Lets solve Free will once and for all!!

[bobhikes]

I don't think that is entirely true.

I do agree that all lifeforms react to the environment, but where humans can do things that go against "common sense", I don't think animals do this unless they are trained to do it over a long period of time, but then that is more of a behavioral change in them rather than them making a conscious decision, they are doing it because they get a reward. At least from what I know, if you look at police dogs, they are constantly given a reward whenever they do something that they were trained for, I don't think the dog has any clue why on Earth it is doing it.

Humans and all other animals fear fire, yet we can also deal with it, we evaluate the situation and then act accordingly. Animals just panic and run away.

So my guess is that the amoeba doesn't wait to see if the temperature changes, it reacts and does what it does because its sensory system tells it that it is in an unpleasant environment. I don't even think it understands the concept of temperature, but it can sense that it is different just like we can. But again, I don't think even the cat thinks that way, that it wants to go into the sun for longer periods of time if it feels uncomfortable in it, unless there is something else drawing/forcing it. Maybe it saw a mouse, or there is a fire near it or a loud sound that scares it.

The problem the amoeba has is that there are multiple sensors vying for the central nervous center not just one. It has to prioritize and then have thresholds. Sometimes the priorities will conflict a normal machine would shutdown but life either waits or adjusts the thresholds.

 

[Nimos]

The problem the amoeba has is that there are multiple sensors vying for the central nervous center not just one. It has to prioritize and then have thresholds. Sometimes the priorities will conflict a normal machine would shutdown but life either waits or adjusts the thresholds.

But this sounds like a biological process rather than something that is due to will? Maybe it could be compared to that of goosebumps, meaning a reaction due to changes in the environment.

 

[Nimos]

You insist that the definition of free-will, must include everything, and the "kitchen sink".

Im not insisting, but a definition for something has to make sense and take all relevant things into account. And you don't seem to agree with the definition of free will that I linked, which is fine. I didn't decide it, im simply using it as it seems to be what people agree it is.

Speak for yourself.

What role in your view of free will does our senses or biology play?

Does our taste, smell, disabilities etc. have anything to do with free will as you see it?

Yes .. by deciding to follow evil, I will corrupt myself.

That didn't answer my question.

Can you, using free will choose to not believe in God?

People do things we categorize as evil all the time, yet still they believe in God. Think about terrorists, most people would consider that an evil action, yet their belief in God is fundamental to their actions.

The question is very simple, could you become an atheist purely at your own will without any influences?

For me, I can say that I won't suddenly become a believer in God, it simply won't happen, something or someone has to convince me through evidence and proof that God exists.

To me, that seems to be because your definition of free will is vastly different than the one I used, because you for some reason, don't account or include influences as having an impact on it and how much of an influence it has.

 

[Nimos]

In terms of neurologic systems things like consciousness, emotions, empathy, theory of mind and other phenomena of the nervous system seem to appear with increasing complexity of the neurologic system.

This is one example of an amazing array of bird of paradise dances. They can vary in timing and presentation for an particular species but the variation between species is spectacular.

Another is the Satin bower bird who has not only variation on the dance but also into the design of the "love nest". Again pure determinism seems inadequate without some degree of free will on the birds behalf

Watched the movies, and they are amazing birds. But I don't see what you mean? in the first one they say they thought they were the same bird but that they turned out not to be.

What im saying is why is some sort of free will required?

How is it different from Seahorses for instance they also perform a "dance", a lot of animals do something similar?

If you look at these birds, they work together in performing a whole show etc.

 

[Nimos]

@Nimos ;-)

It appears you are being falsely accused of moving goalposts, you aren't moving them, are you? ;-)

Your initial post # 133 was good enough, not sure why you had to edit and add so much.

So how far we in solving free will? Have we started on the a,,b,c's of poetry yet?

I don't think I am, from all the discussions and debates about free will I have seen, everyone seems to agree that this is part of it

Did I edit and add a lot?

