Thanks.

Then it's indeterministic (i.e. the causes do not "determine" which option will be chosen) and which option will be chosen is entirely out of the agent's control. The exact mechanism doesn't matter.

There are no input causes, I am not talking about reaction but deliberation. Output causation happens at the end. "Brain waves", as defined, that is the "agent" and exactly what defines the decision being made. Without random element the agent has full control over the decision.

You are not free from, in this case, luck. You are a result of the process and not a determiner (unless you're saying you are the thresholds and and not separate from them).

Without random element chance is not involved at all. "Brain waves" are representation of the full state of mind, I also call it "identity", which includes memory, personality, current mood, preferences, the way how a person thinks, feels, and of course also defines the way how to makes choices. Brain waves, i.e. identity/personality or 'state of mind' is the determiner.

Answer 1.) Does not compute due to false definition and other semantic issues.
Answer 2.) No. Deliberation is determination. Indeterminism is only randomness.

Apparently I choose a very bad word - "receptor". But I am talking about abstract "brain patterns", I should not have used that word. I apologize for the confusion.

What you have here is an attempt to guess the neurochemical mechanism of decision-making, made by someone with no knowledge of neuroscience. We can do a lot better than that, as far as the neurochemical mechanism of decision-making is concerned. What this has to do with free will though is anyone's guess.

It is an abstraction. I am talking in terms of logic not in terms of any other particular science. It seems you are not aware of the problem I am proposing to solve, otherwise I would expect far more appreciation for even a bare possibility such causal mechanics could exist in principle.

The connection with free will is in that it describes possible causal algorithm for choice process and example of true downward causation.

How would that work then?

Please take a look at the opening post and notice how different patterns or "receptors" represent different affinities or probabilities for that option to be choosen.

If one assumes that it's not random (if it was partially random, my objection would've still stood), then it would just be deterministic and the objection would've been that our character would only be a result of our environment/genetics. In any of the cases, agent doesn't have any responsibility over what alternative happens.

I defined the concept in certain terms and posed the question framed in thosee terms. I can not respond to your objection without first discussing the semantics of the terms you use. It would be much easier if you could just answer the question directly:

If this is not free will, then what exactly is it I am not free from?

There are plenty of concrete statements that are either true or false, and that is all that matters. So, please quote the statement you wish to address. I don't see the point of replying to comments without precise articulation or some reference to what the problem is actually supposed be. Still, I appreciate all the comments and I thank you all for participating...

Define "free will". Conceptually, not mechanistically. The latter is to realize the former; but if the former isn't clear or worse, then the latter can't be quantified or tested (i.e. How do you/we know what you're trying to achieve - model - if it's concept is undetermined or vague?)

I thought to define this mechanistically is to attempt solving what is called "mind-body problem" and also to address the question of possibility for true downward causation.

Ok, so, conceptually I'd say freedom of volition is proportional to inner or self determination and inverse proportional to extern or environmental constraints. I could also say freedom of will is proportional to the number of "choice receptors", if that brings in any useful information without further definitions.

Well, the neurological accuracy aside, this kind of free will is random. The outcome is based on luck, and, more importantly, factors (and luck) that we do not have any kind of control over. That's to say, we are not free from luck.

Randomness is not necessary. Imagine instead charge build up in those "choice receptors" to be simultaneous and at the same rate accross.

I mean this concept in particular:
You can not choose otherwise because your choice is determined by who you are.

I actually have a lot more to say about and what goes along with this, like mechanism proposal for 'free will' with true downward causation, or so I would call it. Even if closely related with what I have already said here, I guess a separate thread for that whole thing is more appropriate.

My main reason for joining this forum is to find out if these or similar ideas where discussed or written about before, and if they have I'd like to see that, so some pointers as to what exactly I should be looking for would be very much appreciated.

On the other hand, if it turns out there is enough material to publish something, then I'd very much like to do that. However, as I gather, it would be extremely hard for me to do it alone since I have never done it. So, what are the chances I could find someone experienced and willing to basically take over my ideas, perhaps polish and expand them, then turn them into article or paper?