Hypothetically, science proves free will isn't real

[Angrboda]

A computer has no choice, but its behavior is perfectly logical.  You're conflating determined reason with epiphenomenalism.  That doesn't make any sense why you would think that one would imply the other.

Jor, you know better than to compare a computer which has been designed to perform logical operations and brains which evolved as a means to survival.

Do you know the limits of what evolution can create? In order to find and prepare food, it's necessary that our internal model of the world in some way correspond to what's out there, or else we wouldn't survive. There's reason to suspect that our perceptions are veridical. What makes you think evolution didn't design us to be capable of reason? (By the way, our brains aren't programmed for survival, they're programmed to help us reproduce. The link between evolved behaviors and the selective pressures which drove them is seldom obvious, what makes you think the advantage of reason would be any different?)

Mental events that yield reproductive advantages to the species do not necessarily correspond to things as they are.

And they don't necessarily not correspond to the way things are. The proof is in the pudding. In some ways the mind and perception can accurately model reality, in other ways, our biases, it does not.

From a skeptical point of view, it has not been shown that mental processes can reveal things-as-they-are. Also from a skeptical point of view, it hasn't been shown that things-as-they-are even conform to reason.

What on earth would revealing things-as-they-are amount to? Our brains make models based on assumptions about the input. A dark area next to a light area is perceived as an edge. A monochromatic patch appears as a surface. We test whether these assumptions are valid by interacting with the things in our model. What are you suggesting has not been shown to conform to reason? It's possible that as I'm typing this, I'm in reality preparing a fruit salad, and that what I think is a logical response is nothing but a bunch of verbal strokes of the other, a sort of intellectual grooming behavior. But so what? As long as it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what does it really matter? Ultimately our behavior is non-rational; it does not conform to logic. Reason is but a small part of the self. You seem to think this 'not conforming to things-as-they-are' is some sort of horrific bugbear. It's not.

Moreover, if we play on the other side of the fence, postulating that a perfectly rational superbeing imbued us and the universe with intelligibility doesn't get around the skeptical objections either. Ultimately there's no justifiable reason for suspecting that an ultimate being isn't deceiving us about things-as-they-are. It's no less an arbitrary assumption than is supposing that reason which comports with things-as-they-are has some sort of evolutionary value.

Alistar Ham insists that in a deterministic universe people still make choices. Someone has a choice only when he or she could do otherwise. Rationality is about weighing options and picking the one that seems better. In a deterministic universe, no one can do anything other than what he will do pick other that what he would pick. That's not really a choice.

Choice is the act of realizing one alternative out of multiple alternatives. It's true that if free will is an illusion then choice as well is not what it appears. What's your point? Prior to realization of that one alternative, it would appear that different possible worlds corresponding to the actual world with ever so slight differences exist. That is all choice is acknowledging, that the various possible worlds that could result lie close to one another in terms of their epistemic space prior to the choice. That's all it implies. The difference between chocolate and vanilla when I'm standing at the counter requires small changes; the difference between chocolate and a blue whale lie miles apart from our position inside an array of possible worlds. As long as we are clear about what we mean, what's the problem?