My main point is that "free will" is not clearly defined. Once you define what you mean by the question, then we can answer. However, the idea that there is some separate non-causal entity that is making decisions is ridiculous.

But free will is not, I think, freedom of choice.

Okay then.

I think that making the argument that because we are bound by gravity, or by the consequences of our actions, we don't have free will -- that's semantic silliness.

Yes, it's semantic silliness. But that's all we really have until a clear definition is provided. The question of "free will" is really only one by those who don't understand how brains work. We have clear evidence (and many experiments) of various sections of the brain and how they affect consciousness. It's very clearly tied. Our current and past experiences add up, and go through various biological "calculations" and then fire off the correct nerves and muscles in order to respond. None of that is really "free". The same thing would have happened every single time. Since that's what the body/brain calculated to be the "correct" response.

The body could have calculated a different answer, had it been in a different state or if any other parameter was changed. But with the same parameters, and the same internal configuration, the brain arrived at it's conclusion.

The video I linked to discusses this a bit further in detail (a lot better than I could probably explain). But it boils down to this:

Your thoughts and actions are tied to your brain activity. Your brain activity is based on and modifies itself based on various experiences and perceptions. Each person has different perceptions and experiences, so we come up with different decisions. But if we trace it back far enough, we can clearly see where the thoughts came from.

So if we were to "rewind" time, the decision would be the same, every single time. You could argue that due to the nature of quantum mechanics and stuff being "random" that we could theoretically pick something else. Our brains don't really work like that. But if they did, we'd simply randomly make decisions, rather than being based on internal logic and perceptions.

Neither of those are really "free". One is pre-determined based on the state of the environment and person. The other is arbitrary and random.

So when you come and say "we have free will", I'm wondering what the hell do you mean by "free will"? I know plenty of people subscribe to the body-mind duality hypothesis. But we've already proven that to mostly be false (physical things affect consciousness). But even if mind were separate from body, there's still no proof or evidence that "free will" is even there. And logically, the idea doesn't make sense.

TL;DR: Free will isn't adequately defined. Once we come across a definition we can say whether it's true or not. But the seemingly most common definition is nonsensical.