I maybe didn't word my comment precise enough, I agree with you that determinism means the choice couldn't have been made in any other way.
But you can only say that in hindsight, because we perceive time as linear and the present as succeeding all earlier moments. And thats exactly what makes it (at least subjectively) a choice in the first place.

Humans perceive themselves as subjects. Subjectivity is awareness of what you are not, meaning what is outside of you. An all-aware subject can thus not exist.
If you were all-aware and could see every outcome of every situation along all of time, there would be no choices.
But we are fixed to one viewpoint of sensory information in time and space, which means we interact with the outside. This means that we "can choose" what to do, or at least we perceive it that way. This is where the dialectic comes in, to the hypothetical omnipotent observer we are determined. But to our linear limited perception we are free.
Solid in the continuum, fluid in the moment.

We both agree that humans subjectively perceive themselves to be single individuals with a free will, but where you say that the free will is an illusion, I say the perception of free will is a direct consequence of our subjectivity, and our awareness of our subjectivity.

If you want to take the hippie spirituality route of saying that is just the "ego" constructing and defending itself, fine. but would you agree that subjective awareness without ego is possible (I. e. Ego death experiences etc.)?.
I feel that a logical extension of that line of reasoning is that all of time and reality is constructed in our head by our ego and not real. Which is true to some extent, but not very helpful when interacting with the world. Ultimately, we have to engage with the fact that as long as we have subjective awareness, the connectivity that you mention is perceived by us as between individual subjects, which is what I was outlining.

Regarding ideology and spirituality. I'm not disputing that, actually in the context I see it in, spirituality and ideology fill a very similar role. They both give the individual a contextualized place and role in a larger order that you identify with and that colors/governs your interactions with others in that order.

I don't like the notion of "soul" that much either tbh that's why I never really use it.

Sorry for the long rant I found your comment very thought provoking and wanted to take the time to respond to it, also in part to clear up my own internal dialog on this, I think in a lot of these questions there is no clear right or wrong there is just a model that helps you think and act and that is colored by your personal experience and past.