Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

The distinction that we are forced against our will in terms of a discussion on will, it seems to be a tautology. Our created will forces us to against our will to do something is nonsense.
The only logical sense is to use the word in context of being compelled to act.

But the terms of the discussion are not about will they are about free will. Any idea regarding compulsion, coercion or free-will assumes the "will" part as a given. Without there being a "will" the other concepts are meaningless. So, the usage of compulsion or coercion is to judge the conflict between will and action - not any inconsistency within will itself. If there is a conflict, then it is compulsion, if not it is free of compulsion.

True, but my arguments are clear that the person is nothing but the sum of the physiological whole reacting to stimuli internal and external.

Do you not consider the internal stimuli to be a part of the sum? I ask this because you mention it separately from the sum.

The quote is discussing choice, and it only makes sense to reify the "self" in this instance as a reference point for whom the choice refers to. It is more than clear that I do not consider the person to be separate from the natural processes. Suggestions for a better way to word it?

None. But my complaint is not regarding this formulation, but regarding the implication that you do not follow it when discussing free-will. Basically, when you say that a person is compelled to act by his natural processes, you are implying that these two things are separate.

Only if the mechanical ability to memorise does not exist. Which it clearly does.

For instance, a computer program is resolves an instruction to complete a task. It is an illusion the task is completed instantly (unless you use my computer), merely the byproduct of lots of little instructions to make up the whole. It is the memory which makes it possible for the computer to create small steps leading to the fulfillment of the plan.
However, our choice to "want promotion" was initially a small idea, likely based on a small choice "I want to be more comfortable", memorised, and expanded upon to reach a state of perceived more permanent comfort.

The issue is not memorization, it is the consciousness of it. You treat memory as an unconscious process, storing and retrieving data automatically, whereas the very process of learning is about conscious storage and retrieval. It is a fallacy of composition to think that because some data is stored and retrieved unconsciously, all data is stored and retrieved similarly.

Precisely. Your concept of Pie was the fleeting thought, memorised, and then minor tasks repeatedly memorised to reach the final concept. You can then act, based upon stored decisions to reach a result.

As I said, the issue is regarding the consciousness involved in memory retrieval. You argument is that all these minor tasks are decided upon automatically without any need for consciousness. But if the process of memorization and subsequent retrieval are conscious, then your argument won't be applicable.

Now in terms of Neuroscience, your wants and needs are dependent on the chemicals in your body. An interesting case study is Ann Klinestiver, a teacher whom was squeaky clean, whom was medicated with a Dopamine substitute.
She developed an intense gambling addiction brought on by the Dopamine.

I bring this up, and as a layman, I can only describe it in layman terms, but because dopamine affects your "reward prediction" centre in your brain, it has serious effects on your long range motivations.
To cut a long story short, the link between mnemonic processes and the functions of decisions is known. More to the point, it seems likely, thou I don't know of any studies on this yet, merely the brain processes that link mnemonic and decision making, that these processes predate conscious thought in their construction.

Not quite. The knowledge about relation between mnemonics and brain functions does not preclude or predate conscious thought. Especially if it is established that the mnemonics cannot be constructed without conscious thought.

However, it does seem to be a logical conclusion, that if the subconscious, which you have no control over, is making split second decisions before your conscious mind rationalises it, that your subconscious is also doing the same thing with steps related to long term goals.
In another words.. your conscious process of planning a long range goal, was constructed, and presented to your conscious to rationalise.

Except, this would imply that there has been no conscious consideration of any subsequent actions down the line from now. Given that in any long-term planning, first the series of actions is mapped out and then the decision of acting upon it is made, yours would not be the logical conclusion.

That part is theory, and unproven, but hence my point that neuroscientists would probably be surprised if long range planning was somehow separate and therefore a completely different process from small scale decisions.

I think they'd be surprised if it was the reverse. There is a critical difference between the small-scale and long-term decisions. For small scale decisions, the motivation and action are near simultaneous. They bear a one-to-one correlation with each-other, i.e. one motivation corresponds to one action. In this case, it is readily understandable that the process can take place without conscious consideration.

For a large-scale one, one motivation corresponds to a series of actions spread over a long period. It would be simply astounding if every step of the series was determined unconsciously and correctly corresponding to the motivation. To draw upon on your favorite analogy - creationism would have been much more believable if every creature in the world had had perfect design.

Asserting I am wrong, is not the same as proving it. Your point certainly doesn't succeed in that task.
My previous point about reward prediction comes into play. If the levels of dopamine in your brain are altered, your perception of reward prediction is weighted in a different way. The important point to note in relation to this point is that this is all going on to cause your conscious thoughts, not in response to a conscious thought.

Are conscious thoughts required to be causeless? Going back to the original point, in the human brain, we cannot say where the "self" begins. However, artificially altering the dopamine levels in the brain apparently alters the "self". With this alteration, it is expected that the motivations and desires of the prior "self" no longer apply. This, however, does not make the process of decision-making any more unconscious than it was for the prior self.

Any question of compulsion here comes when regarding whether the alteration itself was within the will of the original self.

