I don't believe we are aware of all the information that enters our mind. — jgill

We, our conscious minds to be more precise, are not aware of all the information that we perceive through our sensory systems.

If that is the case what the subconscious processes may indeed inform us - in what seems to be an act of free will. — jgill

Isn't the subconscious process deterministic? Doubts are not allowed in a deterministic system. That is true since a deterministic system moves from one state to another unique state later. So there is only one state available for a deterministic system at any given time. There are two states available to choose from when we have doubts though.

Isn't the subconscious process deterministic? Doubts are not allowed in a deterministic system. — MoK

For me, the word "doubt" applies to a conscious state, not a subconscious state.

For me, the word "doubt" applies to a conscious state, not a subconscious state. — jgill

Then why bring subconsciousness into the discussion? Ok. Is the conscious state the result of the brain process?

Isn't the subconscious process deterministic? Doubts are not allowed in a deterministic system — MoK

Can't doubt be a mechanism developed into, and operating within, a deterministic system; the "sense" that there is an agent doubting being, not a challenge posed by doubt so much as by the illusion of the agent "choosing" to doubt (the so called self/subject/ego)? Further, isn't it bad enough we superimpose a false duality by speaking of mind as a separate being from matter? Do we really need to make mind itself consist of dualities--conscious/unconscious? Isn't the entire process we conventionally think of as mind, deterministic: choice, belief, and doubt? If the chain of signifiers constructed by mind align one way, functionally, belief is triggered and the body responds accordingly; if another way, from dysfunctionally to just not functionally enough, doubt is triggered and the body responds accordingly.

Can't doubt be a mechanism developed into, and operating within, a deterministic system; the "sense" that there is an agent doubting being, not a challenge posed by doubt so much as by the illusion of the agent "choosing" to doubt (the so called self/subject/ego)? — ENOAH

We don't choose to doubt. We face doubt.

Further, isn't it bad enough we superimpose a false duality by speaking of mind as a separate being from matter? — ENOAH

Matter including the brain as I discussed is deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when we have doubt.

Do we really need to make mind itself consist of dualities--conscious/unconscious? — ENOAH

The mind is conscious. It is not unconscious.

Isn't the entire process we conventionally think of as mind, deterministic: choice, belief, and doubt? — ENOAH

The mind is not a process to me but an entity with ability to freely decide. We would have problem to decide when we have doubt if mind is deterministic.

We don't choose to doubt. We face doubt. — MoK

Agreed. We don't choose doubt, nor do we choose belief. We are cornered by the factors at play into settlement with respect to each. Deterministic, in both instances.

ENOAH
Matter including the brain as I discussed is deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when we have doubt. — MoK

Agreed again.

The mind is conscious. It is not unconscious. — MoK

Right again.

an entity with ability to freely decide — MoK

And, by that do you mean, the so called self? Or is Mind a [deterministic] entity which decides autonomously, without input from a central authority or agent?

And, by that do you mean, the so called self? — ENOAH

What do you mean by self? Soul?

Or is Mind a [deterministic] entity which decides autonomously, without input from a central authority or agent? — ENOAH

Mind is an indeterministic entity. It receives input from the brain.

My questions are posed as exploratory, not argumentative. In case they seem otherwise.

What do you mean by self? Soul? — MoK

I'm not convinced there is a real self nor soul, if by those, we mean a separate entity with a will.
So...:

Mind is an indeterministic entity. It receives input from the brain. — MoK

If the brain is deterministic (I believe you are suggesting so) and it feeds the indeterministic mind, where, if anywhere, does will fit in? Which one of these is confronted with the duality of belief v doubt? And how does that entity settle upon either? If the mind is indeterministic, and, accordingly, the entity of "choice" (presumably willful choice), there are still presumably a series of causes (including the so called input from the brain) prior to that final "moment" where, what? suddenly there is a gap in causes, and mind leaps, on its own, independently of any last cause, thus choosing willfully (even, perhaps, freely) to either believe or doubt? What mechanism does/causes that (free) choice?

