But the funny thing is that to accept the fact that physical processes dominate over our decisions is certainly to deny the existence of free will as it was originally seen, i.e., as an independent capacity of ours.
Independent of what?
Of physics and chemistry?
But asumed something like a 'soul' or a 'spirit' would exist independently of the rest of our bodies, then who knew that the decisions of this 'soul' or 'spirit' would be less deterministic than biochemical processes? :)
I personally don't know what a 'free will' should actually be?(!)
My will, my decisions are the product of the interaction of molecules, which (and the way they interact) again are a product of my genes an environmental influences. That altogether makes me, my body and personality.
(That's how I see things, and according to my current knowledge and the current state of science there is nothing else, like for example an independent soul etc.)
Independently from the (also among scientists) open(!) discussion if things (and the universe) are deterministic ... even if they weren't deterministic: would that make my will 'free'?
If free or not: for any reason I come to my decisions and conclusions, where one among them is that I don't like how HIVE works. :-)
I am only making the case for free will as an illusion from a natural point of view. Since you said that you "make decisions" because of the mere biochemical processes that you are also part of, then I added that ontologically approaching free will (making decisions) from physicalism and materialism wouldn't quite work either, because it's actually contradictory.
So I found your statement about you "being those biochemical processes leading to your decisions" somewhat confusing, where in this context "you" is understood as the agent making those decisions, hence the agent with free will. So, on a very technical and fundamental level of nature, we are not making any decisions because everything is determined or random. But I see that by "making decisions" you didn't mean that you have free will, but it's a bit of a confusing argument, maybe because of the flexibility of the language in this context but also after bringing up and relating that with the ideas about physicalism and materialism too :D
OK, I know I am somewhat hairsplitting now:
I think that is/was your interpretation of my words (maybe because you are accustomed to see people argue in a certain way). :)
I don't see the "you" (my identity) as a separated thing from the "biochemical processes" which are leading to decisions. That's why I wrote they "are" me.
(By the way English not to be my mother tongue doesn't make a discussion like this one easier ...)
So you wouldn't call decisions "decisons" as soon as they are a deterministic result (or the result of 'deterministic probabilities') of biochemical processes? ;-)
I would add something like "apparent" somewhere, for example, since in this context someone making decisions (regardless of whether they look at themselves materialistically) is the same as exercising free will. Maybe something like: "I am the product of these biochemical processes leading to apparent decisions" or something like that. Like I said, that's valid mostly in a very fundamental level of nature and I got what you mean :)