Seems all about free/not-free will is no more than opinions, as no real concrete logical fact and proofs are in both fields, probably is a question outside any

Seems all about free/not-free will is no more than opinions, as no real concrete logical fact and proofs are in both fields, probably is a question outside any proof, and there are those who -feel- free (with all pro/cons) and those who not feel free (with the relative pro/cons), influenced by their own picture of the world. given this, to me, the arguments of -yes, free will- are slight more sound than those of -no free will-, but i think this is because -my own- concepts of "me" "free" "will" "world" "cause" "effect" "determinism" "causality" "complexity"... But if Salpolsy put a total determinism, it's idea is determined, it's not a sapolsky idea, is an event determined, sa any other, and the opposite free-will idea is too, determined, both are no more than a result of the same chains of events, so this position is inconclusive. as many others concepts, the ideas of freedom and causality collides, if are both too narrow..