WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.
In the philosophical litterature there are several definitions of free will. How can you say that any of these are wrong.
I am interested in Free WIll as a base for moral desert. As Galen Strawsson says: It is a matter of punishment of hell and the bliss of heaven.
The first step of understanding free will is to understand what it is at its core and that is simply the act of choosing between available choices.
So, yes, computers do that.
Next step, HOW do they do that?
Computers choose based on programming, programming done by an exterior source.
They don't understand anything other than binary code that drives their process of "choice".
They Can't go against their programming ( programming being analogues to the human "nature & Nurture" thing).
Humans, however, CAN and DO choose to go against their "programming".
The moment a person, who is exposed to violence all their life, choose NOT to be violent.
The moment a person that has been rick all their life, choose to give up wealth.
The moment a person choose to disobey their parents, even knowing it is NOT in their best interest.
The moment a person KNOWS that act A) is wrong and commits act A).
Etc, etc, etc.
This is why we hold people accountable that are deemed mentally "competent" and do NOT hold those that are NOT mentally competent, Because we understand that conscious CHOICE to do something that is wrong.
If people do NOT choose their actions, it means that there was no ability to do otherwise AT ALL.
When a man rapes a child, he didn't choose to rape. He had no choice BUT to rape, he is but a "victim" of his environment and his genetic make-up. He can't be held accountable for his actions since he had no choice in the matter.
Of course, what needs to be explained is why doesn't everyone rape or at least, why don't people with similar ( no such thing as identical) environmental and hereditary issues, also do that.