I don't think the philosophical problem of free will can be solved, but operationally, the sense of free will is most noticable when we engage in non-coerced, non-habitual activity. Dreaming dreams of things that are not, but might be.
Oddly enough, js1138, I think the very reverse of this statement is actually the truth of the matter. I'll explain why in a minute, but first I wonder about your use of the terms, the "sense of free will" being "noticeable." I wonder whether free will is a "sensible" or "noticeable" thing in the first place. At least not in the sense of an isolatable entity. Free will is something that can only be seen in its effects. "Dreaming of things that are not, but might be," seems not a good indication of the presence of free will, but only of the presence of an active imagination whose projects are yet unrealized. I think free will, like love, is an action, not a proper noun.
It seems the best place to observe free will in action would precisely be where force is being relentlessly applied to constrain it. Say, a concentration camp. This was psychologist Viktor Frankl's insight. He was incarcerated by Hitler during World War II (I don't remember which concentration camp), but he managed to survive. While in the camp, he made many observations of how different prisoners reacted to the horrors of their situation. He was struck by extraordinary acts of selfless kindness, of self-denial for the benefit of someone more in need than one's self, as well as situations in which prisoners "just gave up" and psychologically, virtually catatonically withdrew into themselves, "beaten by the system," as it were, and practically speaking the dead victims of it while still alive. Based on these observations, Frankl's conclusion was that a man's final freedom is his sovereign ability to choose how he will react in any given situation.
I read two of his books, years ago -- so I'm going by memory here. But I'd like to recommend them to you: Man's Search for Meaning, and The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy. Both are extraordinary. The first recapitulates the concentration camp experiences; the second is what I would call a "humanization" of Freud's and Jung's psychological "theories." (IMHO both really need it. I put "theories" in quotation marks here because it is striking, remarkable to me how relentlessly unscientific both men were in their methods....)
FWIW. Thanks for writing!
This sounds quite similar to a point made by G.K. Chesterton (IIRC, in Orthodoxy).
Cheers!
PS--DON'T think about Pink Elephants! /grin