When free will is sought to be defined, I think it is implied and/or desired to be defined by some in a 'cause and effect' manner. Presense of a truly free will shall necessitate a truly random action which is completely free and unaware of biases. Basically, an action/occurence without a predecessor, germination without a seed, a chicken without an egg and so on. This sets us on a path wherein we realize our limitations on the comprehension of the natural world.
To compensate for our lack (real or perceived) of comprehension, some (including myself) may tend to abstain from the realm of metaphysics or quantum physics (or whatever) when defining free will. I think the primary and innate motive in defining free will is to absolve ourselves, other humans and the various life forms of any unpleasant effects that their actions or undertakings have caused. Towards that motive, we may resign ourselves to the humbling conclusion that we are mere chemical lumps subject to stimulus and thus not 'responsible' for our actions.
To compensate for our lack (real or perceived) of comprehension, some (including myself) may tend to abstain from the realm of metaphysics or quantum physics (or whatever) when defining free will. I think the primary and innate motive in defining free will is to absolve ourselves, other humans and the various life forms of any unpleasant effects that their actions or undertakings have caused. Towards that motive, we may resign ourselves to the humbling conclusion that we are mere chemical lumps subject to stimulus and thus not 'responsible' for our actions.
