On the contrary - I have given it a great deal of thought which brought me to the conclusion that such ability to think could not be driven entirely by the uncontrollable consequences of physical reactions alone.
Except that, from what you've shown us so far, it's not a conclusion - it's a prior assertion that you're trying, and failing, to build a coherent argument around.
I have the freedom to control rather than just react.
If you are 'controlling' this, what are those decision based upon, and in what way are they free of the prior conditions - you've still failed to address this fundamental oxymoron in the very concept of free will.
This makes "me". personally accountable for all my conscious thoughts, words or actions.
It would, yes, if it were true. You keep coming back to this as though it were significant to the argument, and it isn't. It's a significant CONSEQUENCE that the non-viability of the very notion of free will asks significant questions about ideas like personal responsibility, crime and punishment and the basis of eternal reward or torment in religion, but those don't actually impact the basis for the argument for free will itself.
Your deterministic scenario would effectively exonerate us all from any guilt over anything we ever choose to do, because you claim we could not possibly have made any other choice.
Actually, no, although it changes the nature of any response to such actions from punishment to rehabilitation - not an entirely bad thing, to my mind, and on a practical level there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that it's more effective.
This is not the reality we all live in.
The logic, and the evidence, suggest that it is - it's not the way you see reality, but that seems to be more to do with how you look at it than how it is.
O.
