[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Since the only terms that are acceptable to you as base terms (not requiring definition) are intrinsically materialist, any expression like 'free will' always appears to need defining, and defining, and defining, until it has morphed into a subtly different concept that fits with your world view.

Now you're just using me as an excuse not to define your terms. I haven't seen you define free will at all, so I certainly haven't morphed your definition into something else.

The question should be whether type A free will (i.e. the thing 99% of people mean by the term) is:

a) An illusion.

b) A reality.

c) Something else.

Instead, we get diverted into the question of its definition!

To quote Chris, "You guys are hilarious!" OMFG, let's not have to define the term before we decide if it's an illusion or reality. That would be work.

If you really want a definition of Type A free will, it must conform with the 99%

So you'll only accept a folk definition of free will. Okay, what is it?

Your disagreement with Ian, is not really about definitions, it is about the nature of reality.

No kidding.

~~ Paul