I think we are as close to solving it as we have ever been

And no, poetry still hasn't been prioritized.

 

[bobhikes]

But this sounds like a biological process rather than something that is due to will? Maybe it could be compared to that of goosebumps, meaning a reaction due to changes in the environment.

How does biology determine the amount of time to wait for the conflict to be resolved or determine that a new threshold is needed or needs adjusting. These are not predictable outcomes and require on the fly adjustments. It is why a computer and machine are setup in an environmentally controlled room to allow it to operate most efficiently. We eliminate the variables from the equipment we use to make it useful. Life cannot eliminate the variables thrown at it. Evolution itself is a mechanism for life to adapt to new variables. Evolution is the process of random mutations being chosen based on best ability to survive.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That didn't answer my question.

Can you, using free will choose to not believe in God?

It does answer your question.
If I decide to follow an evil path, then my faith will be destroyed, and I will claim
that I no longer believe in God.

People do things we categorize as evil all the time, yet still they believe in God..

That is true. That is because we all fall short.
..but the person who doesn't even TRY to avoid evil is in a different category.

For me, I can say that I won't suddenly become a believer in God, it simply won't happen, something or someone has to convince me through evidence and proof that God exists.

That is what most atheists claim .. that they need proof.
The thing is, "proof" comes in different forms, and we are not likely to find it, unless
we change our lives in some way.
i.e. it is not a case of 'I saw God last night in my room'

To me, that seems to be because your definition of free will is vastly different than the one I used, because you for some reason, don't account or include influences as having an impact on it and how much of an influence it has.

You interpret the words differently, yes.
You prefer to include the REASONS why we choose what we choose.

You don't simply see free-will as a case of not being FORCED to choose .. like in a woman who
is forced to get married for example.

In your version, you can witter on and get lost in an infinite loop

 

[muhammad_isa]

To me, that seems to be because your definition of free will is vastly different than the one I used..

Furthemore, your version seems to imply that the drivers of cars on the highway
are not being driven by the people driving them .. because they need the free-will
to turn the steering wheel.

Why don't you debate who actually IS driving them, if we are not the ones actually making the choice?

 

[Nimos]

How does biology determine the amount of time to wait for the conflict to be resolved or determine that a new threshold is needed or needs adjusting. These are not predictable outcomes and require on the fly adjustments. It is why a computer and machine are setup in an environmentally controlled room to allow it to operate most efficiently. We eliminate the variables from the equipment we use to make it useful. Life cannot eliminate the variables thrown at it. Evolution itself is a mechanism for life to adapt to new variables. Evolution is the process of random mutations being chosen based on best ability to survive.

I don't understand what you mean and why this is an issue in regards to free will?

 

[Nimos]

It does answer your question.
If I decide to follow an evil path, then my faith will be destroyed, and I will claim
that I no longer believe in God.

It doesn't answer my question.

So let me ask you again based on what you wrote, could you decide to follow an evil path then?

That is true. That is because we all fall short.
..but the person who doesn't even TRY to avoid evil is in a different category.

You are not addressing the questions, you jump to conclusions, based on your personal opinions, which is fine if that was what this discussion was about.

Do you think the terrorists believe they fall short and that they are doing something evil?

From a logical point of view, if they thought they were not doing the right thing according to what God wants, why would they do it? For someone to blow themselves up, I would argue requires quite a lot of motivation and conviction that you are doing the right thing.

Do you think any human could freely choose to do this? I don't believe in God, so why on Earth would I become a religious terrorist?

That is what most atheists claim .. that they need proof.
The thing is, "proof" comes in different forms, and we are not likely to find it, unless
we change our lives in some way.
i.e. it is not a case of 'I saw God last night in my room'

What im interested in is when you say "..unless we change our lives in some way" im interested in whether this can be done freely or not or maybe a mixture. Im not interested in whether it is going from atheist to believer or someone going from liking chocolate to not liking chocolate. It is not important here.

