[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

We tend to think of our behaviour as being a result of our desires and intentions. Thus, for example, in waking up in the morning I might have the choice of having either porridge, or eggs and bacon for breakfast. I am immediately aware of having the power to choose which to have. I might choose eggs and bacon because I prefer the taste. Or I might choose porridge, maybe not because I prefer the taste, but because I am concerned with my weight or health. But whatever I choose it seems for all the world that it is my choice, and it is ultimately my choice even though I might be heavily influenced in making one choice or the other. Thus I may have no problems with my health and weight, have no ethical problems with eating meat, and vastly prefer the taste of eggs and bacon. Therefore it would seem I have no reason to choose to eat porridge for breakfast and every reason to eat eggs and bacon instead. Yet, notwithstanding all of this, I nevertheless still appear to have the power to choose to eat porridge. This power to choose between alternatives is what most of us tend to refer to as free will.

This does not clarify whether you have a libertarian or compatibilist view of free will.

It is? Why do you say that?

Because if there is no process that leads from your current state of mind to your decision, then the decision is random. Either it's determined or it's random. Until you can describe a process that is not wholly determined/random, you've got nothing.

I decide to do something, decide to move my body in the appropriate way, then it happens.

How do you decide?

What about a moving object? Say the Earth orbiting the Sun? And if that doesn't make a choice either how can you say that we do??

Because we use a much more complex decision making process, which I choose to call a decision.

You're simply using a different definition of choice that I do. Choosing which University degree to do, and "choosing" to keep my balance when I walk along are very different. It just causes confusion and endless pointless arguments when you conflate the two. That goes for consciousness too where you and other materialists keep redefining it as a physical process.

I agree that I have a different definition, but that is not the source of the arguments. The source of the arguments is that you cannot identify a decision-making means that is neither deterministic nor random.

Let's make this very simple and consider the case of a pocket calculator. If I punch in 2 + 3 and it displays 5, it is extremely confusing to say that it chooses to display 5.

Agreed. I think there needs to be more complexity before I'd use the word choose.

I'm perfectly happy to abandon the use of the word choice except for conscious human decisions. It makes no difference to me. The point is that you have no way of making choices except for deterministic/random. You have no description of the sort of free will you desire.

~~ Paul