without a free will we would only be like robots.

It's not useful because whatever you decide about will, there is only one useful way to proceed...and that is as if we have will.

People are like robots. It is just that they are not conscious of the vast majority of the processes involved in making a decision, and so they often fail to realize this.

...

But, if they are only like robots (and the fact that they are not conscious of most of the physiological happenings makes them like robots only in that respect, but not in other respects). So what has it to do with free will? You have to show that people do not have free will because they are not conscious of many of the occurrences that go on in them that lead to the choices they make. And what is your argument for that? The fact that I may not be aware of how I chose vanilla ice-cream does not show I did not choose it, nor that I did not choose it of my own free will.

Why would it matter that there is only one possible future for me, as long as it is up to me what that future will be? If, in other words, that future is the consequence of what I decide to do. For instance, suppose my future is to eat some vanilla ice-cream. But that is because I decided to eat vanilla ice-cream. So, I ate vanilla ice-cream of my own free will.

I am not arguing that people do or do not have free will (whatever "free will" means). I was only responding to what someone else said about what we would be like if we lacked free will.

If you wish, we can look at an implicit argument to which I responded.
[INDENT][INDENT]If we lack free will, then we are like robots.
We are not like robots.
Therefore, we do not lack free will (or, equivalently, we have free will).[/INDENT][/INDENT]I am simply denying the second premise, which was unstated (i.e., merely implicit). From the denial of the second premise, we do not get to conclude anything about whether or not we have free will, as concluding the opposite of it would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

I think this is a good point...if you argue against free will completely, then you are forced to say insignificant things like "well, that's exactly what you wanted to do, but you had no choice about the matter because you wanted to do it!".

I think when the decision is determined by our personal wants and desires (not just our subconscious ones), it makes sense to say we made it of our own free will, regardless of the fact that we have those wants do to cause and effect.

Then why isn't it useful to show that we do have free will if it is useful to suppose that we do?

It is useful to demonstrate will, but then we demonstrate it by every action we do, anyway.
A good demonstration might be of extreme willpower.
Otherwise, it's ordinary.
That you swat a mosquito demonstrates will even more than it demonstrates the value of conscious decision. A decision on how to execute the swat is probably going to make the swat less effective than just swatting it. Either way it demonstrates will.

I think rather that the problem lies in how to understand the notion of, "could have done otherwise". I think that we can agree that to say that a person acted of his own free will is to imply (at least) that he could have done otherwise. But the disagreement starts when we try to understand what that phrase comes to. I think that is the core idea of "free will".

What are the truth conditions for the application of "X could have done otherwise"? What is implied by that phrase?

I am not sure what will is supposed to be. To to say that a person does something of his own free will seems just to deny that the person was compelled to do it. I don't think it has to do with will at all, whatever that is.

And that is why I think that your approach is less helpful; I don;t care what free will is supposed to be, as I don't see any difference between "free" will and "plain old" will

and we demonstrate will at every turn.

I may will to give a mugger my wallet, but not of my own free will. So it is not true that there is no difference between ' "free" will, and "plain old" will'.

Not sure, but haven't you argued that in a circle now a few times ?... saying in one response, that you don't know what it is, then in the next, indicating that you know, and it's to the negative, on free will.

I don't know what you mean.I "willed" to turn over my wallet, but I was forced to do it. So, what is your objection, now?

You were not forced; you chose the better action. You were forced in a legal sense , however, but that is for placing blame or not , as to things we "should or shouldn't" do

If someone holds a gun to my head, I was forced. I had to do something I did not want to do. What do you mean by "being forced"? What would the "non-legal sense" be?

You're merely repeating that you were forced. Where did "wants" come to be equated with will ?

a non legal sense would be that you were not overwhelmingly forced, you gave up your wallet in exchange for better odds of remaining unharmed. Like elective surgery.

So I was not forced to give up my wallet (in a legal sense) according to you.

But you just said I was forced in a legal sense. Make up your mind, please.

I don't know what you mean by "will". I interpreted it as wanting to do something. If that is not what you mean, I don't know what you mean by "will". Maybe you had better explain what you mean-if anything. Anyway, when people tell me that they did something of their own free will, I always understand them as denying that they were forced to do what they did, since that is what it means in English. How do you understand them?

No, I said you were forced, in a legal sense.

I repeated what I said, which is not what you say I said. I haven't changed my mind.
You can define "will " however you choose to.

However, you seem to choose to define it so that if it can be overcome, then that is evidence of will not existing. I'd have to track back to note where your argument has circled round and round on this.
It really doesn't matter what people deny, though, does it ?
Is that even part of the argument ?