How could there be options in a deterministic world?

[Wardwatcher]

Firstly, I will offer a shorter definition:) : a deterministic world is a world which is entirely predictable, therefore every action has it´s cause (Hume would disagree here ). For purposes of this post, I will assume that there is a very long chain of these causalities, reaching all the way to the very first event - some might say that this event is the big bang.
Science allows us to predict the future from past experiences (A caused B in the past, therefore we know that if we observe A, B will follow shortly after). If we perfected this tool of science and therefore had knowledge of every cause or effect, that would inevitably imply that thare are strict rules which cannot be defied. After all, why make the assumption that we, human beings, are somehow different from the rest of reality?

If human decision making could be predicted, then the conclusions you mention would apply. Alas it isn't reliably predictable so your guess is unsubstantiated.

J.D. Haynes conducted an experiment regarding free will. His objective was to predict simple decisions (the subjects were to decide between either adding or subtracting two numbers). He was able to predict the outcome almost 10 seconds ahead with a success rate of 71% (I hope the data I gave is correct, feel free to go check). Obviously these are very simple decisions, but I do not see a reason for me to doubt that science will do a much better job in the future.
Another argument could be based on the fact that we evolved just as any other organism. Just as a cheetah developed teeth in order to hunt, we developed a brain in a similar manner to survive. I struggle to see why we should be any different. We know how atoms and chemicals interact and how substances are made up of atoms. There is an essay written by La Mettrie (which I haven´t read, but it´s title speaks for itself) "L´Homme Machine" (or Man a machine). To sum up: Could it be that we are such complex machines that we ourselves are unable to see through this fog of seemingly unsolvable problems?

Dr Haynes' work doesn't investigate Free Will since no one, including him, understands the processes involved in human decision making. Rather he performs observational studies to see if there is correlation (very different from demonstrating causation) between brain states before decisions and the ultimate decision that is made. You mention that he has demonstrated some minimal to moderate correlation (a coin could "predict" the decision 50% of the time so an fMRI performing it 71% of the time is not dramatic, though is real).

For example if the brain states he observes represents mood, it may be that a subject is slightly more likely to choose "add" instead of "subtract" if they are happy vs sad. This would completely explain his findings, yet would tell us nothing about the presence or absence of either Free Will or Determinism.

Firstly, I agree that such studies indeed have lots of room for improvement.

Secondly, do you consider human decision-making to be free? (Which would mean that we DO have free will)? If so, how do you reconcile that with materialistic view of world I assume you have (since our education is heavily focused on it)? How did free will come to be? How was it created from particles or substances, which we know to obey certain laws?

[Leontiskos]

J.D. Haynes conducted an experiment regarding free will. His objective was to predict simple decisions.

It is not often understood that experiments and science presuppose free will. The experimental procedure of the scientist itself involves, as a necessary component, decisions. These decisions must be free if the scientific experiment is to have merit. This is why, for example, the funding source of research is scrutinized. When ExxonMobil funds research which concludes that we ought to invest in fossil fuels, no one takes this research seriously. This is because the researchers were not free in their decisions.

Using the observations of human subjects to disprove free will would be a bit like trying to look at your eye directly. The eye is the thing that sees. It is the thing that does the looking. Eyes cannot be directly observed apart from eyes, and an eye can never look at itself directly. Of course, nowadays we have high quality mirrors and cameras that can provide relatively accurate indirect images of eyes. But the idea that someone could directly observe their own eyes is nonsense. Such an idea forgets that everything we see is seen through our eyes, and that eyes cannot see themselves (directly). Similarly, the idea that we could directly study free will is nonsense. It forgets that we are always bound to the frame of a subject. We can no more directly study our own freedom than we can directly study our own eyes. We can no more study without freedom than we can observe without eyes.

The best Dr. Haynes could ever do would be to predict the behavior of some individuals, not predict humans qua humans (or comprehend free will in itself). But even if the greatest chess master of all time could predict human behavior with utmost accuracy, it would not follow that his own behavior is predictable. The ultimate predictor will always be unpredictable. The ultimate explainer will always be inexplicable.

[Bahman]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

Firstly, I will offer a shorter definition:) : a deterministic world is a world which is entirely predictable, therefore every action has it´s cause (Hume would disagree here ). For purposes of this post, I will assume that there is a very long chain of these causalities, reaching all the way to the very first event - some might say that this event is the big bang.
Science allows us to predict the future from past experiences (A caused B in the past, therefore we know that if we observe A, B will follow shortly after). If we perfected this tool of science and therefore had knowledge of every cause or effect, that would inevitably imply that thare are strict rules which cannot be defied. After all, why make the assumption that we, human beings, are somehow different from the rest of reality?