Furthemore, your version seems to imply that the drivers of cars on the highway
are not being driven by the people driving them .. because they need the free-will
to turn the steering wheel.

Why don't you debate who actually IS driving them, if we are not the ones actually making the choice?

Obviously, that is not my version, if that is how you understand it, then that explains a lot

Clearly, the cars are being driven by humans in this example, again that is not point. The point is what led them to be driving on the highway....

I think our understanding of what free will means is so far apart that it's nearly impossible to discuss and I don't mean it in a "mean" way, its simply that we are not even in the same ballpark from what I can see.

I might be wrong, but to me, you seem to just think choices are something that just happens and doesn't require any former conditions of any kind or at least these have no meaningful influence, if you can choose between A and B, then you just do that. Maybe I misunderstand you, but that is the impression I get from what you are writing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It doesn't answer my question.

So let me ask you again based on what you wrote, could you decide to follow an evil path then?

Unfortunately, yes.

Do you think the terrorists believe they fall short and that they are doing something evil?

It depends .. some do, some don't.

From a logical point of view, if they thought they were not doing the right thing according to what God wants, why would they do it?

It's politics .. people become embroiled with it all, and get angry.

..For someone to blow themselves up, I would argue requires quite a lot of motivation and conviction that you are doing the right thing..

Not necessarily .. when people are suffering unduly, they might feel that they are better off dead
anyway.
..we all have an internal fight going on inside us, as to 'do the right thing', or what seems good
to us at the time.

What im interested in is when you say "..unless we change our lives in some way" im interested in whether this can be done freely or not or maybe a mixture..

Well, it's a bit of a mixture .. the further towards evil we go, the harder it is to escape from.
i.e. the harder it is to choose to do something about it

It's a bit like falling into a pit .. easy to fall in, but not so easy to get out.

Obviously, that is not my version, if that is how you understand it, then that explains a lot

Well, you say that, but it seems to imply it..

Clearly, the cars are being driven by humans in this example, again that is not point. The point is what led them to be driving on the highway....

No it isn't .. that's not the question at all .. the question is whether we have the free-will to make the decisions necessary needed for driving, assuming we have learnt how to drive, that is.

Either we have, or we haven't. A person who hasn't is clearly not safe to drive !

I think our understanding of what free will means is so far apart that it's nearly impossible to discuss and I don't mean it in a "mean" way, its simply that we are not even in the same ballpark from what I can see.

Mmm .. you can use whatever definition you like, but you can't change it at will (ha! ), in order
to prove a point.

I might be wrong, but to me, you seem to just think choices are something that just happens and doesn't require any former conditions of any kind or at least these have no meaningful influence, if you can choose between A and B, then you just do that. Maybe I misunderstand you, but that is the impression I get from what you are writing.

No .. I have already said that there are many external influences when making a choice,
including our environment and past experiences.
..but that does not affect our ability to choose .. we are not coerced .. we just might choose differently
because of it.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't understand what you mean and why this is an issue in regards to free will?

It's not free will but limited will There are instincts and defined actions in all life but there has to be an ability to adjust to unexpected events provided by the environment or by conflicts of your instincts and defined actions. Life needs the ability to adjust and still continue. Life can't have a rigid set of rules for everything and still exist in an ever changing existence How this happens is through time and threshold adjustments.

 

[Bear Wild]

Watched the movies, and they are amazing birds. But I don't see what you mean? in the first one they say they thought they were the same bird but that they turned out not to be.

What im saying is why is some sort of free will required?

How is it different from Seahorses for instance they also perform a "dance", a lot of animals do something similar?

If you look at these birds, they work together in performing a whole show etc.

In the case of the birds of paradise the dance involves constant surveillance of the male bird to female birds attention and subtle movements and constant altering of his performance including potential new moves to sway the female bird.
In the case of the bower bird he is constantly trying new arrangements of the nest than reviewing it making more adjustments then watching the female birds response and if necessary make new adjustments based on what the male bower bird thinks will finally attract the mate.

