Recently, I commented on an article about LFW being intuitive:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/07/02/intuition-and-choices/

Later, John Cranman shared his thoughts about my response:

TheSire, if you’re going to quote Taliaferro (and Goetz) on free will, you should probably quote him entirely. From the same piece you’re pulling from:

“For example, in light of both our desire that we make clear that there are no good objections to the idea that we make uncaused choices and our belief that writing this essay would fulfill that desire, we chose to write it for the purpose that we make clear that there are no good objections to the view that we make free choices. Philosophers call explanation in terms of a purpose teleological explanation, where teleological and causal explanations are distinct and irreducible kinds of explanation.

There is a fairly universal consensus that human beings believe that they make undetermined choices for purposes and that the basis for believing this is that they are simply directly aware or have the experience of making such choices.”

Here was my response:

“Philosophers call explanation in terms of a purpose teleological explanation, where teleological and causal explanations are distinct and irreducible kinds of explanation.”

Given any prior purpose, you can simply choose otherwise. So, regardless of your purposes, you can make choices. So, even teleological explanations fail to explain choices on such a view. But I don’t have to respond to every point of the article in order to show the author is incorrect in certain places. I have dealt with direct quotes from the author. That hardly undermines anything else I’ve stated.