[quote=@SleepingSilence]

Not to get into if free will or whatever to call it, is real or not. But this seems a bit A + B = Clear to me. Not the best analogy you could have chosen. That person didn't take calcium, that person could of done that and not developed that. I don't want to pick a mere example apart.

[/quote]
I'm using a relatively simple example to illustrate the sort of biological processes that make up the human body. These sorts of processes (and its waaaaaaaaaay more complicated than I'm making it sound) control every aspect of our bio chemistry. Why would we assume that the decision making processes which integrate our sensory data are structured any differently? Just because we feel that way? We feel a lot of stuff based on the current hormone and neurotransmitter levels in our brains. I can literally change the way you feel by medicating you.

Why would there be another type of system buried deep in our brains that provides some sort of contra-causal freewill? Isn't it more likely that the same sort of predictable, if complex chemical, interactions serve that purpose? 

Assuming for a moment we have freewill. Do other animals have it? Do worms have it, do ants? What about bacteria? We classify all these things as alive. Is it only mammals? Maybe only Eukaryotes? Where and how did free will enter the evolutionary chain?

The more you think about it, the more it seems like a case of special pleading.

Maybe its all academic anyway and the appearance of free will is as good as the real thing. I certainly try to tell myself that.