A conclusion about free will derived from primates/human study seems poinless, if even a precise scientific definition of free-will is very difficult to set, an

A conclusion about free will derived from primates/human study seems poinless, if even a precise scientific definition of free-will is very difficult to set, and (to take one) even the concept of subconscious is very fuzzy and not scientific, usefull(??) to talk about of somethning we do not really know. And -real- scientific experiments sems (quite)impossibile to realize: how to -really- repeat an experience a 2nd time like the 1st to study the outcomes? even for a simple physical system, we cannot "rewind thee reality" and check again, we do experiment under controlled situation to approximate this, imagine for a really complex system like a biological one in a even more complex environment. Even instincts are considerend far less -mechanical- in recent times, so this kind of absolute conclusions about things soo deep are not much interesting, it's more a matter of philosopy... And if there is no free will, how Sapolsky choose to study free-will?...