That we can test every choice, simulate their effects for analysis, even the ones you don't like, must mean something, oui? If we come with preinstalled preference packages (no free will), your choice will be determined by them, obviously, but the point is virtual choices seem not to be affected by one's preference package. — Agent Smith

According to Jay Schulkin, in his Possibilities and Constraints,

To be is to be a mind. To be a mind is to be a decision-maker.

Another passage from his essay:

The world matters in the formation of such minds. Nature has limited, or constrained, the kinds of ideas that we can generate. Here one looks to the ecological conditions that minds adapt to for guidance. Nature has also insured that we can hit on the right ideas very often. Ideas are then not arbitrary. They are adaptive; they guide behavior. If the ideas are bad, they are rejected. The constraints on our hypotheses are tied to our creative potential....

Note that Schulkin does not say determined (or no free will). Instead, he argues that there are constraints.

Schulkin, if he's saying that there are constraints to what one can think, is not exactly correct. If I were to be charitable, I'd agree with him but with the proviso that our minds possess more freedom than our bodies (we can imagine unreal stuff like superman, spider-man, and the incredible hulk, comics). To that extent then, if the ability to invent worlds and characters that don't exist in reality counts for something, we possess (mental) free will.

Coming to the gist of my OP, what I want to impress upon the reader is the capacity to make virtual choices (ones we make in the safety and security of our minds; simulations, if you will, of a choice/decision node where we can choose any one of the options, even the ones we may find most undesirable). Yesterday, I did this little experiment on myself. I'm a chain smoker, a nicotine junkie, can't go 10 minutes without lighting a cigarette up. So, as I lit one death stick, I had to, I saw myself (in my imagination), throwing away all my coffin nails, my smoking paraphernalia (my lighter, my matches, etc.). In effect I had quit smoking albeit only in my imagination. Isn't that amazing? My virtual choice, the one I imagined I'd made, was totally unaffected by my physical dependence on nicotine.

Yeah, I also have reservation as to his argument.

But wow! Virtual choice sounds great! Especially about quitting smoking or other undesirable habits.

Mind over matter.

My understanding is we make virtual choices. We imagine thus: If I select x (a choice), this is what'll happen; if I go for y (another choice), this'll happen; and so on.

That we can test every choice, simulate their effects for analysis, even the ones you don't like, must mean something, oui? If we come with preinstalled preference packages (no free will), your choice will be determined by them, obviously, but the point is virtual choices seem not to be affected by one's preference package.

Conclusion: Our virtual choices (simulations, hypotheticals) are independent of our likes and dislikes and for that reason we possess free will even if only in thought/thinking. Nonetheless, making an actual choice could be determined because the preference package we come with will play a significant role when doing so. — Agent Smith

I think this ‘preference package’ is not so much ‘preinstalled’ as based on a temporal distribution of limited attention and effort at the moment any action is determined and initiated.

Our will is potentially free, but actually determined.

Our will is potentially free — Possibility

Can you not imagine doing the exact opposite to what you actually do? In the little experiment I performed on myself, tobacco, I don't touch that stuff; in reality, I chain smoker!

The distinction as herein relevant: virtual choice vs. actual choice.

As for the potential-actual dual concepts, they do apply but note that a virtual choice is made even if only in one's mind. If that feels like potential and not actual, no problemo, fine by me.

Why do you think that "Our virtual choices (simulations, hypotheticals) are independent"?
Are they not also susceptible to external influences, conscious or unconscious?

Can you not imagine doing the exact opposite to what you actually do? In the little experiment I did on myself, tobacco, I don't touch that stuff; in reality, I chain smoker! — Agent Smith

Okay - I see the difference now. You’re talking about entertaining a possibility. Potential choice is how you get from this ‘virtual choice’ to a new actuality.

All processes in our world, be they physical or mental, are determined. To think though that they determine us would imply a separation between us and these processes. That we are puppets of processes, laws, or forces of nature, that determine us. Such is not the case. We have free will and the choices we make are free. Even if our choice is predictable it is free. It even has to be predictable to be free. A choice based on randomness, which is very hard to make, is determined by chance, which would make us a puppet of chance. Hidden variables make us determined.

A choice based on randomness, which is very hard to make — EugeneW

Flip a coin! Roll a die! Or something.

Flip a coin! Roll a die! Or something. — Agent Smith

We could spin the bottle but a mentally random sequence of heads and tails, or 1s and 0s is impossible to make without external agents. Try and discover. I say 1, what say you?

We could spin the bottle but a mentally random sequence of heads and tails, or 1s and 0s is impossible to make without external agents. Try and discover. I say 1, what say you? — EugeneW

Mulgere hircum, eh?

