the whole discussion of free will, though a fascinating subject, is pointless. It is always debated because there is an inherent circularity that means that no answer will be sufficient. It is the old homunculus all over again. every description of 'free will' at some point has someone stating that "they" decided X. What "they" is uncertain. How they know that "they" decided it is also not clear. How they manage to differentiate themselves from their brains is also not certain.

The easy way out is to argue that there is no such thing as will, free or otherwise. There is no inherent "I" that acts, or decides, or determines, or wills.

It is similar to how you get out of the Descartes "I think therefore I am" bullshit argument. I couldn't figure this out for the longest time, but it really bugged me because it seemed like such a weak argument for the existence of the self. Then I read Neitsche, and his simple easy argument was that Descartes argument relied on a peculiarity of language wherein a verb required a subject, and not on some philosophical truth.

Also, the thought experiments where your brain is systematically replaced by machinery (usually silicon chips) is quite bad. Your neurons cannot be replaced by chips, their mode of communication is too different, chips are not organic and can't grow new dendrites, or prune connections, etc. And lets not forget about the staggering number of glial cells that would also have to be replaced.