My only problem with hard determinism

[granpa]

split brain patients believe they are in control even when it is known for a fact that they arent.

 

[quatona]

split brain patients believe they are in control even when it is known for a fact that they arent.

Are you calling elman a split brain patient? (Just kidding)

 

[elman]

Are you calling elman a split brain patient? (Just kidding)

That is far more likely than the proposition we are without choice and control in this world. But if determinism is true and I am a split brain patient, what caused that? I would agree that if true I probably did not chose to be that way.

 

[Asimov]

You could accept the many worlds idea, where any mathematically consistent possible world exists. Every variable in every choice you make has occured.

 

[elman]

Ok, you posit that the person´s feeling that he has made a decision is the criterium.
What does that mean for persons who feel a certain action was not their decisions?
Are you going to be consistent in your criterium?

I would consider it consistent to think they are delusional if they think there own actions are not their own actions.

 

[elman]

split brain patients believe they are in control even when it is known for a fact that they arent.

If in fact however no one is in control of their own decisions then, the split brain patient is the same as everyone else, no difference because we all think we are in control when we are not. Thus in the deterministic world we must find other evidence for a split brain patient because that evidence does not distinguish them from the rest of us.

 

[quatona]

I would consider it consistent to think they are delusional if they think there own actions are not their own actions.

You consider it consistent to make your own feelings about yourself the criterium for conclusions about yourself, but not to allow this very logic to others?

 

[quatona]

If in fact however no one is in control of their own decisions then, the split brain patient is the same as everyone else, no difference because we all think we are in control when we are not. Thus in the deterministic world we must find other evidence for a split brain patient because that evidence does not distinguish them from the rest of us.

Good point!

 

[FishFace]

The alternative is that we have a part to play in our life and our decisions and can effect our environment and destiny.

Weighted language aside...

I keep saying and you keep missing I am not say the deceision had no cause. I am saying I am the cause.

And I've already asked you - what is the cause of that cause?

If we have no choice in what we do, why should we be accountable?

We should be accountable because, if we act in an ordered manner, then doing something bad means we did that bad thing because we wanted to do it, and we are likely to want to do it again.

We are not acting on random internal stimuli.

Again, I've given you the options. The only two possible ones are either A) that the chain of causes ends inside you or B) that the chain of causes goes outside you (i.e. you are not the ultimate cause of your decision.)
In the case of A), your decision has a cause, which has a cause, which has a cause, which... has no cause! What is something that happens without any cause? Random. So randomness causes something which causes something which causes something which causes your decision - your decision is, ultimately, random.

Nor do you and neither of us have any evidence that would support a belief that we are not able to make choices.

We do have evidence, it is merely not direct evidence.

 

[FishFace]

I am my mental state. We are one.

I don't think you actually think that. Your mental state is not a continuous thing. It exists momentarily and is replaced with another mental state. Are you saying that you are a completely different thing than you were mere moments ago? I presume not.
"You" are something which ties together your mental states. This is important, because I can talk about the cause of your mental state in terms of other mental states, and in terms of what you see, hear, touch etc. But the cause of you is quite different.

You and I are different from a ball. We have brains and with those brains we can make choices.

That's completely irrelevant to the analogy. I was discussing causative power, nothing to do with brains and choices.

See above me and my mental state are not two separte people, just one person with just one mental state.

If you had just one mental state then you would never be able to do anything because your mental state would never change from "I want to type a reply to" "I will move my arm" to "I will strike the 'h' key" to "I will strike the 'e' key." and so on. Like I said, you are not your mental state, because if you were, "you" would be completely different to whomever I was talking to moments ago.

As are you.

Yes. I have to repeat myself, because you're not addressing what I've said. As I say, I lay the argument out simply for a reason - so you can attack it just as simply. The only reason I can think of for you to not reply within the parameters I outline is because you can't.

When you have reached the wrong conclusion, the only thing I can do is deny your conclusion. I have also denied many of you arguments.

No! Not at all. If you think I have reached the wrong conclusion then you can't just deny, you must argue against. You must give deny a premise, or attack the validity of the argument. You have done neither - you have denied the conclusion and stopped there. That is insufficient.