Non sono mica Mandrake!

For someone who seems willing to test his/her own limits, cognitive or otherwise, you seem a bit (too) conservative.

Whatever floats your boat.

I tried my dear! Rolling the mental dice isn't a random throw. It's impossible! A truly random (thr)row cant be thought up. Our minds are not random number generators (which arent truly random either).

:ok: Sorry, I asked!

Sorry, I asked! — Agent Smith

Why Agentus, why??? Just try tow write it. I tried in vain. If I succeed in writing a random sequence of 1s and 0s, it would a true coincidence!

Non sono mica Mandrake! — Agent Smith

C’è chi si aspetta che la burocrazia diventi immediatamente efficiente, rispettosa e comprensibile, che la giustizia sia resa rapida e imparziale, che la scuola formi una generazione di tecnici preparati in grado di affrontare le novità tecnologiche del mondo del lavoro, che le carceri siano umane e in grado di riabilitare i detenuti, che le tasse diminuiscano mentre il debito si riduce, per non parlare dello sviluppo produttivo, naturalmente sostenibile, che farà contenti gli ecologisti e gli investitori, che naturalmente accorreranno a frotte per finanziare il nuovo miracolo italiano.

Why Agentus, why??? Just try tow write it. I tried in vain. If I succeed in writing a random sequence of 1s and 0s, it would a true coincidence! — EugeneW

Both our energies and times could be spent doing something else, hopefully something better, oui?

oui oui! :rofl:

Have something in mind dear...,?

Okay, seriously. Free will. Why you think determinism is a hold for free will? Isn't it an a priori for free will?

I mean, without determined processes no free will in the first place. Only a tiny amount of determined processes is predictable. If a researcher can predict which finger you raise before you are aware, is your free will gone? Could you deceive them?

Is it determined that "I'm afraid of Americans. I'm afraid of the world? I'm afraid I can't help it?" Was I free in that feeling...?

Freewill can be based on 2 differing factors. One involves the inevitability of fate, while the other involves the more commonly referred, ability to behave autonomously or make a decision with full volition.

What is very important to understand is that though we can never escape fate (at least not in this current era of time) we may be able to approach a pure and free autonomy of choice.

How we can approach this, almost superhuman like ability would be a wonderful topic. In my current work, I actually ponder whether or not humans already have this ability. It may be that humans already have this incredible ability and it may actually be a mere given of universal cognition.

Materialists already have a lot on their plate by denying the whole existence of that which is beyond mere explanation, so I figure it's better left to the idealists to figure this one out. :nerd:

I also wonder whether or not fate can be overcome by way of idealistic, universal notions.

Here's the deal.

When presented with choices, most would say they assess the pros and cons of each option. This involves judging the consequences of every available alternative and we then make selection that best suits our overall aim in life.

In our imagination, we make all the choices offered. In actuality, we make only one that, as I said, is best for us. Please remember not to confuse a best choice with a pleasurable/joyful one.

To cut to the chase, in the virtual environment of our minds we've travelled down all possible paths branching out from a choice node (a point where one has to make a choice) but in the real world, we're limited to only one of them.

Can both of these (virtual choices & actual choices) be determined? Don't forget, the actual choice is aligned with our will (re Schopenhauer), but the virtual choices need not be so; in fact, virtual choices are completely unrestricted as we can simulate every possibility. That's freedom, virtual free will, as far as I can see.

Determinism is not falsifiable and has no empirical evidence

Free will: One possesses it when you make a choice that is yours and not part of a causal web with causes external to and beyond your control. — Agent Smith

This definition begs the mutual exclusivity of a decision being 'yours' and it being a function of causality. A good definition should pick one or the other:
1: Decision is mine vs it being made by something else, sort of like an autonomous robot and a remote control drone. Free will is the former.
2: Free will is action not part of a causal web external to control. By such a definition, a nucleus has the free will to decay at no time that is determined by any cause. Kind of thin: free yes, but not exactly 'will', is it?

Determinism: Your choices are effects of causes external to you and are not in your sphere of control.

Again the begging definition, assuming that caused choices are somehow not your own.

My typical example is two people wanting to safely cross a busy street. The first guy uses causal physics, and waits for a gap in the traffic and chooses that moment to cross, apparently without free will by your definition.
Second guy ignores all input and takes his marching orders from, um, apparently somewhere else, essentially crossing blind at a random moment. Second guy is naturally selected out as not being fit. That kind of free will is not beneficial.

Now consider the fact that, given a choice node (the point at which we're offered a choice), we judge the pros and cons of each possible option, something people say is essential to making the right choice.

Gosh, that sounds almost like you're utilizing the causal web, input that is out of your control...

