And that's the circular argument once again.
No it isn't, it's simply the reason why an acceptance of free will is my default position.
But if you don't have free will then to you - you still appear to experience it.
And that's the point. I do appear to experience it which is why I require evidence to disprove it.
To say that the fact you believe in free will is rational because it 'appears that it exists' to you pretty much equates to saying:
"The fact that people commonly believe in free will is all the evidence they need to be rationally commonly believing in the truth of it".
No, it would be more appropriate to say that "The fact that people commonly believe in free will due to a common experience that it 'appears' to exist is all they need to require opponents to provide some sort of evidence to support their claim that it is in fact an illusion."
Sensing free will is irrelevant to the truth of it because you could just as easily be sensing it without actually having it
I sense it therefore there is something to sense. If you are saying that what I sense isn't really what I think it is then you need to come up more persuasive arguments than 'a lack of evidence'. As I have already inferred, there is a reason to believe because I am aware of it.
It's a bit like people believing in God because we can all see him in the clouds. Of course, he may be an illusion but it would be those who state that who would have to prove it.
No it isn't, it's simply the reason why an acceptance of free will is my default position.
But if you don't have free will then to you - you still appear to experience it.
And that's the point. I do appear to experience it which is why I require evidence to disprove it.
To say that the fact you believe in free will is rational because it 'appears that it exists' to you pretty much equates to saying:
"The fact that people commonly believe in free will is all the evidence they need to be rationally commonly believing in the truth of it".
No, it would be more appropriate to say that "The fact that people commonly believe in free will due to a common experience that it 'appears' to exist is all they need to require opponents to provide some sort of evidence to support their claim that it is in fact an illusion."
Sensing free will is irrelevant to the truth of it because you could just as easily be sensing it without actually having it
I sense it therefore there is something to sense. If you are saying that what I sense isn't really what I think it is then you need to come up more persuasive arguments than 'a lack of evidence'. As I have already inferred, there is a reason to believe because I am aware of it.
It's a bit like people believing in God because we can all see him in the clouds. Of course, he may be an illusion but it would be those who state that who would have to prove it.
![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)