I personally have difficulty jumping into this idea of a self soul will to explain that gap. It makes more sense for me to believe (I recognize the seeming internal challenge of "I believe") that the final step too, belief/doubt is also "deterministic." Not pre-determined; not inevitable, but still, the final "choice," believe/doubt was triggered by that immediately preceding it; not by an agent willing it.

decision is either based on a reason or not, — MoK

Another way to express what I'm angling toward, is that "reason" is defined to restrictively above (or, I assume). A decision is always based on a preceding trigger, whether such a trigger can be defined as a "reason" or not. Nothing happens absolutely independently. Even the most randomly seeming "choice" can be traced back to its triggers, right up to the immediately pre ending domino that pushed the domino with choice printed on it.

I'm not convinced there is a real self nor soul, if by those, we mean a separate entity with a will. — ENOAH

Well, that is the logical consequence of my argument. A deterministic entity such as the brain cannot decide when there is doubt.

If the brain is deterministic (I believe you are suggesting so) and it feeds the indeterministic mind, where, if anywhere, does will fit in? — ENOAH

Will is the faculty of the mind.

Which one of these is confronted with the duality of belief v doubt? — ENOAH

I am not talking about belief.

And how does that entity settle upon either? — ENOAH

What do you mean?

If the mind is indeterministic, and, accordingly, the entity of "choice" (presumably willful choice), there are still presumably a series of causes (including the so called input from the brain) prior to that final "moment" where, what? — ENOAH

Yes, there is a series of causes that lead to the experience of doubt.

suddenly there is a gap in causes, and mind leaps, on its own, independently of any last cause, thus choosing willfully (even, perhaps, freely) to either believe or doubt? — ENOAH

The mind does not choose to believe or doubt. The mind chooses between options.

What mechanism does/causes that (free) choice? — ENOAH

There is no mechanism. The free choice is an indeterministic phenomenon.

I personally have difficulty jumping into this idea of a self soul will to explain that gap. It makes more sense for me to believe (I recognize the seeming internal challenge of "I believe") that the final step too, belief/doubt is also "deterministic." — ENOAH

The final step namely free decision cannot be deterministic.

Not pre-determined; not inevitable, but still, the final "choice," believe/doubt was triggered by that immediately preceding it; not by an agent willing it. — ENOAH

We cannot avoid the mind once we accept that doubt is real.

Another way to express what I'm angling toward, is that "reason" is defined to restrictively above (or, I assume). A decision is always based on a preceding trigger, whether such a trigger can be defined as a "reason" or not. Nothing happens absolutely independently. Even the most randomly seeming "choice" can be traced back to its triggers, right up to the immediately pre ending domino that pushed the domino with choice printed on it. — ENOAH

I am talking about different types of decisions here. The decision is called free when you don't have a reason to choose one option over another. Therefore, there cannot be any preceding cause for a free decision.

The decision is called free when you don't have a reason to choose one option over another. Therefore, there cannot be any preceding cause for a free decision. — MoK

Apologies, I may be looking at a different page altogether. My final input. But if there is no reason, free decision, ok, lets say I agree on the face of it. But where there is reason, you agree we are compelled by reason? But what if you "choose" to go against reason, why is it we accept reason triggered your choice, but going against reason was free? Something triggered that foolish choice. And if there is uncertainty, no reason, then though the triggers are less patent, there are triggers there too. You go through a balancing, and choose, having been triggered by something already input into your history, and used to trigger a choice. It's not PRE-determined; but the choice was the temporary settlement in an incessantly moving deterministic system where history reconstructs itself in the most functional way to meet new "circumstances". Should I stay or should I go? The choice is determined by history. There is no self soul or will in the process.

How could your decision be based on history when you have doubt?

How could your decision be based on history when you have doubt? — MoK

How then does doubt emerge, if not by the push of history? Is doubt arising, out of the blue?

How then does doubt emerge, if not by the push of history? Is doubt arising, out of the blue? — ENOAH

We don't know how doubt emerges from biochemical processes in the brain. We also don't know about the emergence of thought, qualia, and intentionality.

We don't know how doubt emerges from biochemical processes in the brain. We also don't know about the emergence of thought, qualia, and intentionality. — MoK

Maybe because of our approach.

All of these items you listed are mechanisms in an autonomously moving deterministic process which is transmitted by socialization generationally.

