Not missing the point, you're just making up definitions and trying to cherry-pick science ideas into a narrative you've created.

Please explain where I am cherry picking science. 'Making up definitions' - well, I am giving my definition of free will. If you have another, do share. Science already says that there is no such thing as free will by the way.

The brain is made up of atoms. A "thought" is nothing more than electrons being fired off by changes in chemical energy potentials.

Yes, I am aware.

There would be no physical difference from an energy perspective between "free" thoughts and dependent thoughts, they are all just changes in the pattern.

Yes there would, and that's where your lack of understanding comes in, so it would serve the discussion if instead of going into resistance you'd try to understand my point.

A "free" thought would be a thought that was not caused by anything. It came into existence on its own. This is like a neuron (yes I realise thoughts are not formed by just one neuron, it's an analogy) activating on its own. That doesn't happen. It's not how the brain works. Brain activity is always causal. Neurons activate each other, either from within (brain area to brain area) or without (sense information to brain area).

You are trying to abstract some version of thought that doesn't agree with the underlying science, and then claim that very same science precludes it. It's sillyness and gobblygook

I don't understand what you are getting your panties so up in a bunch about. I'm telling you that this is how most people look at free will. They believe there is such a thing as a thought that is uncaused, because it is free. As soon as a thought is caused it cannot be called free. It's as simple as that. If you disagree, please don't just say that you disagree or that I am speaking nonsense, but explain WHY it is nonsense. If you aren't capable of doing that I have no interest in further discussion.