Well, the neurological accuracy aside, this kind of free will is random. The outcome is based on luck, and, more importantly, factors (and luck) that we do not have any kind of control over. That's to say, we are not free from luck.

Define "free will". Conceptually, not mechanistically. The latter is to realize the former; but if the former isn't clear or worse, then the latter can't be quantified or tested (i.e. How do you/we know what you're trying to achieve - model - if it's concept is underdetermined or vague?)

Well, the neurological accuracy aside, this kind of free will is random. The outcome is based on luck, and, more importantly, factors (and luck) that we do not have any kind of control over. That's to say, we are not free from luck.

Randomness is not necessary. Imagine instead charge build up in those "choice receptors" to be simultaneous and at the same rate accross.

Are you talking about chaos?

How would that work then? If it's the same rate and simultaneous, then they would finish at the exact same time. Then, our choice would still be random-just more chaotic since the choice receptors do not affect the outcome and the factors that matter are different. So, it's still random.
Anyways, the issue is not solely the fact that it's random. If one assumes that it's not random (if it was partially random, my objection would've still stood), then it would just be deterministic and the objection would've been that our character would only be a result of our environment/genetics. In any of the cases, agent doesn't have any responsibility over what alternative happens since whetever an alternative occurs or not doesn't have anything to do with the agent-it is either based on other factors, luck or a combination.

You are correct in requesting definition. In real life, nobody uses the phrase 'free will' in the context of mundane choices lke tea and coffee! (Wittgenstein...language on holiday)It tends to be specifically used in connection with the socially loaded concept of 'culpability'. And in any case, the neurological data tends to imply that 'choice' has its beginnings in unconscious mechanisms, some of which can be modified by socially influenced restructuring. (Ref Churchland).

Define "free will". Conceptually, not mechanistically. The latter is to realize the former; but if the former isn't clear or worse, then the latter can't be quantified or tested (i.e. How do you/we know what you're trying to achieve - model - if it's concept is undetermined or vague?)

I thought to define this mechanistically is to attempt solving what is called "mind-body problem" and also to address the question of possibility for true downward causation.

Ok, so, conceptually I'd say freedom of volition is proportional to inner or self determination and inverse proportional to extern or environmental constraints. I could also say freedom of will is proportional to the number of "choice receptors", if that brings in any useful information without further definitions.

If this is not free will, then what exactly is it I am not free from, in this case? — Zelebg

What you have here is an attempt to guess the neurochemical mechanism of decision-making, made by someone with no knowledge of neuroscience. We can do a lot better than that, as far as the neurochemical mechanism of decision-making is concerned. What this has to do with free will though is anyone's guess.

Of course ! :smile:
The questioner could start by reading up on 'eliminative materialism'.

Also goes back to another thread about ‘education in philosophy’. If people have only read about the issue on a superficial level (as is often the case in forums) then they have no idea that they’re talking past people due to lack of understanding about the various conceptions of ‘free will’.

I just avoid the topic. Too many people don’t have any idea what they’re talking about outside of some throwaway article or some theistic political motive.

There is the issue people using ‘random’ to mean ‘lawless’ too. The biggest hurdle is getting past what people mean by ‘compatibilism’ (in its various guises).

There are plenty of concrete statements that are either true or false, and that is all that matters. So, please quote the statement you wish to address. I don't see the point of replying to comments without precise articulation or some reference to what the problem is actually supposed be. Still, I appreciate all the comments and I thank you all for participating...

State what the problem is then? I was just guessing what you were talking about.

It is an issue with chaos, randomness, ‘free will’ (which ever school of thought you’re talking of) or more a matter of the epistemic standing of ‘true’ and ‘false’ within some strange historicism?

Schools of thought/perspectives include fatalism, compatibilism, determinism and many flavours and nuances therein of each in regards to ontological thought, ethics and logic.

If this is just a basic ‘what do we mean by free will’ kinda thread ... no thanks. Specifics I might go for.

