Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

Because, it is at that point, the question of coercion stands answered.

There is still a lack of alternative choices, the other part of free will. If you are unable to choose a different alternative, then you cannot posit any rational description of free will.

The correlation between motivation and its corresponding action is a demonstration of Will, but not Free. You had no alternatives.

Read my argument again and point out where the motivation and the action become inconsistent - thereby negating free-will?

Firstly, incapability of opting for an alternative. Secondly, the motivation and action become inconsistent because the motivation is the rationalisation of the action itself. Based upon our own private perception, it appears that we rationalise then act, which is far more debatable than most people realise, and in regards to minor movements, actively wrong. Whether this applies to large rational decisions rather than instinct is where it gets very fuzzy, its an area which we may never fully understand.

If we limit things to the motivation leading to the action, it ignores the reactionary nature of motivation. You are motivated only as result of external or internal stimuli. You are drawing a line where no line need be drawn in order to justify your definition from my perspective.

I agree on a certain level, that the apparent correlation between our motivation and the action is strong, and strong enough to make a case that we have a will, but I do not go so far as to call it free because I do not ignore the causations which led to the motivation.

So
You've mired yourself so deep in the dichotomy that you cannot see that wherever free-will may start - determinism doesn't end.

On the contrary, that makes the assumption of free will at all. I do not, therefore cannot see free-will starting. Determinism doesn't end, and free will never starts.
From my position you are mired so deeply in the assumption of free will, that you fail to see it is an irrelevant term for our actions.

As for where free-will starts, that is determined by what constitutes the self of an agent - a question there is no clear answer to as of yet - as there is none to the question of the role these factors have in determining what an agent is.

I think we can both agree, that any attempt to define the self, is fuzzy and incomplete as to be pointless to reach consensus.

Yes, I recall you saying something of the sort. I also recall saying that though functionally similar, these two were fundamentally different - the former being the result of irrational understanding of what constitutes an agent and mistaken view of what free-will is supposed of be free of. Further, how you define (or rather understand) free-will would be critical in determining whether its real or illusory. So, no, no agreement was reached on the subject.

You certainly asserted the illusion, and actuality of free will were different, but never coherently backed up the assertion. Which I note you have done once more.

What you are doing, is asserting something which is compatible with free will, and hijacking the phrase free will to a deterministic causal chain as an explanation via creation of action through motivation to do so.
So far neuroscience seems to indicate, although only in terms of non-consequential actions, that the activity to commit to an action, occurs before the conscious motivation to do so.
Whether this is also true of larger conscious decisions is open to debate, but it would not surprise me if all actions occur on this level, which are merely rationalised by the conscious mind.