument is not against reason the argument is against control...reasoning n specific patterns of reasoning integrate the mechanistic deterministic process at conscious and subconscious levels going on in your brain from which decision making arises...awareness of decisions does not mean control on decisions, means you are aware of the processes going on...the point being made is, that you didn't had any form of deciding differently given, the mind states, the chemical states, the specific patterns of memory, of reasoning dynamic, and the knowledge at a given X time, n so on n so forth...indeed, you are a Darwinian evolved thinking machine, but you are nonetheless bound to be constrained in the observing balcony and forced to assist the film of yourself unfold...to my view you are no more free then a microbe.
I tell now as i've told you before there is no conflict between Darwinism and a structurally deterministic reality. Yes one can easily agree you can find Darwinism in all sorts of things, from language usage in social groups, the decaying and emergence of new concepts n grammar dynamics, to the classical biology original example, up to the very evolution, or shall I prefer unfolding, of chemistry processes in given favourable or unfavourable contexts...same could go for matter anti matter n darker matter in the beginning of our Universe, and again, none of it conflicts with determinism...as for randomness truly playing or not playing a part, there is no consequential change improving the free will explanatory model...if anything randomness raises the concern of realizing that at a sub atomic scale all the conditions that build our being are pushed by chance and further complicates the matter on establishing why chance can work at some levels n not in others given the same substance n laws of nature are at work...in any circumstance, chance dictating the exact original conditions that lead you to a given subconscious state of being, further disproves direct responsibility or free willing...as what is questioned at this level is not your deciding power, above, having an effect, but under, the primary conditions that established the exact circumstances of your deciding power at X level n that were not in your control... you didn't get to decide at chance level and you don't get to decide at determined level, as you inevitably follow the programming from there, the very reasoning typology is constrained and conditioned to the full once the original conditions arise.

You wrote,

How else does one have the ability to process information that can be used by the individual? "Mechanistic deterministic" are nice sounding words, but they're still individualized processes. If it were not so, everybody would arrive at the same conclusion under similar/same circumstances. We don't. That's because human thinking is based on our personal perceptions that are subjective. There's nothing "mechanical" about it. Even the same person can choose different options during any one event. That's called "free will."

Why do cars on a busy freeway all seem to have different destinations for different reasons - even if they are all going in the same direction? Any driver can change their mind from their original destination to another, because they may decide one a better choice than the other, and get off the freeway to go to another direction.

Those choices has nothing to do with the physical; it's all about how our brains process information which can be almost anything one can think of. Technically speaking, it's about chemicals processing information in our brains.

...perhaps you are implying that when the scientists use the exact same conditions at the laboratory the experiment miraculously comes out with different results...no ? well yes it couldn't n you know why ?... its matter we are talking about, and the brain is made of matter, same rules apply..I can guarantee you that if you get exactly exactly to the atom level the same conditions and the same surrounding environment you will decide in the same way...pretty much in the same repeating pattern way as when your bladder is full you run to the toilet and bow your ass to mother nature...

Same way for who? If the environment changes, our perceptions and our choices change as well. That person wouldn't be the same person in another environment. The brain still processes information, but under different environment/circumstances/events. Choices are different.

The study of neurology is not the issue; it's the genes and the environment of the individual that influences our lives.

If you want to study the diseases of the brain or how our biology reacts to the brain, then the study of neurology makes sense.

...oh gosh...the point being that you couldn't do otherwise in the same circumstance not in a different circumstance Ci...if at any given time of your life on which you MUST have 1 SET of circumstances alone you can only have 1 OPTION given that specified set of conditions then you are not free...if at any other point the circumstances are different then you do differently but again this difference it also could not go otherwise once again you MUST have 1 set of circumstances very well specified n react accordingly...

1. The issue of determinism, for the nth time, is a distraction, a red hearing. You could add chance to the picture and it wouldn't change a thing. In any case, we've proven it's a pure belief that the universe is incapable of randomness, and nothing more. So whether I could have done otherwise or not is a distraction.

The issue of lack of control is also a distraction. It is false that you lack control. As soon as you get out of the observer of the observer of the observer's posture and start to act, you will need to concentrate on what you're doing, and you will have this intuitive sense of authorship which you crave. Just stop being an observer of a random choice and assume the actor's posture, and you feel a sense of control.

But in any case it's irrelevant to the question, as I see it. That's where the english expression got it wrong I believe by mixing will with the equation. The problem is complicated enough without will, it's more natural, simple and useful to talk of choice between limited alternatives. Free choice is a conceptually clearer problem than free will.

Concentrate now, that above is a prologue...

IF ideas behave in a causal manner in YOUR world, if they are important somehow in your determinism (purely aesthetical or metaphysical, as we have seen), if it is a level of reality where causality also exist and happen, I will call that a free choice of mine a free choice of mine, in the sense that I identify with this set of ideas, memories, emotions, etc, which I call me, my conscious and inconscious self, and which took this decision. And I will own and feel responsible for that choice. I had no reason not to. I don't need to 'control myself' when I am controling the situation and chosing stuff, to feel an author.

How, then, do you explain the fact that in the course of this discussion, you can post your opinions from different points of view? Were they all predetermined and fixed? I don't think so, because you couldn't in any way predict how we would respond. Your words are your own; originated and acted upon all by yourself. You speak from your own perceptions and observations. If they were mechanistic determinants, you're powers of predetermination is somewhat "out of this world."

