If free will was not real

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Don;t even get me started on those..because a: they;ll inevitably be appeals to consequences...and B: literally nothing will or needs be changed in those areas to incorporate a different understanding of will.  

You're not crazy, just not pedantic enough  

It's a claim to identity, not ownership.

Yet another semantic switch.  Your identity is simply that collection of attributes you own.  

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.

I'd contend that we don't..that what human beings do with their frontal lobes is not qualitatively different than what a nest thermostat does with it's kogge/stone cpu.  Thing is...I -can;t be pedantic, because we aren't even discussing -pedantic- freedom, are we?  

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

That's just what -you- think.  Give me 14 weeks and you'll be screaming that blood makes the grass grow at the top of your lungs are really -feeling- it. I;d take you into a firefight if you put in the effort, I believe in you .

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.

It's not my proposition or position to explain..I'm merely allowing for the possibility as nothing rules it out...and commenting that something like it, would..to me,...be an -actual- rather than semantic, compatibilist free will.  

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.

It does, but I understand the nature of those inferences.  They're inductive, not deductive...and so they are only provisionally likely, rather than demonstrably true.  If you asked me whether or not we are hard determinist minds I;d tell you that we have good reason to think we are, and no reason to propose the contrapositive...but that it remains, at least, a plausibility.  

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

That's not our understanding of biology (or brain chemistry) -at all-.  It appears to be -very- coercive...such that you can make a man march - even when you aren't present or actively doing anything to that man- when he does not wish to without any specialized tools or even a working knowledge of human nuerology or psychology. Again, this is ownership or local regionality, not the presence or lack of coercion....and those things in your mind may not be specific and owner determinant in the way that you need them to be to make even -that- stick. You like sugar for the same reasons that I do..which has nothing to do with either of us specifically...but is nonetheless capable of compelling us both equally and predictably.

As I've been saying for a while.....even with my objections...you have a will, it's your own will. I'm not disputing that. I'm not even asking about that. I'm asking whether or not the will you have, that you own, that -is- you...is "free". If it;s just free of external duress from external agents (except when it isn't) then that, to my mind, is nothing more than a triviality.