Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

In the context of Gods omniscience sure. You're trying too hard to prove a point that doesn't exist.
Not sure what your point is supposed to be other than to attempt to claim I have changed my definition. The only difference is using the compulsion to choose (coercion) and causation (the factors that compel). They both lead to the same thing.

Note that this would be the fallacy of equivocation. Within some contexts compulsion means to cause by force and within others to simply cause. By ignoring this critical distinction, you are able to equate coercion and causation.

I've never said differently. I completely agree, the self is nothing more than the sum of the whole. A Wholly determined one at that. I think you have me confused with someone who argues against that idea.
The only area I differ is the illusion of choice. I believe every choice is compelled, and just as a kicker, you are usually compelled to LIKE it.

When you stated, and I quote - "His choices are made for him through the natural processes of his mind" - you assumed distinction between the natural processes of the mind and the person.

And again, use of the word compelled here is incorrect. Within this context "caused" is appropriate.

On the small scale you do. I suspect as neuroscience becomes more confident, that we'll find that long range planning is equally as fictitious as short range planning.

Honestly I don't know, my opinions about what is likely to be found are clear, but we don't know yet.

To consider long range planning to be fictitious would mean that the actions undertaken towards the achievement of a long-term goal are not a product of conscious consideration.

Quite simply, you don't cook by saying "I want Pie" and Pie shall appear. You start with the concept of "Pie" and store the goal in your memory, you then take small steps which lead to a whole. You refer to your memory with lots of small scale individual decisions influenced by the memory for each tiny step of the cooking process. Until you have achieved your goal. Each part of this constructed in the subconscious then filtered through the conscious to rationalise. Your conscious mind lags behind milliseconds behind each individual step towards the overall goal of PIE.

Like evolution, you can only create complex thoughts, by combining memory and lots of minute decisions.

Unlike evolution, there is a final cause driving all these small decisions. The storage and retrieval of the concept of pie and its ingredients is not automatic or unconscious. In fact, the next action has to be considered before the current action is completed. Your memory and your decisions are a part of your conscious mind.

The obvious fallacy of your argument is that you don't start justifying each decision upon completion of the whole task. You justify even minute decision an instant after the decision is already made.

That is where you are wrong. If each decision were to be justified after being made, then the series of actions cannot be consistently expected to lead to the same result.

You like using the evolution analogy - consider this. Within evolution, there is not central purpose or goal driving the mechanism. The result are judged beneficial or harmful after occurring. As a result, the process is meandering, unreliable and notoriously inefficient. What if the same thing was occurring with all our actions. Any big decision would be the consequence of lot of small decisions - none of them chosen expressly with the big picture in mind but randomly and justified after selection. How often do you think you'd actually get to the restaurant if that were the case.

To use a better example. How do you WALK.

How many thousands of adjustments are made in order for you to walk. You can't just start moving your legs and hope for the best. It require a thousand different tiny commands at a subconscious level to achieve the goal the body is looking for.

Exactly my point. Even the subconscious level commands are being guided by the conscious command - to walk.

Its all very well saying "I shall walk to McDonalds", a decision formed from hunger responses, memory and instinct, is then rationalised in thought. But without a million tiny decisions, there is not one big decision, and Big decision, I would include choosing to cycle or walk.. thousands, maybe millions of microdecisions made to get to that point. Like evolution, the decision does not suddenly appear like your crocoduck, it is the sum part of a millions of tiny decisions.

And the question here whether the conscious consideration of the big decision that determines the small ones or whether the big decision, like the small ones is justified after the fact. If you must compare it to evolution, compare it to naturally occurring evolution to artificial breeding. In the former, there not being any big picture, the changes occur and then they are justified. In case of artificial breeding, there is a big picture - so only the changes towards that goal are allowed.

Where do I judge it as irrelevant.

I do.

Rather the motivation is the creation of a million little decisions as explained and without your knowledge. It is no more relevant to freewill as any other causal step that moves the universe from an instant to another.

If it was "without your knowledge". Consciousness of motivation leads to the knowledge of the decisions required to satisfy it.

Really. And you claim that I misunderstand coercion?

Coercion is to be compelled into a choice. You are attaching an emotive statement that you are doing things you do not want to do, which is fine if you are talking about terrorists taking hostages!
That is COMPLETELY irrelevant to coercion in the sense of being compelled to take one alternative over another.

