You have no "because." All you have is "just so." You have an "I" that may be loaded somewhat towards one or the other outcome by your reasoning faculties (etc.), but ultimately can counteract these. Just so. No because.
You have these wonderful "logically-connected thoughts" that all yell "Don't jump" and along comes your "I" and kicks them into the trash, on a whim. Just so. You're dead.
Now rewind the clock ...
You have these wonderful "logically-connected thoughts" that all yell "Don't jump" and along comes your "I" and says " 'kay". Just so. You walk off the building.
You have defined and described them in such a way that I must conceive of them as random. Your denial of randomness, or grounds for calling it such, matters little.
The originatory acts of will are somewhat similar to coin tosses (ideal, not real world). Could come up heads, but could come up tails just as well. Maybe we can ameliorate the situation by not calling the outcome of the coin toss "random" but an "intentional act of will" of the coin instead? No, I doubt we can. I also doubt that you would.
Or loaded dice. If the loaded side comes up, you might call out "that was because it was loaded." But what if it doesn't come up? Just so. And again calling the outcome an "intentional act of will" of the dice doesn't really sound like it.
In fact, the loaded dice are a picture perfect analogy to your ""I", "the soul", or whatever else you want to call the agent of free will:".
The answer is that it doesn't "decide", it just acts. It's a simple entity. It can't "decide" things because it doesn't have it's own brain. It does, on the other hand, have access to brains, because it is the observer of minds. Does that get any closer to answering your question? The agent of free will can act in a way which is neither determined nor random because it has access to the contents of mind but is not constrained by those contents
(quoted from somewhere upthread)
A die doesn't decide either, it just acts.
It is also a simple entity.
It does not have a brain.
The only difference is that there is no
immediate connection to a brain. But don't worry, we may introduce one in the shape of the guy who loaded the die to begin with. So, there is ultimately a connection to brains in the shape of the load being inserted, which of course could also be stated as the observation of the mind of our gambler.
The outcome of a roll of the dice not determined either.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by contrained. Merely a little limited, or ruled out entirely? The outcome of the dice roll is not constrained either, in the sense that any side could still come up, just with slightly altered probabilities.
But it still is a random event.
I believe that the best you can do is compatibilism. Of course, compatibilism has its limitations when it comes to assigning moral responsibility and so on. It may look a little ugly once you peek behind the scenes and consider it on its own, but in comparision to libertarian free will? A chance element called "originatory act of the will" may sound nice and profound, but ultimaltely it'd make things only worse. It is as if a person in a deterministic world based her actions on the only thing that is not determined: her* magic dice.
* Of course it still is her decision, choice, responsibility, because I said it is
her dice. j/k
We ought to believe in what? I could do compatibilism. I am not sure that would count, but what free will is exactly seems to be a matter of taste anyway.
