What is free will?

[Jarhyn]

Just saying ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' fails

You've used quotation marks (usually used to indicate what someone has actually said). Who do you think has actually said this?

I'm essentially paraphrasing compatibilism.

No you're not paraphrasing anyone. You presented a nonsensical claim as though it was a direct quote. That's plain dishonest.

What I asked you can be answered yes or no.

Is an action, if determined and fixed by antecedents, a freely willed or chosen action? A simple question. Yes or no?

You still don't understand?

It can be freely chosen, but there is no way of knowing without further information which you should know if you understood compatibilism.

You still haven't grasped the implications of determinism. Actions determined by antecedents are not freely chosen or willed. It is the antecedents and the state of the system that fix the action.

The actions unfold freely as determined, but they are not freely willed or freely chosen. Freely chosen implies possible alternates. Determinism excludes all possibility of an alternate action.

I shouldn't have to keep repeating the basics;

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Why bother responding in a useful way to what was actually said when you have the opportunity to issue yet another piece of standard anti-free will dogma. Nothing changes.

What else can you expect from a dogma that seems patently designed to allow serial killers to absolve themselves of their actions and responsibilities to kill themselves?

 

[DBT]

Nobody chooses their own makeup, neural architecture or how the brain processes information.

Yet another unargued, bald assertion, and a repeated one at that. Your insistence on that nonetheless is false.

It has been not only argued, but supported by evidence from neuroscience. Do you think that anyone chooses their genetic makeup or brain architecture?

What you say has no merit.

I choose, within certain bounds, how my brain processes information.

Crock. You are invoking dualism, that there is an autonomous you who directs brain activity. There is no such entity. You are whatever 'your' brain is doing.

Besides that, this is not how compatibilism defines free will.

As Marvin points out, we do it all the time: studying, training, even meditation all have impacts on how the brain processes information.

As Marvin points out? Can you not speak for yourself? Can you not understand that whatever you do, whatever training or meditation practice you engage in is the brain at work? Meditation techniques provide feedback loops, altering how the brain processes information and enabling control of functions that were not possible before.

It is the all the work of the brain. The brain responds to its inputs. It's the inputs that act upon the system, altering connectivity, Neural Plasticity, etc....

Function is not will. Training is a matter of function not will, not free will.

Actions aren't fixed by antecedents. They are fixed by the current present. The current present is not the antecedent events even if they happened to cause it. You can still look at which antecedent events led to the present, and you can still, and OUGHT still do the math to figure out what those antecedents are.

It's called time. Past conditions determine current conditions. The match you light in this moment was taken from its box, which was taken from your pocket, etc, an order of events, first action a, then action c, d, e......

 

[DBT]

Just saying ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' fails

You've used quotation marks (usually used to indicate what someone has actually said). Who do you think has actually said this?

I'm essentially paraphrasing compatibilism.

No you're not paraphrasing anyone. You presented a nonsensical claim as though it was a direct quote. That's plain dishonest.

You clearly don't understand a word of what is being said by Marvin or myself : ''And it is decided by ... wait for it ... our own brain! And that's us! Perhaps an unconscious part of us, but still us'' - Marvin Edwards. #2,341

Here we go, baby steps just for you, but I'm sure you'll get it wrong;

Marvin - ''decided by our brain, that's us" = ''we are doing it'' - DBT

''we are doing it, therefore free will'' is not a valid argument, ie, it fails to establish the proposition - DBT

So, it's not me being dishonest, but you acting completely obtuse.


That's all the patience I have right now, there is no patience left.

 

[Jarhyn]

supported by evidence from neuroscience

No, it's been argued with red Herrings, not evidence but FALLACY: "neurons can't do that".

Despite the fact that it's been proven that they can, and proven with such simple exercises as "write a will to go to the store" and "if you executed this will, is it provisionally free? What are the contingents of it's freedom?"

Congratulations, your assumptions of what the brain cannot do have been disproven.

What you say has no merit

@Keith&Co. Really need your help here. Don't want to let my husband down. More shiny mirror for you right here. Get you that nom!

Do you think that anyone chooses their genetic makeup

No, they don't. I mean we know it's POSSIBLE to choose your genetic makeup though. It's just difficult.

Or brain architecture

Except that we do, through studying, and dreaming, and all manner of decisions made over the course of years.

Pretending we don't restructure our brains with the activities we undertake is silliness. After all, that's entirely the reason we have brains rather than simple Turing machines in our heads.

