I'm confused, as in the first sentence you say you don't understand, yet later you provide your own examples of non-deterministic processes? My current position is that each event is either caused or non-caused but random - and a given set of inputs will result in an output that is probabilistically determined rather than strictly determined. Possibly so, yes. But bear in mind that there's a categorical difference between a thought (e.g. atheism, religion etc) and the actual mechanism/process that gives rise to that thought. I don't deny that this is how it intuitively feels for everyone, even me. But my position is arrived at through a bottom-up approach as opposed to a top-down... i.e. the fundamenntals I work from are that there is no evidence for an uncaused but non-random event. Anything we might consider as such we only do so with an a priori assumption. From this position, all things are either caused, or they are un-caused but random. And that includes consciousness. So when I look at what my consciousness "chooses" - I accept that these are driven by causes - at the micro level. But my consciousness can not identify all these causes... is not aware of them. My consciousness is merely the output of all these causes that the brain weighs up and concludes upon. Your top-down approach reaches consciousness as the "chooser" yet you stop there rather than asking "why did I choose?". At first one would look at macro causes, but each of those has sub-causes... all the way down to the micro- level. Can we know what they are? No. But whether consciousness is an illusion or not, in both cases it feels the same, as if it is an illusion it is not one we can break free from.