If by observing your brain scientists can tell what you will choose before you consciously make the choice, I think it casts a dark shadow on the concept of contra-causal free will.
I’m not certain that it does. I think it is true that the relationship between the soul (in which you do not believe) and the brain is an intricate one. While I do believe the free will of the soul shapes the brain, so too the brain entices the free will of the soul, so that it is not inconceivable that a person may always follow the brain’s “lead”, even though the power exists to overcome it. The brain is complex, though (from a believer’s perspective) in itself not self-aware independent of the soul. All of those automatic, mechanical thought processes you believe in? I believe in them too. And I believe that a person may spend his or her entire life obeying them, thus (falsely) appearing, to a scientist, to be indistinguishable from his material brain.
Besides, one would have to experiment on every single person in the world in order to be certain that no one ever ever appears to defy the chemical processes of the brain in order to make a surprising decision that could not be predicted minutes before the conscious decision. Even then, it would be difficult to know if the subject’s testimony was fully reliable as to “when did they consciously make the decision,” and unless one has already come to the as yet unproven conclusion that the chemical reactions that appear linked to consciousness are in
fact consciousness, the subject’s testimony would be the only
real indication of when they were conscious (as in self-aware, not as in awake). For reasons we’ll get to below, even that is flimsy, because memory–a material thing–comes into play when relying on the subject’s testimony.
I would think neuroscientists would be the most qualified to judge whether something more than the brain is needed to explain consciousness. They are the ones who study the brain, and link the different parts/actions of the brain to different functions.
I do not believe they would be quite so qualified at all, let alone most qualified. One thing I have never seen tapped into is the experience of another’s “self”. Each person is aware of his or her “self” in an indescribable “just is” way that observation from an outside means cannot replicate. Yet that very personal awareness, which we call consciousness (in the sense of being aware one exists, not in the sense of being awake or exhibiting brain activity), is the only way to judge consciousness. In other words, no one is qualified to judge the nature of consciousness of another, only his own–from which he may or may not use inductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion about other humans. Consciousness is not something you look at, it is something you experience. The conundrum here is that there is absolutely no way to ever conceivably demonstrate, scientifically (even to one’s own self), that one’s own consciousness–and again, only each individual is qualified to be the judge in this matter–can cease to exist or is dependent on the brain. What if I was braindead and remember nothing during the time that scientists say I had no brain activity? What of it? I know, and have never argued against, the fact that the brain is used to make memories (at least for now, until I shall go to Heaven or unless God enlightens me for some reason), and so if I were braindead, I would have formed no memories, so of course I would remember “nothing” from the brain-dead time, despite being aware of myself. Do you see the problem here? If I myself, when I reflect logically, cannot say whether or not I ceased to be during a brain-dead moment, how much less is an outside observer qualified to know? What if, for example, I
was self-aware, independent of brain activity, but simply did not remember it for reasons previously stated? This would mean the soul had made no physical imprint on the brain. This would thus be indetectable in the physical brain, leading Neuroscientists to hastily (and illogically) conclude that my consciousness is likely nothing more than the result of the brain.
Of course the brain is going to show signs of consciousness as long as the brain functions and the soul is united with it, since the consciousness works on and (in this life) relies upon the brain for interacting with, perceiving, and manifesting in the physical world, and so must leave some “mark” on the brain during its attachment thereto whenever it’s at work. It is easy to see that neuroscientists would interpret these signs/marks as likely being the consciousness itself, but I do not think it is difficult to see the over-haste in drawing that conclusion.
You seem to have a very limited concept of the natural world to include only mindless physical objects. Why do you have so much trouble allowing for the possibility that “matter” (which by the way we don’t fully understand) can be arranged into systems that are aware of themselves?
Self awareness is still something of an illusion in that case, though, having no purpose or meaning beyond being a “gimmick” by which DNA seeks to preserve and propogate itself, no different than inertia being the means by which motion seeks to preserve and propel itself. Logically speaking, there is no reason to think we are inherently different from mindless physical forces or phenomena, since the “mind” is but a way for one more physical phenomenon to sustain itself just like the mindless ones; in the materialist version of reality, it is nothing higher, and nothing more profound, even if it is a great deal more complex. Rights, morality, and a host of other things we deem important (indeed, even the very concept of importance itself) are all illusions in such a case.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
He has existed since the “beginning” (actually eternity has no beginning or end) of eternity and will exist for all of eternity. 
