Is free-will an illusion?

IF there is such a feeling or general disposition called the "Christmass spirit" -- triggered in a pavlovian way by sights of Christmas decorations and lulabies and made of renewed empathy and love for our neighbours, hope for the future, etc. -- then this disposition doesn't float in the world disembodied; it MUST be associated to or supported by some neuronal structure or another

Even if what you look for is as improbable as the chritmas spirit. So don't believe all you read...

Therefore there could be neuronal structures asdociated with the "xmas spirit".

The point of no return in vetoing self-initiated movements
Matthias Schultze-Krafta et al.

Many studies have shown that movements are preceded by early brain signals. There has been a debate as to whether subjects can still cancel a movement after onset of these early signals. We tested whether subjects can win a “duel” against a brain–computer interface designed to predict their movements in real time from observations of their EEG activity. Our findings suggest that subjects can exert a “veto” even after onset of this preparatory process.

The human participants were able to somehow, in the last split second, change their minds and veto their non-conscious decision.

“A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves. They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement,” Professor Haynes explains according to the press release. “Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.”

In humans, spontaneous movements are often preceded by early brain signals. One such signal is the readiness potential (RP) that gradually arises within the last second preceding a movement. An important question is whether people are able to cancel movements after the elicitation of such RPs, and if so until which point in time. Here, subjects played a game where they tried to press a button to earn points in a challenge with a brain–computer interface (BCI) that had been trained to detect their RPs in real time and to emit stop signals. Our data suggest that subjects can still veto a movement even after the onset of the RP. Cancellation of movements was possible if stop signals occurred earlier than 200 ms before movement onset, thus constituting a point of no return.

So people can be trained, hence they don't have free will? That's absurd.

No, either behavior comes under the control of the environment or it doesn't.

There are tens of thousands of published studies over several decades that demonstrate environmental control of behavior.

You want to believe that people are choosing whether or not to respond. With that simplistic belief you will not be able to explain why behavior changes when the environmental contingencies are unknown to the person whose behavior is changing.

What is meant by "the environment" and "control" in this sentence?

And there are also thousands of papers showing how specific behaviors can help control one's environment... It's a two-way street and can only be a two-way street. It's logically impossible otherwise.

Can you give an example of that?

What other explanations for the referenced data do you see?

The plain English meaning of "control" is stronger than yours

One can influence each-other but mutual control? Can that exist?