Is free-will an illusion?

I presented that as something relevant to consider vis a vis other claims that the will or the mind that wills is a non-physical entity, or that it functions independently of the flesh, ie that the executive function(s) are done without need for a brain.

Sounds counter intuitive. Any link?

He did in fact *publicly* support women's rights, so I got that part wrong. But I knew he had a reputation as a male chauvinist, somehow.

His own daughter said that his public stance was hypocritical insofar as it did not reflect his private attitudes about women. She said he was a chauvinistic male in his personal life.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1870&dat=19781001&id=44ofAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5dIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5284,732373&hl=en

Still waiting for that Frege argument, Tuna...

I'm fine with the traditional view of truth as a correct representation of reality

On such a reliabilist view, the justification of a perceptual belief depends only on the reliability of the perceptual process that produces it, that is, on the fact (assuming that it is a fact) that this process leads to a suitably high proportion of true beliefs. (Note that it is not required that the believer or anyone else know that the process is reliable or have any sort of cognitive access to its reliability — all that is required is that it is in fact reliable).

The justification of such a belief thus requires no appeal to sensory experience at all, thus effectively short-circuiting the issue that divides representationalism and phenomenalism. Such reliabilist views might in a way be viewed as versions of direct realism, but it is less misleading to simply regard them as rejecting the issue which all three of the more traditional theories attempt to respond to: the issue of how sensory experience provides a reason for thinking that perceptual beliefs are true. Reliabilism thus offers a seemingly straightforward and unproblematic account of how perceptual beliefs about physical objects and the physical world are, in a specified sense, justified.

I'm fine with the traditional view of truth as a correct representation of reality. I don't see a need to discuss it, if you don't.

I'm fine with the mainstream deflationary view. If someone really wanted to understand why it's the mainstream view, I'd discuss it. It doesn't look to me like you're in that category, so I'm fine with letting it lay.