Free will in another hand is the ability to initiate or terminate a chain of causality — bahman

What causes this?
Agents follow from causes too.
Your conclusion is not warranted. Compatibilism is a deterministic picture which recognises the idea of free-will as caused and causal agency. It does not posit an agent that can act regardless of causality. It's a matter of perspective, and answers the problem of apparent acts of will.

What causes this?
Agents follow from causes too. — charleton

That is not correct. What does initiate a chain of causality if even the agent follow causality too?

Your conclusion is not warranted. Compatibilism is a deterministic picture which recognises the idea of free-will as caused and causal agency. — charleton

What is your definition of free will? I cannot comprehend what you are trying to say here.

It does not posit an agent that can act regardless of causality. — charleton

This means that the agent is not free.

It's a matter of perspective, and answers the problem of apparent acts of will. — charleton

Apparent? It is not apparent at all.

What causes this?
Agents follow from causes too.
— charleton

That is not correct. What does initiate a chain of causality if even the agent follow causality too? — bahman

Are you saying that individual human agents are free from necessity?
The chains of causality are not initiated except by the big bang, and maybe not even then.
I do not understand your objection.

Apparent? It is not apparent at all. — bahman

??? Are you trying say there are no acts of will? Or that they are not apparent, but real?

Are you saying that individual human agents are free from necessity? — charleton

No. I am saying given a situation which is defined by a set of options an agent can decide and choose one of the option only if he can initiate a chain of causality.

The chains of causality are not initiated except by the big bang, and maybe not even then. — charleton

Therefore we are not free given the definition of free will.

I do not understand your objection. — charleton

I hope that it is clear by now.

??? Are you trying say there are no acts of will? Or that they are not apparent, but real? — charleton

I am saying that act of will is impossible in a deterministic world. Therefore compatibilism is wrong.

No. I am saying given a situation which is defined by a set of options an agent can decide and choose one of the option only if he can initiate a chain of causality. — bahman

You mean that an agent is free from necessity!

Therefore we are not free given the definition of free will. — bahman

Yes. we are not free of necessity.

This is where the perspective of compatibilism comes in. We observe people making apparent acts of will all the time. Since we can never be party to the causal chains in side a person's brain, these acts of will are deterministic, but appear to be freely made.

No. I am saying given a situation which is defined by a set of options an agent can decide and choose one of the option only if he can initiate a chain of causality.
— bahman

You mean that an agent is free from necessity! — charleton

Did what I say not clear? Of course we are bounded with many things but we might be free given the definition of free will in OP.

Therefore we are not free given the definition of free will.
— bahman

Yes. We are not free of necessity. — charleton

But we should be able to initiate a chain of causality otherwise we are not free.

This is where the perspective of compatibilism comes in. We observe people making apparent acts of will all the time. Since we can never be party to the causal chains in side a person's brain, these acts of will are deterministic, but appear to be freely made. — charleton

Appear? I am arguing against compatibilism.

think we can agree on the fact that brain is a set of neurons which they interact with each other. Any mental state, physical state of brain, leads into another mental state by following laws of physics. — bahman

You realize that there is zero evidence for either of these statements. Your "fact" it's a belief.

You realize that there is zero evidence for either of these statements. Your "fact" it's a belief. — Rich

Have you any reason to suppose that what we see in nature does not also apply to us?
The assertion of the idea that necessity; the rule of cause and effect is ubiquitous is an inductive truth that has never been demonstrated to be false.

Appear? I am arguing against compatibilism. — bahman

No - you are misconceiving it.

Have you any reason to suppose that what we see in nature does not also apply to us? — charleton

What exactly do you see in nature? I see change/evolution.

What "rule" of cause and effect are you referring to? The one at the quantum level?

You realize that there is zero evidence for either of these statements. Your "fact" it's a belief. — Rich

What do you believe? What is the use of brain?

No - you are misconceiving it. — charleton

Could you please elaborate?

What is the use of brain?[/quote]

I use my brain.

I use my brain. — Rich

Come on. Please elaborate.

The above statement basically says it all. I use my brain pretty much in the same way I might use a transmitter/receiver. It is a tool of the mind.

And what is mind?

And what is mind? — bahman

It's what is exploring, creating, and communicating. It's us.

It's what is exploring, creating, and communicating. It's us. — Rich

Is it brain dependent or is something separate like soul?

Is it brain dependent or is something separate like soul? — bahman

It's just there.

It's just there. — Rich

Come on. You just have two options.

There are always many options. Only on tests are there two.

What is the third option in this case?

As I described it.

No, I meant in the regards to question I asked: Is it brain dependent or is something separate like soul? You don't have third option.

They are one and the same.

That doesn't make any sense.

That doesn't make any sense. — bahman

To me it does, but I've spent many decades contemplating it.

However, the issue I was trying to point out is that your OP describes certain beliefs as facts which calls the OP into question.

Could you please elaborate? — bahman

You reject compatibilism, but you are actually rejecting the concept of non deterministic free will.

A compatibilist is a determinist.

Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." WIKI

Compatibilism is a moral stance which accepts that actions are determined, and accepts free will as an instance in which a person acted according to his own (determined) motivation, but was not forced by outside forces to act in that way.

For example you have become determined by experience to be a thief, and you steal. Had you been coerced by another then you would not have been free to act.
Compatibilism is a moral stance. Punishment is delivered to the person who is determined to transgress the law. Such a person can enter into consideration mitigating circumstances, and a judge my consider them. But the judge passes sentence upon a man caused to act contrary to law.
It is not a metaphysical proposition. Compatibilism is a social proposition.