It is a fact that options are real when a decision is needed. Otherwise, we are dealing with a chain of causality.

[LuckyR]

If human decision making could be predicted, then the conclusions you mention would apply. Alas it isn't reliably predictable so your guess is unsubstantiated.

J.D. Haynes conducted an experiment regarding free will. His objective was to predict simple decisions (the subjects were to decide between either adding or subtracting two numbers). He was able to predict the outcome almost 10 seconds ahead with a success rate of 71% (I hope the data I gave is correct, feel free to go check). Obviously these are very simple decisions, but I do not see a reason for me to doubt that science will do a much better job in the future.
Another argument could be based on the fact that we evolved just as any other organism. Just as a cheetah developed teeth in order to hunt, we developed a brain in a similar manner to survive. I struggle to see why we should be any different. We know how atoms and chemicals interact and how substances are made up of atoms. There is an essay written by La Mettrie (which I haven´t read, but it´s title speaks for itself) "L´Homme Machine" (or Man a machine). To sum up: Could it be that we are such complex machines that we ourselves are unable to see through this fog of seemingly unsolvable problems?

Dr Haynes' work doesn't investigate Free Will since no one, including him, understands the processes involved in human decision making. Rather he performs observational studies to see if there is correlation (very different from demonstrating causation) between brain states before decisions and the ultimate decision that is made. You mention that he has demonstrated some minimal to moderate correlation (a coin could "predict" the decision 50% of the time so an fMRI performing it 71% of the time is not dramatic, though is real).

For example if the brain states he observes represents mood, it may be that a subject is slightly more likely to choose "add" instead of "subtract" if they are happy vs sad. This would completely explain his findings, yet would tell us nothing about the presence or absence of either Free Will or Determinism.

Firstly, I agree that such studies indeed have lots of room for improvement.

Secondly, do you consider human decision-making to be free? (Which would mean that we DO have free will)? If so, how do you reconcile that with materialistic view of world I assume you have (since our education is heavily focused on it)? How did free will come to be? How was it created from particles or substances, which we know to obey certain laws?

Do I believe in Free Will? Well it has been demonstrated many times in this thread and elsewhere that there is not a consensus on the definition of Free Will. So let me put it this way, I do not believe that human decision making is predetermined, nor is it 100% determined such that decisions can or ever will be 100% predicted. Why do I believe this? Because my belief is completely consistent with all of human experience, whereas predetermination and even Determinism (while definitely possible) are inconsistent with all of human subjective experience.

[Sculptor1]

J.D. Haynes conducted an experiment regarding free will. His objective was to predict simple decisions (the subjects were to decide between either adding or subtracting two numbers). He was able to predict the outcome almost 10 seconds ahead with a success rate of 71% (I hope the data I gave is correct, feel free to go check). Obviously these are very simple decisions, but I do not see a reason for me to doubt that science will do a much better job in the future.
Another argument could be based on the fact that we evolved just as any other organism. Just as a cheetah developed teeth in order to hunt, we developed a brain in a similar manner to survive. I struggle to see why we should be any different. We know how atoms and chemicals interact and how substances are made up of atoms. There is an essay written by La Mettrie (which I haven´t read, but it´s title speaks for itself) "L´Homme Machine" (or Man a machine). To sum up: Could it be that we are such complex machines that we ourselves are unable to see through this fog of seemingly unsolvable problems?

Dr Haynes' work doesn't investigate Free Will since no one, including him, understands the processes involved in human decision making. Rather he performs observational studies to see if there is correlation (very different from demonstrating causation) between brain states before decisions and the ultimate decision that is made. You mention that he has demonstrated some minimal to moderate correlation (a coin could "predict" the decision 50% of the time so an fMRI performing it 71% of the time is not dramatic, though is real).

For example if the brain states he observes represents mood, it may be that a subject is slightly more likely to choose "add" instead of "subtract" if they are happy vs sad. This would completely explain his findings, yet would tell us nothing about the presence or absence of either Free Will or Determinism.

Firstly, I agree that such studies indeed have lots of room for improvement.

Secondly, do you consider human decision-making to be free? (Which would mean that we DO have free will)? If so, how do you reconcile that with materialistic view of world I assume you have (since our education is heavily focused on it)? How did free will come to be? How was it created from particles or substances, which we know to obey certain laws?