You are invoking dualism, that there is an autonomous you who directs brain activity

No, I'm not. I'm invoking systemic modularity. It is in fact a modularity you yourself reference, insofar as while "I am my brain", I am most certainly not my whole brain, or even my whole body.

There are parts of the brain capable of directing other brain activity. In fact there must be, for anything to get done. It's still made of grey matter.

Can you not speak for yourself?

Says the person who frequently quotes people disagreeing with them in a misplaced argument from authority. Pood points out quite accurately that even your own references are compatibilists, merely compatibilists who have used different words to say the same things as the compatibilists here, mostly on account of having a shit understanding of °°° and •••.

Shiny Mirror On the Wall...

whatever training or meditation practice you engage in is the brain at work

Maybe this is your mental block: you seem unable to parse that the brain is not some magical monolithic whole. Neural systems don't work like that. Hell, NO algorithm works like that. No program works like that. Not even a CPU architecture works like that.

I am a part of my brain.

So: "whatever training or meditation practice you engage in is the [part that of the brain which is the immediate "you"] at work [on the parts that are not exactly the immediate "you"]"

There's that "regulatory control" you keep talking about.

The brain is not an unchanging, ungrowing thing, and part of what changes it is itself, and part of itself, namely one of the most active agents of change, is "me".

Function is not will

Such a lovely assertion fallacy you have there.

You are trying to wave away HOW the brain responds to it's inputs: by making decisions, assembling wills, and executing on them.

I mean we literally have machines now which observably take a set of instructions, interpret the instructions into potentials for comparison against the output of ostensibly real systems. One of those comparisons that is made is the comparison of "expected outcome" to "real outcome".

I keep saying, if you can ot understand how and why systemic engines are not homogeneous magic things, you will never develop an understanding of how or why those things function as they do or even what features they have.

Training is a matter of function not will, not free will.

And then you repeat your assertion fallacy

Past conditions determine current conditions.

No, they do not. Your tense is wrong. Determined, in the past. Past conditions determined. Present conditions, and only present conditions, determine the future, because in the present, the past is gone.

As I repeat, your meme says about as much about you as FDI's boot-on-throat comment.

Anyway, Anyone who holds a ••• to kill folks or hurt children ought turn that ••• at themselves and do everything to defend the °°° of that •••.

 

[The AntiChris]

Just saying ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' fails

You've used quotation marks (usually used to indicate what someone has actually said). Who do you think has actually said this?

I'm essentially paraphrasing compatibilism.

No you're not paraphrasing anyone. You presented a nonsensical claim as though it was a direct quote. That's plain dishonest.

You clearly don't understand a word of what is being said by Marvin or myself : ''And it is decided by ... wait for it ... our own brain! And that's us! Perhaps an unconscious part of us, but still us'' - Marvin Edwards. #2,341

Here we go, baby steps just for you, but I'm sure you'll get it wrong;

Marvin - ''decided by our brain, that's us" = ''we are doing it'' - DBT

Yes, with you so far.

''we are doing it, therefore free will'' is not a valid argument, ie, it fails to establish the proposition - DBT

He clearly didn't say that.

That you interpret what he was saying as the (frankly ludicrous) ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' makes it obvious to anyone that you just don't understand what Marvin has been saying.

 

[DBT]

supported by evidence from neuroscience

No, it's been argued with red Herrings, not evidence but FALLACY: "neurons can't do that".

You have shown no sign of understanding the issue, this in spite of explanations by specialists in the field.

Despite the fact that it's been proven that they can, and proven with such simple exercises as "write a will to go to the store" and "if you executed this will, is it provisionally free? What are the contingents of it's freedom?"

Congratulations, your assumptions of what the brain cannot do have been disproven.

Lordy, lordy, you still can't grasp a simple thing, that whatever the brain can or can't do is determined by its architecture, state and condition....which has nothing to do with will yet alone free will.

What you say has no merit

@Keith&Co. Really need your help here. Don't want to let my husband down. More shiny mirror for you right here. Get you that nom!

Take your own advise and gaze long and hard into your own mirrors, Sunshine.

Do you think that anyone chooses their genetic makeup

No, they don't. I mean we know it's POSSIBLE to choose your genetic makeup though. It's just difficult.

Hilarious. Pure comedy. Maybe you can explain how you choose your own genetic makeup? You choose your parents while floating in the Astral realm before you were born? Your little Homunculus is able to tweak genes?

