You missed the bit I bolded. I said "effectively". Since your argument is that there is a deliberate free will, whether there is random interaction is presumably irrelevant. Or is your point that random fluctuations are the things that cause free will - making that free will the result of a random process - and thus no better than random itself?
I didn't miss the part you bolded. "Effectively" or entirely, you can't exclude the uncertainty of electron movement. Unless you want to argue that the brain would operate the same way if it didn't use electrons? If you're going to make a computer simulation that effectively excludes changed caused by electron uncertainty, you have to show how it would work and that that it would be an accurate model for reality. Otherwise, why should anyone accept your thought idea as being a valid representation of reality? You've at least explained the first, but you haven't touched on the second as far as I know - if you have, then I've missed it.
Furthermore, I think your description of "free will" that's built on the uncertainty of electron movement as being no better than random is simply wrong. The fact that you can't predict something in advance, and can't guarantee that you'll always get the same result, doesn't mean that it's therefore random. It does mean that it's uncertain and therefore unpredictable, but that is not the same as being random.
...it seems you do. The "different possibilities" you are arguing are the result of randomness?
"combine in an unpredictable way, with no guarantee that they'll always combine in the same way even without random chance involved"
Yes, "even without random chance involved". How does that indicate that I'm arguing for different possibilities as a result of random chance?
1) "Unpredictable" again....if something is ultimately unpredictable (not simply because we aren't advanced enough to measure the variables), in what was is that not random? If - despite being able to measure everything and knowing all the rules....it can still be something or something else?
2) What you seem to be saying here is that WITHOUT any random factors, the exact same events following the exact same rules in the exact same circumstances, can end up being this, or that. Again, HOW?
Why do you think that something that is inherently unpredictable has to be random? For example, let's take a random person named Joe, and make a copy of his brain, then put the copy in identical instances of computer simulations. Joe likes pizza and hamburgers equally, and his refrigerator has both, in equal numbers. Let's take as a given that all random influences have been excluded from the simulation, so Joe will either have a slice of pizza or a hamburger, and the choice will not be random. You are essentially saying that he will only pick one option - say, pizza - in every single instance of the simulation, whereas I am saying that he may pick either option. Your argument is that because there are no random influences, the choice will be deterministic, thus you can predict with certainty the result of every single simulation. Mine is that you can predict that Joe will pick one of the two options given the way the situation is set up, but that you cannot predict exactly which one even when the initial conditions are identical. I see both as being possible, but without actually being able to test it, it doesn't matter which happens to be more plausible.
Why do you keep asking me to explain how this would work? Since I am not a biologist, let alone a specialist in neurology, any possible explanation I could give would be speculation at best. So I can't explain how in a way that would be satisfactory to me, let alone anyone else, because of the fact that it would be speculative. But to be honest, the whole thought experiment is speculative, since it can't be tested and may well not be testable. So, what is the point of having asked me to explain the process?