How do we do that? My understanding is we make virtual choices. We imagine thus: If I select x (a choice), this is what'll happen; if I go for y (another choice), this'll happen; and so on.

So far, nothing a completely deterministic robot can't do. If you want to feel special, you need a description of some decision the robot can't make, preferably a moral one.

Agreed, even virtual decisions would be informed by pre-existing assumptions about outcomes. And I think speech is a great example of how quickly we do go through virtual choices before bringing one word to be spoken.

I'm a chain smoker, a nicotine junkie, can't go 10 minutes without lighting a cigarette up. So, as I lit one death stick, I had to, I saw myself (in my imagination), throwing away all my coffin nails, my smoking paraphernalia (my lighter, my matches, etc.). In effect I had quit smoking albeit only in my imagination. Isn't that amazing? — Agent Smith

This has little to do with free will though. I've had similar struggles, and have found that I have multiple parts to my mental functions, and the one that humans have (the rational part not nearly as developed in most other species) is probably the one doing the imagining, and the willing to quit, but it is the other part, the more primitive animal part, that actually makes the decisions, and those decisions are no more rational than decisions made by a rabbit. Free will has nothing to do with it. It's just that the part of you that wants to quit is not sufficiently in charge in this instance.
It isn't a deep instinct, so it can be done. The rational part can, with effort, exert its will upon the situation, but its often extremely difficult and beyond most people, myself included. There are some things that no amount of rational will can overcome. (Almost) Nobody can commit suicide by just holding their breath. The primitive part will override this. It is the boss after all, however much we like to think otherwise.

You raise some very interesting points I must say. I've made a note of them. However, they seem to be beside the point as far as I can tell.

Please bear in mind that there are two stages when it comes to making a choice:

Stage 1. Deliberation on the available options
Stage 2. Actually making a selection

It's an incontrovertible fact that in stage 1, we ponder upon all options and we imagine what each one leads to, as best as we can given what we know and what we don't. This is what I've termed virtual choice. For n options, we can make n virtual choices.

In stage 2, all the choices have been processed and the one that we like is selected. It's in this stage, our preferences come into play, preferences we had no hand in determining i.e. we're not free now.

Please bear in mind that there are two stages when it comes to making a choice:

Stage 1. Deliberation on the available options
Stage 2. Actually making a selection

It's an incontrovertible fact that in stage 1, we ponder upon all options and we imagine what each one leads to, as best as we can given what we know and what we don't. This is what I've termed virtual choice. For n options, we can make n virtual choices.

In stage 2, all the choices have been processed and the one that we like is selected. It's in this stage, our preferences come into play, preferences we had no hand in determining i.e. we're not free now. — Agent Smith

But you have had a hand in determining your preferences. You just haven’t been paying attention.

Freedom is a quality of variability. Our imagination has a high degree of variability, our potentiality less so, and our actuality is less variable again. You can imagine a choice, but it isn’t just what it leads to that’s important in making the selection. It’s also what making that choice requires from us in terms of available time, effort and attention. This needs to be part of the processing.

Compared with our imagination, our actions are not free. They depend on the energy made available to muscles and other bodily systems at any one time. This is determined by affect, an ongoing distribution of changes in effort and attention, which is determined by a prediction of what we probably need based on sensory data in relation to past experiences. We have more freedom here than most of us are aware of. Our imagination can be utilised in constructing simulations and scenarios to determine what our bodily systems would probably require in order to effect a particular change. From this, we can construct a conceptual prediction of affect most likely to be preferred, which can then be applied to our bodily systems over the time required.

It’s like an internal system of marketing. It’s not just about the attractive packaging - it’s about making it relevant to your current situation, easy to access and ultimately beneficial.

In stage 2, all the choices have been processed and the one that we like is selected. It's in this stage, our preferences come into play, preferences we had no hand in determining i.e. we're not free now. — Agent Smith

You've left out stage 3, and that is what you actually end up doing. And stage 3 might be contrary to what you decided in stage 2, like if you decided not to smoke anymore, and you actually light up a cigarette. That stage 3 is not necessarily forced by something subconscious, nor is it necessarily forced by the conscious decision, is evidence that the will is free.

But you have had a hand in determining your preferences. You just haven’t been paying attention. — Possibility

Pfft! :grin:

How could you choose what one likes and dislikes? These are, as far as I can tell, formed way before one is even conscious about them. I, for example, didn't opt for heterosexuality, but, from what I can gather, I have. The same goes for homo/bisexuals. This proves my point to my satisfaction.

Thanks for bringing that to my notice. Stage 2 covers that phase of the choice-making process. Looks like it didn't quite satisfy your high standards of accuracy and truth. I've been accused of wooly thinking. So there.