Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

1 & 2- By your definition then nothing can exist without temporal reality so in reality the more correct definition for existence having a base in temporal reality and perceived. See for me, being caused by, a derivative of or housed in physical medium

No, it is the existence of noumena and phenomena that has a base in temporal reality. My first statement speaks nothing of existence of noumena and my second one says nothing to limit existence to phenomena and noumena.

3- So all I can conclude from you on that statement is math is real, but unreliable because it’s an abstraction.

No, it's simply "not certainly reliable". It becomes unreliable only in certain contexts - such as wrong math.

4- No I don’t. Perception is a process for observation. It certainly plays a part in identity. I believe identity to be the conscious and subconscious sum of self identity both natural and learned. Now if you could show me someone who is incapable of introspection or self-reflection I might agree that identity has no dependence on perception.

Here you are not using the word "identity" consistently. As per your prior argument, it seemed like when talking about identity, you were referring to the state of an entity's metaphysical existence - something you admitted is independent of any consciousness. But that is not the meaning you use here. Basically, at one point, identity means "what one is" and at another "what one thinks one is".

5- As far as coercion goes, here are my thoughts. You’re only limiting the agent to the conscious mind. I believe identity spans the conscious and subconscious mind. The subconscious mind, IMO, holds the bulk of identity and little power or force of will. On the other hand I feel the conscious mind has the bulk of responsibility for directing the force of will and a minimal/ limited picture of identity. Yes, if we’re talking about only the conscious agent, then I agree that it can’t be coerced by itself. Let’s use an example for clarity. Normal person has a breakdown and does something to be considered criminally insane. They’re “out of their mind” at the time it happens. All that really means is that while on his killing spree or baby burning his conscious mind lost control of the force of will to his subconscious nature. To return to a normal state his conscious will would have to coerce his subconscious identity back into its less controlling role. Then he would be coercing himself. The whole concept of self-help and the introspective cognitive loops I described earlier would be the mechanism for this, which I defined as establishing free-will. Free from the prevailing identity (subconscious) to the preferred (conscious). I mean I’m sure you’ve heard the term “at war with yourself” and that quintessentially is the 2 sides of the tug of war of will and allows for its freedom.

I should have been more clear regarding the use of conscious and subconscious, as should you.

Conscious means aware - not necessarily self-aware. Insects are conscious beings, even if they have no concept of self.

Within a conscious, for humans, there could be two parts - self-conscious (formally also referred to as simply conscious) and subconscious. Subconscious is also a part of consciousness - it simply isn't self-aware.

Further, I'd say - one individual - one identity - one consciousness. The identity and consciousness would be the sum of the self and sub. Therefore, we can add - one consciousness - one will. Any internal conflicts get resolved according to the identity at the moment.

To accept your position on coercion, I'd have to treat an individual as two separate entities - both with independent identities and wills. That is simply not applicable when you consider the individual as a whole.

In summation because I think we’re getting off topic:
I believe will is illusory in that it is an abstract. It is a key part of the causal mechanism that self corrects the mind. I consider it useful, reliable, axiomatic and therefore real (or as real as math is practical). I act therefore will is free, so to speak. It can be free because of the duality of the mind. Thoughts can be measured, manipulated and simulated, and are dependant (at the very least only reportable by) on the brain. I still don’t feel that the evolutionary hypothesis that they’re created by the human genome can account for the mind. I’m not sure even 1000 billion of synapses are enough to account for every aspect of every observable phenomenon. If there could be any objective truths they would probably be so divorced from what we use daily for reality (perception) to never even be noticed.

Your premise here - that of duality of mind - still stands unjustified. Classical dualist positions usually entail independent existence of phenomenon and noumenon - but then you don't use their definition of noumenon and therefore your position is nothing like there's. Therefore, currently, both your position on dualism and how it leads to free-will is unclear.