Or brain architecture

Except that we do, through studying, and dreaming, and all manner of decisions made over the course of years.

Pretending we don't restructure our brains with the activities we undertake is silliness. After all, that's entirely the reason we have brains rather than simple Turing machines in our heads.

What you say is clueless. Nobody has claimed that the brain doesn't change, form connections, neural plasticity, etc, it's just a matter of the means and mechanisms of change.

Namely, free will plays no part in the process, not that there is no process of change. But no doubt tomorrow you'll invoke the same crap again, like nothing was explained.

You are invoking dualism, that there is an autonomous you who directs brain activity

No, I'm not. I'm invoking systemic modularity. It is in fact a modularity you yourself reference, insofar as while "I am my brain", I am most certainly not my whole brain, or even my whole body.

There are parts of the brain capable of directing other brain activity. In fact there must be, for anything to get done. It's still made of grey matter.

You are still arguing with your own strawman, a habit you formed right from the start.

Can you not speak for yourself?

Says the person who frequently quotes people disagreeing with them in a misplaced argument from authority. Pood points out quite accurately that even your own references are compatibilists, merely compatibilists who have used different words to say the same things as the compatibilists here, mostly on account of having a shit understanding of °°° and •••.

Shiny Mirror On the Wall...

Supporting arguments with evidence and analysis from experts in their field is not an argument from authority. It's due diligence.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth by supporters of the compatibilist label is an expression of frustration. An inability to deal with facts.

You have no case to argue, and not understanding the implications of determinism and brain function, you engaged with ad homs, insults and innuendo from the beginning.

Which is why I am dishing it back. Plus I see no hope of you ever understanding incompatibilism, the implications of determinism or brain function no matter how its explained or who explains it.

Polish up your mirrors, Sweetie.

 

[DBT]

Just saying ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' fails

You've used quotation marks (usually used to indicate what someone has actually said). Who do you think has actually said this?

I'm essentially paraphrasing compatibilism.

No you're not paraphrasing anyone. You presented a nonsensical claim as though it was a direct quote. That's plain dishonest.

You clearly don't understand a word of what is being said by Marvin or myself : ''And it is decided by ... wait for it ... our own brain! And that's us! Perhaps an unconscious part of us, but still us'' - Marvin Edwards. #2,341

Here we go, baby steps just for you, but I'm sure you'll get it wrong;

Marvin - ''decided by our brain, that's us" = ''we are doing it'' - DBT

Yes, with you so far.

''we are doing it, therefore free will'' is not a valid argument, ie, it fails to establish the proposition - DBT

He clearly didn't say that.

That you interpret what he was saying as the (frankly ludicrous) ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' makes it obvious to anyone that you just don't understand what Marvin has been saying.

I quoted what he said: ''wait for it ... our own brain! And that's us! Perhaps an unconscious part of us, but still us'' - Marvin Edwards. #2,341

Us mean....us! Who would have thought, eh?

If it's ''us making decisions,'' then ''we - being us - are doing it.''

Is that too hard to grasp?

 

[Jarhyn]

You have shown no sign of understanding the issue, this in spite of explanations by specialists in the field.

Shiny Mirror on the wall...

I've showed Turing systems doing it, neurons can emulate all behaviors of Turing systems, therefore neurons can do it.

If you can't understand a basic logical transform, I have no reason to expect you to understand your own arguments from authority.

You do not understand what your own "experts" are saying. Pood has demonstrated that enough, especially since all your "experts" except one or two are compatibilists who just don't like the term "free will

whatever the brain can or can't do is determined by its architecture, state and condition

The architecture processes the will. The state holds and incorporates the will.

You can't in good faith hand-wave away observed realities: the person (re:brain) writes a list. The person (re: brain) executes the list. The list has a requirement. The requirement is net.

Therefore the system has a will and the will was free.

No amount of neuroscience will change these facts of the arbitrary list and the requirements unto completion of the list.

Maybe you can explain how you choose your own genetic makeup

In the most trivial sense, all you have to do is catch a virus on purpose. In less trivial senses, you have to engineer the virus genetically first.

Namely, free will plays no part in the process, not that there is no process of change. But no doubt tomorrow you'll invoke the same crap again, like nothing was explained DBT's claim was baldly asserted or something

FTFY.

arguments without evidence and analysis from experts in their field [when those experts are either compatibilists or argue for compatibilism themselves, not understanding what it is] is not an argument from authority [AND CHERRY PICKING]

FTFY.


