I would like to repeat that reality is non-deterministic. This is well established and tested physics. Look up John Bell and his inequalities. The determinism vs non-determinism argument ended decades ago. The result of a measurement in quantum physics is not predetermined, it is random.
Does this necessarily mean that the universe isn't deterministic though? Doesn't this just affect what we can determine based on what we can observe?
I'm also very very very doubtful when it comes to any article about scientists claiming to understand how the brain works. I mean they can monitor a few things like releasing of chemicals and heat but I don't think that scientists can make such huge speculations like the one in the article claim. Not to mention that is not a very scholarly article, it's doctors answering to a reporter so there are probably some inaccuracies and dumbed down answers.
Its about responsibility:
That right there is enough to discredit this entire study. None of these articles mention a sample size, or anything about the participants or any real detail as to how the experiment was carried out. Plus they have to remember when they felt that they had made the decision. There just isn't enough details in the article, and I tried googling to see if I could find a report or something on the actual experiment but didn't find one. To sum it all up no processes or details nullifies the article, honestly looks like an article that should be at the bottom of some news website along with 9 tricks to make your skin look 40 years younger.
Oh and the website Zelda linked has a way to search for publications by date, but there are 0 research publications for the year of 2008 and if they aren't willing to publish their research publications then it probably was a flawed study.
So the alternative would be that everyone is born the same and thus could make proper decisions without interference from our genes?
Ok, but what makes that "free will" our free will? Is it really free if everyone would make the same choice in identical situations?
Now what you are saying is that genetics is in the way of free will, which means that you don't think two people in the same situation would act in the same way.
I've been in situations where I would not have normally done something until someone else brought in another aspect that pushed me to do it. For instance I would have never gone rock climbing if I didn't randomly run into my friend before he went, now it's a big part of my life.
My argument would then be that even if determinism is true isn't it still technically free will? Free will is just the ability to choose all the options which is true, even if it is predetermined.
This is what I was getting at with the second question I posed (what impact does this have on us/does it even matter). Everything being predetermined doesn't really have any impact on how we live our lives. Except in the ethical sense. If we take it that Hitler did everything the way he did because of his nature + nurture, and that, if we were him, we would've done the exact same thing, then we have to question just how responsible he was for his own actions. The American justice system (and many others) has, as a foundational idea, the belief that free will does exist, and that people are responsible. If it doesn't exist, then that opens up the door to compassion and more restorative (as opposed to retributive) judicial practices. We don't blame a lion for doing lion-like things. That doesn't mean we don't shoot a lion if it attacks us or anything, but it means that we're aware that 'hey, that's just how it is'. If we look at criminals with less of a 'fuck you, piece of shit' attitude and more of a 'he didn't have a say in the matter', then we're able to be more compassionate and we're able to break away from the ancient (and perhaps outdated) 'eye for an eye' mentality.