> Conscious or not, it was your brain making that decision. Not someone else telling your brain what to think.
If you accept free will, there IS something else telling your brain what to think. Unless you explain what this something else might be, your hypothesis is not scientific.
If you accept your brain, and your brain alone, makes the decision, then you accept that, given the condition of the brain before that decision was made, then the brain MUST make that same decision regardless of anything external to it. Hence, no free will.
Even when you consider quantum physics (which most neuroscientists, from the books i've read on the topic, say have almost certainly very little effect on brain processes outside of normal chemistry), you will still end up with only a probability of possible decisions you could've made.
I don't even disagree with you, but my point here is that what you are describing is all orthogonal to the idea of consciousness. You can make exactly the same arguments with or without considering whether your thoughts are conscious.
If you accept free will, there IS something else telling your brain what to think. Unless you explain what this something else might be, your hypothesis is not scientific.
If you accept your brain, and your brain alone, makes the decision, then you accept that, given the condition of the brain before that decision was made, then the brain MUST make that same decision regardless of anything external to it. Hence, no free will.
Even when you consider quantum physics (which most neuroscientists, from the books i've read on the topic, say have almost certainly very little effect on brain processes outside of normal chemistry), you will still end up with only a probability of possible decisions you could've made.