Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

---

1a-Even in the worst cases of brain damage or mental reprogramming, I’ve yet to see someone lose that irreducible sense of self I deem as the agent. I think this is largely due to a large tie between identity and experience. I believe that since we experience things in the now and the movement of our timeline is constant, who we are at any moment is inexplicably tied to each moment. As long as moments continue independent of self, the self experiences passing through that timeline. As long as I am experiencing the temporal self moving through the now, I have an irreducible identity. That to me is as fundamentally real as the passage of time.
1b- As no successful attempts have changed this irreducible identity, at least that portion of consciousness remains unknown as to its location. Certainly though it’s not in the material as all brain function can cease and (upon its resuscitation) the majority of the identity is intact. Even in cases of coma where it has been shown that no record of time is kept with consciousness (people waking up thinking it’s 20 years ago) identity still exists.

---

1a- This irreducible self that you claim, is subject to consistent change, the self is not a static entity. Chemical inbalance, damage all affect the personality and actions of a person.
If there was any dualism to the self, it should not be affected by chemicals and physical damage.
If the irreducible self is just basic consciousness, then we have a slight issue with the abstract nature of what it is which needs to be more clearly defined. The irreducible self is the same as any irreducible evolutionary problem, that as a whole is a mystery as to its conception, and the clues to its creation lies in evolutionary history, alas, brains don't fossilise well or usefully enough I think.
However, no irreducible thing has ever held up to scrutiny in the past, so for the moment this is merely a gap theory in that, we don't know for certain HOW it works, therefore it is a separate metaphysical entity.

Certainly though it’s not in the material as all brain function can cease and (upon its resuscitation) the majority of the identity is intact. Even in cases of coma where it has been shown that no record of time is kept with consciousness (people waking up thinking it’s 20 years ago) identity still exists.

Thats brain death, and the self does NOT survive that.

A coma is a reduction to the low state of brain function. The body still functions to provide electrical and chemical energy to the brain. Any idea of self is contained in stasis.

Medically, the definition of death is the cessation of electrical activity in the brain. The self is gone, never to come back, because the energy that makes it possible for the illusion to be sustained has gone.

2a-at the very least will exist as a useful abstract thought. I believe conscious (read as self-aware consciousness or ego) use of will is a driving force implementing desires and thus is a huge functional part of the causal chain in personal action. While not certain, I find ego driven will reliable and axiomatic that I can force myself to act contrary to the way my id or nature desires me to act.
2b- I would say will exist in the consciousness. Sometimes the id uses it and we act (seemingly) involuntarily, sometime the ego uses it (free or coercion). It seems to span both but residing squarely in the conceptual mind. This mind could be the sum of concepts and entirely an illusory fabrication of synapses firing. With the limited number of genomes and vastly expansive amount of synapses I know that the genome isn’t creating a mind with its genetic plans. If the 1000 billion or so synapses is even able to permanently record every bit of experienced information in a lifetime is yet to be seen as well, and I don’t think it’s simply big enough to hold the sum total of consciousness. Even if we could read exact thoughts and implant those thoughts into someone else it doesn’t make the mind strictly visible. It merely concludes that expression of the mind must be done through the window of the physical brain.

2a As an abstract its a useful illusion, and necessary one at that.
Whether you are truly acting against your desires is debatable, but more closely linked to your perception of those desires.
2b It should be noted that the concept of Ego is seen to be a "mere facade" and any attributions you add to that are mere speculation/assertion as opposed to any psychological understanding of the word.
The Id being animalistic desires, and most certainly determined by needs.
As for the brain being incapable of holding the information acquired over a lifetime.

I also need to debunk this idea that the brain could not conceivably hold all that information. Remember, a neuron cannot hold a memory by itself, the memory is held through combinations of neurons, many of which are reused in the construction of these memories. This much we know for sure.
The combination between interactions of these neurons mathematically would exceed the number of atoms in the universe. You really sure we can't remember a lot? It would work out at about 300 million hours of tv recording. Thats 350 years worth. This is probably limited by the combinations possible and restrictions, but the point is sound enough... there is plenty room for a LOT of memory.

As for 3a and 3b, I need some citations on your understanding of the Id, Ego and Superego, because they certainly have nothing to do with Freud's creation of the terms, and certainly have nothing to do with a free will.