In order to make a decision, an agent must:
1) identify options,
2) evaluate each option based on your innate value systems,
3) choose the option that maximizes your values.
Step 1 violates free will, because the process of identifying options is not free from constraints but rather is governed by sensory salience or psychic salience.
Step 2 violates free will, because the decision process becomes governed by a value system that you didn't have control over*. The idea of the "good, true, and beautiful" are all based on innate value systems that no one can freely choose, but are rather given to you by nature (genes) or nurture (parenting + culture + environment). We are slaves to our innate values of what we think is good, true, or beautiful. It doesn't matter if you are flesh or spirit.
*The only way a value system can be free is if the value system is freely chosen, but in order to freely choose a value system, one must appeal to a deeper innate value system in order to freely choose it - and the "freely chosen value system" immediately becomes unfree once it is constrained by the deeper innate value system that you are a slave to. The only way to generate a freely chosen value system is to have an infinite regress of freely chosen deeper value systems. Reductio ad absurdum - an infinite regress (within a closed system) is absurd, so we must reject the idea that it is possible to avoid being a slave to at least one innate value system.
Step 3 violates free will because the decision is not free, in that each option is not equally possible, but rather the decision is the determined result of a biological algorithm for maximizing one's values.