Not convinced that we, our thoughts are strictly "observer". We perhaps most likely have not chosen to aquire information, knowledge, we hear because our ears are designed to receive sound 24/7. We can hold information recieved and from that point while hold the information in conscious thought make a decision about that aspect of activity.

You say, "We presume authorship of our thoughts and activity but are merely watching things go down as an adjacent spectator."

At a baseball game, there are spectators: spectators catch fly balls.

Throwing a ball(knowledge)at a person that is not expecting the ball(knowledge), they catch. Then, they decide to throw it back (or give a response. )

The ball(knowledge) being in their hands initially was not their choice.

But to say after the ball(knowledge) was recieved, any thing done with the ball(knowledge) is not by choice of the person because they did not have a "wanting" cause in the first place to receive to ball?

What to do with the ball (knowledge) when recieved unexpectedly could be a limitation for choosing what to do afterwards, but still not seeing a lack of free will deciding choice.

The ball(knowledge)is in your hands no matter your choice or not. What are you going to do, now? Are you going to say, it is not for your free will choice to make because it is not your fault (causation) the ball got their?

Some small spark of brain activity prior to awareness of a decision is the causation for the decision prior to our awareness of a decision? So we are saying, blame the decision on the spark that sparked before I knew it sparked with the decision already made?

I am thinking, I am standing at a fork in the road. At this fork, I observe 2 options and "think" I have a choice.

I am unaware of the semi truck (brain activity) behind my eye balls. All of the sudden I am hit by the semi truck and my observations forced down one option?

I understand addiction. I have smoked cigarettes for a few years, but have wanted to quit.

I can understand the "addiction force" on my thoughts causing me to keep smoking. I have even been poor, homeless under a bridge with no money to buy cigarettes and still go looking for ashtrays to get cigarettes not fully smoked left by others.

I have wanted to quit for several years, yet, the chemical reaction of the addiction force causes my brain to keep thinking I need a cigarette, but the part of my thoughts does not seem strong enough to block out the addiction force of thought.

So, I can understand, with in thinking, a force that is stronger or at least has affect on thoughts that I don't want to smoke.

I know I could stop, and many people have. Yet, the fighting of the thoughts wanting a cigarette has been easier to appease than to think thru not smoking.

@Word
At some point most people are socialized and cognitively complex enough to be expected to act responsibly. Illegal acts done after great deliberative effort are judged more harshly than those deemed heat of the moment. So that a brain produces our thoughts and behaviors doesn’t always absolve us

@Scott321 I asked another guy in another conversation into "no free will" about:

now if you could just train your brain spark to do what you wanted.

Is there any research to go about training a brain spark to do what you want it to do?

If it is figured out by science that we have no control over our choices, should science figure out how to get them in our control?

@Scott321 just think of all the murders that could be prevented if brain spark training was possible. Then people could control the brain spark before it made them kill someone.

Makes sense, how does leaving it blank make one a liar?

@Word Everyone lies.

@barjoe yes, but the point is about "free will".

Did you read the full description or only see the 2 poll questions?

@Word I read out but I guess I didn't understand it. I reread it. If I said I understand it now, that would be a lie. No offense.

Conflation, true lie. Oxymoron.

I had researched the word few years ago.

Interesting if you're into that sort of information.

This meaning of the Spanish word "taco" is a Mexican innovation, but in other dialects "taco" is used to mean "wedge; wad, plug; billiard cue; blowpipe; ramrod; short, stocky person; [or] short, thick piece of wood." In this non-culinary usage, the word "taco" has cognates in other European languages, including the French word "tache" and the English word "tack (nail)."[citation needed]

According to one etymological theory, the culinary meaning of "taco" derives from its "plug" meaning as employed among Mexican silver miners, who used explosive charges in plug form consisting of a paper wrapper and gunpowder filling.[1]

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

After considering, I will say: The required word is "Taco".