If you have defined 'freewill' as being ordinary everyday freedom to make choices without constraint than it is not the philosopher's straw man that I was talking about in the post. It does not imply dualism. This then becomes a semantic rather than a philosophical difference. I want to get rid of the word and you want to redefine it so that it is useful. But you don't need the word. You could just say 'I was free to make a choice.' Most people would think you meant 'free from external constraint'. I believe I said in the post that I was not talking about ordinary freedom from constraint but from the causality of the material world. That was the definition I was using for freewill.

If there are people (you may or may not be one) who cling to the word 'freewill' and redefine it so that they can cling to it, there cannot be too many. Because the replies to this post are the first time I have encountered this new definition with any frequency. Of course, I may not have noticed that someone was using the word in a different way from the usual meaning. This is like the redefinition of God to be something like 'the whole universe' or 'the original cause' in order to not have to admit that they don't actually believe in God. I suppose that many of the people who say they believe in God would not prompt me to find out how vague their concept was.