(IFF) Free-Will is True (THEN) what?

Free will is the ability to have chosen otherwise. That's not a high threshold.

Once that threshold is reached, any additional intelligence will not increase your free will.

And by intelligence I assume you mean possessing higher cognitive abilities like weighing decisions, introspection, planning ahead, etc. Intelligence of this sort should not be conflated with an IQ score.

Your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others determines your level of moral culpability, not your intelligence.

It's plausible many people have high IQ scores but very low emotional intelligence. 

axiom: free-will requires intelligence.

axiom: moral culpability requires free-will.(note change of order)(without free-will there is no moral culpability)

hence: moral culpability requires intelligence.

axiom: animals and infants have less, adult humans have more intelligence.

lemma: culpabiity is 'proportional' to intelligence (currently assumed pending formal proof!) 

hence: adults are more morally culpable than infants or animals.

You have free will at the point where you realize you can make alternative decisions. I don't know exactly at what stage of development this happens. Probably very young in humans and maybe not ever in animals. 

I don't have an equation for free will, only the defintion. No, emotional intelligence does not equal free will. Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ.

I would characterise a psychopath as an individual who's brain circuits prioiritise 'harm/benefit to self' over 'harm/benefit to others' significantly more than the population norm.

I agree.  Empathy = "Emotional Intelligence"

On that basis there is no reason to suppose psychpaths have less freewill than anybody else  - they only exercise it differenty.  We agree?

Without free will, there is no "moral culpability".

If it's correct that "Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ." then nice people should be punished more than nasty people if/when they do something bad.

I'm not sure that's a good idea!

I said that moral culpability is better described by emotional intelligence than IQ.

This was a comparison between two options and I selected an option that better fits.

This does not mean that moral culpability is equal to your emotional intelligence.

I've said previously that your moral culpability is based on your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others [YATBAOHYAAO].

Someone who is severely mentally retarded, to the point where they don't understand that people have personal belongings, is less morally culpable, or not at all, for stealing than someone who does have the cognitive capability of understanding that stealing is wrong.

The second layer, which is independent from cognitive capability, is your motive for doing something. Intentions matter. You are less culpable for accidentally taking someone else's personal belongings than if you do it deliberately.

(THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability

axiom: free-will requires intelligence.

axiom: moral culpability requires free-will.(note change of order)(without free-will there is no moral culpability)

hence: moral culpability requires intelligence.

axiom: animals and infants have less, adult humans have more intelligence.

lemma: culpabiity is 'proportional' to intelligence (currently assumed pending formal proof!) 

hence: adults are more morally culpable than infants or animals.

axiom: free-will requires intelligence.

False. 

Axiom: intelligence is related to the ability to find more options --not free-will-- and all such actions, their root/core cause stem from cause and effect determinism.

Degrees-of-freedom are finite.

Degrees of option findings --also finite-- and  related to intelligence  aka brain power.

False.  

Axiom: intelligence is related to the ability to find more options --not free-will-- and all such actions, their root/core cause stem from cause and effect determinism.

Degrees-of-freedom are finite.

Degrees of option findings --also finite-- and  related to intelligence  aka brain power.

The hypothesis makes freewill necessarily true for the purposes of this particular discussion.

Degrees-of-freedom are finite.

Degrees of option findings --also finite-- and  related to intelligence  aka brain power.

So, intuitively, do you feel like the chess-novice has more "freewill" or does the chess-master have more "freewill"?

Brain function-ability varies, from one person to the next, however,IFF we those two brain above have exactly the same functionability --not amount of knowleddge or experience--- then the chess-master will see more options and that is irrelevant to issue of "free will".

However, with enhance brain function-ablity in the correct areas, a chess-novice may, given time, become more rapidly gain the ability to see more options than the chess-novice.

Consider AItelligence, that, over time gained the ability --via huamn proramming-- to beat chess-master.  Same with game of "Go".

Within a finite set of specific parameters the AI via its electronic bits, can process so many more bits of specified information than a human will ever be able to.

AI = specialization? and lacks generalization abilities associated with human

Humans = generalization with specialization as subcatargorical abililty

Brain function-ability varies, from one person to the next, however,IFF we those two brain above have exactly the same functionability --not amount of knowleddge or experience--- then the chess-master will see more options and that is irrelevant to issue of "free will".

I'm a rubbish chess player, but I suspect that a chess master sees fewer options than a beginner but sees them deeper.

I'm a rubbish chess player, but I suspect that a chess master sees fewer options than a beginner but sees them deeper.

Im poor at chess Kieth,  also but you above makes no rational, logical common sense to me.

The chess master has the years of learning experience that is inclusive of many games and many moves and many potential moves to be made.

A novice chess player sees so much less, however, what I did not make clear before, is that the master also sees the relevant moves for winning or loosing. Thats why they are a master.

So its not just finding many options its finding knowing from experience based set of options, or AI programmed options,  which options are more relevant for winning or loosing.

Again even if and AI electronic program can process many more bits of info, those bits are more likely be related to a specific game of this or that or toehr, whereas the human processing is of much more generalized set of options learned from human relatioships with family, dogs, cats, friends, cars, spiders, worms, and all of our body parts and drugs and drug effects etc.