Novalis takes on the difficult subject of free will in a recent post:
So free will is located not in the brain, but "in" the group or human culture. What does this imply for the soul? I would argue that just as free will is not some kind of metaphysically magical legerdemain, the soul is not some kind of ethereal "stuff" existing separate from the brain. But the soul is not merely another name for the brain. Rather, the soul is massively distributed, consisting of vast networks of social and experiential contacts (another name for it would be "identity" or "the self").
My soul, like anyone's soul, does contain my irreducibly subjective experiences, but beyond that it entails every kind of relationship I have ever had, the work I have done, the influences I have taken in or given out. And crucially the soul has a history and a rationally supported system of values, both of which depend upon language. This is why animals, who presumably have moment-to-moment conscious subjectivity, do not have souls (that doesn't mean we should eat them though). Infants do not begin to develop a soul until language acquisition begins, and arguably the severely demented have largely lost their souls.
Language acquisition is at the heart of the alternative. Language and its related cognitive functions transport us from here and now perception, to the world of not me, not here and not now. If free will is more than an illusion, I can't imagine how it could exist without awareness of alternatives to the immediately perceived. And if free will is an illusion, it is the awareness of alternatives that makes the illusion possible.