If free will was not real

[bennyboy]

Regardless of whether or not our description of self is accurate - I'd say that this desire comes from the brain, sure.  That there is no "outside damage" is, I think...a stretch.  The various causes of strokes would be the "outside damage".   Should've skipped a few more deserts, stayed away from smokes, etc.  

Okay, so just because something occurs inside the body doesn't make it of the self. Agreed?

I don't know.  I don't think it is a part of the self.  It's a part of the same system...but in the example offered, where you still "have self" and just cant move your leg...I'd say that's probably not an issue of damage to the self, even if it is damage to an associated mechanism.  Doesn't appear to be damage to the will or intent either.   I know you hate the computer analogy...but, is a computer any more or less free before or after it's been damaged, or depending on the source of the damage as interior or exterior?  It just doesn't seem to be informative with regards to -that-.

Well, in order to determine if an individual agent has free will, we first have to establish what an individual agent IS. Let me put it this way, I'd say that free will is as real as the self.

So what's the self? It probably doesn't include the leg, since if you lose your leg, you still are yourself. As for will-- yes, the will is damaged in this case, since the intent cannot be manifested as movement, and that is exactly how I define will-- it is the capacity to manifest intent as behavior.