Do you believe in free will?

[tackattack]

---

7- Yes that would be an accurate description. If we can show that the conscious can input back into the subconscious to a desired change against a current state it demonstrates free will. I think we are all also agreeing that will and identity are both part of the causal chain. So then what are thoughts, memories and concepts? Are they conceptualizations of the physical placement of synapses? That would mean that we have about 1000 billion thoughts we could possibly think that the brain evolved to from genetic code. So how could the human genome (somewhere in the 6 billion bits of information range) form something it couldn’t have the code for?

Consciousness is the illusion created by symbolic conceptualisations of complex collations of information from electrochemical memories and stimuli from prediction centres etc etc, that's my theory more or less.
The self being one of these useful symbols.

I still don’t feel that the evolutionary hypothesis that they’re created by the human genome can account for the mind. I’m not sure even 1000 billion of synapses are enough to account for every aspect of every observable phenomenon. If there could be any objective truths they would probably be so divorced from what we use daily for reality (perception) to never even be noticed.

I should clarify, the human genome does not account for the mind, it accounts merely for the structure of the brain and its learning capabilities. What we call the mind, is not truly dualistic, our abilities are learnt, motor control, concept of self etc.
The argument from irreducible complexity is not compelling to me. I find it quite conceivable that evolution over billions of years has created such a well developed framework for this illusion of dual minds.

I agree about objective truth thou, our bodies limit the information that can be received to a massive extent, what we see, what we feel, what we hear. We have remarkably limited senses.

1 & 2- By your definition then nothing can exist without temporal reality so in reality the more correct definition for existence having a base in temporal reality and perceived. See for me, being caused by, a derivative of or housed in physical medium

No, it is the existence of noumena and phenomena that has a base in temporal reality. My first statement speaks nothing of existence of noumena and my second one says nothing to limit existence to phenomena and noumena.

3- So all I can conclude from you on that statement is math is real, but unreliable because it’s an abstraction.

No, it's simply "not certainly reliable". It becomes unreliable only in certain contexts - such as wrong math.

4- No I don’t. Perception is a process for observation. It certainly plays a part in identity. I believe identity to be the conscious and subconscious sum of self identity both natural and learned. Now if you could show me someone who is incapable of introspection or self-reflection I might agree that identity has no dependence on perception.

Here you are not using the word "identity" consistently. As per your prior argument, it seemed like when talking about identity, you were referring to the state of an entity's metaphysical existence - something you admitted is independent of any consciousness. But that is not the meaning you use here. Basically, at one point, identity means "what one is" and at another "what one thinks one is".

5- As far as coercion goes, here are my thoughts. You’re only limiting the agent to the conscious mind. I believe identity spans the conscious and subconscious mind. The subconscious mind, IMO, holds the bulk of identity and little power or force of will. On the other hand I feel the conscious mind has the bulk of responsibility for directing the force of will and a minimal/ limited picture of identity. Yes, if we’re talking about only the conscious agent, then I agree that it can’t be coerced by itself. Let’s use an example for clarity. Normal person has a breakdown and does something to be considered criminally insane. They’re “out of their mind” at the time it happens. All that really means is that while on his killing spree or baby burning his conscious mind lost control of the force of will to his subconscious nature. To return to a normal state his conscious will would have to coerce his subconscious identity back into its less controlling role. Then he would be coercing himself. The whole concept of self-help and the introspective cognitive loops I described earlier would be the mechanism for this, which I defined as establishing free-will. Free from the prevailing identity (subconscious) to the preferred (conscious). I mean I’m sure you’ve heard the term “at war with yourself” and that quintessentially is the 2 sides of the tug of war of will and allows for its freedom.

I should have been more clear regarding the use of conscious and subconscious, as should you.

Conscious means aware - not necessarily self-aware. Insects are conscious beings, even if they have no concept of self.

Within a conscious, for humans, there could be two parts - self-conscious (formally also referred to as simply conscious) and subconscious. Subconscious is also a part of consciousness - it simply isn't self-aware.

Further, I'd say - one individual - one identity - one consciousness. The identity and consciousness would be the sum of the self and sub. Therefore, we can add - one consciousness - one will. Any internal conflicts get resolved according to the identity at the moment.

