are we prisoners of biological determinism?

A group of scientists seems convinced that humans have no free will solely because everything we do can be explained in the language of chemical and electrical signals.

Free will is one of those slippery, vague terms with many equally vague and slippery definitions posing quite a few existential questions. And while we could debate the relevance of our free will to the world around us and whether other creatures also have free will and to what degree, that could be reaching too far for some whose job it is to study cognition. For them, the question is whether it even exists, or if we're actually just following an elaborate set of unconscious cues that lead us to certain decisions. According to these scientists, we're just clinging to a belief that we have free will while nature actually sets the rules for everything we do, or we're swayed by our unconscious impulses to such a degree that free will plays a very trivial role. But are appeals to biological determinism really valid, or are those who doubt the existence of free will just using their arbitrary definitions of the term, generalizing how we go about simple tasks to the way we solve complex problems?

The notion that the brain is simply a collection of neurons and electrochemical signals which by default would have no real free will seems to make an overly reductionist leap. Yes, it's true that our brains are just squishy clumps of tissues which conduct electrical impulses to release chemical cocktails regulating our moods and helping us dictate our decisions. And yes, it's also correct that many behaviors can be traced back to a certain pattern of brain activity and release of certain neurotransmitters. But to conclude that because our cognition is biological in nature, all our behaviors must be just a matter of chemistry, ignores that we have senses, limbs with which to interact with, and manipulate our physical environments, and underwent hundreds of millions of years of evolution which gave us mechanisms for storing memories, coming up with strategies, and making decisions. Our minds tend to be very good at coming up with multiple viable solutions to the same problems, and taking a different path to the same goal, even if the decision-making is driven strictly by a basic biological urge, could already be an example of free will.

Similar errors permeate the other view of free will, that it's just a bit player in comparison to our unconscious minds. Proponents cite examples of strange human behaviors like taking a resume more seriously if it's on a heavy pad rather than in a flimsy folder, or impulse purchases, or overestimating a others' competence based on their looks and ability to talk passionately and at length. In fact, we'll often end up picking mangers based on superficial traits rather than specific skills. Surely, if we had free will we wouldn't be subject to make so many silly mistakes, right? And certainly, if free will was really meaningful, we could overcome many of these unconsciously dictated constraints, couldn't we? Again, the fact that we make so many decisions without the slightest thought doesn't mean we can't pause and reconsider our decisions. And that we can, and do, take corrective actions should be a flag that our free will really isn't trivial at all. Many companies don't hire people based solely on flash, preferring to see their substance instead, even though they're biologically predisposed to hire slick, attractive schmoozers. And at the same time, those who do hire charming know-nothings know it very quickly and it's usually complex politics of our own making that interfere with a swift correction.

Another problem with the idea that our free will has no meaning is that it comes with no explanation for how a capacity for free will is actually decided. What's the definition of free will being used? For critics, it seems that any limitation, no matter how trivial is seen as a massive blow to the concept of having a say in what happens to us in life. But why do restrictions of the physical world have to imply that a person has no free will? After all, we can make choices and carry them out. Where it is written that free will is an all or nothing concept and that every deviation from absolute freedom in any action, or every instance of a subconscious nagging means that we're just puppets who only think they have a say in what happens in their lives?