I suggest reading St Augustine "On Free Choice of the Will".

Kant, 1785, “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals”, in T. K. Abbott, 1889, on Project Gutenberg ebooks.

“...We have then to develop the notion of a will which deserves to be highly esteemed for itself and is good without a view to anything further, a notion which exists already in the sound natural understanding, requiring rather to be cleared up than to be taught, and which in estimating the value of our actions always takes the first place and constitutes the condition of all the rest....”

Follow-up: “Critique of Practical Reason”, 1788, ibid, from which the concept of freedom as necessary causality arises:

“....For if, as pure reason, it is actually practical, it proves its own reality and that of its concepts by fact, and all disputation against the possibility of its being real is futile. With this faculty, transcendental freedom is also established; freedom, namely, in that absolute sense in which speculative reason required it in its use of the concept of causality in order to escape the antinomy into which it inevitably falls, when in the chain of cause and effect it tries to think the unconditioned....”

Two books, because free and will do not necessarily belong together. The Metaphysics establishes the purpose and employment of will, from a deontological perspective, with respect to moral law, and the Critique establishes the notion of freedom, and serves as justification for the will’s operative parameters.

Theoretical, hence controversial and susceptible to severe cross-examination. It’s philosophical, just as it ever was.

Have fun!!!

I believe we have agency, but some decisions seem to be made at a level below the conscious. So I'm not willing to accept your premise. Nevertheless, good luck.

Even if free will is real, it's extremely minimal. The only knowlegde you can built up is that it awfully feels like we choose.

Very lively book that.

Ideally I would be looking for the systematics of free will. For terminology with precise definitions of all basic permutations of the logic of free will.

Fundamentally, should it be understood that 1. there is single possibility in a choice, and that the choice consists of making this possibility the present, or not, or,

2. does a choice consist of having alternative futures available, either of which can be made the present.

If 1 then a choice is either progressive, making the possibility the present, or conservative, negating the possibility.

1 seems more parsimonious,

But 2 seems more practical.

Fundamentally, should it be understood that 1. there is single possibility in a choice, and that the choice consists of making this possibility the present, or not, or,

2. does a choice consist of having alternative futures available, either of which can be made the present. — Syamsu

I think you need a sort of combination of 1&2, with 2 being the essential aspect. Clearly, from our experience, there is a multitude of possibilities available at any moment in time (2). This is what makes decisions difficult, it is not just a matter of this or not this, but the need to decide from a multitude of choices. However, we also need to accept that since time passes with the characteristic of only one possibility being actualized, we are conditioned to direct the choice itself, toward a single, desired, possibility (1). In common practise we do not generally have plans A, B, C, D, etc., in mind.

So with the free will, what we try to do is restrict the multitude of possible futures, producing one, desirable, present. There can only be one present which comes to pass, so it is always just one of the many possibilities which is actualized, but the free will wants to ensure that the most appropriate of the multitude of possibilities, is the one which is actualized.

The choices are layered in complexity because the further ahead into the future we look, the greater the magnitude of possibilities is. So in longer term projections it might actually be practical to keep plans A, B, C, etc.. If there is a number of possibilities for the next moment in time, then at each moment further into the future we look, the number of possibilities increases exponentially. So for example, there are many more possibilities for what you might be doing tomorrow at this time, than there are possibilities for what you might be doing five minutes from now. Then if something which is required for plan A tomorrow, doesn't pan out this afternoon, you might have to shift to plan B for tomorrow.

Are there any books about free will which describes how it works? — Syamsu

I have a 2 volume set called "The WIll" by Brian O'Shaughnessy. Billed as a 'dual aspect theory,' as I recall, it covered a lot of ground and was generally a good read.

This is tangential, but to feel the breathtaking power of freedom of the will one might consider engaging in Castaneda's The Art of Dreaming. Over forty years ago I learned to practice this directed form of lucid dreaming and it was an epiphany. The first time was a profound experience, the most remarkable aspect being that one becomes pure will or intent. No drugs, and very simple instructions that worked for me on my first try. Look it up if you are interested. Philosophical discussions seem banal and flimsy compared to direct experience. :cool:

I do not accept that free will is real. I accept that my perception of having free will is real, however, the perception of a thing and the thing itself are exactly the same when?

And not bullshit of redefining free will with the logic of being forced, — Syamsu

I don't think so... know your history.

The notions you describe were promoted by Chrysippus, a resident of the planet from 280BCE to 206BCE:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chrysippus/

That is literally older than the language you're typing in.

Completely agree with you! The perception is very real. There have been experiments where they stimulated parts of brain that caused people to use their left hand 60 percent of the time, when usually righthanders use 80% their right. What is interesting is that people reported having chosen their left hand instead consciously.

Your perception is all you have, so that is ths truth for you.

That is going too fast. One needs to build things up starting from the concept of the simplest choice, and not start throwing in things like desire and whatever else.

Any improvements are much appreciated.

definitions

possibility = a future thing that can be made the present
anticipation = the relation of a present object to a possibility
choose = to make a possibility the present, or not. ( or, to make one of alternative futures the present)
conservative = to make a possibility not the present
progressive = to make a possibility the present
spiritual = the substance of that which chooses
material = the substance of that which is chosen
agency = the acting spirit
creator = who makes the choice
creation = that which is chosen
opinion = chosen statement on what the identity of a creator is
fact = a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation in the mind, forced by the evidence of it

The point was, that the "simplest choice", is by it's very nature not simple at all, but very complex. The mind, through the force of habit, in an attempt to facilitate the process of decision making, works to reduce the complex problem into a simple problem. To avoid this process of reduction in your representation of decision making is to make a false representation.