First let me say that your mental state does not entirly control your actions if your mental state is one of anger for example. You can be angry and still decide to not act on that anger.

I've already said that your mental state is not just your emotions, but also your thoughts, memories and so on. If you are angry but decide not to act on it, then where did that decision come from? Your thoughts, your reasoning of course. So your decision was still entirely controlled by your mental state.

-The agent behind my decisions is me--no agentcy involved

That is a different meaning of agent.

There is no one else that that can be blamed--just me.

You didn't answer the question. If something other than your mental state (your thoughts, emotions, reasoning, sense experience, memories and so on) causes your decision, how can it be you who made the decision?

No as I said I can be in a mental state of anger, but that does not completely control my decisions.

But as I said repeatedly - emotions are not the only element of a mental state.

Repeat so I can understand what you are asking.

Something controls your decision. You say it is you. Everything that is you is part of your mental state - your thoughts, your emotions and everything else. So your mental state controls the decision. I ask what controls the mental state.

No it does not have to be one of these three things.

Again this is just denial. In the words of Michael Palin, "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition ... It's not just contradiction." What else could it be? Justify yourself. This is fundamental to actually having a debate.

I think we only have one mental state at a time.

Yes. Your previous mental state is one major factor in determining the next one. If you think about a sick relative, you will feel sad. If your mental state contains immediate experience of smoke, you are likely to think about fire.

I don't see how infinite regress whatever that means has anything to do with what we are discussing.

I don't mean to be patronising, but perhaps you need to do a bit of philosophy? Infinite regress is a fairly fundamental concept in philosophy. The point is that I keep asking you the question, "what's the cause?" and you have to answer one of the three things. If you think there's some other answer, then you need to justify that. You haven't, so we'll assume there are just those three. Now, my argument attempts to establish that at some point you have to choose (3) and so you have to accept that something other than you effectively made the decision.
(2) is no good because then you end up with some cause which had no cause - so we end up with randomness. And (1) is no good because if you answer that then I just ask you again, "What's the cause?" you can't keep answering (1) because as you said, you only have one mental state at a time. So eventually, you'll get to the first mental state you ever had and I'll ask, "what's the cause?" and you'll have to pick (2) or (3) - but (2)'s out, so it must be (3).

I have always admited that our mental state can be effected by things outside of us, which is not saying this is completely the cause or always the cause.

There can be two different causes of the same thing, but supposing one is you (or rather, one is one of your mental states) then I can still ask you, what caused that? And you can't keep saying that you were the cause because you'll run out of mental states.

You keep ignoring my existence. I exist and I am the cause to some extent of my decisions.

You are ignoring the full complexity of the matter. OK, you didn't seem to understand the ball example, so let's take a computer. A computer is a bit like a human brain, right? Even if you think there's more going on in a human, they're sufficiently similar.
Here's the situation. You make a decision - say you pick up a pencil. Now, in my analogy, let the computer "decide" to pick up a pencil with a robot arm. You claim that you are the cause of your decision. This is like claiming that the computer is the cause of its "decision."
OK so far? OK so it's not really a decision, call it "action" or whatever.
But the computer is some bits of metal. The computer doesn't cause anything much - it is what goes on inside the computer that caused the robot arm to pick up the pencil. In exactly the same way, it is what goes on inside you - your mental state which causes you to pick up the pencil.

Perhaps the computer example will be helpful further. We can ask, what is the cause of the computer picking up the pencil. The answer is obvious - it is the state of the computer's CPU. Now we can ask, what is the cause of that state? Now, as you say, it will probably be a combination of the previous state of the CPU, and of some external stimulus. Perhaps someone pressed a key on the keyboard or something.
Notice that it doesn't make any sense at all to do this if we say that the computer caused the pencil to be picked up - "what caused the computer?" eh? No, we have to deal with a lower level than that. Same with human beings and their choices.
So, if we go on asking, what will happen? We can't keep answering that it was a combination forever, because there have only been a finite number of CPU states for the computer. The same goes with a human being's mind. Eventually, you must go entirely outside the state of the CPU, or the mental state of the person.

I have been presenting myself as the fourth option since we began this discussion.