Do I believe in Free Will? Well it has been demonstrated many times in this thread and elsewhere that there is not a consensus on the definition of Free Will. So let me put it this way, I do not believe that human decision making is predetermined, nor is it 100% determined such that decisions can or ever will be 100% predicted. Why do I believe this? Because my belief is completely consistent with all of human experience, whereas predetermination and even Determinism (while definitely possible) are inconsistent with all of human subjective experience.

Except that you are wrong.
When you make a choice you have reasons. And it is those reasons which, at that moment determine your choice.
What other way would there be?
Would you have it that you cannot determine your own choices?

[Good_Egg]

Science allows us to predict the future from past experiences (A caused B in the past, therefore we know that if we observe A, B will follow shortly after). If we perfected this tool of science and therefore had knowledge of every cause or effect, that would inevitably imply that thare are strict rules which cannot be defied.

We experience reliable causation, "strict rules that cannot be defied". Like gravity. We also experience making choices. And we experience randomness.

These are not illusions, they are types of real experiences, replicated in the reported lives of others.

You say "if we perfected this tool of science" as if that's just a matter of eliminating the last few bugs from an already well-functioning system, a matter of tedious practical detail of no philosophical interest.

But it's not like that.

Newtonian physics is a deterministic system. Quantum mechanics is a non-deterministic system (cf Heisenbergian uncertainty). These are models of a reality that is unknowably complex.

Agency, causation and randomness are arguably properties of models of reality rather than properties of reality itself. And we know that different models have different properties...

[Wardwatcher]

Science allows us to predict the future from past experiences (A caused B in the past, therefore we know that if we observe A, B will follow shortly after). If we perfected this tool of science and therefore had knowledge of every cause or effect, that would inevitably imply that thare are strict rules which cannot be defied.

We experience reliable causation, "strict rules that cannot be defied". Like gravity. We also experience making choices. And we experience randomness.

These are not illusions, they are types of real experiences, replicated in the reported lives of others.

You say "if we perfected this tool of science" as if that's just a matter of eliminating the last few bugs from an already well-functioning system, a matter of tedious practical detail of no philosophical interest.

But it's not like that.

Newtonian physics is a deterministic system. Quantum mechanics is a non-deterministic system (cf Heisenbergian uncertainty). These are models of a reality that is unknowably complex.

Agency, causation and randomness are arguably properties of models of reality rather than properties of reality itself. And we know that different models have different properties...

The fact that we experience something does not make said experience real. For example "randomness": I actually am starting to doubt that such thing even exists. When people say randomness, they might be describing an unfortunate event (note that events which are described as "random" will generally have an unpleasant infulence on the person experiencing such "random" events - I think that this might be a psychological phenomen of frustration: "Obviously that this RANDOM thing must have happened to me! Poor me!").

Let´s imagine a scenario: You are walking down the street and suddenly an egg falls on your head. While it might seem random to the person who is wiping an egg off their head, it clearly has its causes: Someone must have thrown the egg. That someone must have first taken the elevator to throw the egg from a balcony. You must have gone outside in the first place.

So when we describe things as random, we actually mean to describe our frustration - we actually wish to describe the fact that said scenario is VERY UNLIKELY, which frustrates us even more. We experience unlikely events, not randomness. I think that you confuse the two. We say that two following event are random, purely because we are incapable of seeing complex causalities between the two events.

Also, does experiencing hallucinations make them real?

[Wardwatcher]

J.D. Haynes conducted an experiment regarding free will. His objective was to predict simple decisions.

It is not often understood that experiments and science presuppose free will. The experimental procedure of the scientist itself involves, as a necessary component, decisions. These decisions must be free if the scientific experiment is to have merit. This is why, for example, the funding source of research is scrutinized. When ExxonMobil funds research which concludes that we ought to invest in fossil fuels, no one takes this research seriously. This is because the researchers were not free in their decisions.

Using the observations of human subjects to disprove free will would be a bit like trying to look at your eye directly. The eye is the thing that sees. It is the thing that does the looking. Eyes cannot be directly observed apart from eyes, and an eye can never look at itself directly. Of course, nowadays we have high quality mirrors and cameras that can provide relatively accurate indirect images of eyes. But the idea that someone could directly observe their own eyes is nonsense. Such an idea forgets that everything we see is seen through our eyes, and that eyes cannot see themselves (directly). Similarly, the idea that we could directly study free will is nonsense. It forgets that we are always bound to the frame of a subject. We can no more directly study our own freedom than we can directly study our own eyes. We can no more study without freedom than we can observe without eyes.

