Do Humans Have Compulsary Will? Which best describes your take on 'will'?

[Angrboda]

So let's go to the beinning of mind, and ask a question-- is there a minimal "spark" which constitutes mind?  Some will argue that there's a smooth transition between dumb matter and thinking systems, but I think tha's a semantic cop-out-- either there is a subjective perspective, no matter how simple, or there isn't one.  That means that while the NATURE of mind may have evolved with the complexity of organic brains, the EXISTENCE of mind was necessarily spontaneous.

(bold mine)

You're assuming that subjectivity is a unitary, unified thing that is either present as a whole or absent as a whole. This is exactly the assumption that the contrary view denies. Simply assuming your way to your conclusion is worth nothing. I dismiss your assumption and with it the conclusions that follow.

---

Accuracy in the scientific sense.  I'm primarily concerned with explaining metaphysical details with naturalistic explanations.

The thing with naturalistic explanations is that they can only point to causes of various levels of proximity, but can never point to ultimate causes.  For example, if you ask why I have a mind, it's simple enough to say that it's a byproduct of the brain.  If I disbelieve you, you can smack me in the head in a baseball bat, and it will be clear that my mind is no longer functioning.  But that's like saying "If I pull away this magnet, the magnetic field isn't there anymore.  Therefore the reason magnetic fields exist is that's what magnets do."  That's true, but it's no really the right kind of answer.

It seems to me that all naturalistic explanations have a simple ontology-- they end at a statement of brute fact.  But "The Big Bang diddit" isn't really much more satisfying than "Goddidit," in my opinion.

(bold mine)

You're conflating "have not" achieved a picture of sufficient proximity with "cannot." Who are you to say what future discoveries in the brain sciences will or will not satisfy our desire for a satisfactory explanation. This is simply an argument from ignorance; it's fallacious, and I dismiss it as such.