As you suggest, at the level of reality whatever the heck doubt is, is not what we're assessing here. A prehistoric human, like other animals lacked this 'artificial' autonomous process. When it faced a divergence in a path, it either used its senses and responded in accordance with its conditioning to follow the 'right' path, or it just moved forward indifferently. It did not have the pronoun to attach either congratulations for a right choice nor doubt with respect thereto.

We are assessing a thing we have over eons constructed and reconstructed, and transmitted from generation to generation, such that whatever real doubt is, has been displaced by it. The 'doubt' we are assessing is not that biochemistry, but the deterministic movement of images constructed and projected into this world of moving images--not world of natural conditioning where the chemistry is at play. And I realize they function together on a feedback loop, but we're really talking about the surface, the world of images, where d-o-u-b-t abides, with all of its triggering powers. I'm confident we're not going to find
d-o-u-b-t in any chemicals.

I'm saying (oversimplified for space and time) those images move deterministically. For humans born into history, confronted by a divergence in a path, if one path appears rugged and dangerous, the other smooth, and these are the only factors, reason, moving images of a specific variety, autonomously gets to work, and the easy path is selected. If a given person happens to defy reason, they did not. Their 'reason,' just as autonomously applied as conventional reason, the rugged so-called choice was triggered by moving images of xyz autonomously moving them to take the rugged path. Finally if one cannot choose, and 'reads' into experience, moving images called doubt, that too, is pushed upon the body at that moment, e.g., a balance of xyz's or conflicting structures, just as autonomously playing on the next step/no step as reason or defiance did.

In none of those cases is an agent 'choosing.' Its just stimulus and conditioned response. But built into the deterministic movements, is, because of the attachment of the image(s) to the pronoun, the Subject, giving the illusion of an agent/choice in what's really a deterministic process. So that in neither prehistory nor history is it valid for an animal to congratulate themselves for a choice or to curse bad choices or indecisions. It is all stimulus and (conditioned) response. It's just for human animals there is an illusion of a chooser and choice.

As you suggest, at the level of reality whatever the heck doubt is, is not what we're assessing here. A prehistoric human, like other animals lacked this 'artificial' autonomous process. When it faced a divergence in a path, it either used its senses and responded in accordance with its conditioning to follow the 'right' path, or it just moved forward indifferently. It did not have the pronoun to attach either congratulations for a right choice nor doubt with respect thereto. — ENOAH

I think even a mouse can freely decide when it is in a maze.

We are assessing a thing we have over eons constructed and reconstructed, and transmitted from generation to generation, such that whatever real doubt is, has been displaced by it. The 'doubt' we are assessing is not that biochemistry, but the deterministic movement of images constructed and projected into this world of moving images--not world of natural conditioning where the chemistry is at play. And I realize they function together on a feedback loop, but we're really talking about the surface, the world of images, where d-o-u-b-t abides, with all of its triggering powers. I'm confident we're not going to find
d-o-u-b-t in any chemicals. — ENOAH

We know that doubt is the result of the biochemical processes in the brain. Doubt is a sort of conscious phenomenon and all conscious phenomena are correlated with biochemical processes in the brain.

I'm saying (oversimplified for space and time) those images move deterministically. For humans born into history, confronted by a divergence in a path, if one path appears rugged and dangerous, the other smooth, and these are the only factors, reason, moving images of a specific variety, autonomously gets to work, and the easy path is selected. If a given person happens to defy reason, they did not. Their 'reason,' just as autonomously applied as conventional reason, the rugged so-called choice was triggered by moving images of xyz autonomously moving them to take the rugged path. Finally if one cannot choose, and 'reads' into experience, moving images called doubt, that too, is pushed upon the body at that moment, e.g., a balance of xyz's or conflicting structures, just as autonomously playing on the next step/no step as reason or defiance did. — ENOAH

I used the example of the maze to show that doubt is real. We are not dealing with a doubtful situation in which one path is smooth and another one is rugged.

We are not dealing with a doubtful situation in which one path is smooth and another one is rugged. — MoK

Fair enough. Will re-think. I appreciated your thoughts.

No problem. Feel free to ask if you have another question.

Coming from a different worldview, I am not sure if this is the place to engage in this discussion. But here is my attempt.