If you want consensus that we are not forced into doing things we do not want to do, you have it 110%.
Addiction comes in many forms and might fall into your version of coercion I imagine, but that is not the version of coercion discussed in terms of the free will discussion.

To bring it into context, not only are you coerced into making a decision by the chemicals, and firing of electrons, but you are also told you enjoy it.

Coercion and Compulsion are almost equivalent terms when discussing why we CHOOSE an action. You are not free from coercion, because you are COMPELLED to choose an action.

This clarifies a lot of the misunderstandings now.

As noted earlier, this is the fallacy of equivocation. Within the context of free-will, compulsion and coercion are equivalent - compulsion and causation are not. When talking about being "compelled" by firing neurons, you are necessarily considering the compelled and the compeller to be separate entities - thereby once again choosing to separate the entity form its structure.

The principle is simple - while causation can be achieved with the subject and object being the same (i.e. you can cause yourself to do something), the same is not true for compulsion (you cannot compel yourself to do something). So, in order to apply the principle of compulsion here, you have to treat the neurons and the chemicals as a separate entity from the person - something you yourself admitted not supporting.

No. Just No. You assume that if you are not agreed with, that someone misunderstands the concept. Which is arrogant and faulty. Especially hot on the heels of a fundamental misunderstanding of what coercion of choice entails.

No, I assume that when my arguments aren't addressed. The fundamental misunderstanding is yours - for the reason given.

I chose that quote specifically, because it highlights the barbarism of terms you are using to justify free will in a determined, and COERCED decision making process. Its the claim to have solved the problem, through nothing other than wordplay and readjustment of meanings.

You can keep shouting coerced, it does not make caused and coerced equivalent. And what you refer to as wordplay and readjustment of meaning, is actually understanding the concept by the words used to define it.

Think of a decision as an organic being. As a whole, it is complex and compelling, but under a microscope, consists entirely of little things that care not one jot for the overall organism, but working together for mutual benefit.

Except, here it is the caring for the overall organism that is the final cause of the existence of each and every one of them.

You have stated that the motivation precedes the action, whereby, I am arguing that, counter-intuitive as it may be, this does not seem to be the case.
We agree in terms of things being caused, but there is a clear realm of disagreement in what this means.

And my argument is that posteriori justification of the action with a rationalised motivation, with all of the rationalizations leading to one singular coherent goal would be a very rare event indeed. It is not so.

Decision to act. Not Action. Don't be foolish. You're smarter than that.

An intractable decision to act is separated by the action only by a matter of time. Either the presence of consciousness between the two able to override the "decision" in which case it is not a decision, but an inclination or it is not - in which case, the posteriori justification comes in - leading to problems with long-term goals.

Using Coercion in its sense of being forced into something you don't want to do rather than the compulsion to act fucked things up quite royally.

I which, I'd still claim the correct usage of the words.

Much of your responses now are getting slightly offensive to be honest, such as the little dig that I "act before I think".

I replied in kind.

---

But don't you see, you will either cool down or not and agree on the usage of terms or not, exactly as your enviro-/experiential/DNA dictates. There is no need and no possibility of deciding differently. If you'd been born with all the factors that have gone into determining Genkaus' perspective, then you'd have no choice but to argue his side. If you're right about determinism then you can't win. Reasoning is futile. Those thoughts which confirm or undermine your position are just more 'givens'. If you have no free will, you have no reason to give more credence to your thoughts than to Genkaus'. If you can see through the illusion of your apparent free will then why stop there? Why accept the thoughts and opinions that are given to you to think? Why suppose that what seems reasonable or rational to you is any more reliable than the illusion of your free will? In short, if you don't have free will, can you possibly have 'free thought'?

You are talking about the understanding of determinism as a self-refuting idea, which does not stand in face of a compatibilist view.

---

I ask that you keep the ad hominems to a minimum, s'il vous plait. Unless of course it was your intent to imply that I have no common sense, in which case I suggest that you go fuck a rake, or the nearest painfully pointed object in your vicinity.

Unless you hold that in goal-directed behavior all the constituent actions are not chosen with priori consideration with their applicability to the goal, instead automatically and rationalized afterwards - no, the implication is not applicable to you.