Interesting. I had not considered the political aspects. However, it seems that we are still in the realm of belief or viewpoint.

What I am asking about are the ramifications on a personal level of an irrefutable, unarguable, consensually agreed upon, end-of-story, definitive answer to the question of free will.

How would an answer one way or another change the way you conduct your day-to-day life?

And what other questions would be raised by the answer to the free will question?
What other questions would be answered?

Also, I thought that light exhibited properties of both. But I understand what you are saying.

Just out of curiosity have we given a proper definition of what the "will" is? Are we sure that everyone on this thread understands this concept? Perhaps this may be of help to us in this philosophical inquiry. Not trying to be tedious or annoying on definitions but I want to make sure we understand the word "will" when we are focusing on free will.

Just out of curiosity have we given a proper definition of what the "will" is? Are we sure that everyone on this thread understands this concept? Perhaps this may be of help to us in this philosophical inquiry. Not trying to be tedious or annoying on definitions but I want to make sure we understand the word "will" when we are focusing on free will.

I know a number of people who are perpetual victims. Nothing is ever their fault. They can't help being the way they are. And, they act that way. Fatalism can be blamed for the passive attitudes found predominately in the East. If I were a "victimologist" I would behave victimologists behave. Sartre had a good name for it. He called it, "mauvaise foi". Bad faith. As he wrote, people fear freedom. They feel condemned to be free. They blame genes, luck, upbringing, whatever, to avoid responsibility for what they do.

Will is not a thing. When we want something, or decide to do something, we are exhibiting "will". As Locke said, "it is not the will that is free, it is the person who is free". "Free will" is misleading. I am free. Not my will.

Again, what you say is accurate. Our society seems to be filled with those who seem unable, or unwilling, to accept any form of responsibility for their own lives. These are often the same people making noises about what they think they are entitled to, aren't they? Perhaps, if they are going to continue to believe this way, they should practice a little amor fati?

The same thing can be said about whether light is a wave or a particle.

But, in fact, some political views, like Left-Liberalism, are based on the view that free will is a dubious proposition. Which is why Liberalism holds that equality of outcome trumps equality of opportunity, merit should not be rewarded because people do not deserve what they merit. President Obama's, and the Left's social politics depends on this view that need trumps merit. A very large and popular book is an exposition of why need trumps merit, and equality of outcome trumps equality of opportunity because free will is probably false.
It is called, A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. It is a mainstay of Left-Academia (most of academia). As John Dewey said, "Ideas have consequences".

...Well it can go quite in the opposite direction...what you are, despite of not being responsible, does not change, you still being what you are and getting the feedback result of your nature...is a question of Order not of Moral or Ethics, al do that's an easy mistake to go with...

No !

The point is in Order

They have too much as it is.

And it is one of the better TV shows too.

Someone else said that many humans are afraid of freedom, I feel this is true, unfortunately.
I'm sure a fish feels fear when taken out of water and a bird likewise when put in a cage.

The conscious can veto impulses

Well, we are getting into metaphysics (and metaphor) here. On the contrary. this is getting further away from science. It is, after all, Platonic in origin, anyway. And later on, Freudian. The science is questionable. You should worry if you have to depend on it.

Benjamin Libet (2002) conducted experiments designed to determine the timing of conscious willings or decisions to act in relation to brain activity associated with the physical initiation of behavior. Interpretation of the results is highly controversial. Libet himself concludes that the studies provide strong evidence that actions are already underway shortly before the agent wills to do it. As a result, we do not consciously initiate our actions, though he suggests that we might nonetheless retain the ability to veto actions that are initiated by unconscious psychological structures. Wegner (2002) masses a much range of studies (including those of Libet) to argue that the notion that human actions are ever initiated by their own conscious willings is simply a deeply-entrenched illusion and proceeds to offer an hypothesis concerning the reason this illusion is generated within our cognitive systems. O'Connor (forthcoming) argues that the data adduced by Libet and Wegner wholly fail to support their revisionary conclusions.

It isn't? Who is it then? An alien?

I think it may change how the person feels about humanity and the human condition. A sense of fear and depression seems to come over those who consider they are simply a highly complex mechanistic process, with no innate and unique "being".

If a smoker is trying to quit, he doesn't want to smoke a cigarette but his subconscious does. To say that "if my subconscious made the decision, I made the decision" is to say that a heroin addict makes the decision to shoot up, or that you make the decision to flinch. Saying my "subconscious isn't me" might have been a bit strong.

I think the more free will people believe we have, the more judgmental they are. Acknowledging that we have a smaller amount of control could lead to more tolerance.