Well, I model cognition and decision as energy in architecture. The Architecture dictates what adjacent states are available and what the default likelihood is

Well, I model cognition and decision as energy in architecture. The Architecture dictates what adjacent states are available and what the default likelihood is of each. The more the energy expands itself because of its preferences, the more it can nudge the outcome towards one of the less likely adjacent states. Any outcome changes the state of the architecture and the architecture changes the state of the energy, so the two engage in a kind of coevolution. Here's why I believe in free will: The preferences of the energy are subjective, not objective[1]. Its inputs are dictated by the architecture it resides in, but the meaning it attaches to them are determined internally and infinitely[2] more complex. So for example, someone who loves exercising gets very much the same nerve signals as someone who hates it. The difference is in the meaning each attaches to the experience, and meaning is not objective. [1] AKA 'the hard problem of consciousness' [2] Insofar as internal communication happens across a higher-dimensional manifold than its communication with the architecture. For ease of visualization I imagine a three-dimensional gas interacting with the two-dimensional surface of a building, but I am working on a model that properly accounts for time.