If free will was not real

[Gemini]

Not in-context...and since you're merely attempting to establish free-in-contetext, rather than actually or meaningfully free..it's a dilemma that you've invited.

But that is the context of compatibilist free will. The social and legal context of autonomy.

That's not -all- it's defined as, is it?  Come now, don't act like I'm crazy here.  

You're not crazy, just not pedantic enough  

-and cuts to the heart of the claim to ownership that you are -using- as a claim to freedom.  

It's a claim to identity, not ownership.

So you say, but by the criteria for free will that you've offered, they do.  Their decisions are made in the absence of duress, as you apply it, from exterior agents, as you apply it.  

Again with the not being sufficiently pedantic. If you define all causal processes as "decisions" then we need a new word to describe what homo sapiens do with their frontal lobes.

Which wouldn't help, since I both know and can demonstrate my ability to make my will "your" will..despite the existence of your frontal lobe..and in fact -because- of it's existence....even in those extreme cases where my will, is that you kill someone for me.   

Just an FYI--I would make a pretty terrible assassin.

In-determinate =/= random.  A conscious and self originating decision would be in-determinate, in context, but in no way random.  

You're talking about an entirely new category of causal processes for physics. Some explanation of how a self-originating decision works would be much appreciated.

We don't have any evidence to support it?  You mean, like the fact that all evidence we have points to hard determinism with no exceptions, anywhere, anytime we look at anything?  

So are you a determinist or what? What I meant was there is no evidence to support incompatibilist free will. Like you said, everything points to hard determinism.

I can only repeat that I consider this a semantic switch rather than a meaningful distinction.  If you don;t think that your biology is capable of coercing you...then I don;t think there's any way that you and I could ever approach any sort of agreement on this subject.  If you think that your ownership of that biology makes it "not coercion" again..the same comment applies.  Go talk to an addict, see how they feel about that.  Then, maybe, realize that you are also an addict (if "you" literally -are- your brain and it's processes, as we both agree that you are)...even if heroin isn't your drug of choice....and "you" prefer chocolate cake.

My biology can't coerce me because my biology literally is me!