You have misunderstood my post in several aspects.
You're assuming that it cannot be looked at from another perspective than that of biology (you and so many others who argue that we are determined by biology).
No, I am not assuming that. My question is not predicated on reducing everything to biology. I am assuming that biology is a factor (but my point works even without that assumption). And I am assuming that you agree with that, but even if you don't, you still have pretty much the same problem. Even if your decision making is completely independent of biology, environment and your personal history (which would be a rather absurd position), you still haven't got any closer to showing that you have free will. Let's assume that your consciousness exists on some other plane, completely separate from our physical reality. Let's call it a spiritual plane. Even if your choices are taking place on that spiritual plane, it doesn't mean that they are free of causality. There is no reason to think that your consciousness is the prime mover isolated from all external factors causing your choices, be it God, rules and laws governing that spiritual plane, randomness of the universe and so on. Your choices must be based on SOMETHING. Or you are just mentally tossing a coin. Unless you are a solipsist (or a god), your free will has no leg to stand on.
You may claim that causality does not exist on that spiritual plane, but:
A) this would be a completely arbitrary claim
B) you would be pretty much left with randomness of your choices OR
C) there is some unknown mechanism of making choices on that plane - however you have no clue what that mechanism is and therefore you cannot claim that it is free will
D) conscious thought processes without causality would be most likely incoherent - preventing you from making any choices
In the end, yes, our actions may be in part determined by our genes, our environment, and our past experiences. Like I said, people who argue against free will confuse it with omipotence, and you seem to be doing that.
No, I am not doing that.
There is a difference between the map and the territory. Biology can create an accurate map of the territory, but the map can be discarded when it is no longer useful. So the fact we are in part determined doesn't mean we have no ability to choose, between existing possibilities (because choosing between non-existant options is not conceivable).
Yes, agreed, but you still haven't defined what that ability to choose means and how it works.
I get that you're arguing our choices are determined even in those cases where we have limited options, but what I'm saying is that this capacity to choose is better understood from a non-biological standpoint. Discard the map of biology and stop this whiny nihilism that says "I can't change my life", because it isn't helping. Biology is useful for alot of things and I'm not disinterested in learning what makes people act the way they do from a biological standpoint, if it can be useful, but I find most of the time people use it to rationalise themselves into not changing their lives.
It is well-documented that people who believe in free will tend to act as if they had it, whereas those who believe they are determined tend to do nothing to change their lives. I think William James was the first to notice this, though not the last.
Well, this seems to be some sort of a pragmatic argument: the concept of free will is useful so it is true. I am not completely unsympathetic to this reasoning, but still - utility and truth are not the same thing.
We can't fully explain why this is, at least not with our current knowledge, which doesn't mean it is mystical, just that we don't yet understand how it works.
I am not sure whether this relates to the previous couple sentences or free will. If the latter, you still haven't really explained how it works, even partially. So at this point it is still mystical. Basically, you seem to be saying that you believe in free will because it is convenient. Correct me if I am wrong.