What is free will?

Then change your definition of knowledge so that it is practical.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by At what level of "matter" are you speaking of? Our brain and our environment is "matter" as far as I can see and observe. For our brains to function, we must be alive so that the chemicals do their stuff, and we can through our "language" decide what we wish to do with ourselves.

I don't think you have grasped Maturana's views on "mind".
Here is a useful introduction to some of his ideas. Let me know if you read it.
http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm

What is your take on Neutral Monism Fresco ? just curious about your opinion...

I would suggest for your consideration that as biological beings mind has the extrinsic function of solving practical problems. As philosophical beings mind has the recreational function of generating theoretical problems. As spiritual beings mind has the intrinsic function of being just as it is.

I guess it depends on your definition of 'free will' (an English phrase which I find misleading; in French it's called 'libre arbitre' which means 'free choice among limitted options' which is less ambitious and more realistic).

I define freedom as self-determination. So if my knowledge, which is part of me, an element of my own mental world assembled by me, pushes me in one direction, and I follow that route, I am still free in my sense of the word: self-determined.

One could also decide to ignore one's knowledge, by the way, to 'act against one's best jugement'. Sometimes it's a good idea to try something new, to 'unlearn'.

So either way you look at it, knowledge either supports free will, or does not preclude it.

All good with your line of reasoning with exception from what you meant with mind "generating"/creating Theoretical problems...for one because I think the distinction between theoretical and practical although useful is flawed and secondly because I profoundly resist the idea mind can create anything out of nothingness...non being cannot be thought off. You can edit and mixly cross existing entities so you kind of apparently create mind objects which cannot exist in reality say for instance a Sun with a smiling face, but are you really imagining creating something which does not exist ? No you are just editing and fusing together 2 objects of your phenomenal experience. The idea of creating something out of nothing is rationally apawling !

Insofar that "the stuff" of neutral monism "can exist on its own", I would disagree with it because I take the postion that all "existence" is relational.

...the decision to ignore knowledge is itself dependent on unconscious and even external constrains that you cannot control and that causally precede and define your choice...say you rationally decided against your best logical interest to throw yourself out of a window, it can still be argued, that similarly as your own decision to act, depends on a deterministic model to be accounted for and related in terms of authorship to yourself, so that it can be materialized from your will, exactly by the same deterministic token, such decision causal relations can be traced back to conditions which were not initiated by you...

Free will is the belief that you can control your own fate. It could be true or it could not, but it is what you believe you can do, and that is free will. But on a less vague point, my opinions on free will say that is exists, but only to certain people. After all, we are all controlled by higher powers, whether it be the Church, the Government, or parents. No one really has true, "free will".

...I don't believe for a minute you really do think the money in the bank disappears as soon you stop watching your account figures...in fact around 4 or 5 years old most children learn this is the case.

The relational character of existence is not an argument against the Truth of what exists...as that which is the case is the case...my case is against the irrationality of motion itself and thus against the magical idea of "process" very much in the same manner you make an argument against the idea of "self" or I make a case against the illusion of "free will"..."relations" seen as an on forward NOW being build dynamic behaviour can be themselves phenomenal appearances in a motionless set collection, but whatever they are, if existing, even if exclusively in the mind of someone, they are true phenomena, they were experienced by such X subject for what they were, and thus they are not dependent on whatever any mind thinks...the subject mind itself cannot control its thinking but rather witness the process by which ideas emerge. Mind is not "creating/inventing" anything, but rather is being a medium to whatever is timelessly the case to be true so to show up and manifest itself. Further clarifying the idea of "manifestation" itself is a useful expression of our time dependent experience of the world. Whatever is the case is indeed eternally the case it was or it would be.

Of course money is relational ! And you obviously did not invest in Icelandic Banks in 2007 or it would have disappeared !

As for "what is the case" this for me is certainly a matter of social agreement. Anthropological studies support that view. And insofar that we have "the same physiology" it is no surprise that humans should agree on many things, especially when communicating via the relatively culture free meta-language of mathematics.

Your own definition of knowledge leads to free will. You admitted that they are such things as choices, that they mattered, and that they are facilitated or supported by knowledge. That's precisely what I call free will: the determination of choices by a subject based on his or her own knowledge.

Apologies, I should have said: entirely determined by matter or not.

Evidently there is some determination of minds by matter, e.g. if you drink too much alcohol or are very hungry, or your brain is blown off your head by a bullet, you won't be able to think straight... But that doesn't mean the mind is entirely determined by matter. I am saying the mind needs some degree of freedom from matter in order to be considered free.

You entirely miss or bypass the point...it certainly is not up to mind, my mind or anyone's mind, to establish by agreement whatever was the case you just did experienced right now reading this sentence...in fact it was not even up to you. It just DID happened !

I don't think you have explained it either, so we can't exclude that you failed to understand it...

"Choices" are mental phenomena, illusions based on lacking absolute knowledge on the total conditions that will set what will happen...

I agree; that's the reason why I always say that we have free will beyond our "genes and environment." Genes includes our capacity to learn, observe, experience, and decide on options. It includes our subjective perception of the world we live in. Environment includes culture, race, ethnicity, government, politics, education, family, friends, our ability to travel, communication, and the limits and progress of our environment. Two hundred years ago, people could not fly in airplanes or take ships to the moon. However, many poor people in this world will never have the opportunity to fly in airplanes, or even on trains. Their lives and ability to do things are limited by their environment.

Otherwise, humans are free to make choices on what they wish to do with those "built in" constraints of our genes and environment.

How do you know that for a fact? That's just your hypothesis, retold again and again. Try and present some sort of evidence, for once.

Choices allows us to make, bad or good, right or wrong decisions based on our personal perception of what we decide to act on.

That's free will in a nut shell.