Is Free Willy a Myth?

Free will is the ability to choose your behaviour... To actually be in control of your own actions, not your actions just happening due to physics as a reaction to something else.

Yes

Please explain how that fits with the laws of physics. Or is the human brain exempt from following those?

Interesting read. Human self awareness and consciousness is still a big mystery so I don't think we are able to give a complete and comprehensive answer.

Personally, I do believe in free will. I have food in front of me. There are reasons why I should eat or not eat it. A conflict of two wills / needs. I'm hungry but I want to lose weight.

A simple situation, but it is enough for me get a sense of my ability to choose. I personally see no logical reason or superior power that could have prevented me from choosing either way. At times I ate. Other times I didn't. I prefer this kind of simplicity, but that is just me.

There being two options and you ending up on one of them doesn't mean you actually chose the one you ended up on.

You say there is a conflict between two wills/needs. You are hungry but you want to lose weight. Okay. But think about what those two needs/wills actually are; neurons and electrical signals and chemicals in two different systems. Whichever one wins is just the systems that is dominant there and then. Do you think you actually choose which system of neurons, chemicals and electrical signals ends up being dominant?

Well the issue question at the heart of all this is the existence or non-existence of the nonphysical side of reality.  Something that can't be examined externally.  We can't step outside of reality to examine it.  We do have what appears to be a sense of such an existence on some level, that we can feel effects beyond our usual physical instinctive stimuli but you have to choose to believe that sense.  In that case the physical aspects we examine in our brains are part of a set of systems, a two part relationship.  

And we also live according to that which makes sense.  As I already said, debate, science, reason, all that is nonsense without free will.  You asking about free will and trying to understand that is nonsense.  The search for understanding is nonsense.  It is all nonsense because reasoning of all kinds is predicated on free will.

That is before my very existence in this universe

After the fact is when I can or cannot have free will. And just because I can't does not insinuate that you can so you are right but I am also right and none of us can prove or disprove free will. Of course the future is uncertain and the past isn't because the past has already happened so your last statement is redundant

I'm not sure what you mean by "we do appear to have such an existence on some level". How does it appear that we have an existence in a non-physical reality in any way at all?

We live according to what? Free will? Us thinking we have free will doesn't mean we have it. Debate, science and reason isn't nonsense without free will. Why would it be? You stated in your previous comment that we have two options which we explore, and based on evidence and facts, we choose the right one. We don't though. You don't "choose" what is correct in science. You discover. Free will isn't a necessity for science not to be nonsense (whatever you mean by nonsense.)

That is my entire argument. How can you say to me that you know the metaphysical does not exist that souls do not exist that extra dimensions don't exist that the extra natural does not exist. You can't know because physical tests and experiments can't be carried out on the metaphysical. Whose to say that the metaphysical soul does indeed control which chemicals to release at what time and that even when you are drugged and your body reacts to the drugs, the soul itself is not affected and still feels but cannot show because the gateway for the soul to control the body is the brain and the brain is the messenger but in cases of being drugged false letters are sent to the body. Ofcousre the body itself is all about reactions but the fact is you can't prove whether of not something is controlling those physical reactions