Just to point out, I am not evangelizing anything. I simply trust introspection more than logic reasoning, and I will explain why. What I know from this introspection is that there can be two modes to walk around in this world, thinking and non-thinking. The perspective of these two modes is totally different. In the thinking mode it feels like you are in control. But when you take a deep breath and look around in nature (by which I mean: stop thinking), you are in harmony with your environment. Often then a decision about what you need to do comes naturally, you simply know what you'll have to do. Who made this decision? Is it free will? These terms have no meaning in this mode.

My experience is that these decisions almost always work out in a positive way. Whereas decisions based on thinking can have all kinds of logical errors, prejudice that you don't see yourself etcetera. Look at any discussion here on the forum and you'll see that it is very hard to reach a final conclusion on topics that are not formally defined (like Math is).

I am not saying, never think. What I am saying is: we can use a better understanding of these two modes, because without it, this discussion becomes a little singe-sided.

Did you read the OP? If yes, what is your opinion about it? I defined all the necessary terms.

Yes, I read it. I don't believe contradictions are a problem in conceptual thinking. It even happens in formal systems like Math. Some things you have to point out that are not allowed to do. Division by zero is an example in Math. Freedom of will is such a thing in philosophy.

Therefore I don't think your conclusion is a required one.

Have you ever had a doubt?

Haha I don't know how I should read your question. Do you mean that I sound so confident that I would never have a doubt? I have been called arrogant here. I don't think you mean it this way ;)

I do not have all answers, and I accept the fact that I don't. If I need to make a decision, I do some thinking, but generally I do not make decisions based on thinking alone, I also follow my intuition, so to speak. And at some point often an insight comes.

So either I don't know, or I know. I don't have the experience of "making a choice". Eckhart Tolle (Power of Now) calls the free will an illusion of the mind, that is another way to look at it. But you can only see it that way if your mind is a bit relaxed ;) .

Haha I don't know how I should read your question. Do you mean that I sound so confident that I would never have a doubt? I have been called arrogant here. — Carlo Roosen

My question was simple. Have you ever had a doubt? Yes or no?

No question is simple here. I explained what I call a doubt. I don't have a doubt, and I do not always have answers.

I don't have answers to all questions as well. It is however strange to me that a person who doesn't have doubt can define it.

Yes, good catch, maybe I am pretending I have no doubts but actually I do have them. Have to think about that, I'll come back to you.

By doubt I mean an experience of uncertainty in a situation. — MoK

I went back to your definition in the OP, and based on that, of course, I have doubts. Right now, for example: Should I respond to your post and have my name appear two or three times on the homepage? Some people already say I post too often.

What I do next is become still, stopping my thoughts. (Since you're interested in free will, my choice to become still is a learned behavior—I’ve learned that thinking doesn’t resolve these questions.) In this case, an answer comes to me quickly and clearly: yes, I should post this response. Only after that does the reasoning behind it come to me. It works like a logical process, but in reverse.

Then, of course, your question is: where does that first 'yes' come from? Is there such a thing as a free mind?

I believe even a deterministic system can have 'free will', at least in some sense. This is because our conceptual understanding of deterministic systems is limited. A deterministic system as complex as the brain can be understood at the component level (neurons in this case), but the emergent behavior that arises operates on a different level of understanding, with no direct logical connection between the two. Yes, the connection exists, but conceptually, we can’t fully grasp it. It’s where we have to say 'stop' to conceptual thinking, much like division by zero is not allowed in math.

So, an answer comes, and I don’t know from where. Is it a free mind? Concepts play tricks on us here. For instance, is it possible to choose the opposite of what you actually chose? If not, how can it be free will? I don’t let those concepts fool me—that’s how I deal with it.

Finally, to clarify why I said I don’t have doubts: for me, doubt comes with a feeling of unease. In what I just described, I didn’t feel uneasy, so personally, I wouldn’t call it doubt

I went back to your definition in the OP, and based on that, of course, I have doubts. Right now, for example: Should I respond to your post and have my name appear two or three times on the homepage? Some people already say I post too often. — Carlo Roosen

It is great progress that we agree that you can have doubt. Doubts are not allowed in a deterministic system. That is true since a deterministic system moves from one state to another unique state later. So only one state is available for a deterministic system at any given time. There are two states available to choose from when we have doubts though.