But you never addressed the argument that ruled out that possibility. Refer to the computer example. You, just on your own are not the cause of anything much. Nor is the computer. It is a smaller part of you - your mental state - that is the cause. When you feel angry, are you actually anger? When you think about smoke, are you actually a thought? No and no, those are parts of the mental state, which is part of you.

Perhaps in your opinion. I disagree with your arguments and your conclusions.

But up until now, you haven't really argued against me, you have just denied the conclusion.

 

[FishFace]

Are you able to comprehend the possibity that we can be part of the cause of our decisions with other things also at the same time being part of the cause of our decisions?

Sort of. As I've now clarified, it is wrong, speaking precisely, to say that I am the cause of a decision. But a mental state could be combined with something else to cause the decision.

This is gobblegook, not comprehensible. Yes I deny your trichotomy and your infinite regress but I admit I don't know what I am denying. Try speaking English.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin.

I'm pretty sure I made perfect sense. A trichotomy is like a dichotomy, but with three parts - the idea is that there are three, and only three options. An infinite regress is a way of showing that a position is absurd by showing that it tries to carry on doing something forever, when it is impossible. An orphaned cause is a cause that does not have a cause itself.

At least here we have it straight - you deny the conclusion, but you don't justify yourself.

Reality is what it is. I give you the option to pick one of three assertions, none of which are correct and you insist my perception of reality be limited by your three assertions.

No, that's the point - you're quite welcome to argue that there is another option. And you have done, although I thought I'd already dealt with the option that you presented...
I'm not saying you have to agree with any step of the proceedings, but that if you disagree with me at all, then you should be able to identify with which step of those proceedings it is that you disagree.

 

[granpa]

you stated that the evidence that you control your actions is that you feel that you are in control. as i pointed out, split brain patients also feel that they are in control even when we know for a fact that they arent.

 

[elman]

I'm pretty sure I made perfect sense. A trichotomy is like a dichotomy, but with three parts - the idea is that there are three, and only three options. An infinite regress is a way of showing that a position is absurd by showing that it tries to carry on doing something forever, when it is impossible. An orphaned cause is a cause that does not have a cause itself.

At least here we have it straight - you deny the conclusion, but you don't justify yourself.

I don't understand why you think I have not justified myself.

No, that's the point - you're quite welcome to argue that there is another option. And you have done, although I thought I'd already dealt with the option that you presented...
I'm not saying you have to agree with any step of the proceedings, but that if you disagree with me at all, then you should be able to identify with which step of those proceedings it is that you disagree.

Where and how have you delt with the option I presented? As I have pointed out I don't agree the options is limited to your three.

 

[elman]

you stated that the evidence that you control your actions is that you feel that you are in control. as i pointed out, split brain patients also feel that they are in control even when we know for a fact that they arent.

And as I have pointed out there is no evidence being presented to me that I am a split brain patient.

 

[elman]

You consider it consistent to make your own feelings about yourself the criterium for conclusions about yourself, but not to allow this very logic to others?

Correct when there is evidence the others are incorrect in their assumptions and I have no evidence that I am incorrect in my assumptions.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
The alternative is that we have a part to play in our life and our decisions and can effect our environment and destiny.

Weighted language aside...

A non resposne.


Quote:
I keep saying and you keep missing I am not say the deceision had no cause. I am saying I am the cause.

And I've already asked you - what is the cause of that cause?

You missed it again. Read above. The cause is me.


Quote:
If we have no choice in what we do, why should we be accountable?

We should be accountable because, if we act in an ordered manner, then doing something bad means we did that bad thing because we wanted to do it, and we are likely to want to do it again.

So how do we change what we want?

Quote:
We are not acting on random internal stimuli.

Again, I've given you the options. The only two possible ones are either A) that the chain of causes ends inside you or B) that the chain of causes goes outside you (i.e. you are not the ultimate cause of your decision.)
In the case of A), your decision has a cause, which has a cause, which has a cause, which... has no cause! What is something that happens without any cause? Random. So randomness causes something which causes something which causes something which causes your decision - your decision is, ultimately, random.

It is not random if I chose it and I acted on it.

