>To many observers, these findings debunked the intuitive concept of free will. After all, if neuroscientists can infer the timing or choice of your movements l

>To many observers, these findings debunked the intuitive concept of free will. After all, if neuroscientists can infer the timing or choice of your movements long before you are consciously aware of your decision, perhaps people are merely puppets, pushed around by neural processes unfolding below the threshold of consciousness. I never understood this mindset. So if you interrupt and siphon off some of the brain's signaling, you can tell what someone is preparing to do before they even consciously know it? So what? Did those people presume that the body is a black box where all things are atomic operations? Free will is not severely impacted by the fact that there are biological processes that lead up to the action we take. I liken it to sending an image to a slow computer that takes a moment to decode and display the image. If you connect a faster computer to the input signal, siphon it off, you can tell what that slower computer is going to display before it can actually do it. To me, free will is more impacted by the existence of conditioning and bias - things that we consciously think we are deciding of 100% free will are actually influenced by the experience of our life before. Sure, we always have free will in the sense that we can consciously choose what we do at any given moment. However, it's also possible to heavily influence this in a person, through a number of means, and in that sense we are prone to having our free will subverted. The real answer to free will is a psychological answer, not a biological one.