> *free will as conventionally defined*

The article should have defined what free will it is talking about, and let each expert define how the define it. Is there a problem with this definition: "the ability to act depending on personal experiences within the limits of current biological functions"? In that sense Charles Whitman, who had a brain tumor and was compelled to kill people, was acting with free will at the time of being in medical distress. We can never truly know what thoughts he was having at the time just like we can't know everyone else's.