The reason for the dance and nest are clearly driven by the desire to mate but the adjustments that the male bird makes come from the male bird responding to the immediate situation. For the bird of paradise it makes changes in the length and sequence of moves responding to the females attention but what immediate changes it does and what adjustments it makes comes form spontaneous decisions made by the bird. Other male birds watch the male and have been observed to make changes in their dance. There are multiple spontaneous alterations occurring that were not preplanned and other birds observe these and make decision to alter their patterns.

In the bower bird the bird is often making spontaneous changes in the position and patterns of the blue objects, reevaluation and making new combinations until it feel satisfied but then will alter the patterns if it fails.

Both birds are using creative cognition and assessing, adjusting, reassessing and readjusting using spontaneous alterations requiring real time decisions. It is clear whatever is happening is not a simple mechanical innate behavior. It is much more complex with the male birds acting as an agent making spontaneous decisions.

The deterministic view is that every aspect of these birds behavior was written within the big bang and the birds had no choice but to play out the story with no variation. They were forced by the initial expanse of the universe to make each and every decision without a choice and nothing is ever spontaneous. There are no such thing as possibilities and nothing can be altered. It doesn't matter what you do because was determined when universe exploded into being which was of course predetermined.

My view of free will is that it is an aspect of life that evolved aspect of living things and that despite the all of the causal events around you one can still make a decision that cannot be fully explained by the the individual causal agents alone. That said I agree that most of what happens is our of our control but the future still has possibilities of variation. And even though our real free will choices are limited they still can have a significant effect on the causal agents around us.

How would you know which is true depends on your world view or your religion.

Pure determinists believes humans have the capacity to completely understand our world and there are no mysteries that we cannot explain.

I believe that humans have a profound understanding of the world but is by no means complete. There are mysteries of this world we cannot comprehend only experience. There are things that exist and are real that we cannot measure and conduct meaningful experiments on.

It seem to me to have evidence to absolutely know which is true you would have to know all of the deterministic events and have complete understanding of how they interact with each other at the time of a decision is made. I am not sure how you world do this.

 

[Nimos]

It's not free will but limited will There are instincts and defined actions in all life but there has to be an ability to adjust to unexpected events provided by the environment or by conflicts of your instincts and defined actions. Life needs the ability to adjust and still continue. Life can't have a rigid set of rules for everything and still exist in an ever changing existence How this happens is through time and threshold adjustments.

Agree.

And we do, reflexes are such things or when watching a horror movie and getting surprised, some people don't really react to it, while others do, so there is a wide variety. But it is complex because there are many systems at work at the same time and more can be activated at once. I don't know if that is the case with amoebas?

But humans weigh them differently if you watch a horror movie and you ain't invested in it, there is a good chance that you won't be surprised, maybe because you kind of anticipate it, you might be equally interested in checking your phone or whatever, or maybe you have a headache, tired etc.

And maybe it is the same basic functions for simple life as well, if they can sense their environment they can probably also sense other lifeforms and which to look out for and not.

It could be interesting to know what the minimum required functions are for a lifeform to survive in its environment. But maybe it doesn't need a lot, simply being able to reproduce faster than getting killed is enough. The success criteria for all life is simply just to survive I guess, how it achieves this is probably of no importance.

Again I haven't looked into them a lot, just some quick Google on them amoebas:
Amoebas reproduce approximately every two days, depending on the species and environmental conditions. As amoebas reproduce through the cell division known as mitosis, the original amoeba is technically destroyed as it splits into two, identical amoebas. These daughter cells are identical to the original parent cell.


Do amoebas have senses?
Actually, there is no specialised structures with which amoeba detects stimuli, but the whole cell is sensitive to environmental changes. And with the aid of it's pseudopodia, it's able to move towards the stimuli by turning a pseudopodia in the direction of that stimulus.

I would have to spend a lot more time looking into this than I have, so you might very well be right. Nonetheless, I think it is an interesting observation.

