You haven’t answered my questions:
You raised that question already here and here, and I have answered it. Of course you did not understand the answers here and here. You obvious even do not remember that I spelled it out for you a second time.
But here we go again:
But they are never “up to us” if you mean we are capable of overriding out deterministic influences just because we want to.
No, I do not mean that.
If you think we can,
No, I don’t think that, so the rest of your question does not apply.
In order for us to have free will we’d need another, separately functioning brain that could override those determining influences and which is immune to those influences.
According to the definition you use, yes. Not according to the definition I give, namely:
An action is free when it is according to the wishes and beliefs of that person, and nobody else is pushing me to act according to his wishes and beliefs.
Said otherwise: reasons are causes of our actions. If you think they are not, then please explain how the capability of reasoning could be selected for in evolution.
Now what you say is that these reasons are determined. My reaction on that: so what? For assigning me responsibility and free will it is necessary that my actions were caused by me, not that they came out of the blue, or a soul or whatever. My reasoning is determined, but my actions are caused by my reasons, and it is the latter that matters. Reasons are just parts of determined causal chains: reasons are caused, and reasons on their turn have causal effects, namely actions.
Where would that ability come from? Where does it reside!
Nowhere. That ability does not exist. Got it? I say it does not exist. I’ve said this already a dozen of times to you, but you keep asking me.
You simply can’t claim that mutually exclusive concepts can be compatible with one another
Your concept of free will is incompatible with determinism, mine isn’t. So you cannot criticise me in the way you do. What you could do is say that for you my concept does not count as free will. Please do, give arguments against the position I clearly stated here.
Compatibilist free will is pie in the sky and wishful thinking taken to the nth degree.
You are just plainly wrong. Your definition of free will is that of libertarian free will, and compatibilism fully agrees that the concept of free will that LFW uses is incompatible with determinism.
But I defend another concept of free will. Until now, you have never showed any sign of understanding that, and you have never criticised it. You only criticise a viewpoint I do not have.
We only have one brain and our thoughts can be controlled only by factors we have no control over.
What then is in control?
I also invite you to read this again, about the thermostat. Explain why being determined (the thermostat is a determined system) contradicts with the fact that the thermostat controls the temperature in a room. If you say it doesn’t, then please take the thermostat away and see what happens with the temperature of the room.
How about giving it a try?