To accept your position on coercion, I'd have to treat an individual as two separate entities - both with independent identities and wills. That is simply not applicable when you consider the individual as a whole.

In summation because I think we’re getting off topic:
I believe will is illusory in that it is an abstract. It is a key part of the causal mechanism that self corrects the mind. I consider it useful, reliable, axiomatic and therefore real (or as real as math is practical). I act therefore will is free, so to speak. It can be free because of the duality of the mind. Thoughts can be measured, manipulated and simulated, and are dependant (at the very least only reportable by) on the brain. I still don’t feel that the evolutionary hypothesis that they’re created by the human genome can account for the mind. I’m not sure even 1000 billion of synapses are enough to account for every aspect of every observable phenomenon. If there could be any objective truths they would probably be so divorced from what we use daily for reality (perception) to never even be noticed.

Your premise here - that of duality of mind - still stands unjustified. Classical dualist positions usually entail independent existence of phenomenon and noumenon - but then you don't use their definition of noumenon and therefore your position is nothing like there's. Therefore, currently, both your position on dualism and how it leads to free-will is unclear.

---

I’ll condense both arguments more succinctly here, as the divergent conversations are getting to be a bit taxing for me to keep up with. We’re basically talking about 3 things here:

1a- Whether consciousness is real enough to be considered existing, as more than an abstract thought?
1b- Whether that consciousness resides in the material or elsewhere?

2a- If will is real enough to be considered existing, as more than an abstract thought?
2b- Where does will reside in the material or elsewhere?

3a- Is will free from coercion?
3b- What part does will (free or not) play in the agent?

I’ve tried gathering the collection of posts and getting an idea of where everyone else is, at time’s I’m correct, but usually wrong. So I’ll just answer for myself as my day is drawing to its close.
1a-Even in the worst cases of brain damage or mental reprogramming, I’ve yet to see someone lose that irreducible sense of self I deem as the agent. I think this is largely due to a large tie between identity and experience. I believe that since we experience things in the now and the movement of our timeline is constant, who we are at any moment is inexplicably tied to each moment. As long as moments continue independent of self, the self experiences passing through that timeline. As long as I am experiencing the temporal self moving through the now, I have an irreducible identity. That to me is as fundamentally real as the passage of time.
1b- As no successful attempts have changed this irreducible identity, at least that portion of consciousness remains unknown as to its location. Certainly though it’s not in the material as all brain function can cease and (upon its resuscitation) the majority of the identity is intact. Even in cases of coma where it has been shown that no record of time is kept with consciousness (people waking up thinking it’s 20 years ago) identity still exists.

2a-at the very least will exist as a useful abstract thought. I believe conscious (read as self-aware consciousness or ego) use of will is a driving force implementing desires and thus is a huge functional part of the causal chain in personal action. While not certain, I find ego driven will reliable and axiomatic that I can force myself to act contrary to the way my id or nature desires me to act.
2b- I would say will exist in the consciousness. Sometimes the id uses it and we act (seemingly) involuntarily, sometime the ego uses it (free or coercion). It seems to span both but residing squarely in the conceptual mind. This mind could be the sum of concepts and entirely an illusory fabrication of synapses firing. With the limited number of genomes and vastly expansive amount of synapses I know that the genome isn’t creating a mind with its genetic plans. If the 1000 billion or so synapses is even able to permanently record every bit of experienced information in a lifetime is yet to be seen as well, and I don’t think it’s simply big enough to hold the sum total of consciousness. Even if we could read exact thoughts and implant those thoughts into someone else it doesn’t make the mind strictly visible. It merely concludes that expression of the mind must be done through the window of the physical brain.
3a- If run by the id it’s out of direct control and therefore under the influence of instinctual drives and beliefs. If run by the ego it’s directly controlled by the self-aware ego part of the consciousness and free from influence.
3b-This comes from the feedback loop between the id and ego with relation to identity. “Who I am” is a function of the super-ego and this feedback loop. “Who I am” drives my will and can influence “who I am”, go against the ego or the id and can thus be independent of coercion.