The problem with the concept of free will isn’t in how we define the self, it’s in how we define free will. What do you actually mean by ‘free will’? I would put forward that, if you really start examining things, most people’s idea of free will is equivalent to the popular notion of a soul. That is, it’s something which exists separately from the body, yet which can somehow think and feel and decide. This conception of free will is not really coherent, since free will ceases to function when the body dies or loses functionality when certain parts of the brain are damaged.
You can redefine free will to just be the collection of algorithms and processes that play out as your brain decides how to respond to environmental stimuli, but then I think you have departed far enough from most people’s conception of what free will is to essentially just be redefining terms to suit your argument. FWIW, I think the best explanation of free will is that it doesn’t exist, but instead that it’s an explanatory framework we impose upon each other as a way of regulating people’s behavior.
That's really interesting. If that's what people mean, I agree with you.
When I hear someone deny the existence of free will, it sounds to me like they're saying a person's decisions are not really their own. If that's what they mean, I think it's preposterous -- of course your decisions are yours, that's definitional.
You can redefine free will to just be the collection of algorithms and processes that play out as your brain decides how to respond to environmental stimuli, but then I think you have departed far enough from most people’s conception of what free will is to essentially just be redefining terms to suit your argument. FWIW, I think the best explanation of free will is that it doesn’t exist, but instead that it’s an explanatory framework we impose upon each other as a way of regulating people’s behavior.