You keep making unargued assertions and arguments from authority when it is clear that you don't even understand what these authorities are actually arguing.



Let's say I'm looking at a machine. I put in a dollar, and out comes a can of soda.

I put in a slip of blank paper and it spits out nothing.

I do not need to know how the machine identified or differentiates dollars to observe concretely "this machine has some mechanism to differentiate dollars".

Likewise I do not need to know how a machine differentiates or identifies the marks on a piece of paper that contain a list of instructions to see that the machine differentiates and identifies the marks (the word is "parses") to see, when it follows that list and tells me whether the list succeeded, to know that thing is capable of "arbitrary list execution", and depending on what the list was, also "Turing completeness"

I just need to establish at least that much.

I establish a lot more. I establish concrete observable will in an "other", as well as concrete freedom measurement all in a deterministic system. I went all the way end to end in that one.

The fact that you don't understand this is your own failing.

Now I close: Anyone who kills folks unilaterally, molests children, etc has a responsibility to kill themselves.

 

[The AntiChris]

That you interpret what he was saying as the (frankly ludicrous) ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' makes it obvious to anyone that you just don't understand what Marvin has been saying.

I quoted what he said: ''wait for it ... our own brain! And that's us! Perhaps an unconscious part of us, but still us'' - Marvin Edwards. #2,341

Us mean....us! Who would have thought, eh?

If it's ''us making decisions,'' then ''we - being us - are doing it.''

Is that too hard to grasp?

"We are doing it" is what was said, but "therefore free will" is your fabrication.

It's blatant misrepresentation.

 

[Jarhyn]

That you interpret what he was saying as the (frankly ludicrous) ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' makes it obvious to anyone that you just don't understand what Marvin has been saying.

I quoted what he said: ''wait for it ... our own brain! And that's us! Perhaps an unconscious part of us, but still us'' - Marvin Edwards. #2,341

Us mean....us! Who would have thought, eh?

If it's ''us making decisions,'' then ''we - being us - are doing it.''

Is that too hard to grasp?

"We are doing it" is what was said, but "therefore free will" is your fabrication.

It's blatant misrepresentation.

A blatant misrepresentation of "we are doing it, and the way we do it is with an arbitrary list unto a requirement. An arbitrary list unto a requirement is a 'will'. The requirement may either succeed or fail. When the requirements succeed we call that 'free'. The 'will' may be 'free'. Therefore 'Free Will' may exist in deterministic systems".

 

[DBT]

You have shown no sign of understanding the issue, this in spite of explanations by specialists in the field.

Shiny Mirror on the wall...

Gaze long and hard into your own mirror, Sweetie.

I've showed Turing systems doing it, neurons can emulate all behaviors of Turing systems, therefore neurons can do it.

If you can't understand a basic logical transform, I have no reason to expect you to understand your own arguments from authority.

You do not understand what your own "experts" are saying. Pood has demonstrated that enough, especially since all your "experts" except one or two are compatibilists who just don't like the term "free will

You clearly have no understanding of what the experts are saying. It's downright embarrassing. I am embarrassed for you.

Pood being invested in the compatibilist label is not willing to consider that 'rational' does not mean 'free will' - that rational and free will are entirely different things.....which the expert explained.....yet Pood insists that rational equates to free will and the expert doesn't know that she is a compatibilist....because, well, that is how compatibilists define their terms in order that freedom of will appears compatible with determinism.

And you, Jarhyn, nod your head without understanding the terms, definitions or argument.


That's all the time I have to waste on your nonsense. Go gaze into your mirror.

 

[DBT]

That you interpret what he was saying as the (frankly ludicrous) ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' makes it obvious to anyone that you just don't understand what Marvin has been saying.

I quoted what he said: ''wait for it ... our own brain! And that's us! Perhaps an unconscious part of us, but still us'' - Marvin Edwards. #2,341

Us mean....us! Who would have thought, eh?

If it's ''us making decisions,'' then ''we - being us - are doing it.''

Is that too hard to grasp?

"We are doing it" is what was said, but "therefore free will" is your fabrication.

It's blatant misrepresentation.

But it's not my fabrication. It is compatibilism.

Marvin made his comment in defense of compatibilism. That is the whole point of his remark; that because it is we who are acting (without coersion), we have free will.

Acting without coercion is 'us doing it' therefore free will. That is the essence of compatibilism.

