> "I" means the 80 kg of biomass, the brain in particular, that is typing this comment. That's very different from what most people when they say "I", because

> "I" means the 80 kg of biomass, the brain in particular, that is typing this comment. That's very different from what most people when they say "I", because they're thinking of their ego, the little voice narrating to them their thoughts. If you're willing to reduce "I" to this definition, then yes, that solves a lot of problems. > "Giving the same circumstances" is the trap. If I get to choose food or sex, the outcome will depend on my tastes and the circumstances: Do I like the sex partner? Had I any sex in the last month or year? Am I really hungry? Do I like that food? Is it any good? The reason I asked the question was to pin down the variant of compatibilism you were subscribing to. You seem to be effectively arguing for a minimalist compatibilist view. When you say things like: > Freedom means that if presented with an attractive partner and disgusting food I can choose sex. Nobody forces me to do what I don't want to do. > We're not "free from ourselves", we're free (or not) from external interference. We weren't free to choose our rising environment and once the circumstances of it internalize, that's part of us and our will. You are redefining the definitions of "free" and "will" such that of course it is obviously compatible with determinism, because you have (rightly) watered down the words "freedom" and "will" until they were much, much weaker than most people who believe in free will at all. It doesn't make much sense to call it free will anymore, at that point. And that's what my original post was about: I prefer to call a spade a spade, while some compatibilists prefer to argue down from the old superstitions until they rationalize the history of thought down to an approximation of reality, and still call that by the old "free will" term.