Write4U said:
Does one ever intentionally choose the greater of two evils or the lesser of two rewards?
In the same sense as one intentionally chooses to tie one's shoes in a granny knot, or light a cigarette.
First, that is a false equivalency. These are two distinctly different actions. But let's unpack each;
a) What kind of shoes are you wearing? If going to an formal event, what is the most socially parsimonious way of tying your shoe laces? OTOH, you may want to tie your sneakers differently. It depends on external conditions. But you choice is always in the direction of maximum convenience or utility, i.e. satisfaction.
b) Lighting a cigarette is determined by your addiction to nicotine. Thus lighting a cigarette is the only way to receive "satisfaction" for a physical craving.
Is "intention" another of these illusions?
Intention implies that the decision has already been made. In fact, our mirror neural system is often able to anticipate the intention of another's action.
Research reveals that the existence of automatic imitation, which is a covert form of imitation, is distinct from spatial compatibility. It also indicates that, although automatic imitation is subject to input modulation by attentional processes, and output modulation by inhibitory processes, it is mediated by learned, long-term sensorimotor associations that cannot be altered directly by intentional processes. Many researchers believe that automatic imitation is mediated by the mirror neuron system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Automatic_imitation
You seem to require that the will be magic in order to be free - that the only freedom is freedom from physical law.
Actually it's the opposite. All those actions are a result of "best guesses" of what is appropriate or functional and will produce the most satisfactory results for each individual.
There is a third path.
Let's focus for a minute on these "uncertain circumstances". They will involve the entire history and experience of the decision-making brain, as it is capable of incorporating and modeling that history - right?
Including the dreams it had last week, as influenced by a thunderstorm one night.
Do you recognize a difference between a half-remembered dream as a "cause" and the momentum transfer from a rock impact on another rock as a "cause"?
Does it matter what the causality is? If the causality influences your "action" it is deterministic to your brain, but may not necessarily result in the correct action. But that is still not FW. I believe that is called "soft determinism", but Hameroff proposes that brain functions still happen via QM.
The point being:
There's nothing special about the shorthand, problematic, mentally efficient but fundamentally dubious notion of "cause". It's a handy mental tool, a concept that has proved very useful, but there's no sense in elevating simplistic formulations of it to some kind of assumed and unchallenged nature of the universe. As a thinking box, it's too small.
I agree, the brain is also a small thinking box and is unable to perceive (consider) all the laws of nature and is therefore forced to make a "best guess", which can be wrong at times. Optical illusions clearly demonstrate the limitations of the brain to process all information and must rely on a best guess. But "guessing" is not synonymous to FW.
However, the universe functions mathematically and cannot do other than what the physical mathematics demand. I believe this is called "hard determinism".
You are ignoring that people often make mistakes due to insufficient information which prevents one from making THE best guess and end up with "unintended consequences" which may not be parsimonious in the long run. The wanton use of fossil fuels, while convenient at the time, has resulted in GW because of our ignorance or inability to anticipate all possible consequences. Stupidity or ignorance does not constitute FW. It just produces bad results.
OTOH, a rock striking another rock can be analyzed in great detail with the aid of mathematics or practical knowledge. I am sure the first flint knives were pretty crude, until someone discovered that striking a piece of flint in a specific way will produce a thin sharp edged cutting tool. This can already be demonstrated from artifacts at the Southern tip of Africa, where the earliest humans had much finer prying and cutting tools for opening clams and filleting fish than inland tribes, because you cannot open a clam by bashing it with a heavy club.
Nevertheless, all our actions are determined by what the brain perceives as most parsimonious under any and all circumstances. You cannot get away from that basic "causality".
If you want to slice a soft loaf of bread for making a sandwich, are you going to test a randomly selected knife for sharpness by cutting your wrist or do you "select" a knife designed to cut soft loafs? The circumstances "demand" a specific action for achieving a goal and thereby experience "satisfaction" of a nice well formed sandwich.