You folks have been a fantastic resource of perspective as I try to dip my toes into understanding this free will stuff, and it's much appreciated.

That said, philosophy seems to be the primary method of reaching a position on the subject, and as we know, philosophy goes round and round in endless circles of what amounts to little more than intelligent pondering based on rules of semantics and logic structures, and arguably, an insistence upon open-endedness. Conclusions seem to be anathema to most philosophies.

So let's talk in terms of substance. What would have to happen in the realm of empirical science to convince you of a conclusion one way or the other that free will does or doesn't exist?