Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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 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.

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.
You're right that evolution does not have a memorised final result, of course, but in that the human is a product of lots of little changes, it bears some parallels.
In trying to explain how a large decision is comprised of little ones it seemed apt.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can you honestly argue, that our thought processes are NOT meandering, unreliable and notoriously inefficient?
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.
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 evolution analogy is flawed to the extent that it has no plan, whereas the creation of a long range plan is obviously a planned end result.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Its a method to discuss the issue, not a declaration of metaphysical difference, you should know that, we made the mistake of accusing you of taking that same position much earlier in the conversation.
You got quite angry about it, and rightfully so, as your descriptions made it appear you were describing free will as a separate entity. A confusion we have now rectified.

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

I can accept that. However, the fault lies with the description of the concept equally to rise to misunderstanding.
I'm reasonably capable of understanding concepts, although admittedly amateur at philosophy, however, many of your ideas have been inadequately described causing pages of confusion.
The concept of coercion is a good example.

You can keep shouting coerced, it does not make caused and coerced equivalent.

To be honest, I have resisted the urge to accuse you of a similar thing. You have used coercion based upon a meaning of "forced against your will" by "glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time." which is the proper usage of your "compulsion to act". Specifically, your unavoidable compulsion to choose one specific choice.

The term free will, encapsulates many different hypotheses each must be clearly defined in order to empirically disprove.

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.

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

I have provided evidence of it on a small scale. You have provided none.
However, my extrapolation to larger scale actions may indeed be inaccurate. There is no reason to assume otherwise, apart from the feeling it is counter-intuitive.

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.

Well, maybe the argument should be, do we have "free won't".

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.

Me too. I'm open to someone with more experience to clarify if you are.