Well at least my entry inspired a post! :P

Your discussion of free will is either a misunderstanding or a straw man. The reason a rock doesn't have free will, isn't because it can't spring up wings and fly away. It's because it's made of matter, and each of the molecules that make it up acts according to deterministic laws. Same for humans. (The reason we don't have free will isn't because we can't generate wings and fly, it's because we're made of matter, and each of the molecules that make us up acts according to deterministic laws.) The only other alternative is randomness, and that's only true (if it even is, we don't know yet) in the quantum world; and randomness is not the same as free will.

The issue might depend, to an extent, on how you define free will. For our purposes here I believe this simple definition will do: 'I could have done otherwise'. I.e.: 'I possess free will, if and only if, in a given spatiotemporal location, under the exact same circumstances, the entire universe being exactly the same, I could have done otherwise than what I did.'

Can you explain how that could happen, given the laws of physics as we know them? Can you give me an example of free will? A causa sui eye-bat that wasn't governed by the laws of physics? Anything?

The word 'freedom', unlike 'free will', is rather subjective, so one can have varied opinions on the issue.

Same goes for 'control', unless of course one literally means the power to control everything, and it has been proven that even God doesn't possess that power (although I'm here talking about omnipotence, strictly speaking, not control).

How does free will actually work? [...] Look at how it's reflected in reality? Nah... Instead, they want to make up their own definition into absolutist or polar terms, and redefine an aspect of our lives as not even existing, as only being an illusion.

I don't know who they are. The philosophers who have been at it for a thousand years? The scientists who have been at it for 200? It seems as though you believe they're living in a bubble, defining free will whichever way it suits them. They aren't:

http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~snichols/Papers/Folk_Intuitions_on_Free_Will

Is harm something you want? Do you think trying to reduce harm in life is a good thing? The ideas of "do no harm" and non-violence are all about that.

Well whose ideas are those exactly? If you're referring to the religions that gave birth to them, then you're wrong. In Buddhism, for instance, attaining Nirvana whilst continuing to be harmful to any living thing would constitute a contradiction. And yeah by 'living thing' they mean the minutest creatures imaginable, because they believe we were once them, and evolved into us through reincarnation.

I wasn't promoting slavery in my article. (It's hard for me to believe I have to state this!) What I was saying in my article, is that people who are unaware of their real nature as conscious beings, are in danger of thinking themselves angels. That's how all absolutisms begin! This type of person will, for instance, fail to take measures to curb his political power, because he believes he 'is all love'. Nothing bad can come from love, right? Loving one's country? That's patriotism! It can never turn to nationalism, so why bother exposing schoolchildren to anything other than the poems and literature of their own country (my generation was never taught foreign literature when I was in school). 10 consecutive presidencies? Why, I'm a good president! It's therefore impossible for me to be a tyrant. Jesus taught Love! It's therefore impossible to do harm trying to promote his vision. Oh did I just put a sword through you? Well, you'll only end up in heaven! You can thank me later!

For a person who is for equality, who is a liberal, a supporter of the LGBTIQ community, a feminist, and all that jazz (and who follows minnowsupport on streemian even tho I don't have to do that to use the bots!), I'm frankly rather shocked at how my article, because of the way I verbalized it I guess - maybe even because of the swastika-like symbol at the top (yes, the one that represents non-aggression) - gave people the completely wrong vibes! The goal was to reveal how human nature works, how 'loves' are tied to 'hates', so that we can be less naive about how these 'loves' are oh so innocuous and could never possibly harm anyone or foster hatred. It was meant to show how we can be ignorantly harmful, not to condone the harm.