Nothing before the choice is influencing the choice, we can make a different choice regardless of anything that went before it and yet that doesn’t make it random but entirely up to us.
That is a misinterpretation of what I wrote which is “To drink tea or coffee depends on your choice at any time, regardless of the initial conditions.” whereby “initial conditions” is vague and not properly defined. As such, it is irrelevant.
We’ve seen enough to know this is what people generally believe in. So we know if we say to people you do have free will, this will be what they think we are talking about.
Compatibilist free will is otiose with it’s assumption and unjustified belief in determinism, initial conditions and causal chains.
OTOH, from http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/adequate_determinism.html
Adequate determinism gives compatibilists the kind of free will that they need and that they say they want.
But, wrt to indeterminism:
But these random events drive the creation of new species and we can show that they underlie all creativity, all actions that bring new information into the universe, whether the formation of stars and galaxies or the writing of a new play.
For most people, free will, defined as http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will
: the ability to choose how to act
: the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God
Full Definition of FREE WILL
1: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
is clear, understandable, necessary and sufficient, without the complexities of compatibilist free will.
If that is libertarian free will, it is accessible and pragmatic.