Free Will

[KCDAD]

He will never get it... the idea that free-will might not exist is too uncomfortable for the guy. He trolls free-will threads not looking for discussion but rather to reassert ad nauseum that free will exists as if doing this is a compelling argument. Just FYI, before you spend too much time on him...

He will never get it... the idea that free-will might exist is too uncomfortable for the guy. He trolls free-will threads not looking for discussion but rather to reassert ad nauseum that free will does not exist

I freely choose and I am a willful creature therefore I have free will. No one can force me to do or think anything. I am responsible for my thoughts and actions. Give me the serentity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

 

[Marz Blak]

I freely choose and I am a willful creature therefore I have free will. No one can force me to do or think anything.

First of all, I don't think you're quite being fair. Elman *does* have a tendency to pretty much just assert his positions, without much in the way of argumentation or engagement of others' positions.

In this particular case, for example, he didn't really engage ToddNotTodd's position at all but rather blithely ignored it as far as I can see.

Nor has really addressed my statements. We know that he 'doesn't believe in magic,' but we also know that he 'doesn't believe our thoughts are totally controlled by chemistry' either. So what are processes that aren't obedient to the laws of chemistry/physics, but yet aren't 'magical?' He has nothing to say on this point, which is has been much of the crux of my argument about freewill in this thread (that is, that no one who believes in it can *coherently* say what it *is!*).

I've had a lot of interchanges with elman, and I believe him to be a man of goodwill and honesty, so I don't think that he does it on purpose; it is just that he is a person of very strong personal convictions and it tends to come out in his style of communicating. He believes what he believes and if he can't make a good argument as to why, or can't make a good argument as to why an opposing view is wrong, well that's just the way it is.

So I can see how to people who are more used to, well, really *debating* ideas, his style can be a bit off-putting. I *like* elman and think I know *why* he presents his ideas as he does, and I *still* find it off-putting at times.

But apart from that....

What do you mean by 'freely choose?' If all you mean is choose without any external influence into the thought processes that go into your choice then I'd agree with you.

But is that all you mean?

On the other hand, it is *theists* generally, who posit the intervention of outside agents into people's choice processes--e.g., God 'hardening Pharoah's heart,' Satan messing with people, etc.; not metaphysical naturalists like myself--so I'm not sure you're not contradicting yourself, sort of.

'No one can force me to do...anything?' I'm not sure about that one. I suppose it's a matter of definition. I mean, suppose I had your mother at gunpoint and ordered you to rob a bank lest I kill her, and you did it. Would I have forced you to do it, or not?

On the other hand, 'No one can force me to...think anything?' I don't disagree with this, but I'm not sure what it buys you in terms of freewill. As far as I can see, people think what they *do* and believe what they *believe,* without much say in the matter.

If you don't believe me, then try, even for a moment, to *not believe* something you now *do* believe. Can you do it? No, most people believe what they believe because it is what seems most sensible to them, or because it his how they've been trained to think through the course of their lives, etc. It is not a matter of choice, by and large.

So I don't think that this thing is anywhere near as simple as your arguments suggest.

On another tack, it seems that one general thing that many Christian freewill adherents have in common--and it's implicit in your statements here--is the idea that the individual *must* in the final analysis, be completely accountable for his actions, beliefs, etc.

Never mind that according to psychology, brain science, etc., we *know* that much of what people believe, much of what they *like,* and, hence, much of the basis of the choices they make, are functions of their acculturation and innate biology.

And never mind the fact that, as I said, much of what people generally believe is what they're capable of believing.

And never mind that in our institutions, such as law, we recognize that accountability is not an absolute but must be assigned on a continuum, based on consideration of things like mental state ("sanity"), intent, and even to some extent on knowledge of the law (in some cases).

No, these things we all know, but when it gets to the idea of free will *in the abstract,* it must exist, because...why? I think it is a matter of theology. Without freewill and hence, the ability to affix the accountability for any given individual's choices, beliefs, actions, etc., 100% squarely on him, much of certain strains of Christian theology (not all, e.g., some strains of Calvinist thought) falls apart.

In many strains of Christian thought, freewill is necessary to counter the Problem of Evil; it is difficult to assert the concept of Original Sin as being reconcilable to any reasonably humanistic system of ethics without freewill. Etc.

