Yes, the theological notion of free-will is a myth. But, we mostly do have choices, including learning that we can chose how to respond to a situation. And, we can chose a lifestyle that keeps us in a "least moody" state.

Advances in neuroScience, particluarly in neuroChemistry (as a super-specialised branch of organic chemistry), will increase. The roles of genes in determining neuroChemistry will become better known.

We will learn the way parental genes interact to program the new beingsneurochemistry - it is not 50/50 due to meisosis allowing chromosome crossover and genetic recombination.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/meiosis-genetic-recombination-and-sexual-reproduction-210

This is an old argument.

We may not have complete free will as you say, but nothing about human action is deterministic. I don't even have to invoke quantum physics to say so either.

But where it really goes awry is this:
"When, we may ask, will the average person come to realise that punishment is undeserved? While we must remove career criminals from the mainstream, there is no justification for making their lives miserable while incarcerated".

So, the next time your dog takes a dump on your carpet, just ignore him.
After all, he's only doing what he's programmed to do, right?

What an interesting jumble of thoughts, Mr Holden.

The premise seems to be that free will is something that you should be able to exercise, freely, otherwise...

Otherwise, what?

As Bugsy points out, the limits on free will automatically come into play when there are more than one entity involved. Without the ability to choose to compromise, society as we understand it - people living together under the influence of vaguely-articulated and variously-enforced behavioural norms - would not exist. And dogs everywhere would crap on the carpet whenever they felt like it.

Which leads to the first dichotomy: is the exercise of that compromise itself a negation of free will, or a prime example of it?

"For rational people, that printout will make it still harder to resist the conclusion that we are no more than mechanisms and that a human brain works as a mechanism"

In 1969 Edward de Bono wrote a book on just this topic.

http://www.edwdebono.com/debono/mech.htm

The conclusion that Mr Holden would like us to draw would appear to be that free will is some kind of absolute: you either have it, or you don't have it. What he seems to miss are the enormous number of shades of grey that inhabit the space in between his black and white proposition. De Bono simply points out that the impressions that are made can be seen to be somewhat mechanical in nature, an observation that explains most of Mr Holden's examples - influence of parents, etc. etc.

We all have a degree of free will, Mr Holden. It's scope is however tempered by our social conditioning, all for the sake of our living in harmony without dog crap all over our carpets.

Speak for yourself Brian- I'm a self-employed, non-gambling, non-smoking, low-drinking individual with no crutches, addictions, and only buys what I explicitly want to have.

The only people that insist 'free will' is an illusion are simply people who are weak-willed.

Mr Holden wrote: "Its application has been based on the assumption that bad people freely choose to be bad and good people freely choose to be good. Without this belief, there would be no religion."

Calvinism seems to survive without such a belief. I'm not a Calvinist, but Mr Holden has the makings of one.

What a load of garbage. Back to the retirement vegie patch for you, Mr Holden.