Do you believe in free will?

[genkaus]

1. Both the actions of perception and cogitation do not require material reality to occur.

Yes they do.

Unless you believe we only have 5 material senses?

No, we've many more of those.

Thoughts, desires or mathematics are not a material reality. All factor in to many of my daily cogitations.

No, they are not material reality, but they cannot occur without a material medium

3a. Then please allow me to clarify. In the example person A knows objectively and reliably that they’re not acting “like themselves” (A prior). The person desires to return to A prior. Your statements indicate that there is no way for person A to move in the direction of and attain the same perspective once held by person A prior correct?

No. Firstly, don't equate A prior with "themselves". Secondly, the desire to return to A prior would be the cause and would determine the actions required for the return.

3b. In the instance I described he would have two images of self, the current and the desired.

Correct, but only the current one is his identity - not the desired one.

His desires result in an actionable change and is relevant.

But it is irrelevant to his perception of his current self.

The fact that he at one time was person A (even though it was an introduced corruption of his identity) but would hold no sway over future desires or decision by the new person. It would quintessentially be a memory of the self he didn’t want.

Ok.

J2. You never answered “Can you perceive something in any way other than the way you typically expect to perceive it?”

I did. No.

Also, just because something happened sometime that wasn’t in the now of the current timeline, doesn’t divorce it from affecting the causal chain.

Why would it? Its a part of the causal chain. Its effects are carried over down the line.

This is because the perception or cognition of something that has happened or could happen can factor into the though process. Projections, prediction, memories and conditioning even if 100% accurate and observed will still affect the physical though the causal chain.

No one is denying that. What is being denied is the atemporal nature of these projections, predictions, memories and conditioning,

4. I agree that the physical housing of memory itself is a part of current temporal reality. However the contents of that temporal reality (declarative memories) housed in physical reality (brain) when episodic are in essence illusory time travel sessions. It causes tinting of the now by what was. That to me signifies non-temporal, but we could very well be arguing semantics on this and I don’t realize it.

We are, but semantics are very important since incorrect semantics can lead to erroneous conclusions.

As you accept here, the episodic nature of these memories is illusory, i.e. the atemporal nature is not real. The fact that these happened in the past and are affecting the present is perfectly in line with the temporal nature of causation.

5. Ok so say for instance a particular fish has developed the ability to sense the electrical field produced by certain other fish through evolution. We don’t have that sense and can’t sense a fishes electrical field. It is a noumena to us. The lack of our perception of a noumena, does not negate the phenomena from occurring, just our realization of its occurrence.

The words noumenon and phenomenon are generally understood to describe the metaphysical nature of an object - referring to what cannot and can be known through the senses. In this case, the electric field is knowable through a sense (that of the fish). The absence of that sense in us does not change its nature from phenomenal to noumenal. So, no - its not noumena to us - unless you are defining noumena differently, in which case you should first specify it.

My statement does need a little rephrasing as it was inaccurate so allow me to re attempt.
This perception of phenomena, effect of noumena, desire, introspection and reasoning, all filtered through identity, and acted upon are what encompass free- will to me.

As noted, I take objection with the use of the word noumena here as I consider desire, introspection, reasoning all to be part of the phenomenal. Apart from that, you are going correctly.

6- Objectively we would see one identity, that of a schizo. However, from each of the different personalities perspectives, they would each have their own identity correct?

The keywords being "from different perspectives". Identity does not depend on perspective. For example, disregard multiple personalities. Any single person is viewed through different perspectives by different people. His identity does not depend or change according to that perspective.

The question was to anyone then I guess, could you extrapolate what you mean by “the agent being a part of the cause precludes coercion”

Coercion refers to the action of causing a party to act against its own motivation. However, the action of coercion is assumed to be consistent with the will of the coercer. Now, if the coercer and the coerced are one and the same, you are essentially saying that it is the person's will to act against his will - a self-refuting position. Thus, my statement, that an agent being part of the cause precludes coercion