Excellent post, Torri. 
You too, enki.
I tend towards the viewpoint that there is no ghost within the machine, and that what we call free will is probably the result of the complexity of our brains. There is plenty of evidence that many people whose brains have been damaged respond quite differently to stimuli in contrast to how they did before the damage took place. Perhaps it's partly a case of the brain acting upon the information it absorbs to make its decisions. It may be true that quantum indeterminacy plays a part in this, but, if so, this still would not be a case for free will.
With the above in mind, I think I understand where Torridon is coming from. And I think he expressed it beautifully, so I think I would disagree with you about being more critical, unless, of course, you can bring powerful evidence to the table that free will actually exists..in which case, I might well change my mind. 
I would agree that it is possible that we have the illusion of free will. However, until someone demonstrates we don't, I'll carry on assuming we do have it. Why? Because it seems to be correct and I see no good reason to think otherwise. There could well be mileage in what you say about brain damage, but I'm not yet (totally) convinced. That is partly due to not being able to define free will totally to my own satisfaction. Does free will mean making decisions without being forced into them by an external agency? If so, then even a person with brain damage can do that, but is such a definition useful in determining whether someone is responsible for good and evil moral decisions (assuming we ever came to an agreement on these boards as to whether there is such a thing as a morality which is meaningful (rather than just "what I like" or "what is best, in my subjective view, for my own particular species").
There is also the problem for those holding the view that free will does not exist in that they can never have a good reason for believing free will does not exist. Note I am not saying that free will cannot not exist, but rather that there cannot be a good reason for believing it. If free will does not exist then those who believe it does not exist can't help but believe it does not exist and those who do believe it exists can't help but believe it exists.
And stuff.
Hi Alan,
I agree that for all intents and purposes we act as though we have (limited) free will. However I think that there is a case to be made that normal(classical) physics is time reversal symmetric. In other words, physics can, in theory at least, describe all events in the forwards time direction as easily as the back time direction. If the workings of our brains follow the laws of classical physics in this regard then what we call free will could well be deterministic, but it could be that the huge complexity of our thinking, factoring in the experiences and data from our nature and nurture,(and including the ability for forward thinking) might well disguise any deterministic pattern.
As regards the problems of personal responsibility it is interesting that we often accept that there are circumstances which, at the very least, have a part to play in the actions we take. In other words we constantly look for causes which influence our actions. It is not accepted(generally) that this absolves us of this sense of responsibility, of course, but it can be used to modify the degree of responsibility that we infer.
One of the major problems which has yet to be overcome is how the brain works both in its highest conscious state of awareness right through to the subconscious. Recent research seems to show that, in certain circumstances, the subconscious can make decisions before the conscious brain becomes aware.
There is plenty of evidence that a wide range of animal species also seem to exhibit free will behaviour. Indeed this could well extend to fruit flies, who, under controlled conditions, appear to exhibit characteristics which suggests that that they can 'think before they act' rather than simply acting instinctively.
Your final paragraph is interesting, and it is somewhat similar to C. S. Lewis's idea propounded in his book, 'Miracles', where he alludes to J. B. S. Haldane's statement "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." Like many critics I see no problem with these ideas because I have no reason to think that such qualities as logic, rationality, justification etc. are dependent on free will/determinism at all. Similarly, if evidence were to allow a comprehensive justification that there is no such thing as free will, then whatever I thought would have no effect on that justification.
Which brings me right back to what Torri said, especially this:
. But for most practical purposes I can go about life enjoying the blueness of the sky and the comfort of my armchair; when I am introduced to someone I don't bother introducing also the billions of cohabiting microbes that form the bulk of me. Likewise i can go around making choices happily without consideration for whether my choices are truly free or are they ultimately largely predetermined. So long as it feels free then I am happy with that.
Just a few musings....
