The OP leaves no room for a definition of 'free will'.
Therefore any argument based on the OP is pointless. You must first define it. The problem comes in that free will is directly related to consciousness. Since there is absolutely no framework in modern science that can accommodate consciousness, the argument is pointless from a mechanistic point of view.
If you believe there is only mechanistic laws, random fluctuations and the combination of the two, then the very existence of an 'observer' - i.e. you - is illusion.
Going down the route of saying the complexity of our neural networks leads to the emergence of consciousness implies that the exact same phenomena can be simulated in a computer program. I am eagerly awaiting the day when a computer program becomes aware of itself to the extent we are - it won't happen.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
