You merely quote some my words while ignoring everything else that was said and provided, research and evidence, etc, yet claim that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. That is not an argument. It is cherry picking. You miss the most important parts, that will is not the decision maker. Will does not make decisions. Will is simply a part of cognition, an urge or prompt formed by the brain....a rabbit senses danger, feels the urge to run and runs for its life. It's 'will' did not sense danger or make the decision to run any more than it is your will that reads these posts, forms opinions and responds, that is the work of the brain. How you respond is not a matter of your will to decide, but 'your' brain.
If something is 'free' it is the brain that is 'free' to acquire information, make sense of it and respond according to its own information base, memory/experience, because that is the evolved role and function of a brain.
For example.
Quote;
''My position is that free will is only a perception our interpretation of how we experience our actions in the world. No evidence can be found for the common view that it [free will] is a function of our brains that causes behavior. I will make my argument based on research about making voluntary movements for two reasons. First, I am a neurologist, specifically a motor physiologist. Second, movements are easily measured. While other, more complex decisions, such as what I choose for dinner, also can be viewed as influenced by free will, I suspect that they will turn out to be analogous to movement. Anyway, such decisions often eventually manifest in movement of some kind, perhaps reaching for the cookbook or a take-out menu.
I do not doubt that I feel strongly that I have freedom of choice. And I suspect most humans have the same feeling as I do, even though I can't assess this directly. But, of course, this feeling of free will is the case only when I think about it, since most of the time I just go about my business, more or less on automatic pilot. My feeling that I have free will is a subjective perception, an element of my consciousness that philosophers call a quale. We do not understand The answers to these questions are easy only for the dualist, who believes in a mind separate from the brain and who thinks that free will comes from the mind. No evidence for this position can be found, however, and therefore most scientists reject it. the biological nature of consciousness or how awareness is generated, so it is difficult to understand the physiology of any quale, including the perception of free choice. But we do know that our sense of the world is a product of our brain and that a one-to-one match between reality and that interpretation does not exist. Our introspection, our sense of what our brain is doing while clearly useful to us and also valuable as an object of study can be deceptive.
''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems! - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.
