By that definition, this whole discussion has been a waste of time because you are declaring by fiat that the mind is not "physical".Here is one example: a definition for "physical".
But once again, declaring that by fiat is a matter of words, not substance. You can say the mind is not "physical" in this sense, but that doesn't change the fact that the mind is a functional behavior of the brain and nervous system--i.e., it is not a functional behavior of some mysterious non-physical thing, it is a functional behavior of physical things. And functional behaviors of physical things are governed by physical laws.
We have not been discussing metaphysics in this thread. We have been discussing physics, and I have been repeatedly pointing out that various claims about metaphysics that you have been trying to make have nothing whatever to do with physics, including the physics of how minds work.While metaphysics seems to be OK to discuss for this thread, would discussing epistemology also be OK?
If you disagree, go back and read the first sentence I wrote above. If you are going to rely on metaphysical definitions of terms instead of the substance of what is actually going on--that the mind is a functional behavior of the brain and nervous system--then this whole discussion is a waste of time. There is no point in trying to pick which definition out of some dictionary or encyclopedia we want to use for terms like "physical". What we should be discussing is the fact that the mind is a functional behavior of the brain and nervous system, and what that fact means for "free will"--or, to put it in a way that better reflects the discussion in this thread, what kind of "free will" is consistent with that fact.
Discussions of epistemology in the sense of how we know that the mind is a functional behavior of the brain and nervous system, would be ok. But I suspect that is not what you have in mind.