DrZ, as a continuation of our Interdialog on REASONING, you asked me to write on Free Will, and after I complied, you posted a comment. I have edited our verbal exchange as follows.

DrZ, one thing is what one thinks, which is a process in the neuronal gray matter, and another is how the neurons interconnect in the network that uses the axons making the white matter. This is an entirely non-conscious process essential for the construction of thoughts, which are fed by constant input from memory banks. Cognitive banks ('coprots') supply the information. Affective banks ('feprots') supply the associated feelings. The thought process is nourished by these two sources, which converge in the Will. (I would suggest reading the essay-poem QUANTUM AND LOVE.)

Free will exists in the sense that the larger the cognitive banks and the more educated the affective banks, the freer the individual is to arrive at the decision that he considers as the more right or the less wrong. It would be absurd to ask from the individual to evince his free will by choosing a different decision. The 'conundrum of the free will' appeared when the law of cause and effect became a subject of philosophical musings, of great importance to theology. Inded, if all effect results from a cause, how can man be asked to choose between good and evil?

It was not realized that as more experiences of causes and effects an individual accumulates --with their physical and emotional effects-- the memory banks become more of a complexity, where the interrelationships are non-linear. In stark contrast, the simple paradigmatic two-component (cause --> effect) --basic element of the free-will Scholastic Philosophy's approach-- is linear.

(D-SP, a modern Philosophy, uses recent scientific discoveries for a completely new way of thinking, which might be considered as valid for all the centuries.)

It should be now evident that each 'soul' has an individual free will, which is affected by new information, new knowledge, new associated emotions.

Jacob, you write,

"Free will exists in the sense that the larger the cognition banks and the more educated the affective banks, the freer the individual is to arrive at the decision that he considers as the more right or the less wrong."

I find this statement confusing...

Not being based on facts, it is just a proposition... But based on the fact that a well informed and emotionally balanced person is more likely to arrive at the most appropriate decision, not as a matter of choice, but of good sense.

...If coprots and feprots converge to form the "will," what faculty of the individual's mind does the "considering"? It would seem that the will is a resultant, that any "consideration" has already been accomplished...

One coprot with one feprot would constitute the simplest unit for Will. Will is what is expressed by actions. A newborn has very few c-f units, 'its' Will is not free, 'its' actions are instinctive. You said 'resultant' instead of 'result.' The first 'Will Unit' is the Emergent of one c-f association. Further c-f associations at that same simple level are just Resultants, which widen the Will, but do not take it to a higher level. As happens to every complexity, a critical limit is reached; at that moment this relatively primitive Will ups a level: a new Emergent appears, the beginning of true, conscious, Free Will.

But still, this emerging Free Will is inchoate. More resultants, depending on experiences and vicarious learning, will enlarge the Free Will campus. But learning is not enough, it is UNDERSTANDING what can be considered as the jewel of the crown of Free Will. A developed specimen of H. sapiens is now 'free' to choose, because he will choose the right way. Should he choose differently, he would be aware that he is doing that under duress.
The 'considering' you ask about, is the function emerging from reaching the critical point. It is a physical function, making for a very complex mathematical formula, descriptive of each individual's Free Will. Not so with the mathematical formula 'deciding' when a rocket reaches the critical point for escaping gravity, which is not a comparable complexity.

Is it that the will is a kind of illusion, appearing to exist only as a result of so many complex binary interactions? The illusion then magnified as the amount of data stored by the coprots and feprots continues to expand, until there is yet another illusion, that of "free will"?
Or do you mean, on the other hand, that there is a third faculty involved -- in which case, what is it's name (the will?), and how does it go about the process of sorting through the data it receives?

The illusion is to believe that an individual without sufficient data can solve a given problem, or take the correct action. The illusion is to believe that free will means being able to choose a path that intelligence declares not to be the best or only alternative.