@Chelonian I think a good metaphor for such choices including choices that appear to be automatic like taking a step or typing a letter is that the mind chooses and the brain implements the choice. This does not mean there are no constraints. There are constraints from all kinds of sources, but the choice itself is not in the brain. The brain implements the choice and may aid in reasoning.

@FrankHubeny So, you think the mind is non-physical?

@Chelonian I don't think there is anything physical. I suspect some of us think that we can be reduced to either neurons or genes. They are thought of as non-agents. Our bodies might be best described in terms of the holobiome in our gut, on our skin and around us. These are agents, although tiny. Then there are cells that hold it all together, another kind of agency. I see our species as another kind of holistic agent.

Everything reduces to the choices of agents, not non-agents. What we measure are the events resulting from agent causation at various levels.

@FrankHubeny "We think those events are what is real, physical, because we can measure them" ...this is a mischaracterization. We think these events are physical not because we can measure them, but because of parsimony.

@HWalters I don't understand your idea of "parsimony". If something is an epiphenomenon there is no point calling it a fundamental feature of reality. A measurement is like a written word. It is an epiphenomenon of something a human speaker actually said and intended.

@Chelonian What is your view of free will?

@FrankHubeny I'm confused... how is this not simple? You projected a specific rationale for concluding that agent causation is physical onto an unspecified generalized other, which should be a giant red flag. It's difficult enough to know the motivations of someone you're talking to (which is why asking is always a good idea). Nevertheless...

...your rationale (for concluding this is why they're concluding it) is flawed. You're reaching a conclusion that these events are epiphenomenal, and I've still not yet heard why exactly. But some of these real tokens among the "generalized other"... in fact, I can't fathom why it's not a majority of them... discount the epiphenomenality solely on the basis that there's no need to invoke it

Or at the very least, on the basis that they truly believe there's no need to invoke it