that was a little unclear. we can change our behavior based on our imagined outcomes, that is what is new to humans. It is freer will, really, if not exactly free will

Animals can't conceive of the option to end their existence either. Well most.... Whales do it rarely. And we do it more.

That's the proof of free will being a thing.

I like the contention that if you believe in quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, you can't really believe in determinism.

Nice.

I guffawed.

The fact that we have a mental life and are capable of conceptual thought, including suicide, does not I believe rule out determinism per se. As well as responding to and acting upon environmental cues, our conceptual abilities can be considered as internal functions of the brain. The central issue is that the brain is governed by physical laws, and by implication it is the brain which is the driver of behaviour, and not the mind.

As far as I am aware, neuronal activity is still considered to operate at the macro level of physics. I haven't heard of any evidence of quantum mechanics being involved.

I'd turn to page 57.

Not directly. Indirectly, via quantum theory, they're working on it...

NOTE: Even the subtopic below, from the article on Quantum Cognition is too long to reproduce in its entirety here; so, I took a little from the beginning and from the end. END NOTE.

How many variables would you say this device has? Even relatively simple outcomes are not easily predictable. Complex outcomes are nearly indecipherable.
If we understood every physical law of the universe, a full-physics simulation of even a single biochemical reaction would be quite a technological feat.

How many variables go into the decision of what to make for breakfast?

That reminds me of an old math joke, for which you may disregard the inherent cis- and hetero-normative aspects, if you would like to enjoy it

Two dudes, one a mathematician and the other an engineer, are lined up on one wall of a room, and on the opposite wall is a beautiful lady. They are told to advance toward the lady by half the distance separating them every ten seconds, and when they reach her, they will receive a kiss.

The mathematician says, "According to Zeno's paradox, after one move I will be 1/2 as close; then, 1/4 as close; then 1/8 as close; but I will never actually reach her, because the series will be infinite."

The engineer says, "In about a minute I will be close enough for all practical purposes."

(free will = for all practical purposes)

For all practical purposes = Good enough for me = I'm willing to compromise = Close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades = That's a gimme = dozens of other expressions of being practical especially when it's to your own advantage.

But there is no time where you can know all the possible things affecting the situation.
You can only go with what you know and keep track of the emergency exits.

I think the crux of the issue is this--

Asking "does free will exist" is not a practical purpose.

It's not meant to be pragmatic, or a 'guide to behavior/making choices'-- it's an immaterial absolute. But insomuch as absolute truths exist, they don't care what their effect on an individual's personal philosophies would be. That's my whole soapbox on this-- I can't intellectually reconcile a universe that doesn't have logical parameters.

That's my little focus, itself just a culmination of nature/nurture/free will/divine intervention/subconscious impulses/effort and discipline/quantum fluctuations/what I ate for breakfast

It can have logical parameters and free will.
It may be like a giant fun-house with set openings and obstacles that are constant, but you get to choose how to navigate them and it.

Something is wrong when you get that many balls in the front tray.