If free will was not real

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm fine with the ambiguity. In the case of a lost leg, I can no more walk than I can fly. I can still generate the intent, but there is no longer the capacity to manifest it in reality.

I'm open to redefining definitions and looking at new angles. In fact, I've already started doing this already in this thread. But let me give a specific example, so you know what I mean by "will." Let's say I want to move my arm. I form the intent to move it, and then I will it-- the "will" being something like a wish almost. I do not really know how my arm moves-- I just want it to, and it does. That's what I mean by will. Now, if I'm in an environment in which I can move my arm back and forth as much as I want, at a whim, then I'd say I have free will, at least in regard to that behavior.

But I'm perfectly willing to carry on a discussion under whatever definition you want to propose, and perhaps the outcome will be different.

You're talking about your ability to move your arm, not free will. Whether or not its freely willed hasn't even been considered. You say you don't know how it happens, but you would -have- to know that to declare it an effect of free will by either the standard definition -or- your own.

@Roz He's not confused, he's trying to manufacture a definition for free will that can be rationally maintained, is all. He knows that his free will is not the free will anyone else is discussing.