Is free-will an illusion?

And how would one be able to prove the non-existence of something non-physical? You may as well be challenged to prove that God doesn't exist.

A-yup.

Because the first step in any scientific endeavor is to frame a hypothesis (a hypothetical EXPLANATION of some aspect of what I see). Observation does NOT come first in science. Some hypothesis is the first step. Framing a hypothesis, however implausible, is the first step.

The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works (laws and theories). Inductive Reasoning is sometimes called the "from the bottom up" approach. When we use inductive reasoning, our specific observations and measurements may begin to show us a general pattern. This might allow us to formulate a tentative hypothesis that can be further explored, and we might finally end up making some general conclusions.

"Inductive Reasoning is sometimes called the "from the bottom up" approach. When we use inductive reasoning, our specific observations and measurements may begin to show us a general pattern. This might allow us to formulate a tentative hypothesis that can be further explored, and we might finally end up making some general conclusions."

I just say that bird isn't a crow. Why not? Because it isn't black, that's why. I already told you: All crows are black.

The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.[5] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, they are better considered as general principles.[27] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order. As noted by William Whewell (1794–1866), "invention, sagacity, [and] genius"[10] are required at every step.

Even hear of the "scientific method?"

That is a specious, if not cynical, conclusion.

Wiki describes this process as follows

Here's a different wiki answer for you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain.

For centuries now, scientists have convinced themselves that they "know" a "universal law of gravity." So what happens when objects no longer seem to "obey" the law of gravity?

Do they reject their theory as in any way lacking? Of course not!

They start making up **** (and LOTS of it)

That certainly can't be "science" if you think that science, and only science, deals with "truth," eh?

3) This may be the sticking point. You seem to be putting me in the position to prove that there is no free will. I have explicitly stated that this is neither my intent nor my position. I've been clear that my position is only that there is good reason to be skeptical about it. Not taking the opposite view, only suspending judgment until more conclusisve results are available.

To demonstrate that there is good reason to be skeptical, and in light of your stance that free will is a slam dunk certainty, I have posted quite a few scholarly articles that do indeed provide reasons to be skeptical. Not reasons to form a conclusion, only reasons to be skeptical.

Scholars in various fields have been engaged in a long-standing debate over it. That alone should be sufficient evidence that there are reasonable grounds to be skeptical of either conclusion. I recognize that my opinions on the topic are inferior to those who actually do work in field. Therefore, I rely on their work, rather than simply stumping and cherry picking for a conclusion that I might prefer. I don't have a preferred conclusion; I'm simply looking at plenty of reason to skeptically suspend judgment.

Once again FBM shows that he either does not read, or does not understand, the things he posts (and even puts in BOLD lettering).

The article says:

Quote:

Whether the late BP reflects conscious preparation for intended movement or not remains to be clarified

.

See that? It says that they cannot say if the BP is conscious preparation. This is made very explicit. But what does FBM himself say it says? This:

Quote:

Subconscious neural activity is precisely what's being measured. It's what the Bereitschaftspotential is all about:

And there's no "disconnect" for him. In his mind these articles say whatever he wants them to say. No need to even read them closely.

Here's an interesting perspective, too: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-people-favor-opinion-over-scientific-evidence/

When we approach a problem, our natural default is to tap the least tiring cognitive process. Typically this is what psychologists call type 1 thinking,

is slower and involves processing more cues in the environment....understanding scientific evidence, a more recent achievement, involves more complex, logical and difficult type 2 processing

Quote:

That certainly can't be "science" if you think that science, and only science, deals with "truth," eh?

I don't know. But what better path to the truth is there?

I couldn't care less what your position is on the matter. I do pay attention though, which is more than can be said about you, because the matter is important to me and I don't want naive, uninformed readers to think that science disproves free will.

If it's truth you're after, i suggest religion. They deal with that. Science deals with falsifiable theories, observations and doubts, but not "truth".

If it's truth you're after, i suggest religion