Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

Genetics is only a very tiny part of the equation, I wouldn't highlight it as much as that.

I also included experiences and conditioning.

I don't see the implications either, however, I freely admit, my views are based more upon my own thoughts rather than bodies of literature, so I am likely to be missing out on a lot of prior thinking.

I think I can show the implications in your following arguments.

Frankly, I think these discussions boil down to an even simpler question - can I deal with the consequences of being determined, if not, for sake of sanity, I must invent a non-naturalistic reason for my actions.

Two things. First, if determinism is true, then wouldn't the question be pointless? Whether you can deal with it or not is simply not up to you.

Secondly, why would you think that free-will is a "non-naturalistic reason"?

More to the point, whilst we are the author of our actions, is it possible to author them in any other way. Its untestable sadly, but I my prediliction is that no, we are not. Fortunately our brains are capable of create grand illusions to help us cope with day to day life. In many ways free will shares a lot with religion.

My answer to this is yes, because if it wasn't the case, we would not be the authors of our actions.

It does not exist. However, you as a human, lack even a millionth of the ability to comprehend and calculate the factors which come into play in every facial tick, and movement you make.
An inability to factor in the complexities merely makes it appear 'magic'. Thus illusion.

Here's one of the implications of the free-will-determinism dichotomy that I consider incorrect. Why do you think that the millions of factors in play preclude free-will? Or more to the point, what is it that the will is supposed to be "free" from?

You assume that since a person's will cannot exist independently from reality, i.e. all the millions of little factors that come into play in any action, it cannot be free. But is free-will actually supposed to be free from causation itself? Is it supposed to be essentially causeless? Is your will supposed to be free from you as well? To put it more simply, do you think that if you have a reason to choose one course of action over another, that was the only course of action you could have chosen?

I don't think anyone would consider "free-will" to be some reality-independent, causality-independent supernatural entity. (And to anyone who does, you are wrong). Removing the supernatural crap from consideration, the closest we come to a functional definition of free-will is - the ability of an agent to make a choice. All the bio-chemical processes taking place in the agent's brain is the process by which it makes the choice. Since his mind is the concrete representing the agent, it being a part of a causal chain does not preclude the choice being an exercise of his will.

One thing I would say however, is that the illusion of free will is such, that it is indistinguishable from the real thing.

I didn't address this before, but as per your description of free-will, it is an illusion created to deal with lack of comprehension regarding the mechanism of the action. My contention is that even with the requisite comprehension, the action would still be the result of free-will. It is indistinguishable from the real thing because it is the real thing and not an illusion.

Our mind can be changed, but only by and external or independent internal force changing the causations. In another words, "you" are not the author of your actions, unless we define "you" as a product of your electrochemical memories and a million other factors that cause your decisions. But that simply indicates an illusion that you can choose an action.

How else do you define "you"? That is what or who you are - the sum total of your memories, your thoughts, your emotions etc. This is why I consider free-will-determinism dichotomy to be a false dilemma. It requires that "you" be defined as something other - something supernatural - such as a spirit or a ghost.