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.

However you define mind's gradations or evolutions, the fact is that in a given system, either some type of mind exists or it does not.  Are you suggesting there are some cases in which it both exists AND does not?

Yes. I am suggesting that the line between subjectivity and no subjectivity is blurred. It's a vague property. And your appealing to your belief that it is not a vague property cuts no ice; it's just an assumption. And it's an assumption that appears undercut by the biology of basic organisms that, while they may not possess subjectivity, appear to possess mind in varying levels depending on the complexity of the organism's nervous system. Mind and subjectivity are both vague properties. Look at the psychological development of a baby. Babies are born with subjectivity but without the full complement of mind features that an adult has. They acquire new properties of mind, such as theory of mind and object persistence, over time.

You suggest that mind may be present in a third state-- a part of a mind.  But that's not right-- this "divided" mind either still has the capacity to hold a subjective perspective, in which case it is still mind, or it does not represent a subjective perspective, in which case it is not mind at all.  You are really arguing against the sentence AFTER the on you bolded, in which I clearly differentiated between the nature of a particular kind of mind, and the existence of mind as opposed to its non-existence.  Psychology is not psychogony.

Repeating your assertion doesn't make it more true. I bolded the right sentence.

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."

I have a reason for thinking we cannot point to ultimate causes.  "Ultimate" means end-of-the line, can't go further, that's all there is, there are no more links in the chain of causality to follow.  But to determine we've arrived at the ultimate cause would require us to know what we don't know, which is a logical impossibility.

Do we really care about "ultimate causes"? I think this is just a position you've taken to be contrary. Newtonian physics doesn't describe ultimate causes, but it is sufficient for explaining why billiard balls behave as they do. Are you interested in an understandable explication of the nature of mind, or are you just holding out for an unreachable perfection. This is the nirvana fallacy in full bloom. It's also an example of the fallacy of the beard if you are holding that there are unsatisfactory explanations, but no satisfactory explanations. What are you really looking for here? Some unimpeachable metaphysical truth, or a plausible and understandable explanation of the phenomena?