As it looks to me, you seem to believe that such fairness does not seem possible due to predetermining factors. I don't know how fair or unfair someone is to someone else. I can only say that when I'm involved, in the interaction between the two of us. Whether or not I perceive a sense of fairness also depends on how our reasoning proceeds overall. If, for example, I were to close this thread of conversation angrily, who could predict what the future would look like? Could you say with absolute certainty how a story will continue? We can operate with probabilities, but absolute certainty we could not proclaim for ourselves.

Yes, in fact I understand your argumentation in such a way that we cannot do anything, since it seems that biology, socialization, etc., is so strong that "what is left is random", while my bill said that "the rest is free will". I did not say that it was easy and I tried to explain that free will is best measured by the contrast of what one is willing to do against one's own resistance. For example, to act against social conditioning: an extremely difficult undertaking. How can this be " random " when I decide to do it intentionally?

So if you think that we can do something after all, then I don't see any difference at all between the two of us. Then what is your point?

I told you at the very beginning of my explanation of free will that the larger you draw the time frame, the smaller a free will can be identified. When you put history, peoples, etc. into context, it is clear that people decide and behave as their location and the system and past events in which they find themselves dictates.

Has nobody so far surprised you or behaved really so unpredictable that you were impressed by it?
Is what you are saying, that a person cannot change - again on a level where all the other things already are subtracted?

How comes, Westerners like Matthieu Ricard, who had a Ph.D. degree in molecular genetics, decided to leave a shiny career and chose to become a monk?

Before I came to Steemit, I had a much more one-sided idea of science. But since I've read many articles (including yours) something has changed. I am much more willing to accept less free will than I have ever accepted before in my life. I force myself to read scientific texts that are contrary to what I was inclined to believe. I have come to the conclusion that, for the most part, there is a great overestimation of free will in my culture and in societies similar to my culture. For example, the exchange between you and me has made me think and make concessions. I would not have set up the above formula like this before.

From what I think that the self immolating monk did, is the following:
He chose to burn himself. I cannot imagine how a person can even prepare for this act. He knew that fire hurts, he knew that a human body usually wants to escape physical pain, he knew that instincts would kick in and he obviously knew what to do about it. Even if you think he drugged himself, even if you think of a biological constitution to be immune to pain, would that be a convincing thought to you realizing that you were about to set yourself on fire? Do you think the monk would not want to resist the fire?

When you do something for the first time in your life, how can you be certain of the outcome? Than, you must conclude, that this monk must have been utterly crazy and overestimating his action. Yes, normally that would also be something I would think. Setting oneself on fire because overestimating once endurance to deal with it shows in other cases of self immolation acts where people run around wildly because of the pain.

I have a different interest, you see. I am not so much caring for the chances but for what happened to this particular monk and what happens in other particular moments where I identify moments of free will.

You think it's equally likely that another monk could put himself on fire instead of this one, that there is nothing connecting this action to all the prior impressions that occurred in this person's life? His action was a result of 'free will' (whatever that is), and definitely not a result of everything that happened in his life and the way his brain is constructed?

You seem to think that there is only one either-or question to answer here. I agreed with you long ago and at the very beginning that a person cannot take himself out of context. What I say is:
Yes, everything that led to his decision is also the result of past impressions and it connects from moment to moment with what I call free will. Instead of the "or" I used an "and". I'm taking the "definitely" out.