In the final analysis, I think that many people believe in freewill because they *must* in order to reconcile their theology with their consciences. I suppose that if one is convinced that his theology is correct, this makes sense; but to me, someone who has pretty much never had any use for theology, it seems completely backward. IOW, I start from looking at what we understand about how the world works and how people work, and I have a hard time understanding how freewill as commonly put forward could exist, which is probably pretty much exactly the opposite of how many Christians of certain theological flavors approach the issue.

Again, I think it's a 'never the twain shall meet' sort of thing.

 

[Shane Roach]

Nor has really addressed my statements. We know that he 'doesn't believe in magic,' but we also know that he 'doesn't believe our thoughts are totally controlled by chemistry' either. So what are processes that aren't obedient to the laws of chemistry/physics, but yet aren't 'magical?' He has nothing to say on this point, which is has been much of the crux of my argument about freewill in this thread (that is, that no one who believes in it can *coherently* say what it *is!*).

This is sort of convenient as I am just off a thread where we talk about the imporance of being able to trust ones senses in order to even so much as begin to just think and operate and learn and grow. I don't have any idea how to answer your question, but to turn it on its ear, if I am to believe that all these choices I make every day, these things for which the very word "choice" was invented, low, those many many eons ago, are not actually mine at all, then I must admit to having a very tenuous grasp indeed of the very fundamentals of the nature of reality.

I think an attitude of mistrust THAT deep in simple, fundamental things is deeply misleading from the standpoint of then moving forward in life, and how one thinks and looks at the world.

It is not important really, even if one is a naturalist, for there to be a present explanation for choice. What is important is that it is there, seen, observed every hour of every day as completely and reliable as the rising and setting of the sun or any other observation that we could make about the natural world.

'No one can force me to do...anything?' I'm not sure about that one. I suppose it's a matter of definition. I mean, suppose I had your mother at gunpoint and ordered you to rob a bank lest I kill her, and you did it. Would I have forced you to do it, or not?

On the other hand, 'No one can force me to...think anything?' I don't disagree with this, but I'm not sure what it buys you in terms of freewill. As far as I can see, people think what they *do* and believe what they *believe,* without much say in the matter.

If you don't believe me, then try, even for a moment, to *not believe* something you now *do* believe. Can you do it? No, most people believe what they believe because it is what seems most sensible to them, or because it his how they've been trained to think through the course of their lives, etc. It is not a matter of choice, by and large.

I am insinuating myself in an onging conversation here, buy from my viewpoint your examples actually have nothing to do with what was said. Just because someone finds themselves incapable of believing things they do not believe or of not believing things they do believe, that is not a sign that someone is forcing them. The beliefs in and of themselves ARE the choice, so obviously if one believes something they choose to believe, this happens completely outside someone elses control and thus they are still free.

The argument that goes, "we cannot do certain things, therefore we have no free will," seems specious to me. We have freedom to do things within a certain scope. We are not free to do things that are impossible for us. So there is a limitation on freedom, sure, but there is still freedom to will and to choose and to do all the things within the realm of the possible, which turns out to be a LOT of things if you start to count them all up....

On another tack, it seems that one general thing that many Christian freewill adherents have in common--and it's implicit in your statements here--is the idea that the individual *must* in the final analysis, be completely accountable for his actions, beliefs, etc.

Never mind that according to psychology, brain science, etc., we *know* that much of what people believe, much of what they *like,* and, hence, much of the basis of the choices they make, are functions of their acculturation and innate biology.

And never mind the fact that, as I said, much of what people generally believe is what they're capable of believing.

And never mind that in our institutions, such as law, we recognize that accountability is not an absolute but must be assigned on a continuum, based on consideration of things like mental state ("sanity"), intent, and even to some extent on knowledge of the law (in some cases).

No, these things we all know, but when it gets to the idea of free will *in the abstract,* it must exist, because...why? I think it is a matter of theology. Without freewill and hence, the ability to affix the accountability for any given individual's choices, beliefs, actions, etc., 100% squarely on him, much of certain strains of Christian theology (not all, e.g., some strains of Calvinist thought) falls apart.

I think this is a disease of the liberal that they have such trouble with the concept of accountability. I do not know your politics or such, but one need not be a Christian to hold people accountable for their actions. I believed in my ability to exert some measure of control over myself LONG before I became a Christian, and long before I read the Bible enough to understand the concept as it applies to my present theological beliefs.