 

[Nimos]

It doesn't matter what you do because was determined when universe exploded into being which was of course predetermined.

I think it is important to make a distinction here to not confuse things.
Determined isn't the same as predetermined. There are some that are in support of everything being predetermined, which would mean that there is only ever one outcome, in which case there is no will at all, not only free will but any will whatsoever. In which case you could make the argument that our existence is pointless as we are merely puppets in a puppet show.

That things are determined and we have no free will, doesn't mean that we don't make choices or have agency, but rather it is a question of how free those choices are, meaning how much are they influenced or governed by other things that are beyond our control.

Pure determinists believes humans have the capacity to completely understand our world and there are no mysteries that we cannot explain.

In theory, this could potentially be correct. If we assume we had "infinity" calculation power. The reason I say this might be correct is because I think one could run into issues, even if you could calculate it.

If we take a simple example of rolling a couple of dice, you might be able to predict that a person would do this, but what im not so sure about, is whether you could calculate or figure out, how much power the person is going to apply to the dice roll until they actually do it and im not even sure, the person (the brain) is aware of the exact power which would be needed if you were to predict the result and therefore it might not be possible. So that might be undetermined until the action takes place at which point obviously the Universe would know, but to late for us to predict, we could only do it the moment the dice leave the hand, because the power at which you shake it, might change until that very moment.

Obviously, I might be wrong about that and the pure determinist would have a solution for that.

It seem to me to have evidence to absolutely know which is true you would have to know all of the deterministic events and have complete understanding of how they interact with each other at the time of a decision is made. I am not sure how you world do this.

Whether humans know or not is irrelevant to whether or not the Universe is deterministic, just because we don't know, doesn't mean that it isn't we simply don't have the means to predict it because it is too complicated. So even if we go as far as to say that it is predetermined and we don't have the ability to predict it, then we are forced to behave as if it isn't, even if we know we are wrong in theory, simply because we can't navigate in a reality we can't perceive or comprehend or what to say. It would create a whole new moral debate and we would also have to figure out ways to deal with it, like our own existence, but I don't think it would be impossible and it could even cause ("end up with" is probably the right word ) with a much more solidary society. But again obviously very speculative.

 

[Bear Wild]

That things are determined and we have no free will, doesn't mean that we don't make choices or have agency, but rather it is a question of how free those choices are, meaning how much are they influenced or governed by other things that are beyond our control.

The belief that things are determined means not only do we not have free will, but we have not choice in our choices. This view states it seems that we make decisions, but we really don't. Those decisions were set already during the big bang. All of our choices are not really our choices, but behaviors determined from the very beginning. Your videos say so.

What I am saying is that consciousness for instance is a phenomenon that is not materialistic in itself. The materials of the brain generate it but consciousness is a product of life that exists beyond the material world. Despite the fact that it is not material and operates differently than atoms interacting for instance it still exerts a force that comes from the individual and feeds back into the subconscious where decisions are fully made as suggested by current neuroscientific research. The conscious acts as an agent of the organism to make decisions and it draws from so many sources of the organism. Thus, the conscious is operating outside of the normal deterministic elements of the world and when it influences the decision it is acting for and individual outside of the normal deterministic mechanisms. It may be heavily influenced by what has happened before, but it can in coordination with the unconscious create novel decisions that a pure deterministic view cannot predict. This is free with obvious constraints. Without it, novel decisions would not occur. The though that science knows enough to exclude aspects of our universe it does not measure well then claim all is deterministic is an example of human arrogance that we are omniscient enough to make such a claim. I believe three is still mystery within our world that we do not understand, and that increasing complexity creates new phenomenon not explained by the reductivist parts.

 

[Copernicus]

I've come to the thread late, but I have more or less read all of the posts up to this point. Lots of good discussion, and I enjoyed the two Crash Course videos. I disagree with Nimos that there is something fundamentally different between human brains and animal brains or that animals for the most part don't have free will. Different species have different brains, but free will is something that animals need to survive. That is, they have to make predictions about the future in order to decide how to survive in it.