Quote:
Nor do you and neither of us have any evidence that would support a belief that we are not able to make choices.

We do have evidence, it is merely not direct evidence.

I have direct evidence your evidence is incorrect.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
I am my mental state. We are one.

I don't think you actually think that. Your mental state is not a continuous thing. It exists momentarily and is replaced with another mental state. Are you saying that you are a completely different thing than you were mere moments ago? I presume not.

Yes I am a completely different thing than I was moments ago. I have more experinces than moments ago and different thoughts now. It is like the greek philosopher said about not being able to step into the same river twice.

"You" are something which ties together your mental states. This is important, because I can talk about the cause of your mental state in terms of other mental states, and in terms of what you see, hear, touch etc. But the cause of you is quite different.

I would agree I am not limited to my mental state. I am also my memories and my desires and my fears and my thoughts.

Quote:
You and I are different from a ball. We have brains and with those brains we can make choices.

That's completely irrelevant to the analogy. I was discussing causative power, nothing to do with brains and choices.

OK so you have a point with objects who have no choice. Why does that relate to people with brains who do have choices?

Quote:
See above me and my mental state are not two separte people, just one person with just one mental state.

If you had just one mental state then you would never be able to do anything because your mental state would never change

Yes it is a constantly changing mental state but still jjust one at any given time.

from "I want to type a reply to" "I will move my arm" to "I will strike the 'h' key" to "I will strike the 'e' key." and so on. Like I said, you are not your mental state, because if you were, "you" would be completely different to whomever I was talking to moments ago.

As I said I am different at different points in time.

Quote:
As are you.

Yes. I have to repeat myself, because you're not addressing what I've said. As I say, I lay the argument out simply for a reason - so you can attack it just as simply. The only reason I can think of for you to not reply within the parameters I outline is because you can't.

There is one you have not thought of--the parameters are incorrect.


Quote:
When you have reached the wrong conclusion, the only thing I can do is deny your conclusion. I have also denied many of you arguments.

No! Not at all. If you think I have reached the wrong conclusion then you can't just deny, you must argue against. You must give deny a premise, or attack the validity of the argument. You have done neither - you have denied the conclusion and stopped there. That is insufficient.

I don't think this is correct. I have argued against both your conclusion and your premises.


Quote:
First let me say that your mental state does not entirly control your actions if your mental state is one of anger for example. You can be angry and still decide to not act on that anger.

I've already said that your mental state is not just your emotions, but also your thoughts, memories and so on. If you are angry but decide not to act on it, then where did that decision come from? Your thoughts, your reasoning of course. So your decision was still entirely controlled by your mental state.

If I am my mental state then I have not problem with my decisions being controlled by my mental state- me.

Quote:
-The agent behind my decisions is me--no agentcy involved

That is a different meaning of agent.

No just a denial of your agency theory.

Quote:
There is no one else that that can be blamed--just me.

You didn't answer the question. If something other than your mental state (your thoughts, emotions, reasoning, sense experience, memories and so on) causes your decision, how can it be you who made the decision?

By me being my mental state.


Quote:
No as I said I can be in a mental state of anger, but that does not completely control my decisions.

But as I said repeatedly - emotions are not the only element of a mental state.

Neither is memories.

Quote:
Repeat so I can understand what you are asking.

Something controls your decision. You say it is you. Everything that is you is part of your mental state - your thoughts, your emotions and everything else. So your mental state controls the decision. I ask what controls the mental state.

Nothing.

Quote:
No it does not have to be one of these three things.

Again this is just denial. In the words of Michael Palin, "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition ... It's not just contradiction." What else could it be? Justify yourself. This is fundamental to actually having a debate.

Refusing to accept my argument on your part is not a failure to justify myself on my part.

Quote:
I think we only have one mental state at a time.

Yes. Your previous mental state is one major factor in determining the next one. If you think about a sick relative, you will feel sad. If your mental state contains immediate experience of smoke, you are likely to think about fire.

I agree.

Quote:
I don't see how infinite regress whatever that means has anything to do with what we are discussing.

