If free will was not real

[Gemini]

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.  

(A) is my number one criticism of Daniel Dennett. Fully on board with you there. (B) sounds awfully close to a concession that the compatibilist position is correct.

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

This is equivalent to saying "My identity is simply that collection of attributes my collection of attributes owns." Once you being applying the concept of ownership to "A owns A," self-ownership, I think you've lost what makes the concept of ownership meaningful.

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?  

Representing information, having experiences, previsioning courses of action...how are these processes not qualitatively different from what a nest thermostat does?

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 know what, you're a scary guy. (In a good way )

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.  

Point conceded. I think it would be cool if it were true, in fact.

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.

What we're talking about is the cognitive capability that we have that people with frontal lobe damage don't. People with significant damage to both frontal lobes will do things like steal a car...and just drive it till it runs out of gas. Steal stuff they don't even want, just because they see it there...and then give it away. See a second story window open...and jump out. Environmental stimuli use them. They have no ability to resist acting on impulses.

I agree with you that we would be more free if some kind of incompatibilist free will turned out to be true, but in the meantime, what we have is far more than a triviality.