> This does not mean free will is anywhere to be found in one of those intermediate layers
The problem here is that you're carrying some preconceptions of what free will means into this debate. The whole point of the free will debate is to define free will and figure out what it means.
Think of it this way, you can define a term in two ways: via denotative or connotative definitions. Incompatibilists push a connotative definition of free will, where they say, "free will must have such and such properties, oh and look! humans don't have those properties, therefore people don't have free will". They have been wrong every single time they've claimed a property was necessary.
By contrast, most people typically reason with denotative definitions saying, "that thing I do when I make a choice free from coercion, that's free will". And then we explore precisely what this means and what properties this requires.
As for it being just a heuristic, I'm not sure that's accurate. Take a sorting algorithm and point out precisely which step actually does the sorting. Well that's nonsense isn't it? Every step is essential to a sorting algorithm, and removing any single step breaks the sorting property.
Your god of the gaps argument is essentially trying to do the same thing with free will: you can't point to any specific brain state and say that's free will in action, but the ensemble is what produces what we recognize as free will. All brain states we see when a decision is being made are essential to making a free choice.
The problem here is that you're carrying some preconceptions of what free will means into this debate. The whole point of the free will debate is to define free will and figure out what it means.
Think of it this way, you can define a term in two ways: via denotative or connotative definitions. Incompatibilists push a connotative definition of free will, where they say, "free will must have such and such properties, oh and look! humans don't have those properties, therefore people don't have free will". They have been wrong every single time they've claimed a property was necessary.
By contrast, most people typically reason with denotative definitions saying, "that thing I do when I make a choice free from coercion, that's free will". And then we explore precisely what this means and what properties this requires.
As for it being just a heuristic, I'm not sure that's accurate. Take a sorting algorithm and point out precisely which step actually does the sorting. Well that's nonsense isn't it? Every step is essential to a sorting algorithm, and removing any single step breaks the sorting property.
Your god of the gaps argument is essentially trying to do the same thing with free will: you can't point to any specific brain state and say that's free will in action, but the ensemble is what produces what we recognize as free will. All brain states we see when a decision is being made are essential to making a free choice.