Free will is a constant exerperience in my life. THAT is why I believe in it, first and formost. That is what one needs to address if they want to convince me that it doesn't exist. And it would be pretty much tantamount to convincing me that there is no sun, to be honest.

In many strains of Christian thought, freewill is necessary to counter the Problem of Evil; it is difficult to assert the concept of Original Sin as being reconcilable to any reasonably humanistic system of ethics without freewill. Etc.

One has to be a Christian to have a problem with evil?

In the final analysis, I think that many people believe in freewill because they *must* in order to reconcile their theology with their consciences. I suppose that if one is convinced that his theology is correct, this makes sense; but to me, someone who has pretty much never had any use for theology, it seems completely backward. IOW, I start from looking at what we understand about how the world works and how people work, and I have a hard time understanding how freewill as commonly put forward could exist, which is probably pretty much exactly the opposite of how many Christians of certain theological flavors approach the issue.

Again, I think it's a 'never the twain shall meet' sort of thing.

I don't have anything to say about this part... I just left it hanging there and then when I went to edit the post to remove it, I decided to add this silly last sentence instead. HAMBURGER McGILLICUTTY RIBBON DISPENSING GLABERFLOTS.

I feel much better now. Sorry... Too much Monty Python I'm afraid.

"He's not PINING, he's PASSED ON!"

 

[KCDAD]

What do you mean by 'freely choose?' If all you mean is choose without any external influence into the thought processes that go into your choice then I'd agree with you.

But is that all you mean?

'No one can force me to do...anything?' I'm not sure about that one. I suppose it's a matter of definition. I mean, suppose I had your mother at gunpoint and ordered you to rob a bank lest I kill her, and you did it. Would I have forced you to do it, or not? I must choose to comply or rebel. There is a choice.
On the other hand, 'No one can force me to...think anything?' I don't disagree with this, but I'm not sure what it buys you in terms of freewill. As far as I can see, people think what they *do* and believe what they *believe,* without much say in the matter.

If you don't believe me, then try, even for a moment, to *not believe* something you now *do* believe. Can you do it? Of course I can disbelieve anything I believe. It is a priori assumption that since it is a belief, there is a counter disbelief that I can adopt for the purpose of evaluation. One must be able to argue both sides of a belief or it is merely an acceptance of convention and not a true belief. No, most people believe what they believe because it is what seems most sensible to them, or because it his how they've been trained to think through the course of their lives, etc. It is not a matter of choice, by and large.

So I don't think that this thing is anywhere near as simple as your arguments suggest.

On another tack, it seems that one general thing that many Christian freewill adherents have in common--and it's implicit in your statements here--is the idea that the individual *must* in the final analysis, be completely accountable for his actions, beliefs, etc.

Never mind that according to psychology, brain science, etc., we *know* that much of what people believe, much of what they *like,* and, hence, much of the basis of the choices they make, are functions of their acculturation and innate biology.

And never mind the fact that, as I said, much of what people generally believe is what they're capable of believing.

And never mind that in our institutions, such as law, we recognize that accountability is not an absolute but must be assigned on a continuum, based on consideration of things like mental state ("sanity"), intent, and even to some extent on knowledge of the law (in some cases).

No, these things we all know, but when it gets to the idea of free will *in the abstract,* it must exist, because...why? I think it is a matter of theology. Without freewill and hence, the ability to affix the accountability for any given individual's choices, beliefs, actions, etc., 100% squarely on him, much of certain strains of Christian theology (not all, e.g., some strains of Calvinist thought) falls apart.

In many strains of Christian thought, freewill is necessary to counter the Problem of Evil; it is difficult to assert the concept of Original Sin as being reconcilable to any reasonably humanistic system of ethics without freewill. Etc.

In the final analysis, I think that many people believe in freewill because they *must* in order to reconcile their theology with their consciences. I suppose that if one is convinced that his theology is correct, this makes sense; but to me, someone who has pretty much never had any use for theology, it seems completely backward. IOW, I start from looking at what we understand about how the world works and how people work, and I have a hard time understanding how freewill as commonly put forward could exist, which is probably pretty much exactly the opposite of how many Christians of certain theological flavors approach the issue.

Again, I think it's a 'never the twain shall meet' sort of thing.

