Incorporated into my book

Abstract: While the neoclassical theory of behavior is called choice theory, the behavior of an economicus (an entity that adheres to the assumptions) is out of its control: its ranking of bundles and which are feasible are both exogenous, so is the rule that it must experience its highest-ranked feasible bundle. Neoclassical behavior theory (NBT) would be a more appropriate name. An economicus has only feeble free-will, and its behavior is deterministic in a more restrictive manner than philosophers’ sense of determinism. Advocates of neoclassical choice theory (NCT) are a subspecies of compatibilists: behavior is “compatible” with free will, but it’s weak.  Humans also live in a deterministic world (with some randomness?), unless you believe in dualism, so only have feeble free-will, no more than worms and mollusks. But! Humans have choosing experiences (cogitating about A vs. B, and deciding on B) and then experiencing B. Isn’t that choosing? No! Mounting evidence in psychology and neuroscience indicates that what humans do (how we behave) is determined by an unconscious processes, and the choosing experience doesn’t determine what we select.
Keywords: behavior, choice, choosing experience, illusion of choice, causal determinism, deterministic (in)compatibilism, free will, choice theory, action potentials, neuroscience, experimental philosophy, subliminal cues, and Benjamin Libet.