My thoughts are that you’re involved in too much of an ideological struggle which keeps forcing you to come to the conclusion you have no free will, giving all of us the impression that’s the only reason why you’re bothering to make the argument in the first place. Why bother with any of your decision based reasoning, with its exhaustive review of the many different ways which one could interpret reality but they are all non reductionist, only by applying reductionism, this young man claims, will one be able to come to the rational decision; dare I say conclusion, that in actual factual reality the conclusion reached is just an illusion, thereby unreliable 🤷🏻‍♂️?!?!?

“Will” is an artifact of mind, consciousness.

So far, reductionism can’t even pinpoint what an “idea” itself is reduced nor can it even present a falsifiable model of mind or consciousness at all, so don’t you think you got a lot more to figure out before you get anywhere close to something as vague and pseudoscience sounding as “free will”? I mean, at least build upon a simpler concept like “will”, and see if reductionism can handle that.

Reductionism has failed to solve the complexity of mind and is by nature the opposite of “holistic” or emergence.

While you may be quick to jump on the creationists for grasping for emergence, you’re doing the same thing.

Reducing mind to matter and then just explaining it away with “emergence” all without a scientific theory that is testable. (Sorry for many typos, iPhone won’t let me reverse cursor scroll to correct)