If free will was not real

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not goal post shifting at all. My original description of free will was "experience of making a decision." Unless you've committed to some kind of panpsychism in your philosophy of consciousness, your attempt at a reductio via thermostat never got off the starting line.

If you like..I can go back and quote the -many- differing requirements you've proposed...all as a way of responding to various objections I've made regarding the previous requirements specifically.  I shouldn't have to...and look, we sometimes do this and don't mean to or don't realize it, I do it to.   If you really want to insist that your requirements have not altered themselves in light of my input as this conversation has progressed....then I;m going to use -that- as a means of questioning the freedom of your will....and that will -really- irritate you. Take a look at that, btw...do you see anything about a frontal lobe in that initial description? If something experiences decisionmaking without a frontal lobe, it still fits the description..does it not?

Still free will thread besties, right?  

Now, on the subject of just that statement...it doesn;t even approach a reference to any freedom..it;s just the acknowledgement that we experience decision-making..and since the question we're asking ourselves is whether or not that decisionmaking is free...and if it is, to what extent or in what sense, simply saying that we experience decision-making won't move -those- chains.  

Nope. I am scrupulous about the denotation of my words in the way that only a pedantic bitch like me can be

Heroin addiction is not duress. It is compulsion.

Okay, so you are okay then with compulsion, but not duress.  If your will is ultimately compelled...then it's still free...but if it's under duress..it is not?  Isn't the operative portion of duress...in context..it's ability to compel, to be a compulsive factor?  

(heroin addicts certainly act like they're under considerable duress...but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one)

I thought you had agreed that have autonomy in the legal sense?

No, no no no.  I simply mentioned that it is not required for us to have autonomy in the legal sense for us to justify what we do based upon that assumption..such as remove people from the gp. Whether Bob hacked those girls up of his own accord..or just couldn't help himself, or was hard programmed by a brilliant but mad scientist to do it......he's going into a tiny box for the rest of his life.