A few day's perspective can do wonders. I'm not really into this free-will debate myself. That's because I can't completely wrap my brain around some of the constructs that Tom and Alex seem to think are very important to the outcome.

However, the amazing thing to me is that the person most certain of their position that free-will actually exists - is the one who has never actually described, in simple terms, what free-will means (at least to them). That being Fred, of course.

I notice that Tom and Alex are especially careful with their terms. To me, that seems to go along with rigor, in a debate.

It would seem that someone so dismissive of others' ideas that he calls them "ugly babies" that spring from ignorance and non-rigorous argument, someone so certain that they are right about this that they assert that those who disagree are intellectually dishonest and immoral - would have a simple logical definition of free-will ready at hand to lay on us non-believers.

So how about it, is there a there there, Fred? Do you actually have a coherent definition of free-will of your own that you are demanding that others acknowledge? If so, I haven't seen it yet. Like, what it does and how it actually affects behavior? Or is this just another one of your vacuous ideological tirades based on nothing more than your hatred of atheists?

BTW - LeDoux's downward causation is simply an acknowledgment that thoughts can affect behavior. Le Doux makes no claims about thoughts being an example of free-will (of any kind). Thoughts are not free-will - at least not until you can show that some thoughts in some brains are not the result of the chemicals and neurons in those brains.

How about it, Fred? Here's your chance to lay some rigor on us.

Margaret