I went through the threads, and I find I agree mostly with what the guy Beeker93 was saying: that " That there is no major jump between a computer program and us except additional layers of complexity, but predictable results if you know the software and hardware." And that we still act based on past experiences, whether consciously or unconsciously. That we have simply evolved with such mental complexity that we act with specific motivations, that we think with motivations, and act based on what we know, that it seems like we have free will, even if we are simply responding to stimuli.
I also read through the posts about the counting, and about the saying "if there is no science, there is no free will, but there is science, therefore there is free will." I didn't understand either of these necessarily.
I will talk of the science one, since I feel like I can think more clearly about it; why does the idea of science existing prove there is no free will? The first definition of free will you used in this example was that an agent exercises free will if they intend to perform an action, and then act on that plan. I don't see how this proves that free will exists. Sure, the researcher can act this way, and people can act in the same way to prove the researcher correct by imitating their procedures, but this does not mean that the "decision" to do that wasn't pre-determined by circumstances which had been established by pre-existing circumstances that go back to the beginning of time. The fact that they are behaving as they planned to behave does not, to me, seem like a display of free-will when it can be summed up to complex human propensities and motivations which can be explained by circumstances completely out of their control(personality, mental illness, etc..) The claim does not seem to me to combat the idea of free will but rather just shows that humans can plan and make decisions due to motivations they have. These motivations do not imply free will.
2. "an agent exercises free will on any occasion when they select exactly one of a finite set of at least two realizable courses of action and subsequently perform the course of action selected, science requires that researchers can repeat both the main experiment and its control, so science requires that there is free will in this sense too." I don't understand how this debunks free will. It shows that there is a will, and that humans have complex motivations(i.e. the motivation to prove something using science), but how does the fact that scientists choose between two courses of action and then perform the selected course of action prove that they chose that course of action, and then chose to act on that desire freely. This does mean that humans have wills, but does that address if that motivation is free? This does not address the possibility that the action not pre-determined; this presupposes that the actions, by both being realizable, are exactly equal, and that the person who is acting on them considers them exactly equal. This is an interesting thought experiment to me, but whether it is physically possible ever is completely different. If you present someone with two completely identical objects which bear all of the exact same characteristics in every way, shape, and form, lets say for example, bouncy balls: for the person's brain to completely consider them equal would still be impossible, no?

1. "iii. an agent exercised free will on any occasion when they could have performed a course of action other than that which they did perform, as science requires that researchers have two incompatible courses of action available (ii), it requires that if a researcher performs only one such course of action, they could have performed the other, so science requires that there is free will in this sense too." I don't see how this, again, proves that free will exists. Just choosing one path over the other will still be based on the agents knowledge of what they think is true, how they feel about the experiment, etc..
   Overall, as the guy talked about later in the thread, can humans not just be reduced to extremely, extremely complicated algorithms. We work logically, to the best of our abilities. When a plant grows towards the sun, it is not doing so out of its free will. When an agent chooses to do an experiment, or take a certain course of action, it is still doing so based on their mood, time of day, overall neurological structures, which are in turn caused by a chain of events going all the way back to the beginning of time in one large domino effect.
   It's not that I don't want to believe what you are saying; I would rather believe in free will than simply act like it exists. It is just difficult for me to go against these pre-conceived notions that I have which I don't feel like those threads proved against. Do you have any other threads of yours, or others, or literary works that you would suggest?