Not at all. I skim read the thread, but nothing particularly struck me. What relevance does it have? How is your concept of identity or empiricism, Hume’s view from no where, his ontology, etc important for this? You are presenting a large picture from what seems disjunctive parts at the min.
This is an odd statement. Moral responsibility is created by the actions of people, and so, if people are using it then it does exist. Of course, it doesnt exist independant of people using it or owt.
Is that what your definition of illusiory is? Is ethics in general, for example, illusiory too?
Silly. Those firing neurons WERE my choice, and they were determined by previous neurological activity just as my choice was determined by previous mental activity.
You would make just as much sense if you reversed the causality; my mental activity caused the neuron firing, as to say neuron firing caused my mental activity.
My choice was a process not ‘determined’ by those neurons in the sense that they caused my choice, but ‘determined’ in the sense that the choice and the neuron firing are one and the same event (just from two different perspectives). Why is one perspective illusiory, but not the other?
So, is your brand of compatabilism determinism which wants to hold mental activity as seperate but causally related to neurological activity or some such?
No seriously, I can write down the options ive considered in recent decisions if you like. For example I seriously considered going to bed rather than posting. From a psychological perspective, this really could have happened. I was under no serious restraint. My will was completely free to choose as it pleases. Nothing compelled me, no physical laws forced my will to do anything it didnt want to.
Of course, since my psyche is mechanistic, my current post was bound to happen. (But that doesnt mean the process is pointless or something. Sartre’s point that determinists would never agonise over decisions is ludicrous; as it is that very agonising that will determine the decision. You’re asking the computer to tell you the answer without actually calculating it)
not at all 
I really dont see why believing an illusion makes any sense, never mind making it actually true. My belief on the matter makes no difference to how my mental life goes about its business (i could easily have no beliefs about it at all).
Clearly you missed the idea of what a thought experiment is. 
Let me phrase it better.
-
imagine personality exists
-
that is to say, the aspect to your current mental activity which determines the decisions you will make. You can substitute the word personality with “neurological configuration” or some such if you prefer.
-
as a practical exercise, Bob is required to assign responsibility to a group of criminals, terrorists and care bear eaters for their crimes. Bob decides that a good criterion for determining responsibility is simply to determine how much a change of personality could have changed the criminal action.
-
Bob doesnt assume that these criminals could have acted otherwise, but Bob finds that this is irrelevant in determining if they are responsible. Indeed, their various personality dysfunctions have specific and identifiable causes, and Bob accepts a mechanistic account of mental activity, but it is clearly ‘they’, that is to say, their personalities, which made the decisions that caused the criminal acts.
-
Now, you can stop imagining things and get back to believing illusiory things again. Could Bob make an error in assigning moral responsibility when compared to how you would assign it? If you wouldnt assign it, how would the criminals and care bear eaters be treated?
Obviously. But since their personality was a large factor in making the choice, they could have chosen to be not responsible if their personalities were different.
I’ll have a perusal. I like Peter Van Inwagen’s stuff myself (though i disagree with his answer, he states the problem well).
And now, though i was caused to do so, I am indeed choosing, of my own free will, to go to bed,
Cheers!