I would not presume to argue that there are not influences and opportunities that expand or contract our available choices from which we choose, but nevertheless, at any given crossroads of thought or action it is I, the active partner of MYSELF that makes the choice. It is not ME the passive object of MYSELF that is forced to choose.

 

[levi501]

He will never get it... the idea that free-will might exist is too uncomfortable for the guy. He trolls free-will threads not looking for discussion but rather to reassert ad nauseum that free will does not exist

I freely choose and I am a willful creature therefore I have free will. No one can force me to do or think anything. I am responsible for my thoughts and actions. Give me the serentity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

yah yah yah.... I get it. You're his partner in crime. Not here for discussion but rather to hold the line in the resistance of evil ideas. Good job, I'm quite impressed with you're resolve to consistently ignore what's said.

 

[David Gould]

What exactly is this 'me' or 'myself' that choices things?

 

[Shane Roach]

What exactly is this 'me' or 'myself' that choices things?

You would be the one to know, or to not.

Maybe there are two types of people. Maybe those of us who have the ability to choose things waste our time trying to explain something that does not exist for others. Possibly it is an evolutionary leap of some sort.

Seriously, you don't think you exist, or what is your point?

 

[David Gould]

You would be the one to know, or to not.

Maybe there are two types of people. Maybe those of us who have the ability to choose things waste our time trying to explain something that does not exist for others. Possibly it is an evolutionary leap of some sort.

Seriously, you don't think you exist, or what is your point?

I am wanting to know what this thing is. Is it, for example, a combination of memories, emotions, thoughts and so forth?

 

[Shane Roach]

I am wanting to know what this thing is. Is it, for example, a combination of memories, emotions, thoughts and so forth?

Ya, I got that much about your question. My answer is that you, and you alone, have the most direct experience and understanding of who or what sort of thing you are. I can't see you. I can only see your body, or in this case, words on a screen that I associate with a name, perhaps your real one for all I know.

It is for you to answer that question. No one else can do it for you. Conversely, if I assert things about me, it is not really anything you can confirm or deny either. Thus, if I assert I can do something you cannot, like choose things freely, you can not speak with authority on that since you are not me.

 

[KCDAD]

I am wanting to know what this thing is. Is it, for example, a combination of memories, emotions, thoughts and so forth?

The "I" is the part of the self that acts upon the world. The "Me" is the part of the self that responds to the world... one is an active subject and the other is the passive object. The combination of the two make up the personality or "self". It is the two sides of the mirror that we call "us". (See, it also works in the plural.) We define ourselves by the different interactions we have in our lives with family, friends, schools, strangers, work, play, etc... As Charles Horton Cooley called it... "our looking glass self". We need others to understand who we are. In the absence of others we have no sense of identity.
In this "free will" discussion, "I" can choose. Howewver, "me" in unable to choose and can only have will or choice forced upon it. The difference between free willers and others is the focus on whether or not we can take a subjective view of the world or merely an objective view. I believe we can be subjects and not merely objects.

 

[David Gould]

Ya, I got that much about your question. My answer is that you, and you alone, have the most direct experience and understanding of who or what sort of thing you are. I can't see you. I can only see your body, or in this case, words on a screen that I associate with a name, perhaps your real one for all I know.

It is for you to answer that question. No one else can do it for you. Conversely, if I assert things about me, it is not really anything you can confirm or deny either. Thus, if I assert I can do something you cannot, like choose things freely, you can not speak with authority on that since you are not me.

Um, if you assert that you can do a logically impossible thing - like draw square circles, for example - then I can speak with authority on the issue, and know that you are not capable of doing that, no matter what you may believe.

Further, does this maxim mean that if I assert that I cannot choose freely and am thus not responsible for my actions, you cannot deny that?



What I am looking for is a general description of what the self is.

 

[Shane Roach]

Um, if you assert that you can do a logically impossible thing - like draw square circles, for example - then I can speak with authority on the issue, and know that you are not capable of doing that, no matter what you may believe.

Further, does this maxim mean that if I assert that I cannot choose freely and am thus not responsible for my actions, you cannot deny that?



What I am looking for is a general description of what the self is.

I'd like to address the question of whether or not you are responsible for your actions, but I can't get around your apparent refusal to either go with the common understanding of what 'self' means or else go ahead and say what it is you don't like about it.