The best Dr. Haynes could ever do would be to predict the behavior of some individuals, not predict humans qua humans (or comprehend free will in itself). But even if the greatest chess master of all time could predict human behavior with utmost accuracy, it would not follow that his own behavior is predictable. The ultimate predictor will always be unpredictable. The ultimate explainer will always be inexplicable.

Firstly, your argument in which you use the eye as an example is very interesting, I´ll definietly spend some time thinking about that.

Secondly, while I agree with the ExxonMobil example, I have trouble equating that concrete example to execution of experiments on free will. How does having free will (supposing we have one) influence such experiment or make it untrustable?
Also, I disagree that science presupposes free will: If we make the assumption that free will does not exist, then such experiment would be a result of a long chain of causalities, just as anything else in a deterministic universe. Whether an experiment happens as a result of a decision or as an event caused by another event does not disproove said experiment.

[Sculptor1]

How can there not be choices in a deterministic world?
Without something to determine the choices, there are no real choices, just random variation.

[LuckyR]

Dr Haynes' work doesn't investigate Free Will since no one, including him, understands the processes involved in human decision making. Rather he performs observational studies to see if there is correlation (very different from demonstrating causation) between brain states before decisions and the ultimate decision that is made. You mention that he has demonstrated some minimal to moderate correlation (a coin could "predict" the decision 50% of the time so an fMRI performing it 71% of the time is not dramatic, though is real).

For example if the brain states he observes represents mood, it may be that a subject is slightly more likely to choose "add" instead of "subtract" if they are happy vs sad. This would completely explain his findings, yet would tell us nothing about the presence or absence of either Free Will or Determinism.

Firstly, I agree that such studies indeed have lots of room for improvement.

Secondly, do you consider human decision-making to be free? (Which would mean that we DO have free will)? If so, how do you reconcile that with materialistic view of world I assume you have (since our education is heavily focused on it)? How did free will come to be? How was it created from particles or substances, which we know to obey certain laws?

Do I believe in Free Will? Well it has been demonstrated many times in this thread and elsewhere that there is not a consensus on the definition of Free Will. So let me put it this way, I do not believe that human decision making is predetermined, nor is it 100% determined such that decisions can or ever will be 100% predicted. Why do I believe this? Because my belief is completely consistent with all of human experience, whereas predetermination and even Determinism (while definitely possible) are inconsistent with all of human subjective experience.

Except that you are wrong.
When you make a choice you have reasons. And it is those reasons which, at that moment determine your choice.
What other way would there be?
Would you have it that you cannot determine your own choices?

Well I believe human choice making leads to decisions, I call that Free Will, most Determinists I converse with deny such choice making, instead declaring that the specific physical brain-state at the moment of decision making will ALWAYS lead to the same outcome (therefore there are no choices).

Thus I agree with you that numerous factors each individually INFLUENCE the decision making process and the summation of those factors constitute the REASON the final decision was selected BUT, and this is key, the specific physical brain-state at the moment of decision making can lead to multiple possible outcomes the difference between them being the "choosing" that is independent of the physical brain-state.

[Leontiskos]

It is not often understood that experiments and science presuppose free will. The experimental procedure of the scientist itself involves, as a necessary component, decisions. These decisions must be free if the scientific experiment is to have merit. This is why, for example, the funding source of research is scrutinized. When ExxonMobil funds research which concludes that we ought to invest in fossil fuels, no one takes this research seriously. This is because the researchers were not free in their decisions.

Using the observations of human subjects to disprove free will would be a bit like trying to look at your eye directly. The eye is the thing that sees. It is the thing that does the looking. Eyes cannot be directly observed apart from eyes, and an eye can never look at itself directly. Of course, nowadays we have high quality mirrors and cameras that can provide relatively accurate indirect images of eyes. But the idea that someone could directly observe their own eyes is nonsense. Such an idea forgets that everything we see is seen through our eyes, and that eyes cannot see themselves (directly). Similarly, the idea that we could directly study free will is nonsense. It forgets that we are always bound to the frame of a subject. We can no more directly study our own freedom than we can directly study our own eyes. We can no more study without freedom than we can observe without eyes.

The best Dr. Haynes could ever do would be to predict the behavior of some individuals, not predict humans qua humans (or comprehend free will in itself). But even if the greatest chess master of all time could predict human behavior with utmost accuracy, it would not follow that his own behavior is predictable. The ultimate predictor will always be unpredictable. The ultimate explainer will always be inexplicable.