 

[The AntiChris]

Acting without coercion is 'us doing it' therefore free will. That is the essence of compatibilism.

Well done! You've got it at last.

"We are doing therefore free will" was a misrepresentation. "We are doing it without coercion therefore free will!" is far more accurate.

 

[Jarhyn]

You

You clearly have no understanding

Unargued ad-hom...

Pood being invested in the compatibilist label is not willing to consider that 'rational' does not mean 'free will

Excepting of course that Pood actually argued their position. You appear to neither have fully read it not comprehended any of it, as per every answer to your arguments from authority.

But it's not my fabrication. It is compatibilism.

No, it's a blatant misrepresentation.

blatant misrepresentation of "we are doing it, and the way we do it is with an arbitrary list unto a requirement. An arbitrary list unto a requirement is a 'will'. The requirement may either succeed or fail. When the requirements succeed we call that 'free'. The 'will' may be 'free'. Therefore 'Free Will' may exist in deterministic systems".

 

[DBT]

Acting without coercion is 'us doing it' therefore free will. That is the essence of compatibilism.

Well done! You've got it at last.

"We are doing therefore free will" was a misrepresentation. "We are doing it without coercion therefore free will!" is far more accurate.

What you conveniently overlook is that ''we are doing it'' - ie, the brain acquires and processes informatio - regardless of the presence of absence of external coercion. The correct distinction being; acting according to one's will (which, being determined, is not 'free will") or being compelled to act against our will (which is not free will)

The nature of the brain as an information processor, inputs interacting with the system, a matter of inner necessitation, excludes any notion of free will.

Compatibilism merely asserts its carefully defined label.

 

[DBT]

You

You clearly have no understanding

Unargued ad-hom...

Pood being invested in the compatibilist label is not willing to consider that 'rational' does not mean 'free will

Excepting of course that Pood actually argued their position. You appear to neither have fully read it not comprehended any of it, as per every answer to your arguments from authority.

Pood represents the compatibilist position and argues accordingly....a failed argument for the given reasons. Reasons that have been explained and argued time and time again, but ignored or brushed aside.

It's a simple thing: determinism, being a progression of events fixed by initial conditions and antecedents thereafter, allows no willed or alternate actions.

Without freely willed actions, there is no claim to free will.

Goodbye compatibilism right there.

But it's not my fabrication. It is compatibilism.

No, it's a blatant misrepresentation.

blatant misrepresentation of "we are doing it, and the way we do it is with an arbitrary list unto a requirement. An arbitrary list unto a requirement is a 'will'. The requirement may either succeed or fail. When the requirements succeed we call that 'free'. The 'will' may be 'free'. Therefore 'Free Will' may exist in deterministic systems".

A poor effort.... ''wait for it ... our own brain! And that's us! Perhaps an unconscious part of us, but still us'' - Marvin Edwards. #2,341 - was said in defense of compatibilism.

That, because we (specifically the brain) are the agent of decision making, we are doing it, and if not coerced - we have free will; ''we are doing it, therefore free will'' fails for the reason outlined above: inner necessitation, the absence of will within information processing, which are determined computational actions not subject to will.

There being no presence or regulation by will in determined computational actions, there is no claim to free will to be made.

 

[The AntiChris]

What you conveniently overlook is that ''we are doing it'' - ie, the brain acquires and processes informatio - regardless of the presence of absence of external coercion. The correct distinction being; acting according to one's will (which, being determined, is not 'free will") or being compelled to act against our will (which is not free will)

I don't "conveniently overlook" anything.

I, along with all other compatibilists, reject your nonsensical insistence that the descriptor 'free' must never, under any circumstances, be applied to 'will' in a deterministic universe.

Your relentless need to rebut/satirize/belittle any and every attempt to discuss the topic of compatibilism is not a philosophical position. It's an obsession.

Compatibilism merely asserts its carefully defined label.

Gibberish.

 

[Jarhyn]

a failed argument for the given reasons. Reasons that have been explained and argued time and time again, but ignored or brushed aside.

You didn't give any reasons here. You didn't even bother to repeat an actual assertion.

It's a simple thing: determinism, being a progression of events fixed by initial conditions and antecedents thereafter, allows no willed ... actions.

It has been pointed out that volition is a physical brain process, information processing, where will is formed as a result of that process

Take your pick. You wrote both of these statements this morning.

They are mutually exclusive statements.

Do you even understand what you yourself are saying anymore?

Gibberish indeed.

