[Proto]

I can only see this as statistics to predict someone's actions based on his history. A more detailed past allows for a higher success rate, but it would never go past 50% at best: there's four parts of a human conscience: the part we know and show to others, the part we keep for ourselves, the part that others see but we can't perceive, and a part unknown to both us and the ones around us. Based on this theory (which I heard from a psychologist back in high school), other people can only see two of the four sides that constitute your personality, and can record only as much.

Totally agreed, and that's why that for all practical purposes free will exists and is there given that no one would be able to completely predict another person. However, this is just approximating things: We do are deterministic machines, the fact that there is no Laplace demon doesn't change this fact.

I guess you could say that this is a mixture of cultural, environmental and genetic determinism. Or could you say that there is another factor other than this that would let you escape the cage of your past and your present?


Of course, there is a very interesting middle ground that many people miss, called compatibilism that might be worth considering:

Compatibilism, as championed by the ancient Greek Stoics, Hume and many contemporary philosophers, is a theory that argues that if free will and determinism exist they are in fact compatible. Determinists argue that all acts that take place are predetermined by prior causes, including human actions. If a free action is defined as one that is not predetermined by prior causes, then determinism, which claims that human actions are predetermined, rules out the possibility of free actions.
A compatibilist, or soft determinist, in contrast, will define a free act in a way that does not hinge on the presence or absence of prior causes. For example, one could define a free act as one that involves no compulsion by another person. Since the physical universe and the laws of nature are not persons, actions which are caused by the laws of nature would still be free acts- therefore it is wrong to conclude that universal determinism would mean we are never free.
For example, you could choose to continue reading or to stop reading this article; while a compatibilist determinist would not deny that whatever choice you make will have been predetermined since the beginning of time, they will argue that this choice that you make is an example of free will because no one is forcing you to make whatever choice you make. In contrast, someone could be holding a gun to your head and tell you that unless you read the article, (s)he will kill you; to some compatibilists, that is an example of a lack of free will. And these would argue for inclusion of such internal compulsions as kleptomania or addiction. Other compatibilists would disregard a gun as limiting free will, as one can defy a gun and be shot, even though one cannot break free of strong handcuffs.
Further, according to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. That is, when one says that one could either continue to read this page or to delete it, one doesn't really mean that both choices are compatible with the complete state of the world right now, but rather that if one had desired to delete it one would have, even though as a matter of fact one actually desires to continue reading it, and therefore that is what will actually happen.

Which I do not agree on, but it is nevertheless worth considering.