Firstly, your argument in which you use the eye as an example is very interesting, I´ll definietly spend some time thinking about that.

Okay.

Secondly, while I agree with the ExxonMobil example, I have trouble equating that concrete example to execution of experiments on free will. How does having free will (supposing we have one) influence such experiment or make it untrustable?

The idea is that if an experiment is discredited once we discover that the experimenters were not free, then what would it mean for an experimenter to conclude, from their experiment, that they do not have free will? Such a finding would, like the Exxon case, invalidate their research. Freedom is a prerequisite for rationality, and for sound experimentation.

Also, I disagree that science presupposes free will: If we make the assumption that free will does not exist, then such experiment would be a result of a long chain of causalities, just as anything else in a deterministic universe. Whether an experiment happens as a result of a decision or as an event caused by another event does not disproove said experiment.

But it surely does. Suppose you read Einstein and arrive at the conclusion, "E = mc^2". Now suppose the local news press blows up, covering the town in scraps of newspaper. Having left your window open, you come home to find "E = mc^2" on your desk. Does the former equation have the same import as the latter equation? Of course not, for one is the result of free reasoning and the other is the result of mere event-causality, and event-causality is impotent to bring forth truth or representation. Apart from freedom, reason, and intentionality, there is no meaning, representation, or experimentation.

[Sculptor1]

Firstly, I agree that such studies indeed have lots of room for improvement.

Secondly, do you consider human decision-making to be free? (Which would mean that we DO have free will)? If so, how do you reconcile that with materialistic view of world I assume you have (since our education is heavily focused on it)? How did free will come to be? How was it created from particles or substances, which we know to obey certain laws?

Do I believe in Free Will? Well it has been demonstrated many times in this thread and elsewhere that there is not a consensus on the definition of Free Will. So let me put it this way, I do not believe that human decision making is predetermined, nor is it 100% determined such that decisions can or ever will be 100% predicted. Why do I believe this? Because my belief is completely consistent with all of human experience, whereas predetermination and even Determinism (while definitely possible) are inconsistent with all of human subjective experience.

Except that you are wrong.
When you make a choice you have reasons. And it is those reasons which, at that moment determine your choice.
What other way would there be?
Would you have it that you cannot determine your own choices?

Well I believe human choice making leads to decisions, I call that Free Will, most Determinists I converse with deny such choice making, instead declaring that the specific physical brain-state at the moment of decision making will ALWAYS lead to the same outcome (therefore there are no choices).

But that is what a choice is. One brain state to another. One that you are aware of its consequences, but not the fact that it is a brain state.
I think you are straw manning the argument.

Thus I agree with you that numerous factors each individually INFLUENCE the decision making process and the summation of those factors constitute the REASON the final decision was selected BUT, and this is key, the specific physical brain-state at the moment of decision making can lead to multiple possible outcomes the difference between them being the "choosing" that is independent of the physical brain-state.

My question would be: Were you to turn back time a minute with all things being equal would you repeat your last choice?
Th answer would have to be yes, or else your choices would be meaningless. Thus for any given moment, there is a string of causality that leads back the the moment of your birth; an effect over which you had no choice.
You can only conclude that whilst you are making choices, you are not making them outside of determinism.
It is just absurd to say that you are "independent" of he physical brain. That's fantasy land.

[Good_Egg]

Apart from freedom, reason, and intentionality, there is no meaning, representation, or experimentation.

I think that's right, but only in a sense.

Imagine for a moment a person whose responses are simply and directly determined by what they had to eat the day before. If I had no free choice about whether to make a positive or a negative response to you, but automatically did one or the other depending on whether I'd had meat or fish for supper, you would rightly treat my agreement or disagreement as worthless. As being devoid of meaning (except as a clue to my recent diet).

What I'm suggesting to you is that "freedom" in your quoted sentence refers to the experience of freedom. Just by the way language works. You have experience of free choices and of situations where you are unfree, and what you mean by the word is based on, references, this difference.

If quantum-level determinism is true, then your experiences of freedom and unfreedom are both consistent with being quantum-level determined. But you still mean the same thing by the word, it still refers to the difference in your experience.

If one day we learn that everything - our freedom and unfreedom, our careful reasoning and our spontaneity, our good and bad intentions - is all quantum-level determined, hidden from us in fractal complexity, then this changes nothing. Our experience - and the meanings of all our vocabulary based on that experience - is as it was before.

The extrapolation from simple direct causation of one thing to quantum causation of all things is not valid. Because they relate differently to language and the meanings we convey with language.