 

[pood]

DBT, bollixing it all up again. What a surprise!

Pood being invested in the compatibilist label is not willing to consider that 'rational' does not mean 'free will' - that rational and free will are entirely different things.....which the expert explained.....yet Pood insists that rational equates to free will and the expert doesn't know that she is a compatibilist....because, well, that is how compatibilists define their terms in order that freedom of will appears compatible with determinism.

Sigh.

No. I have shown you this with Farah’s own words. She is arguing the compatibilist line, indeed whether she knows it or not. The fact that she is an “expert” in her field means she is an expert in neuroscience, not philosophy.

Farah specifically addresses the dualist concept of free will, which is a libertarian and not a compatibilist concept. Here, she says that right here. Let’s look again:

All of the data of cognitive neuroscience are pushing us to replace the idea of mind-body duality, which is so intuitive, …

Bold by me.

There. Do you see that? Mind-body duality. Not compatibilism. Mind-body duality. She is addressing mind-body duality and not compatibilism.

Let me reiterate that she goes on to write:

I don’t think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will!

Right. The opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will. This is also the compatibilist position. Her use of “free will” is obviously directed toward dualist/libertarian free will. Because again, she goes on to write:

MF:__ Depends what you mean by agency... If you think of a computer selecting certain actions based on a combination of inputs and stored information about goals etc, then there is a (not too head-spinny) sense in which the computer is the agent selecting the actions.

Again, this is the compatiblist position, and it applies as much to computers as to people. This is also why I never said, as you alleged, that the brain can’t be a computer because if it were then there is is no compatibilist free will. I never said that, I said just the opposite, and you never retracted your false claim. My only point about the brain/computer stuff is that it is a metaphor, and a poor one at that, to refute your repeated claim that the brain just is a computer, as if that claim were settled science, which obviously it is not.

She goes on to write:

Of course, what makes the computer that kind of agent that it is, making the selections that it does, is its whole history -- how it was designed, what kind of goals and knowledge have been programmed in, etc. -- But it is the computer, in its current state, that is selecting and so it seems reasonable to say it is the locus of the rational decision.)

Once again, this is exactly the compatibilist position, whether you like it or not. And so, whether Farah knows it or not, she is operationally a comptabilist. This is not my opinion and it is not open to dispute. It is a fact. Her compatibilist position is found in her own words.

Most tellingly of all:

One advantage of focusing on rationality rather than free will is that it enables us to retain the concept of moral and legal responsibility.

If someone is rational and is not under coercion (eg someone holds a gun to your head and says you'll be shot if you don't do X) then it is reasonable to hold him or her responsible...

Good lord, man, how many times have all the compatiblists here argued exactly this point in almost exactly the same bloody words? Farah is a compatiblist! She espouses every compatibilist position! Her attack is entirely on libertarian/dualism, and she has simply relabeled compatibilism or soft determinism as “rational behavior.” That’s OK with me.

 

[DBT]

What you conveniently overlook is that ''we are doing it'' - ie, the brain acquires and processes informatio - regardless of the presence of absence of external coercion. The correct distinction being; acting according to one's will (which, being determined, is not 'free will") or being compelled to act against our will (which is not free will)

I don't "conveniently overlook" anything.

But you do. You conveniently overlook the very thing that falsifies compatibilism: inner necessitation.

That determined actions - necessitation - are not willed actions, therefore determined action are not freely willed actions.

Determined actions proceed, freely, as determined, but not willed, not freely willed, consequently there is no case to be made for free will and compatibilism is an assertion based on careful wording.

That is the last nail in the coffin of compatibilism.

I, along with all other compatibilists, reject your nonsensical insistence that the descriptor 'free' must never, under any circumstances, be applied to 'will' in a deterministic universe.

What you and ''all the other compatibilists'' do is ignore the problems with compatibility.

Inner necessitation.
Determined actions - being necessitated/fixed - are not willed actions, consequently, determined action are not freely willed.
Determined actions proceed freely as determined, but not freely willed.

Your relentless need to rebut/satirize/belittle any and every attempt to discuss the topic of compatibilism is not a philosophical position. It's an obsession.

You ignore anything and everything that is described, quoted, cited or provided from the perspective of incompatibilism, neuroscience, brain function, condition, pathologies, agency, etc, etc.

Compatibilism merely asserts its carefully defined label.

Gibberish.

Nope, I'm not the only one to note it;

''Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.[1] It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists define 'free will' in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism.'' - wiki.