free will in its most classical sense means "the possibility to have done otherwise". I may have a mind and consciousness, but I will have certain inclinations towards certain actions, based on my brain chemistry and as a reaction to other actions etc. to say that I could've done otherwise in the past would mean that the state of my mind or the circumstances would have had to be different, which is simply not possible and therefore I couldn't have done otherwise. it would be preposterous to say that a drug addict has control over his volition. in my opinion the best argument for free will/moral responsibility (that I know about) is that of the Frankfurt cases. these cases proposed by Harry Frankfurt are counterexamples to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP) which I personally think are quite strong. but this still does not try to prove free will in a classical libertarian sense because it still denies being able to have done otherwise. so I don't think we can reduce the concept of free will to having a conscious mind still might not have complete agency.

I don't know if this was very cogent or not sorry I'm not rly the most knowledgeable on this I only know a few things I've heard of so far

I don't know very much about this kind of stuff but, free will could be argued rather about the existence of your mind, but the predetermination of all of your actions. There have been studies done that show when someone is faced with a choice your brain actually makes the decision prior to you actually commiting and thinking about it. This means that your "mind" makes the decision instead of "you", but what "you" are is an entirely different question. Also in your definition of freedom, couldn't animals be considered to be more free. A monkey for example, capable of doing anything it wants, me or you on the other hand cannot. At least without the threat of jailtime.