Anyway, GL

How would that work then?

Please take a look at the opening post and notice how different patterns or "receptors" represent different affinities or probabilities for that option to be choosen.

If one assumes that it's not random (if it was partially random, my objection would've still stood), then it would just be deterministic and the objection would've been that our character would only be a result of our environment/genetics. In any of the cases, agent doesn't have any responsibility over what alternative happens.

I defined the concept in certain terms and posed the question framed in thosee terms. I can not respond to your objection without first discussing the semantics of the terms you use. It would be much easier if you could just answer the question directly:

If this is not free will, then what exactly is it I am not free from?

What you have here is an attempt to guess the neurochemical mechanism of decision-making, made by someone with no knowledge of neuroscience. We can do a lot better than that, as far as the neurochemical mechanism of decision-making is concerned. What this has to do with free will though is anyone's guess.

It is an abstraction. I am talking in terms of logic not in terms of any other particular science. It seems you are not aware of the problem I am proposing to solve, otherwise I would expect far more appreciation for even a bare possibility such causal mechanics could exist in principle.

The connection with free will is in that it describes possible causal algorithm for choice process and example of true downward causation.

Your concept of passive receptors is fundamentally flawed. Even a single neurone adapts to persistent signals by raising activation threaholds, and in general, perception is deemed to be active, not passive. Receptors are not 'roofs whose structure directs raindrops', they are 'dynamic structures which select what constitutes raindrops'.

Apparently I choose a very bad word - "receptor". But I am talking about abstract "brain patterns", I should not have used that word. I apologize for the confusion.

Please take a look at the opening post and notice how different patterns or "receptors" represent different affinities or probabilities for that option to be choosen. — Zelebg

Then it's indeterministic (i.e. the causes do not "determine" which option will be choosen) and which option will be choosen is entirely out of the agent's control. The exact mechanism doesn't matter.

I defined the concept in certain terms and posed the question framed in thosee terms. I can not respond to your objection without first discussing the semantics of the terms you use. It would be much easier if you could just answer the question directly:

If this is not free will, then what exactly is it I am not free from? — Zelebg

You are not free from, in this case, luck. You are a result of the proccess and not a determiner (unless you're saying you are the thresholds and and not seperate from them).

Anyways, maybe you should answer the following questions:
1) Is determinism compatible with free will?
2) Does indeterminism give us what we need for free will?
Answering those will help us understand what you are talking about and whetever you are a Compabilist (a person who believes that determinism is compatible with free will) or a Libertarianist (a person who believes determinism is not compatible with free will free will exists nonetheless, i.e. actions are not deterministic events).

Then it's indeterministic (i.e. the causes do not "determine" which option will be chosen) and which option will be chosen is entirely out of the agent's control. The exact mechanism doesn't matter.

There are no input causes, I am not talking about reaction but deliberation. Output causation happens at the end. "Brain waves", as defined, that is the "agent" and exactly what defines the decision being made. Without random element the agent has full control over the decision.

You are not free from, in this case, luck. You are a result of the process and not a determiner (unless you're saying you are the thresholds and and not separate from them).

Without random element chance is not involved at all. "Brain waves" are representation of the full state of mind, I also call it "identity", which includes memory, personality, current mood, preferences, the way how a person thinks, feels, and of course also defines the way how to makes choices. Brain waves, i.e. identity/personality or 'state of mind' is the determiner.

Answer 1.) Does not compute due to false definition and other semantic issues.
Answer 2.) No. Deliberation is determination. Indeterminism is only randomness.

It is an abstraction. I am talking in terms of logic not in terms of any other particular science. It seems you are not aware of the problem I am proposing to solve, otherwise I would expect far more appreciation for even a bare possibility such causal mechanics could exist in principle. — Zelebg

It seems that you are not aware that causal mechanisms behind decision-making have been an active area of cognitive science research for decades. You are not exactly blazing new paths here with your speculations. And all of it is an abstraction, of course - such is the nature of scientific modeling. But what are you abstracting from? Scientists abstract from observations or from more fine-grained models. What is the basis for your proposal?

