We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The really curious thing about minds and brains is that the truth about them lies not somewhere in the middle but simultaneously on both extremes. We know already that the wet bits of the brain change the moods of the mind: that’s why a lot of champagne gets sold on Valentine’s Day. On the other hand, if the mind were not a high-level symbol-managing device, flower sales would not rise on Valentine’s Day, too. Philosophy may someday dissolve into psychology and psychology into neurology, but since the lesson of neuro is that thoughts change brains as much as brains thoughts, the reduction may not reduce much that matters. As Montaigne wrote, we are always double in ourselves. Or, as they say on the Enterprise, it takes all kinds to run a starship.
As an engineer (of sorts...long story), it seems these studies of the brain, free will, are asking to diverge between: are we chemical factories with as much free will as a winter (now named by the Weather Channel) storm or hurricane, or sentient beings created (or not) by God, with control, limited and influenced by circumstances, of our actions and destinies. Instead it's far more complex to me and rather like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Studying something at a certain micro level influences the results of the study. The brain is far too complex at the micro level. One can build a dam, outlet, and canal to channel water and determine various flow patterns, rates, volumes, etc., in the aggregate. One can't select an individual water molecule and mathematically chart its location through the dam, outlet and canal. (I recall in high school thinking, if one had an equation that mapped the elevations of the John Muir trail, I could know, through calculus, the instantaneous slope of the trail at all locations...to my knowledge, 35 years later, that information is still unavailable).
It seems trying to accurately and consistently isolate locations or neurons in the brain that affect single thoughts, memories, feelings, or actions is as difficult as tracking that single water molecule. It's simply too complex a system...perhaps even as complex as our weather.
Coleridge in chapters 4-9 of Biographia Literaria deals with the trouble with mechanism.
Taking it from Schelling, the trouble is "Matter has no inwards." No matter what theory you've got of mind.
That was before quantum mechanics, which is weird enough not to be matter at all.
Even so, reductionists never stop. It may all be a hologram (based on planck length arguments) but they don't see that that just moves the problem to a surface without solving it, no better than a theory of mind that has a little observer in the brain reading the data.
You might as well go with infinite turtles.
My own observation is that a confusion of use and mention will seem like bedrock in an argument.
The psychology favorite is wiring in the brain. Wiring stands in for writing. Writing imports langauge. That makes it seem like it explains the mind. Seeming is everything when you're bottoming out an argument.