Neuroscience and free will

OK. I understand that you want to include laws or at least GCDEs, so, should they (laws) be referenced in the title too, or do you think they're implicit enough in "causality"?

I'd go with Causality for now. Discussions of causality, IMO, bear fruit while discussions about Free Will become hopelessly lost. I'd include GCDEs & Laws but I think they are covered by Causality as a title?

OK, and it looks like you're saying that to the extent that it is the other way around - that final causes necessarily involve rationality - the rationality involved need only be "bed-rock" and thus isn't such as to "necessitate" our "selection from the possibility space".

Yeah it seems applied rationality has to involve apprehension of natural ends and natures, in order to make rational selections from a possibility space. So awareness both efficient and final causes.

There's something very interesting about the Subjectivity / Rationality / Intentionality aspects of Consciousness wrt the Possibility Space. They combine to give us the Real  as something an agent has some influence over. We feel confidence of our causal power in some instances, while in others we lack that "confidence qualia" - this informs, to an extent, what it is to be Rational.

But then Rationality about the world also requires (perhaps obviously) Intentionality, as we need to carve up the world and have concepts/references to objects. This gets back the interest-relativity of causation, and Tallis' idea that causation is "because"-ation in that without minds there would simply be the entirety of the Real shifting from one state to the next. Yet this "because-ation" is, because of its interest-relativity, incredible powerful in that it allows us to make machines. As Dupre noted in that old essay machinery is a testament to our causal power, rather than something to analogize as to why we lack it.

Yet this interest-relativity doesn't preclude a physicalist picture for most things given to obtain the shift of the Real in total one could arguably add up the supposed underlying atomic/energetic/force-based causes in theory...save you can't do that for Intentionality as to have a thought about a cup you need to explain that specific causal chain from (world w/ cup) -> sense organs -> (thought about the cup).

Yet interest-relative causation is the very thing that Intentionality gives us so it comes before any application of interest-relative causation (that would include science experiments). Very curious...

That's OK, and if my selection from the possibility space was rude, then I apologise in turn.

Ah no worries, I figured it was a bit of fun!