[Leontiskos]

Apart from freedom, reason, and intentionality, there is no meaning, representation, or experimentation.

I think that's right, but only in a sense.

Imagine for a moment a person whose responses are simply and directly determined by what they had to eat the day before. If I had no free choice about whether to make a positive or a negative response to you, but automatically did one or the other depending on whether I'd had meat or fish for supper, you would rightly treat my agreement or disagreement as worthless. As being devoid of meaning (except as a clue to my recent diet).

What I'm suggesting to you is that "freedom" in your quoted sentence refers to the experience of freedom. Just by the way language works. You have experience of free choices and of situations where you are unfree, and what you mean by the word is based on, references, this difference.

If quantum-level determinism is true, then your experiences of freedom and unfreedom are both consistent with being quantum-level determined. But you still mean the same thing by the word, it still refers to the difference in your experience.

If one day we learn that everything - our freedom and unfreedom, our careful reasoning and our spontaneity, our good and bad intentions - is all quantum-level determined, hidden from us in fractal complexity, then this changes nothing. Our experience - and the meanings of all our vocabulary based on that experience - is as it was before.

The extrapolation from simple direct causation of one thing to quantum causation of all things is not valid. Because they relate differently to language and the meanings we convey with language.

I have addressed this in our conversation earlier in this thread. If determinism is true then our perception of things like representation, rationality, truth, and experimentation is an illusion. On the other hand, our experience of these realities implies that determinism is false.

But my point to Wardwatcher is that the putative argument or experiment which is conceived to eventually disprove free will will itself collapse in the absence of free will. The fellow who you believe could "prove" determinism via quantum mechanics would in the process also prove that his proof is not a proof at all, and that no proofs exist. His experiment would only be a consequence of "what he had to eat the day before." The absurdity of determinism is rather significant.

[LuckyR]

Do I believe in Free Will? Well it has been demonstrated many times in this thread and elsewhere that there is not a consensus on the definition of Free Will. So let me put it this way, I do not believe that human decision making is predetermined, nor is it 100% determined such that decisions can or ever will be 100% predicted. Why do I believe this? Because my belief is completely consistent with all of human experience, whereas predetermination and even Determinism (while definitely possible) are inconsistent with all of human subjective experience.

Except that you are wrong.
When you make a choice you have reasons. And it is those reasons which, at that moment determine your choice.
What other way would there be?
Would you have it that you cannot determine your own choices?

Well I believe human choice making leads to decisions, I call that Free Will, most Determinists I converse with deny such choice making, instead declaring that the specific physical brain-state at the moment of decision making will ALWAYS lead to the same outcome (therefore there are no choices).

But that is what a choice is. One brain state to another. One that you are aware of its consequences, but not the fact that it is a brain state.
I think you are straw manning the argument.

Thus I agree with you that numerous factors each individually INFLUENCE the decision making process and the summation of those factors constitute the REASON the final decision was selected BUT, and this is key, the specific physical brain-state at the moment of decision making can lead to multiple possible outcomes the difference between them being the "choosing" that is independent of the physical brain-state.

My question would be: Were you to turn back time a minute with all things being equal would you repeat your last choice?
Th answer would have to be yes, or else your choices would be meaningless. Thus for any given moment, there is a string of causality that leads back the the moment of your birth; an effect over which you had no choice.
You can only conclude that whilst you are making choices, you are not making them outside of determinism.
It is just absurd to say that you are "independent" of he physical brain. That's fantasy land.

I never said I am independent of my physical brain, I said my decisions are not totally determined by my physical brain-state BEFORE the decision making process. This because the process of decision making partially changes one's brain-state. Unless you believe thinking is independent of the brain and you just called that "fantasy land". Let me give you an example: say you develop a fantastic computer program that can predict the Dow Jones average tomorrow. You run your program in your lab 100 business days in a row and it is 100% accurate. You approach Chase Morgan to sell them your program, you get an exorbitant fee, Chase is all over the news advertising their new expertise to get more clients (which they do in droves). What happens when they run the program? Of course it doesn't predict the Dow. Why? Because the Dow is influenced by the actions of individual investors and they will behave differently with the knowledge that Chase "knows" the future, thus the existance of the program changes the behavior of the market. Just as measuring one's brain-state before a decision can't tell you what the decision will be because the process of decision making changes one's brain-state. From the same starting point (memories, preferences, biases etc) one can go through very different trains of thought to arrive at a decision. Of course, measuring the brain-state after the decision has been made is just peaking at the answer and implies nothing about causality.