Finally, the point I made was regarding how the achievement of long-term motivations requires consciously considered action series. Raising the point about how the motivation came to be in the first place does not address the point.

Can you honestly argue, that our thought processes are NOT meandering, unreliable and notoriously inefficient?

Not when consciously focused on a single purpose.

On your way to the restaurant, you will make a lot of minor mistakes, barely noticeable in the long run, occasionally larger ones, like taking the wrong route. Perception of reward for each given task referred to the memory of the destination. The small tasks are irrelevant to the whole plan, but initiated by the prediction of reward memorised.

Some mistakes occur, yes, but to the level of evolution. Currently, it is estimated that 99.9% of all species are extinct. If we applied the same success rate to our everyday actions, then we'd literally never get anything done.

As the original premise stated, the idea we control, and construct our plans MAY (not definitely, I don't assert as you do) turn out to be as illusionary as the small scale ones. We rationalise the plan after we have already decided and memorised our WANTS.

The level of unconscious effort required here would be astounding. When you consciously choose your actions and consciously commit them to memory, you have the option of weeding out the irrelevant and the useless. The unconscious has no such mechanism.

Why did you create the command to walk? Did YOU decide to walk?
My argument is that conscious is our unusual mechanism which justifies the action the subconscious has decided upon.
It suits me to call it my free will, but the reality is likely to be nothing close.

Not quite. I wanted to walk. The decision to walk wasn't finalized without conscious consideration. If it was finalized, I'd have found myself half out of the chair before I became conscious of the desire.

So, yes, I did decide to walk. The subconscious might have provided the inclination, but the final decision was up to me.

Sometimes I'm sure, but your rationalisation doesn't ALWAYS match the reasons.
I need sustenance, body go eat pie, is rationalised, as "gosh, I'm hungry, I think I'll choose to eat that pie". No problem. Your free will in choosing to eat the pie.
More to the point, you fancy an orange. There is no problem in accepting that your body recognises an orange as containing certain vitamins and sugars it particularly needs and compels you to choose that over the pie.

The reason I don't accept your "rationalization" argument, is because the number of factors considered for the decision is beyond what the subconscious is capable off. Fancying a pie or an orange does not necessitate the decision. That fancy is simply range of the moment, unconscious decision. That unconscious motivation is easily overruled by other motivations you have already become conscious of - such as that of losing weight.

It gets shadier with more complex ideas such as "I am going to marry that girl". Are you absolutely sure your reasons for being attracted to her is the result of conscious decision? I'm willing to bet that you are happy to attribute the complexity of that decision to reasons dictated by your subconscious rather than a decision formed by your conscious. Nebulous concepts such as "I love her therefore" are mostly meaningless to the true requirement of your motivation to wish to partner someone indefinitely. Too complex to comprehend, and simplified into concepts of love etc.

Actually, no. I would not allow myself to be dictated by nebulous and ill-defined concepts such as love. My attraction to the girls I meet is not simply subconscious - because the subconscious has tools of judging solely on appearances. I've consciously determined which properties I find attractive and why and upon meeting someone, I consciously look for these - irrespective of whether I subconsciously find them attractive or not. And as the list usually whittles down, I find myself growing less and less attracted to them. Probably the reason why I'm still single.

The lack of free will can be defined as the necessity of causation, and the compulsion to act. I defined free will in different ways, but by no means fallaciously equivalent. It is the difference between defining what makes you something, and being made to do something. Different concepts... different words.. BOTH restrict the possibility of free will.

The first definition precludes free-will. The second one does not.

Your point about separate entities is no more relevant than you saying that your consciousness initiates the action.

My argument is not that consciousness initiates the action, but that the action is initiated after conscious consideration.

The consciousness is not really a separate entity at all, but in order to discuss coherently, you must talk about the conscious mind and subconscious, even thou there is no real separation between the two holistically, its all one biological process. This illusion we have that we an choose is part of what makes things separate, and most importantly allows us to discuss it in a rational manner.
Separation remains a rhetorical device to explain concepts. If we used the word body instead of "mind" "conscious" "subconscious" "feeling" "emotion".. the conversation would just be nonsense, but that does not apply any reality to the separation, merely a method to talk about the issue and the description of parts that are not really separate, but feel as if they are to us.

If you consider the separation to be illusory, then you'd consider the will to be illusory as well - not just free-will. The way you talk about separate entities, it seems you consider any such separation to be not real - that is an illusion. In which case, you should regard all subsequent concepts as illusions as well, not just free will.

Because you mistakenly interpret that the rationalisation happens upon the completion of the action, rather than completion of the readiness to act.

Uh, no. This would be another important distinction. I didn't exactly assume completion of action, but I see why it'd be implied.

Basically, I asked myself, what is the difference between a reason and a rationalization. A reason is the known cause which determines the action. If no cause is known upon the determination of the action, then what is substituted there is a rationalization. The difference between the two comes once the act is determined, i.e. the course of action is decided. Readiness to act is not the same as its determination. However, with regards to will, the only only difference between its determination and completion is that of time.