dhw It appears that all arguments other than cause and effect are rabbit holes you are not prepared to go down. For me they miss the point completely.-> dhw WHY do you reject the compatibilist definition of free will as conscious choices made without coercion from other individuals, social conventions and institutions? In a sense I don't. -> dhw WHY do you not accept that our identity is ours alone regardless of the influences (causes and effects) that have helped to form it? -Actually what I have said is that the self ... specifically an intrinsic self, is an illusion. WHY do you misrepresent what I have said?-> dhw What authority do you have for insisting that cause and effect are the only criterion by which one can judge whether free will exists or not? -The same authority you have for questioning my position. -It is almost as though you don't understand the issues here dhw. WHY is this dhw?-> dhw But if we argue that it means freedom from coercion - e.g. by individuals or institutions -Ah ... this two thousand year old debate is simply a semantic misunderstanding. -OK in everyday vernacular "free will" is synonymous with not having a gun to my head fair enough. But plainly this is a philosophical discussion and we are plainly not discussing this trivial aspect of so called free will. -> dhw I believe the definition must be neutral, allowing for both sides of the argument-Yep when we define a tree ... we do so neutrally so as to give my metal thing in my workshop with rubber tyres and pedals a reasonable chance of being described as a tree. Plainly nonsense.-A definition must describe accurately the concept under discussion. I accept this can be difficult as all definitions are ultimately circular.-When we define something we do not do so neutrally. We do it accurately, or at least accurately as we can.