If I may return to something a little more serious.
George has generously flattered me by allowing me to believe I may have had some influence on his opinion about free will. I am concerned however, about statements which allow for the possibility of a ‘super intelligence’ or ‘meta cognition.’ Unlike subjective free will, which all lapel wearing people agree that they experience (illusory or otherwise), there is no evidence whatsoever upon which to support that kind of hypothesis, and we should take care not to advance such notions in the absence of evidence.
I have spent much time in this forum attacking Naturalists. I very much agree, however, with the foundation of their philosophy, that there are no supernatural forces. If free will exists there is only one possibility by which it could have emerged in an organism: natural selection. As I have said, if a single photosensitive cell can evolve into an eye (as has happened 40 times that biologists have identified - if we are to believe Dawkins) then there is nothing incredible about the idea that an arbitrary selector neuron may evolve into a neural circuit capable of free will. As for external forces on our cognition, I would limit my hypotheses to verified phenomena in the physical world.