Seems to be the same mashup of determinism and bad definitions.

Free will isn't the freedom to determine your microstate, independent of physics. Positing that is incoherent. It has to be something like presence in a feedback loop with measurements.

I pick up cup and drink water because I'm thirsty.

What value is there in retorting: No, trillions of cells maintain homeostasis by triggering a cascade of signals which transferred by neurons and measured by circuits in the brain which creates the conscious experience of thirst and having been trained since birth to associate water with alleviating this negative experience you ingest water. There was no choice only physics and training correlations.

This is only true in the most boring way. To claim: choices don't exist, only physics.

Actual title: "Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will".

But if he's right, then he didn't have the option to reach any other conclusion, completely independently of the evidence. So if he's right, then we can't trust his conclusion (nor any other conclusion, including any of our own). If he's right, this is the death of science and the death of reason.

Having no free will has nothing to do with actions having no consequences. Circumstances (e.g. epilepsy) might alter the remedy but just because we have no say in what we do does not mean anyone can do anything.

On a personal note, I honestly don't care whether I actually have free will or not. If it feels like I do, I'll make the most of it.

He's just saying that.

sensational title, i realize. edit for spell