I'm pretty sure I am just suffering from emotional fatigue from dealing with little quips like the square circle thing. I am losing interest in having this discussion as it appears that much like the unfounded assertions atheists like to make that theirs is some sort of default belief, you are intent basically on arguing that we have no free will by virtue of the fact that it is impossible, despite observable evidence to the contrary, at least on my part.

Definitions need to come from what is real. We should not decide what is real because of games played with words.

 

[David Gould]

Definitions need to come from what is real. We should not decide what is real because of games played with words.

Does 'what is real' = 'what I, Shane Roach, interpret about my perceptions' or is there perhaps a way of using logical analysis - including following such rules as the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle - to determine which interpretations of perceptions can and cannot be real?

In other words, if I interpret my perceptions differently to the way you interpret your perceptions, is there a methodology that we can use to work out which of is our interpretations - if any - can be the way reality works?

This seems to be our fundamental difference - you insist that because you feel as though you have free will, you must have free will. I suggest that it is possible that your interpretation of your experience is actually wrong.

To me, this does not seem like playing a game with words.

 

[Shane Roach]

Does 'what is real' = 'what I, Shane Roach, interpret about my perceptions' or is there perhaps a way of using logical analysis - including following such rules as the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle - to determine which interpretations of perceptions can and cannot be real?

In other words, if I interpret my perceptions differently to the way you interpret your perceptions, is there a methodology that we can use to work out which of is our interpretations - if any - can be the way reality works?

This seems to be our fundamental difference - you insist that because you feel as though you have free will, you must have free will. I suggest that it is possible that your interpretation of your experience is actually wrong.

To me, this does not seem like playing a game with words.

The point is that you don't "interpret" perceptions. There are situations where they can be misleading, and if you ever got around to explaining why it is they would be so in this case it would be interesting, but the arguments you have set forward so far, or rather the argument someone else set forward that you support, merely relies on conflating all causes, both of the will and outside of the will, into a broad catagory of "reasons" why people do things, and ignoring the finer details of how people makde decisions and do things.

At the heart of your argument appears to be an assumption that we are programmed inside and cannot help but react in certain ways to certain stimuli, but this flies into the face of what I percieve. If my perception is wrong, then why should I trust perceptions that lead me to even so much as believe in non-contradiction? If the world is so unreliable that I can't trust the very faculties I use to detect the world around me, then all this is pretty much moot.

 

[levi501]

The point is that you don't "interpret" perceptions. There are situations where they can be misleading, and if you ever got around to explaining why it is they would be so in this case it would be interesting, but the arguments you have set forward so far, or rather the argument someone else set forward that you support, merely relies on conflating all causes, both of the will and outside of the will, into a broad catagory of "reasons" why people do things, and ignoring the finer details of how people makde decisions and do things.

uh, actually he's doing the exact opposite. He's trying to take a look at the "finer details of how people do things". He leads with questions such as what is this "self" that proponents of freewill use that makes these uncaused or self caused events? So it's you that is taking the broader look, refusing to examine the details and claiming we/self are ultimately free in the things we choose. You are the one refusing to delve deeper and ask why do we choose the things we do.

At the heart of your argument appears to be an assumption that we are programmed inside and cannot help but react in certain ways to certain stimuli, but this flies into the face of what I percieve. If my perception is wrong, then why should I trust perceptions that lead me to even so much as believe in non-contradiction? If the world is so unreliable that I can't trust the very faculties I use to detect the world around me, then all this is pretty much moot.

It's not about some cursory perception of your environment. It's given that since you make choices it feels as though you have a free choice in making them. This is not denied, but rather acknowledged. Next step is to ask yourself why do you make the choices that you do? If it's a culmination of life experiences and genetic disposition then you aren't free to choose as you have no control over either. If it's something more that factors into the decisions you make, then what is it? This is why David asks you to define "self" in it's decision making form.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The point is that you don't "interpret" perceptions. There are situations where they can be misleading, and if you ever got around to explaining why it is they would be so in this case it would be interesting, but the arguments you have set forward so far, or rather the argument someone else set forward that you support, merely relies on conflating all causes, both of the will and outside of the will, into a broad catagory of "reasons" why people do things, and ignoring the finer details of how people makde decisions and do things.

To whom or what within 'me' can my perceptions be misleading? You have already, it seems, set up a dualism with an internal observer - something that can be misled. If there is no interpreting of perceptions going on, how can the internal observer be misled?

