Is free-will an illusion?

I think there is appeal to you regarding science.

But that's about a totally different subject. It's about when people fall asleep and wake up... Not what's needed to prove that some neuronal activity is unconscious while the patient is awake.

Of course there is

layman wrote:

Once again FBM shows that he either does not read, or does not understand, the things he posts (and even puts in BOLD lettering).

The article says:

Quote:

Whether the late BP reflects conscious preparation for intended movement or not remains to be clarified

.

See that? It says that they cannot say if the BP is conscious preparation. This is made very explicit. But what does FBM himself say it says? This:

Quote:

Subconscious neural activity is precisely what's being measured. It's what the Bereitschaftspotential is all about:

And there's no "disconnect" for him. In his mind these articles say whatever he wants them to say. No need to even read them closely.

Seconded. The guy just doesn't read what he posts.

In view of Libet et al.'s report [Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, Pearl DK. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain 1983;106:623-642] the awareness of intention to move occurred much later than the onset of BP, the early BP might reflect, physiologically, slowly increasing cortical excitability and, behaviorally, subconscious readiness for the forthcoming movement.

Not ridiculous, factual rather. You're saying "science provides evidence that we should be skeltical about free will"; and I think that is factually incorrect. Science as a human endeavour is based on free will, and thus such statements are self-contradictory. They constitute more pernicious and ultimately graver attacks on science than anything denialists can say, IMO.

I bet there are many things from science with which you would agree and the logic-oriented side favors the logic behind various scientific conclusions.

Subconscious neural activity is precisely what's being measured. It's what the Bereitschaftspotential is all about:

Taking excerpts out of context is a cheap and disingenuous game. In context:

"In view of Libet et al.'s report [Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, Pearl DK. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain 1983;106:623-642] the awareness of intention to move occurred much 2later than the onset of BP, the early BP might reflect, physiologically, slowly increasing cortical excitability and, behaviorally, subconscious readiness for the forthcoming movement."

I don't claim to know anything positively on the issue of free will, but I can recognise a ligical paradix when I see one. To expect that science could disprove its own axioms and debase its own praxis is paradoxal. Fil understood as much: You cannot reason against reason. Try and chew on that a bit before you ask for evidence.

Just pick the "truth" you like the best

what is the evidence for the existence of something non-physical?

The Unconscious Mind
John A. Bargh and Ezequiel Morsella

The unconscious mind is still viewed by many psychological scientists as the shadow of a “real” conscious mind, though there now exists substantial evidence that the unconscious is not identifiably less flexible, complex, controlling, deliberative, or action-oriented than is its counterpart. This “conscious-centric” bias is due in part to the operational definition within cognitive psychology that equates unconscious with subliminal. We review the evidence challenging this restricted view of the unconscious emerging from contemporary social cognition research, which has traditionally defined the unconscious in terms of its unintentional nature; this research has demonstrated the existence of several independent unconscious behavioral guidance systems: perceptual, evaluative, and motivational. From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.

Contemporary perspectives on the unconscious mind are remarkably varied. In cognitive psychology, unconscious information processing has been equated with subliminal information processing, which raises the question, “How good is the mind at extracting meaning from stimuli of which one is not consciously aware?” (e.g., Greenwald, Klinger, & Schuh, 1995). Because subliminal-strength stimuli are relatively weak and of low intensity by definition, the mental processes they drive are necessarily minimal and unsophisticated, and so these studies have led to the conclusion that the powers of the unconscious mind are limited and that the unconscious is rather “dumb” (Loftus & Klinger, 1992).

Social psychology has approached the unconscious from a different angle. There, the traditional focus has been on mental processes of which the individual is unaware, not on stimuli of which one is unaware (e.g., Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Over the past 30 years, there has been much research on the extent to which people are aware of the important influences on their judgments and decisions and of the reasons for their behavior. This research, in contrast with the cognitive psychology tradition, has led to the view that the unconscious mind is a pervasive, powerful influence over such higher mental processes (see review in Bargh, 2006).
...

you seem to be saying that the subconscious is completely inactive during wake time. Would this be an accurate understanding of your above statement?

Why attack the people that present the findings of the work?

Citation
Database: PsycARTICLES
[ Journal Article ]

Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, Richard E.; Wilson, Timothy D.
Psychological Review, Vol 84(3), Mar 1977, 231-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

Abstract
Reviews evidence which suggests that there may be little or no direct introspective access to higher order cognitive processes. Ss are sometimes (a) unaware of the existence of a stimulus that importantly influenced a response, (b) unaware of the existence of the response, and (c) unaware that the stimulus has affected the response. It is proposed that when people attempt to report on their cognitive processes, that is, on the processes mediating the effects of a stimulus on a response, they do not do so on the basis of any true introspection. Instead, their reports are based on a priori, implicit causal theories, or judgments about the extent to which a particular stimulus is a plausible cause of a given response. This suggests that though people may not be able to observe directly their cognitive processes, they will sometimes be able to report accurately about them. Accurate reports will occur when influential stimuli are salient and are plausible causes of the responses they produce, and will not occur when stimuli are not salient or are not plausible causes. (86 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Who said free will was "non-physical", whatever that means?

So, in your estimation, all those many thousands of scientists and philosophers who are skeptical about free will know less about it than you?