I don't mean to be patronising, but perhaps you need to do a bit of philosophy? Infinite regress is a fairly fundamental concept in philosophy. The point is that I keep asking you the question, "what's the cause?" and you have to answer one of the three things. If you think there's some other answer, then you need to justify that. You haven't, so we'll assume there are just those three. Now, my argument attempts to establish that at some point you have to choose (3) and so you have to accept that something other than you effectively made the decision.
(2) is no good because then you end up with some cause which had no cause - so we end up with randomness. And (1) is no good because if you answer that then I just ask you again, "What's the cause?" you can't keep answering (1) because as you said, you only have one mental state at a time. So eventually, you'll get to the first mental state you ever had and I'll ask, "what's the cause?" and you'll have to pick (2) or (3) - but (2)'s out, so it must be (3).

You keep mistaking my decisions for being random. They are not, I cause them. I think your are working on the assumption my prior mental state is the complete cause of my present mental state and I think you are assuming my mental state cannot be on in which I make choice. Both assumptions are wrong.


Quote:
I have always admited that our mental state can be effected by things outside of us, which is not saying this is completely the cause or always the cause.

There can be two different causes of the same thing, but supposing one is you (or rather, one is one of your mental states) then I can still ask you, what caused that? And you can't keep saying that you were the cause because you'll run out of mental states.

I don't need but the one mental state in which to make a choice. You are just saying the same thing over and over and basically you are just saying I have no ability to make a choice but not providing any evidence this is correct.

Quote:
You keep ignoring my existence. I exist and I am the cause to some extent of my decisions.

You are ignoring the full complexity of the matter. OK, you didn't seem to understand the ball example, so let's take a computer. A computer is a bit like a human brain, right? Even if you think there's more going on in a human, they're sufficiently similar.

No they are not similar in the question of free will. I have free will. I computer does not. It is more like the ball only more complicated.

Here's the situation. You make a decision - say you pick up a pencil. Now, in my analogy, let the computer "decide" to pick up a pencil with a robot arm. You claim that you are the cause of your decision. This is like claiming that the computer is the cause of its "decision."
OK so far? OK so it's not really a decision, call it "action" or whatever.
But the computer is some bits of metal. The computer doesn't cause anything much - it is what goes on inside the computer that caused the robot arm to pick up the pencil. In exactly the same way, it is what goes on inside you - your mental state which causes you to pick up the pencil.

See above.

Perhaps the computer example will be helpful further. We can ask, what is the cause of the computer picking up the pencil. The answer is obvious - it is the state of the computer's CPU. Now we can ask, what is the cause of that state? Now, as you say, it will probably be a combination of the previous state of the CPU, and of some external stimulus. Perhaps someone pressed a key on the keyboard or something.

Now you are getting back to the cause of the computer's action, a human with a brain.

Notice that it doesn't make any sense at all to do this if we say that the computer caused the pencil to be picked up - "what caused the computer?" eh? No, we have to deal with a lower level than that. Same with human beings and their choices.

If we were created by a God who gave us no free will your analogy would be correct.

So, if we go on asking, what will happen? We can't keep answering that it was a combination forever, because there have only been a finite number of CPU states for the computer. The same goes with a human being's mind. Eventually, you must go entirely outside the state of the CPU, or the mental state of the person.

People are not the same as computers.

Quote:
I have been presenting myself as the fourth option since we began this discussion.

But you never addressed the argument that ruled out that possibility. Refer to the computer example. You, just on your own are not the cause of anything much. Nor is the computer. It is a smaller part of you - your mental state - that is the cause. When you feel angry, are you actually anger? When you think about smoke, are you actually a thought? No and no, those are parts of the mental state, which is part of you.

I am glad you brought up the computer. Yes the computer decisions related back to the human that created the compute. My decisions however do not relate back to my creator because my creator made me able to make my own decisions, not like the computers we make that are not free to make their own original decisions but are controlled completely by their programing.
Quote:
Perhaps in your opinion. I disagree with your arguments and your conclusions.

But up until now, you haven't really argued against me, you have just denied the conclusion.

I don't believe that is correct.

 

[FishFace]

You missed it again. Read above. The cause is me.

