Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

This is a hot topic in modern (in the philosophical sense of modern, not necessarily contemporary) philosophy - the debate over what some will call "compatabilism." IMHO, the rationality of free will hinges on the definition of freedom. There is the freedom of not being a rock, and then the freedom of dreams. There is free like free beer, free like free speech, and free like the opposite of slave. Some are rational and some are, by definition, not.

I am struggling with your definition of free will, here. I read that stub four times, and I fail to see how preconscious brain activity proves or denies the existence of rational, conscious decisions over choices? There's not enough detail in the article to explain what "preconscious activity" means in this case. Since nurture heavily influences all decision making, some part of the rational, conscious process of choice must consult memory (experience). Perhaps that's the preconscious activity? You don't think, "This time I will stand still while the bear runs towards me." The consequences of free will can't negate our survival as a species. That'd be dumb. So there has to be some sort of middle ground.

I read something years ago that stuck with me. Let me make it clear that my own beliefs on the existence of a sentient creator cannot be proven or denied. He wrote, "God could have made us just like himself. But he did not. Instead he made us imperfect and gave us free will." There's a lot implied about our purpose in that statement. There will be no unified theory that does not take into account why we so badly want a unified theory.