[ethn]

So many popular science articles have started to commit ontological fallacies like this. Free will obviously exists because we experience it. This question presumes a denial of experience and a claim that really the experience isn't real but instead this other thing that cannot ever be experienced is. What's even the motivation for that?

The motivation seems to be to paint an awe-inspiring picture of mystery through the facade of science for link clicks, with the defamation of science. Science is meant to make things clear not enigmatic.

The question debating if free will actually exists, is a denial of experience and a solicitation to some sort of ontology outside of experience that can never be known.

[dragonwriter]

> Free will obviously exists because we experience it.

You seem to be confusing the subjective experience of consciousness with free will. They aren't equivalent. (Free will can be viewed as a conjecture about the relationship of conscious experience with the outside world, but is not synonymous with conscious experience.)

[ethn]

I'm not. If I meant the experience of consciousness I would have said so.

[seekingcharlie]

How do "we experience" free will?

[ethn]

By making choices on one's own accord. This is the only qualifier of Free Will. The argument against Free Will is that this is actually an illusion despite the experience–the argument is a metaphysical one, which can never be known as it's circumscribed in the noumena.