@shanesgc

Let's start at the beginning.

If all choice is determined, then free will is an illusion but if all choice is determined then how can we be held responsible for our actions?

And, how can the true origin of any effect be known. If there are an infinity of combinations of causes interacting in any action, they are all empirical causes and our knowledge of them is inductive, not deductive, which means that they are contingent. If the only swans I have ever seen are white that does not mean a black swan can't show up. Scientists make theories about the empirical world but if something shows that a theory inaccurate then scientists modify the theory.

So to say that free will is determined doesn't really say much in my opinion.

@shanesgc "course all choice is determined, otherwise there would have been no choice." I tried to provide a rough argument you provide an assertion.

I am one cohesive being made up of many parts that typically work harmoniously. All these parts are me. My body and my spirit, are inexorable mingled in me. To talk of the brain as an ECM is a mistake in my opinion, in that the analogy can't differentiate man from other animals. There is no such duality. I am consciously aware of the choices I make, even if I may be unaware of some of the causes. If there is determination, it self determination. Free Will is not an illusion, it is a socially constructed reality.

@shanesgc Yes, I saw your allusion to Libet, however a new study suggests his results are indeterminable. [sciencenewsline.com]
"To be clear, we're not taking a position on free will," Dubljevic says. "We're just saying neuroscience hasn't definitively proven anything one way or the other."

And they are not going to be able to prove it because, as I said and you ignored, it is a social constructed concept who's reality is as binding as the reality of a fifty dollar bill.

Your duality idea does not cut the mustard.

@shanesgc Your car analogy is a blatantly dualistic. You toss around the word 'reality' as if you really know what it means, but I doubt it. Thoughts don't just "pop into" my head, they are based on other thoughts conscious and unconscious as well as the environment. My thoughts have a source, even the ones that 'pop' into my 'head' as you state.

You are assuming a metaphysical position if you deny socially constructed reality. Either reality constructs us as you seem to be saying or we construct reality which is what I am saying. Your position is metaphysical and mine is objectively, consensus based agreement. I suggest you read John Searle regarding social construction.

We are phenomenal beings and that is all we can know in the strictest sense of that term.The apparent is our reality. To suggest that there is a hidden reality directing things is to appeal to derived explanations in my opinion. Sure science explains why we feel sick, but that explanation only explains our perception of feeling sick, it (emphatically) is not the reality of being sick.

@shanesgc No worries. You might enjoy reading Galen Strawson's article in the NY Review of books, it is on consciousness. [nybooks.com]