What do we really know about a,
thought, not its electrical profile, not its neurological profile? A thought leading to a choice may indeed by subject to and moulded somewhat by past experience, culture, age, health, family status, etc. So complex is the stimulus leading to a thought that its true origins can not be defined, but of course it can be suggestive.
So how can we call a though a, rational response if, rational differs for each individual. Mr Gordon makes rational responses and has rational thoughts, so to wotsup, but they are not like yours or mine. So by claiming that Free Will tells us nothing about thought response is either sloppy science, or a failed attempt to grasp the fundamentals of what Free Will is trying, in a very gentle, non-dictatorial way, allude to, that humans are free agents of thought when it comes to good and evil. There may be mitigating circumstances, but in general people rise above the negative aspects of life and upbringing.
So Free Will is not competing with the general processes leading to a choice. What it is saying is that when it comes to good and evil we are mostly responsible for our actions, where as choice is more collective stimulus based of like and dislike. Free Will transcends like and dislike and works via the moral development of an individual.
Free Will is rational, cogent, well reasoned and pertains to the moral state of each individual.
