Then intuition is wrong, as is often the case. Either the decision is random, or it is mine, or it is somebody or something else's. There can be combinations of those factors, and of course that is actually the usual case. In fact arguably in practice it's always the case.
> What you need to really satisfy the intuitive concept of 'free will' is some analytical agency, external to our physical reality, which affects the outcome in some purposeful way. So, basically, a 'soul'.
But any analytical agency is going to encapsulate state. Moving that outside our physical bodies is just kicking the can down the metaphysical road but doesn't actually solve anything.
If we want to invoke pure randomness, there's always Quantum Mechanics. In fact there's a post on the intersection of quantum mechanics and biology on the front page right now [0]. But of course random input doesn't seem very 'free' either.
My point is that 'free will' in the abstract isn't an agency. To have agency there must be an agent and agents have state. When we are talking about free will, we should be talking about the free will of the agent. To the extent that the agent made the decision without undue external influence then they have free will. Can we ever be free of ourselves?
Edit: byt +1, good post and I definitely concur with your last point.