As you know, I am not a neuroscientist, my good friend DBT9.
What I wrote is not based on any scientific reasearch. It is only my observation on how I deliberate over a crucial issue; a situation where I have to make a 'live or die' decision. If in such a situation, when "free will" is supposed to be exercised, I cannot see the involvement of free will, then to me that is a compelling eveidence that there is no free will.
I said that we are hard-wired to do what is good for us. To me, "you set out to cross the road but a car whips around the corner and you leap back without thinking" is a piece of evidence that we are hard-wired to do what is good for us. We don't have to think to leap back to avoid getting hit by an oncoming car. We don't have to think to pull our hand from a hot plate. We do it automatically. And we do thousands of daily activities automatically. Just as I said above.
Which part exactly of what I said is contrary to the science that you know?
