What I'm saying is that it can not be proved logically. Intuitively yes but not logically.
So my approach to this problem (and it needn't be your approach) is to separate that which is logically demonstrable from what is intuitively apparent. Basic intuitions can appear as premises in logical statements, but they do not serve as logical conclusions. So, in my view of things, nothing can be "proven" by intuition alone. Such basic intuitions are axiomatic-- NOT understood by a process of deduction.
"Let take a look at Descartes'
cogito: "I think therefore I am." This is a logical statement. A very simple one. One premise leads to one (obvious) conclusion.
1. I think.
2. Therefore, I am.
Let's take a look at premise 1. Is premise 1 the conclusion of another logical argument? Turns out it isn't. Premise 1 is simply intuitively obvious. We all know it's true. But we know it's true because
we all experience thinking. It's not because some such preceding argument-- that has premises x and/or y-- and the conclusion of that argument is: "Therefore, I think." The fact that we think is simply
obvious to us. So obvious, that we don't need any other support for the conclusion other than "it's obvious that we think."
Now it is an interesting discussion to have if we were to deny premise 1. And maybe we are wrong to assume it as an axiom. But were perfectly justified in discussing other matters that assume premise 1 to be true.
If someone goes from there and says that he alone exists and all else is his imagination, there is no logical way of proving w/ reasoned arguments that anyone else exists outside his imagination. I see free will in the same light. We can't logically prove it (now) but it feels right so we go w/ it.
The fact that other people and material objects exists is another example of basic intuition serving as a premise in a logical argument. Famously, there is no argument (nor can there be) that disproves solipsism. But I'm fine rejecting solipsism on intuitive grounds. Is that the final nail in the coffin for solipsism? No. But it is reason enough for me to assume its untruth when discussing other matters (like free will). I find it easy, and don't see any dishonesty at all, in assuming solipsism is false for purposes of having other discussions about the nature of the world.
***
Personally, I agree with your notion that "We can't logically prove [free will] (now) but it
feels right so we go w/ it."
I think that's a good policy to have when we are considering our own lives and the choices we are making in the present moment. The idea that we should curl up into a ball and do nothing (because we have no free will) is an inadequate idea. It is not a healthy or adequate solution to the problem that we do not ultimately choose our own actions. I think (at a personal level) we should assume that we ourselves have free will. JUST BECAUSE, it is a practically useful idea to have. What we OUGHT NOT do, is assume that free will is an actual thing in the universe... something that explains the actions of others. "They spontaneously chose to hurt my feelings." --
that might be false.
Someone might have hurt your feelings because they feel insecure, and it makes them feel more secure to belittle others.
That may be a neurological process that takes place in the brain of insecure individuals. It isn't necessarily the product of metaphysical autonomy.
If determinism is true, then we our misguided when we make harsh moral judgments of others. And we are wrong to hate others for their actions. If determinism is true, we ought to pay attention to what CAUSES X behaviors (and changing that) rather than retaliating or punishing those who commit such acts. If we think that all choices are free, we miss the opportunity to correct the problem where it really exists. The CAUSE of undesirable behaviors ought to be our focus when improving the world, NOT punishing people when they commit such acts.
I agree that Jeffrey Dahmer did some pretty horrific things, and it was good that he was ultimately caught and separated from society. But wouldn't it have been best to catch him when he first started to abuse animals, and get him on a different trajectory, perhaps teach him art or anatomy, or instruct him how to produce horror films )if he needed to express his macabre or create grotesque experiences that centered around the destruction/consumption of flesh.
***
Anyway, I have more to say. But I've started rambling. And maybe you have some objection that would make my further analysis superfluous. What are your objections/opinions about what I've said so far?
