Excuse my English for I',Chianti Veszprem;m not a native speaker. In my opinion the biggest problem with the free will debate, is a discrepancy in languages of philosophy and neuroscience. What';s ';true'; on the one level might be ';false'; on the other. In that order a broader understanding of both domains would upscale the debate from right/wrong into a more insightful thesis. If you take a historical philosophical perspective you will find that there';s a long tradition in thinking about free will without the aide of neuroscience. What happens with current neuroscientists is that their conclusions have broad philosophical consequences, whereas their findings lack solid philosophical ground,Aaron Miller. In short; a course in philosophy (on free will) for the neuroscientists and a neuroscience course for philosophers. My stance on the matter; there';s no such thing as free will (hard incompatibilism), derived from the sylogism of responsibility [philosophy, supported by neuroscience! :)]