Do you know what you'll say in response to my next post?

Of course, there is no conflict between Darwinism and determinism, since the latter can explain everything and nothing. Determinism cannot be disproved in any conceivable way, by any experience, fact or theory. It's compatible with everything and its contrary. That's precisely why it is not a scientific theory.

The REAL POINT is that Darwinian systems, which you agree are so prevalent everywhere, are the only ones who can explain the emergence of biological and mental forms WITHOUT YOUR DETERMINIST GOD, without a universal law or engineer deciding everything. They can SELF-ORGANISE. The real point is therefore that Darwinian systems are compatible with INDETERMINISM. An important point for atheists like me, because your determinism is a form of God.

You asked for a NON-determinist mecanism to explain the self-emergence of free will, or free choice, in superior animals? Darwin is probably the answer to that question, too. The only one we got so far in any case.

A very good episode.

What ? Darwinism firmly rests on the belief causes lead to effects ! Are you disputing this ? Are you completely out of your mind ? You yourself have a Deterministic model for decision making and now come waving a banner against it ? You are totally lost pal...there is nothing changing here because you introduce chance factors at 1 level, it only ads to the problem...in any circumstance either at 1 level or another have you get ride of it...I was hoping you addressed the arguments I confronted you with in my previous post (they are not mine they are the standard general argument) because the only way possible for you to do so is as I suggested way back with a compatiblist approach which you sort of already admitted is now your position...just don't go on forgetting compatiblism is a deterministic stand point, it makes you look silly. Furthermore free will is the position the church n most religions assume to have a meaningful personnel God in place on which agents actions weight moral responsibility...the atheistic position on the contrary often takes the position free will does not exist.

Another red hearing. Indeterminism firmly rests on the idea of cause and effect, too. It just add randomness to the mix of possible causes.

And your latest edit is a red hearing too. DETERMINISM IS IRRELEVANT, UNPROVEN, MARGINAL IN TODAY'S SCIENCE, AND A PURE METAPHYSICAL CHOICE.

Only the most inconsequential among the atheists don't believe in free will. There's no point in liberating oneself from God just to obey mathematics instead.

And many theistic systems are determinist, like yours, because a cosmic law that perfectly determines everything is equivalent to an omnipotent and omniscient god.

No no Olivier... Indeterminism speaks not of any causes...this is bluntly n utterly wrong.

Laws of nature are imbibed in reality like DNA is imbibed in your cells so what ? Are you now against all science by suggesting there are no laws of nature ?... say for instance that there is no gravity, no electromagnetism, strong or week force, and that they have no effect ? Are you now opposing the whole of physics ??? Again all these things rest upon a firm belief in determinism.

You're out of your depth. Study the competition, as you so keenly advised:

Indeterminists do not have to deny that causes exist. Instead, they can maintain that the only causes that exist are of a type that do not constrain the future to a single course; for instance, they can maintain that only necessary and not sufficient causes exist. The necessary/sufficient distinction works as follows;
If x is a necessary cause of y; then the presence of y necessarily implies that x preceded it. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.
If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.
As Daniel Dennett points out in Freedom Evolves, it is possible for everything to have a necessary cause, even while indeterminism holds and the future is open, because a necessary cause does not lead to a single inevitable effect. Thus "everything has a cause" is not a clear statement of determinism.
Probabilistic causation[edit]
Main article: Probabilistic causation
Interpreting causation as a deterministic relation means that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. In this sense, war does not cause deaths, nor does smoking cause cancer. As a result, many turn to a notion of probabilistic causation. Informally, A probabilistically causes B if A's occurrence increases the probability of B. This is sometimes interpreted to reflect the imperfect knowledge of a deterministic system but other times interpreted to mean that the causal system under study has an inherently indeterministic nature. (Propensity probability is an analogous idea, according to which probabilities have an objective existence and are not just limitations in a subject's knowledge).[1]

lol I know the argument pal...its not causation its not even mechanistic ! You cannot determine what is causing what in there...its statistics...word salad wont make it sound any better. Not to mention the argument you are making substantially lowers the prospect of free will...a statistical causal probability makes you less responsible further still.
You know why most people unless desperate don't use that argument ? Because "weird" QM is not considered solved...and so far is the solely example for indeterminacy...

...more the problem of general causes and necessary causes again is compatible with a fully deterministic modelling...it only means some causes share the same properties and thus that can give rise to the same effect...while probability causation HAS NOT an explanation in place...its a statistical model that NOT JUSTIFIES behaviour !

You have no idea what indeterminism stands for. I asked you and you replied: total chaos. Educate yourself. Stop watching stupid videos and read.

Or you want to keep lying to yourself forever and pretend brownian motion does not exist, quantum physics are not true, your are a mechanical puppet, and your determinist, tyranical god exists? Fine with me too. Indeed you look much like a string puppet unable to move beyond its script.

Behaviour doesn't need justification. Beside, a determinist world does not justify anything either, since it's purely mecanistic. The laws and constances could have been differents, the point of departure could have been different, it's all contingent too. Just because the contingence is organised doesn't justify it.

This is far from being a question about deterministic and indeterministic modelling...you have yet to show how indeterministic modelling betters your argument...almost NO ONE uses Indeterminism for justification for free will for a reason...please address the point made in my yesterdays final post. Its there ! I already told you Dennets position is DETERMINISTIC !