>>13298770But that's only (or that matters only) if you are looking at things outside the day to day experience of human beings and what "choices" human beings are effectively capable of making, such as ritual suicide or attempting to build different conceptual models of the world around us.
So long as "choice" has meaning and choice is not predictable, I think free will basically exists. We already know willpower can be modeled in strength-like reserves. This is interesting, because to me, I think this boils down to ethical philosophy; if you accept that free will "does not exist" (whatever that even means), then you have no reason to act in a particular way because everything is destined and what a negative way to perceive the world.
Whereas, believing in free will or acknowledging that we do have control and freedom over certain things, is a more effective philosophy.
I don't think free will is a concept with enough structural integrity to even be regarded as something that 'is' or 'is not'...
In fact, actually, concepts don't exist. So in that sense, you are correct. But concepts that don't have structural integrity like free will... I mean... We already know humans have things they will invariably like or dislike. That's not very insightful.
Its like trying to analyze a sentence that reads "Do milk it have are you going to with what are you I am the walrus"
Asking if free will exists isn't sensible because the very idea of free will is not definable.
