That's an awfully deterministic answer. The kind of answer that always tends to come up with these free will questions which is proof enough to doubt it.
If you have a proof, please demonstrate it. Otherwise the question of the definition, much less existence, of free will is just one opinion against another and it's better to nip a tedious and fruitless philosophical conversation in the bud.
I said proof enough because sure enough the comment chains wind up like this, including your reply. Some people, as if on cue, deterministically say yes, some no, and a few like yours saying that it's all a waste of time. Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
>Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
Nothing at all is actually being proven either way. That's kind of the point.