Let's kick off the week with something like a shower thought: the kind that is sometimes embarrassing to ask openly, because of the degree to which it can show the writer's unfamiliarity with aspects of philosophy.
But the question in the post title occurred to me this weekend when reading this short interview with Robert Sapolsky, who currently is the most prominent figure arguing that free will does not exist, and (to give him some credit) discussing the consequences of that view. (I think far too many people - like Sabine Hossenfelder - just shrug their shoulders about the real life consequences of the belief in no free will.)
Anyway, as I have mentioned before, when it comes to the free will argument, I keep on having difficulty with grasping how lack of free will copes with the concept of a mere idea that comes from outside a person changing a person's behaviour in reaction to that idea. The fact that a person can, for example, be given concepts that may help them climb out of depression seems to indicate that something ephemeral, like how they should analyse themselves and their present situation, does change a person internally because they have accepted the ephemeral idea is true.
The somewhat novel extension (to me, anyway) of that line of thinking that has occurred to me is this: "does the mere concept of free will and people's ability to believe in it mean that free will does indeed exist - much like the ontological proof for the existence of God."
Now, I certainly don't believe the ontological proof of God is convincing, but the idea that an idea can indeed change behaviour seems more plausibly like a possible proof that the idea itself is real.
Don't come back at me and say "of course believing in a false idea doesn't prove the false idea is true." Yeah, sure. I guess I would try to get around that obvious argument by saying this is an idea about reasoning and ideas themselves. Not about factual matters like (to use an example) "Trump won the last election", or for that matter "God is real".
A quick Google hasn't shown up an exact replication of my suggestion - but it would have to be likely someone has run at least something close to this argument before. (I have thought briefly about how similar it is to "I think therefore I am" - and I'm not sure that it's quite the same.)
I don't mind this guy's post on the whole subject of free will (who is he?), but I will have to keep looking.