is there free will?

Each of our acts has a neurological correlate: stimuli give rise to perception, synchronous with evoked potential, while even intention to move is correlated to activation potential in the contralateral motor cortex. Even thoughts are thus correlated to neural activity. Could neuroscience enlighten us on the key issue whether free will really exists, or it is just an illusion and we are just perfectly determined? The answer is not easy. Sir Eccles already conjectured decades ago that free will might have to do with the stochastic behavior of neurotransmitters, still out of our instrumental measurement reach if ever possible. On the other hand, there are scientists claiming their ability to reconstruct our dreams by monitoring our visual occipital cortex activity. Are we determined at least in dreams, or free even during such state when we do not appear to be conscious but of whom we may keep some remind while awake? Neurology and neuroscience, so powerful in getting more and more insight in much of ourselves, seem still far from being able to deal with free will issues if ever they would be able. It is even difficult to think about how to design a key experiment. Probably, we could measure some activity in front of a simple choice, and then try to compare with similar activity when the possible answer is unique. But then, we would probably have some difference in brain activity, still not being sure that it would not just be related to the evaluation of the alternative instead of being related to freedom in choice. On the other side, is it really important to know if we are really free? Sure, would say somebody: should we not be free, we would not be responsible for our actions, just compelled to do, as we think about animals or mentally impaired! But in fact, to be responsible and thus accountable, if we think about, it is sufficient our shared perception to be free to decide. No matter if we are really free to choose when we need, or we are instead perfectly determined by our epigenetic evolution and the context, as it could be possible, even if we are not conscious of every single detail that would determine us to every particular decision in front of every dilemma, the simple fact that we usually feel to be free to choose is already enough to imply that we feel responsible and thus accountable for our decision, thus letting us able to ethically live in a complex society without pretending to do everything we would like. What said should be enough for us to relax while waiting for a possible future neuroscience help, while not guaranteed, in the topic. Moreover, what said has also implications not just on our naturally evolved intelligence, but also on so-called "Artificial Intelligence (AI)", inspired to our natural one and more and more pervasive in every context, also implying ethical alarms as for instance in autonomous driving. In AI the decision algorithm is determined, even if stochastical variability could be randomly be implied, anyway, there would not be any freedom to the machine, nor, more important in our reasoning, no perception of free will. The machine would not be responsible for its acts, being the programmer or the chance in case of random components. The fear for a possible rebellion of the machine to the designer does appear thus not really reasonable, contrary to our biblical believe that we as humans have disobeyed to our Creator, even if He - or the evolution, if we prefer - did create us perfectly determined or at most random, He - or the Nature - has been wise enough to provide us with the free will perception, if not even with freedom, then making us responsible for the sake of the society. With this in mind, we can then quietly wait for possible further improvement in neurology and neuroscience helping us possibly more in order to understand if our perception of freedom does correspond to the truth or just to a masking effect useful to co-existence