And I asked, what is the cause of that cause. Are you saying that you cause yourself? That's nonsensical; causes cannot be their own cause.

So how do we change what we want?

Irrelevant, but it's the same way you change what you do.

It is not random if I chose it and I acted on it.

Again, why do you answer outside the parameters of the debate? I'm not going to bother carrying on this charade if you can't work with me, here.
The point I made was that if you propose orphaned causes, then that thing must be random. There's no point talking about "if I chose it and I acted on it."
When discussing a part of a debate, you have to work with the assumptions already made. At this stage in the debate, we are assuming that we are the cause of our decisions, but that when we ask, "what is the cause of that cause," the answer is nothing. We are then thinking about what that would entail. My claim is that, under these circumstances the end result would be that our decision would be random. Do you agree that it would be random if there were no ultimate cause?

I have direct evidence your evidence is incorrect.

No. You have no evidence whatsoever that you are not influenced into making your decision. Nobody has epistemic access to that.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
You missed it again. Read above. The cause is me.

And I asked, what is the cause of that cause. Are you saying that you cause yourself? That's nonsensical; causes cannot be their own cause.

The Creator caused me to exist in such a way that things that happen can be traced back to me, the original cause.

Quote:
So how do we change what we want?

Irrelevant, but it's the same way you change what you do.

How do I change what I do, if I have no choice?

Quote:
It is not random if I chose it and I acted on it.

Again, why do you answer outside the parameters of the debate? I'm not going to bother carrying on this charade if you can't work with me, here.

I worked within your parameters. I chose 2 I think and pointed out me being the cause does not make it random.

The point I made was that if you propose orphaned causes, then that thing must be random. There's no point talking about "if I chose it and I acted on it."

What you call orphaned causes is those causes I am responsible for and you deny that I am able to make the choices that make me responsible.

When discussing a part of a debate, you have to work with the assumptions already made. At this stage in the debate, we are assuming that we are the cause of our decisions, but that when we ask, "what is the cause of that cause," the answer is nothing.

Correct. We are the orignial cause of our decisions in part.

We are then thinking about what that would entail. My claim is that, under these circumstances the end result would be that our decision would be random. Do you agree that it would be random if there were no ultimate cause?

Tricky question. Yes if there is no ultimate cause but when I am the ultimate cause no it is not random because I chose it.


Quote:
I have direct evidence your evidence is incorrect.

No. You have no evidence whatsoever that you are not influenced into making your decision. Nobody has epistemic access to that.

We cannot tie down all the influences and the degree to which they are the cause, but my observtions of how I decide things and how I influence the world around me, is some direct evidence that I have the ability to make choices.

 

[FishFace]

Yes I am a completely different thing than I was moments ago. I have more experinces than moments ago and different thoughts now. It is like the greek philosopher said about not being able to step into the same river twice.

Then when you say "I" you mean something completely different to what everyone else means. We all think of ourselves has having some element of continuity. You betray this in yourself, in fact, by saying "I have more experiences than moments ago" you can't have more experiences than moments ago because moments ago you did not exist - that is, if you are your mental state.

I would agree I am not limited to my mental state. I am also my memories and my desires and my fears and my thoughts.

How many times have I told you that those are part of your mental state? 3 times just in the post to which you are replying, and there are at least 5 other times! Are you even reading what I'm saying?

OK so you have a point with objects who have no choice. Why does that relate to people with brains who do have choices?

I'll address this with the computer example later.

As I said I am different at different points in time.

There are two possible meanings of that sentence the first one, which I agree with, is that the properties of you change over time, but there is still a continuous you underlying all of that. A piece of wax which melts is still the same piece of wax even though you can say "the wax is different."
The second meaning, the one that you must mean if "you" is identical with "your mental state" is that the referent of the word "I" changes at different points of time. This would mean you can't say, "I know more than I did yesterday" because the referent of the word I - the currently existing mental state - didn't exist yesterday.

I don't think this is correct. I have argued against both your conclusion and your premises.

Which premise in particular? (Note that the "three options" is not so much a premise as a lemma, sense it took reasoning to get there. You would have to attack the reasoning.)

If I am my mental state then I have not problem with my decisions being controlled by my mental state- me.

