A hitherto ignored angle on the absurdity of free will?

If it were up to Tucker Carlson and the writings of the by ,now deceased Terry Pratchett to settle the question of the accuracy of the vulgar understanding of free will, I'd fear the worst.

I've just recently written about the subject and ever since I was 30 years old I understood that the freedom of our own will has absolutely no relevance for our own life, for what do we care, whether we were always supposed to be what we are or not? What I do care about is, whether my awareness of the world has a role to play in its mechanics or not and not whether that role is my creation (totally blasphemous, by the way) or not.

So, let's assume there would be something in us that would not be responding in a predefined way to what we perceive. How then could it respond at all? Where would the content of the response come from and what could justify it? All our thoughts are awakened responses to stimuli and represent strategies to address them. These strategies may evolve over time, but that evolution is again driven by thoughts that are awakened responses, this time to thinking, that represent strategies to address it. And for us to elect a thought to shape our intentional actions, we must have a reason to do so, we must have something in us respond to it affirmatively. That, what decides, our conscious will, decides based on its nature responding to thoughts, which arose based on our unconscious will addressing our perceptions according to strategies that it has acquired following other strategies, quite possibly repeating this kind of evolution for several layers. That is, what it is.

If our nature were undefined, are we then supposed to think that chance determined whether we'd find Christ's message appealing? Or a spontaneous event in the moment, an intrusion of something from another plane, but not as a perception, but as a sudden response to perceptions? A hitherto unknown leaning, like when you're falling in love for the first time? Of course, that wouldn't prove that it wasn't there before and just never responded,  but who has ever described coming to Christ like that? Not that I want to give people ideas.

In any case, whether it's chance or some intruding entity that eventually defines the undefined and activates it thus, gives it the shape that allows it to respond to stimuli, that of a function evaluating their desirability and thus determining our decision, it's something foreign and not us, for if we defined it, the definition would have already existed within us and it weren't undefined in the first place.

A person who says You could be anything, you have free will. means I understand the nature of your will so well that I can make you do anything. - or at least that's his aim.

So, by the very fact that we are, we are predefined responses to stimuli. Everything in the universe is like that. That is what existence means: to co-exist based on a function that determines the co-existence of the next moment based on that of the current. It happens to the impressions of our awareness, whether they pertain to our outside or inside. And it is from those on the inside that we derive a model of what we are and what we are is the rule governing them.

I do not try to convince you, I just look out of the window and describe what I see.

What makes a man believe that he has free will is his unawareness of the impressions to which his will responds with impressions of which he is aware. That's all.

Well, I guess I'll continue with Good Omens and when I'm through with that, by the way, I hated The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, I may read some more VALIS. This post was written while listening to Shawn Phillips. Guess, I'll add him to my music cathedral at some point too.