At the heart of your argument appears to be an assumption that we are programmed inside and cannot help but react in certain ways to certain stimuli, but this flies into the face of what I percieve. If my perception is wrong, then why should I trust perceptions that lead me to even so much as believe in non-contradiction? If the world is so unreliable that I can't trust the very faculties I use to detect the world around me, then all this is pretty much moot.

You do not believe in non-contradiction. Non-contradiction obtains because to deny NC is to implicitly affirm that NC holds.

Trust in our perceptions is created by some other methodology, I think. That there are situations in which perceptions can be shown prima facie untrustworthy is uncontroversial. The dichotomy "either all perceptions are trustworthy or none are" is clearly false.

 

[KCDAD]

What I am looking for is a general description of what the self is.

The "I" is the part of the self that acts upon the world.
The "Me" is the part of the self that responds to the world... one is an active subject and the other is the passive object. The combination of the two make up the personality or "self".
It is the two sides of the mirror that we call "us". (See, it also works in the plural.) We define ourselves by the different interactions we have in our lives with family, friends, schools, strangers, work, play, etc... As Charles Horton Cooley called it... "our looking glass self". We need others to understand who we are. In the absence of others we have no sense of identity.
In this "free will" discussion, "I" can choose. However, "me" is unable to choose and can only have will or choice forced upon it. The difference between free willers and others is the focus on whether or not we can take a subjective view of the world or merely an objective view. I believe we can be subjects and not merely objects.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

At the heart of your argument appears to be an assumption that we are programmed inside and cannot help but react in certain ways to certain stimuli, but this flies into the face of what I percieve.

Someone once tried to tell me that our eyes actually see things upside down and our brains flip the image around, but that can't be true since it flies in the face of what I percieve. Ask anybody, they'll tell you the same thing. We preceive seeing things right side up, so of course our eyes do see things right side up.

Riiiiiiiiggggght?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Someone once tried to tell me that our eyes actually see things upside down and our brains flip the image around, but that can't be true since it flies in the face of what I percieve. Ask anybody, they'll tell you the same thing. We preceive seeing things right side up, so of course our eyes do see things right side up.

Riiiiiiiiggggght?

Absolutely. Also, we can't possibly have a blind spot because I have no black blob in my visual field.

 

[Shane Roach]

uh, actually he's doing the exact opposite. He's trying to take a look at the "finer details of how people do things". He leads with questions such as what is this "self" that proponents of freewill use that makes these uncaused or self caused events? So it's you that is taking the broader look, refusing to examine the details and claiming we/self are ultimately free in the things we choose. You are the one refusing to delve deeper and ask why do we choose the things we do.

Bunk. His argument was that all decisions have "reasons" and did not distinguish between the possibility of reasons over which we might have some control and ones which we do not.

As for the self thing, he is free to go ahead and say what he thinks it is, or whatever. I am just not playing because I have seen way too many cutsy little word games from him and another fellow on another thread to go that route. If he has an idea, he can spit it out just like the rest of us do when we have ideas. A lot of his stuff revolves around looking good without substance. in my opinion and I simply do not trust him enough to play hypothetical games.

If he wanted to get down to details that you are talking about, all he would have to do is start writing them down.

It's not about some cursory perception of your environment. It's given that since you make choices it feels as though you have a free choice in making them. This is not denied, but rather acknowledged. Next step is to ask yourself why do you make the choices that you do? If it's a culmination of life experiences and genetic disposition then you aren't free to choose as you have no control over either. If it's something more that factors into the decisions you make, then what is it? This is why David asks you to define "self" in it's decision making form.

I'm pretty sure I have said this before, but for the sake of having it clear on this thread as well, since there are some names I do not recognize popping up, I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think it follows that since there is no simple answer that we have to accept yours or David's though.

I was pondering this driving today and I think that while a lot of decisions are state of mind sorts of things that seem to come automatically, there are crucial decisions that we make from time to time, attitudinal changes, that then inform later decisions.

I went through this on the other thread. Basically, the problem here is that we are dealing with infinite possible decisions and infinite possible reasons, and I do not think there is even close to enough data to know for sure how it all works out. I just know that if I compare how things are with how I imagine things would have to be if we had no free will, my body and my mind behave in ways that make the answer more or less obvious to me.