It is a pity that probably nobody here has studied linguistic theory, because language is very much a tool that one can use to explore concepts such as free will. By that, I mean that concepts such as agency and instrumentality are hardwired into clause structure in surprising ways. Churchland's ideas about control become very important when you study how linguistic structure maps onto the expression of causal events, and that can give interesting insights into how we structure reality. Just as an example of what I'm talking about, consider the difference between these two passive sentences about a causal event:

1) The satellite was destroyed by a meteor.
2) The satellite was destroyed with a meteor.

Both could be used to describe the same event, but the second implies agency and the first does not. The point is that agency is not just a simple concept. It is a linguistically interesting concept that affects the way we structure sentences. Sentence (1) does not directly reference an act of free will, but sentence (2) does. Hence, language is a tool that one can use to make interesting observations about these philosophical conundrums. And that is why much of 20th century philosophy was dominated by so-called linguistic philosophy. 20th century philosophers focused on language to try to puzzle out solutions to some of their most vexing problems.

That said, I'd like to recommend another of those Crash Course philosophy videos:

 

[Nimos]

The belief that things are determined means not only do we not have free will, but we have not choice in our choices. This view states it seems that we make decisions, but we really don't. Those decisions were set already during the big bang. All of our choices are not really our choices, but behaviors determined from the very beginning. Your videos say so.

What I am saying is that consciousness for instance is a phenomenon that is not materialistic in itself. The materials of the brain generate it but consciousness is a product of life that exists beyond the material world. Despite the fact that it is not material and operates differently than atoms interacting for instance it still exerts a force that comes from the individual and feeds back into the subconscious where decisions are fully made as suggested by current neuroscientific research. The conscious acts as an agent of the organism to make decisions and it draws from so many sources of the organism. Thus, the conscious is operating outside of the normal deterministic elements of the world and when it influences the decision it is acting for and individual outside of the normal deterministic mechanisms. It may be heavily influenced by what has happened before, but it can in coordination with the unconscious create novel decisions that a pure deterministic view cannot predict. This is free with obvious constraints. Without it, novel decisions would not occur. The though that science knows enough to exclude aspects of our universe it does not measure well then claim all is deterministic is an example of human arrogance that we are omniscient enough to make such a claim. I believe three is still mystery within our world that we do not understand, and that increasing complexity creates new phenomenon not explained by the reductivist parts.

It is true that determined means that there is no free will. But where I think it can give room maybe not for free will, but at least agency and choices is, if our ability to evaluate them is an emergent property, meaning that choices and agency in themselves are not a property of atoms as far as we know, but might only emerge in lifeforms.

Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, so maybe the structures of the Universe can be deterministic, while we have to make choices, based on past experiences/influences etc. and given we have limited knowledge and make mistakes maybe that is enough for us to at least achieve agency and a will, even though it might not be free.

What I mean is, if we take a simple example. You might have a pile of bricks (atoms), but unless they are organized in a certain pattern they have limited functionality, stacked in the correct way and a house emerges. But each brick in itself is not a house and doesn't have this functionality, and you can heat or cool the house, it offers shelter, security, comfort etc. (consciousness), which doesn't really have anything to do with the house, except it has space inside that allows for it and walls etc.

Obviously, that is highly speculative

 

[Nimos]

I've come to the thread late, but I have more or less read all of the posts up to this point. Lots of good discussion, and I enjoyed the two Crash Course videos. I disagree with Nimos that there is something fundamentally different between human brains and animal brains or that animals for the most part don't have free will. Different species have different brains, but free will is something that animals need to survive. That is, they have to make predictions about the future in order to decide how to survive in it.

