I guess I'm taking issue with this idea of a "classical conception of free will." What does that even mean? The part of Horgan's argument that I like was this paragraph:
Horgan wrote:But just because my choices are limited doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because I don't have absolute freedom doesn't mean I have no freedom at all. Saying that free will doesn't exist because it isn't absolutely free is like saying truth doesn't exist because we can't achieve absolute, perfect knowledge.
It seems obvious to me that, even if "ideas and thoughts do not exist independently of a brain," there's abundant evidence that purposeful cognitive effort leads to changes in both cognition and behavior. There's evidence that purposeful work can affect cognition, even the physical brain, in a manner that isn't at all inconsistent with free will. It's just inconsistent with an ideologically pure definition of "free will," which isn't very interesting to me.
I guess what I'm saying is that if there's any real answer to these problems, it's someplace between pure determinism and pure free will-ism, whatever the fancy term for that is. Our biology influences our thoughts influence our biology, etc., and the interplay between them is enough free will to be going on with.