The connection with free will is in that it describes possible causal algorithm for choice process and example of true downward causation.

Then this is what you should be focusing on if you want to talk philosophy. Leave causal mechanisms to scientists (or acquire some expertise yourself before diving in). What connection is there between "free will" and causal mechanisms of choice processes? How is this an example of downward causation?

And no, asking choanic rhetorical questions to deflect criticism won't do. Since this is a topic that interests you, you owe it to yourself, fist of all, to ask and to answer such questions.

— Zelebg

Without random element chance is not involved at all. — Zelebg

A thing could happen by chance without any random elements-that is the position of an indeterminist. That's what i thought you were referring to when you said "randomness". Because, if not, why bring it up at all? You're just confusing people with that. You could just say "chaotic but still deterministic".

"Brain waves" are representation of the full state of mind, I also call it "identity", which includes memory, personality, current mood, preferences, the way how a person thinks, feels, and of course also defines the way how to makes choices. Brain waves, i.e. identity/personality or 'state of mind' is the determiner — Zelebg

Before moving on (i still haven't been able to decipher your position, at least we know you aren't an event-casual-libertarianist now) to an objection, what do you mean by the state of mind -Why did you even bring up the mechanism then? being a "determiner"? Are you saying that it is a substance of it's own independent of causation?

Answer 1.) Does not compute due to false definition and other semantic issues. — Zelebg

What "false definitions" am i using when i didn't even give a definition? I am literally just asking a question that i got from a book written by 4 very prominent philosophers on the subject (Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom etc.).
Anyways, if you want to me to satisfy whatever criteria you are putting forward, let me try it again, this time detailedly:
Is there a possible world where every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature and free will
exists?

Answer 2.) No. Deliberation is determination. Indeterminism is only randomness. — Zelebg

Okay. And, since free will exists, determinism, the negation of indeterminism, is true. And, since determinism and free will are both true, then we also got answer to our first question-you're a compabilist. (or you do not get what indeterminism is, in which case, i suggest you first learn about it before talking about it since that's a pretty major aspect of free will)
Thanks for the answer.

But what are you abstracting from? Scientists abstract from observations or from more fine-grained models. What is the basis for your proposal?

Logic. So the only valid objection is to take something I actually said, a whole concept or a sentence and address it directly. Anything else you say just speaks to me you do not understand, like that question below.

How is this an example of downward causation?

As is explained in the opening post. Are you asking me to rephrase without you even addressing what I said the first time? Or you are just asking me to repeat myself for no reason at all?

Before moving on (i still haven't been able to decipher your position, at least we know you aren't an event-casual-libertarianist now) to an objection, what do you mean by the state of mind -Why did you even bring up the mechanism then? being a "determiner"? Are you saying that it is a substance of it's own independent of causation?

Looks like I made a mistake to separate this topic from my original thread. What we are talking about now fits better there and is already fully explained. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6931/has-anyone-equated-free-will-with-identity-like-this

But what are you abstracting from? Scientists abstract from observations or from more fine-grained models. What is the basis for your proposal?

Logic. — Zelebg

Logic, as pure reason or as a mathematical theory, says literally nothing about free will or any empirical matters. But if you mean to say that your proposal "makes sense" to you, then you are confirming my impression that you are just making shit up. And as I said, with all the research into volition and decision-making that we already have, there is no value in such uninformed speculation. If you are interested in this topic, then do yourself a favor and read up on it.

And you still have not said anything about the philosophy of free will. After some fantasy neuroscience, you just bluntly state that this is what free will is, and leave it at that. Oh, and throw in "downward causation" for good measure, without saying anything else.

I made shit up, it's called hypothesis. You say its practical application is unknown and yet you insist it has no value. You keep failing to address anything directly, leaving me with no way to help you understand. I'm sorry, but is there any sane reason why I should not simply ignore you?