There should be no problem anyway - you could still possibly have incompatibilistic free will if your mental state was not you but controlled your decision.

No just a denial of your agency theory.

You are using "agency" to imply an agent - a person. I was talking in terms of causation, where anything can be an agent - a billiard ball, for example.

"If something other than your mental state (your thoughts, emotions, reasoning, sense experience, memories and so on) causes your decision, how can it be you who made the decision?"

By me being my mental state.

If you are your mental state, and something other than your mental state causes the decision, then you certainly didn't make the decision. It's easy to see: Let Y = you and M = your mental state

1. Y = M. (You are your mental state)
2. C =/= M (the cause of your decision is not your mental state.)
3. Therefore C =/= Y (therefore the cause of your decision is not you.)

To do it rigorously we'd use sets, but that doesn't matter. You see now? If something other than your mental state causes your decision, you didn't cause it.

Neither is memories.

How on earth is that relevant? You seemed to be arguing that if you were angry and didn't act on it, something outside your mental state must be restraining you. But that would only be valid if your mental state contained only your anger. I never once even implied that memories were the only part of a mental state.

Nothing.

Now we're getting somewhere.

This is equivalent to option (2) of the trichotomy. Before we go further, do you see this, do you agree with this? If nothing controls the mental state, then that is the same as saying the mental state had no cause? (Or more accurately, that the mental state had no cause which determined its contents)

Refusing to accept my argument on your part is not a failure to justify myself on my part.

What argument? Perhaps you should state yourself in terms of premises and conclusions.

You keep mistaking my decisions for being random.

I'm not making a mistake, I'm making a logical argument to that conclusion - if you deny that your decision was determined by something other than you, the argument (which I'm not going to repeat) is that it must be random. Just because you feel like it's not random does not mean it isn't!

They are not, I cause them. I think your are working on the assumption my prior mental state is the complete cause of my present mental state

No, your prior mental state partially causes your present mental state. External factors also cause your present mental state, in the form of sense experience. Do you agree that these are the two causes of your present mental state?

and I think you are assuming my mental state cannot be on in which I make choice.

No, that's wrong. My argument is that your mental state is determined by your previous mental state and external factors, but that you don't have infinite previous mental states, so your present mental state must be wholly determined by external factors. How are we so far? But your present mental state is what causes your decision (right?) so your decision is (by transitivity of causation) also wholly caused by external factors.

I don't need but the one mental state in which to make a choice. You are just saying the same thing over and over and basically you are just saying I have no ability to make a choice but not providing any evidence this is correct.

No, I'm not presenting evidence, I'm presenting an argument. It's as if you don't even understand there's an argument there.
There is no evidence in this debate - if there were evidence, it would be science, not philosophy.

No they are not similar in the question of free will. I have free will. I computer does not. It is more like the ball only more complicated.

But I'm not discussing free will not in the computer example - I'm discussing causation. So you have to tell me what exactly is different - in terms of causation - between the computer and me which prevents the analogy from working.
Note you can't just claim "I have free will, the computer doesn't" because firstly, that's begging the question and secondly, because the analogy is purely about causation not free will. You have to find a difference between a human and a computer in terms of causes.

See above.

Same to you. Analogies always have differences to the real situation, otherwise there'd be no point. You have to show why the difference is any problem.

Now you are getting back to the cause of the computer's action, a human with a brain.
If we were created by a God who gave us no free will your analogy would be correct.

The analogy is correct - because the analogy is determining what causes me or the computer to pick up the pencil, not about whether I or the computer was free to do it.

I am glad you brought up the computer. Yes the computer decisions related back to the human that created the compute. My decisions however do not relate back to my creator because my creator made me able to make my own decisions, not like the computers we make that are not free to make their own original decisions but are controlled completely by their programing.

Please read the example through again completely, tell me the difference between humans and computers in terms of causation, and we can talk. I'm not discussing free will yet, I'm discussing causation. The computer's action was caused by it's CPU state. My action was caused by my mental state. The CPU's state was caused by a previous CPU state, and some input from outside. My mental state was caused by my previous mental state and some input from outside. Where's the difference?