It is a pity that probably nobody here has studied linguistic theory, because language is very much a tool that one can use to explore concepts such as free will. By that, I mean that concepts such as agency and instrumentality are hardwired into clause structure in surprising ways. Churchland's ideas about control become very important when you study how linguistic structure maps onto the expression of causal events, and that can give interesting insights into how we structure reality. Just as an example of what I'm talking about, consider the difference between these two passive sentences about a causal event:

1) The satellite was destroyed by a meteor.
2) The satellite was destroyed with a meteor.

Both could be used to describe the same event, but the second implies agency and the first does not. The point is that agency is not just a simple concept. It is a linguistically interesting concept that affects the way we structure sentences. Sentence (1) does not directly reference an act of free will, but sentence (2) does. Hence, language is a tool that one can use to make interesting observations about these philosophical conundrums. And that is why much of 20th century philosophy was dominated by so-called linguistic philosophy. 20th century philosophers focused on language to try to puzzle out solutions to some of their most vexing problems.

Don't worry about being late, we haven't solved it yet

Language is important, but for clarification, as I see it, simply making sure we are even talking about the same thing. I don't agree that you need free will to survive, if we look at it as a species, as I see it, you just need to reproduce faster than you get killed off, if you can do that you will survive and be successful in surviving.

I think your example is incorrect.

"Sentence (1) does not directly reference an act of free will, but sentence (2) does."

The room was dark and I couldn't see anything, so I accidentally kicked the gun on the floor and it went off and shot Bob.

So we could say, "Bob was shot with a gun", there was no free will involved, it was an accident, and it could have been an animal or a piece of wood collapsing on it due to age which could cause it to go off.

 

[Copernicus]

Don't worry about being late, we haven't solved it yet

Language is important, but for clarification, as I see it, simply making sure we are even talking about the same thing. I don't agree that you need free will to survive, if we look at it as a species, as I see it, you just need to reproduce faster than you get killed off, if you can do that you will survive and be successful in surviving.

I think your example is incorrect.

"Sentence (1) does not directly reference an act of free will, but sentence (2) does."

The room was dark and I couldn't see anything, so I accidentally kicked the gun on the floor and it went off and shot Bob.

So we could say, "Bob was shot with a gun", there was no free will involved, it was an accident, and it could have been an animal or a piece of wood collapsing on it due to age which could cause it to go off.

This is where it is important to break down the concept of agency, which you have not done yet. For starters, you need to look at the nature of causation and how one expresses chains of causation linguistically. (Full disclosure: I wrote a dissertation on this decades ago and published refereed papers on the subject. So I'm not just making this up as I go.) Control is an important component of agency, because it is a necessary one, but the scope of control need not extend to all of the consequences. That's why we use words like accidental and unintentional to name agentive acts in which the scope of control does not extend to an unintended consequence. We have volitional control over bodily movements, and that can extend to objects that we use as instruments to produce desired results. Notice that I am working in a number of essential components in a description of the nature of free will in agents--causation, desire, control, volition. All of these are components that you need to keep in mind when you tackle the question of free will, and you can learn a lot about them merely by examining the expressions we use to talk about them.

Now, let's think about a bat used by an agent, Bob, to hit a baseball that breaks a window.

1) Bob broke the window with a bat.
2) Bob broke the window with a baseball.

Notice how sentence (1) would be an odd way to describe the event, but sentence (2) would not. When I say "odd", I don't mean impossible. You can think of contexts in which (1) might be used, but you have to put your mind to work to do that. Normally, we would use (1), because instrumental noun phrases like with a baseball describe the proximal effect that caused the window to break. Unless the bat came into contact with the window, it would just be part of the causal chain of events, but not the proximate cause. So one would not use sentence (1) to describe the event, other things being equal. The bat is under Bob's control, and so is the ball. However, if you say (3), the extent of control or responsibility becomes messy:

3) Bob accidentally broke the window with a baseball.

Sentence (3) could still be used to describe the original event, but the adverb qualifies the extent of control that the agent had in bringing about the result. Breaking the window was not his intention, if it was accidental.