That's just the way logic works. Everything must be validated. You cannot just say "very" complex. You have to precisely define the complexity with a number.

possibility = a future thing that can be made the present — Syamsu

In a broader sense an event or thing whose present or future existence or happening is not ruled out.

From my perspective there is a possibility that a meteor will hit me today. But as those do not appear out of nowhere this might be impossible as well.

fact = a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation in the mind, forced by the evidence of it — Syamsu

I'm still asking myself if the meteor strike actually is possible.
To me it seems that the possibility of said meteor simply depends on (a lack of) knowledge: Knowing enough it is impossible or a sure hit.

You cannot just say "very" complex. You have to precisely define the complexity with a number. — Syamsu

I find that a very strange way to look at logic. Are you saying that all logic is reducible to mathematics, and that all free will choices are made by applying mathematics? I find that unacceptable.

Then you talk about "very complex" , because you want to hide objectification of what is inherently subjective, in that vagueness. The stark basic logic, you cannot hide anything in that.

That is just free will denial.

I'm not hiding anything, I'm describing it how it presents itself to me. You are wanting to describe it in a simplistic way, which is plainly a false representation. If we have to make a false description of the thing in order to apply "stark basic logic" to it, such that nothing about that thing will be hidden, what good is that? We just end up with false conclusions about something which is really hidden.

Do you admit then the logic that agency of a choice, can only be identified with a chosen opinion?

Or are you surreptiously trying to hide objectified agency in complexity?

There is a reason why knowledge about free will is underdeveloped.

Do you admit then the logic that agency of a choice, can only be identified with a chosen opinion? — Syamsu

I would argue the opposite of this. You cannot work from a chosen decision, backward through free choice, to understand the choosing of any particular possibility. This is because free choice by it's very nature of being free, will not provide the necessity required for the logic. For example, suppose there is a number of possibilities and one is actualized. Working backward from the actualized possibility, you ask what caused that possibility to be actualized and not another instead. If that cause is a free will, you cannot determine this with logic, because there is no necessary relationship between the effect, being the actualized possibility, and the cause, being the free will. Through a process of elimination you might find that there is no other possible cause, and after excluding everything else you might conclude it must be free will. Because of this lack of necessity between the effect and the cause (because the will is free), the motivation of the agent cannot be determined in this way, if the will is in fact free.

Or are you surreptiously trying to hide objectified agency in complexity? — Syamsu

I really don't know what you mean by "objectified agency". If you are talking about the sort of agency which is supposed to be associated with free will, I don't know how this could ever be described as "objectified agency" without contradiction.

You can choose the opinion that a particular choice was made out of love, you can choose the opinion the same choice was made out of fear. Both answers are equally logically valid.

The logic being the rule that an opinion must be chosen. To be forced to say a choice was made out of love provides an invalid opinion.

The freedom in identifying agency of a choice preserves the freedom in the concept of choice. Where if agency were to be established as fact FORCED by evidence, then this factual thing would force a particular result, and the concept of choice does not function.

And because people want agency to be factual, is why understanding of free will is underdeveloped.

You can choose the opinion that a particular choice was made out of love, you can choose the opinion the same choice was made out of fear. Both answers are equally logically valid.

The logic being the rule that an opinion must be chosen. To be forced to say a choice was made out of love provides an invalid opinion. — Syamsu

The rule "an opinion must be chosen", does not provide the premises required to make a logical determination of why any particular opinion was chosen rather than some other. So we do not have the principles here to understand how we proceed from numerous possibilities to one choice.

And because people want agency to be factual, is why understanding of free will is underdeveloped. — Syamsu

This could very well be true. That is why I am very critical of false representation of free will.

The same rule applies to the chosen judgement. You can choose the opinion that the chosen judgement that the choice was made out of love, was made out of fear, or you can choose the opinion that the judgement was made of love. So 1 choice, then 2 chosen opinions on the agency of the choice, and then 4 chosen opinions on the 2 chosen opinions.

And so on, ad infinite.

Probably. Or this sentence. You either do something or you don't.

Much more to it obviously. Some would say there is free will and there is best will.

Theology aside, as depending on belief would shake things up quite exponentially ('destiny' or the preordained if you subscribe to the notion), well for example.

Say you're from a wealthy family and have been raised in the family business of say managing a hotel chain. They paid for you to learn from the most prestigious schools and you know just about everything there is to know about the field and have a for-sure place earning more than you could ever spend. Then say remembering your adolescent love for music you start to find all that disinteresting and want to become a rockstar instead to the dismay of your family who would forever consider you the black sheep and cut you off financially. You could persue your interest, you might fail and end up homeless, then again you might make it and become a multi-millionaire cultural icon. At the same time maybe if you stuck with the 'for sure' thing and decided to stay in town someone could've ended up gunning you down while checking the mail one morning. Or the hotel chain could've gone bankrupt.

It's all a toss up in my view.