I think I can give some sufficient conditions for a case in which I would consider someone to have “ceased to have free will”. If someone X with some manner of

I think I can give some sufficient conditions for a case in which I would consider someone to have “ceased to have free will”. If someone X with some manner of advanced brain altering technology was able to temporarily force someone Z’s actions to be whatever X specified into the machine, with afterwards Z remembered the experience as their taking these actions for whatever reasons X specified in the input (where this is achieved by influencing whatever is going on in Z’s head at the time, not via altering memories), then, during that duration, I think it would make sense to say that Z “did not have free will” for that duration. As for sufficient conditions for someone to have “free will”, I suppose I don’t have a great description. However, “what/who we are is the primary explanation for what we do (and so in particular, no external influence/manipulation is a primary explanation)” seems, like it has at least something right towards the goal of a good definition.