Swerve, Locomotion, Direction

As has been previously discussed, the derivation of Free Will from Swerve is problematic.  Nevertheless, the image suggests a different Naturalist origin of that capacity.  For, Swerve is indeterminate in two ways: one, the one receiving the attention, is the spontaneity at the outset of the movement, the other, is the direction in which the movement terminates.  That is, there are an infinite number of directions that are alternative to that which has been Swerved from.  But, that possibilty is not merely abstract--Locomotion includes multiple, if not infinite, numbers of direction.  Thus, as part of this basic biological process, there is a choice of directions possible as part of a response to a stimulus, the resolving of which sufficiently explains any lacuna between Stimulus and Response, thereby sufficiently distinguishing it from a mechanical Cause-Effect.  This inherent multi-directional capacity also counters one of the pivotal Determinist arguments--that any vacillation in behavior is completely a function of conflicting external forces, expressed by irresolutely turning back and forth between the options, a counter that is not based on mere private data of consciousness.  Likewise, Swerve and at least some Locomotion violate the clause of Newton's First Law that is often taken for granted--that the resulting direction of any change of motion is sufficiently and uniquely determined by preceding external causes.