More than a feeling I would say it is a perception. I perceive that I have freedom when I do any action. Being able to feel free or not. I can feel that I have no freedom and still perceive that I have it. We are always free to act as we want, although sometimes we feel that we are tied and that we do not have freedom. As you can see, there is a difference between intuiting and feeling.
No rational person believes a human can "do anything they want".
I'm certain there are a great many things you would do (that you are not currently doing) if it were truly as easy as snapping your fingers.
Your current slate of "choices" are determined by your history and biology. And your ability to make "good choices" is also determined by your history and biology.
A person born with a low IQ cannot "choose" to have a higher IQ.
I don't say that there are no circumstances that limit our freedom. I speak of free will, not absolute freedom. Your framework for action is limited by your current state of circumstances, however, you are free to act as you wish within that framework.
A person born with a low IQ cannot "choose" to have a higher IQ.
...however, you are free to act as you wish within that framework.
Do you believe a Chess Grandmaster is "free" to move the pieces "wherever they want"?
Or are they constrained by their training and experience and their goal (desire) of winning?
And as to your second point,
There have been a large number of scientific studies attempting to increase a person's general IQ (including projects like lumosity), and although a (low or average IQ) person can generally improve performance on a specific game with practice, that improvement does not translate into increased general proficiency (they are unable to generalize their problem solving skill and apply it to other systems).
In his book, Flynn thinks it pointless to continue research on elementary cognitive tasks (e.g., reaction time tests, such as with Jensen’s “button box”). But such tests may provide our first opportunity to measure g in absolute terms (on a ratio scale; Jensen, 2005). Performance on reaction time tests is scored in milliseconds. Unlike IQ scores, time has a zero point and equal-size units. Ratio-level measurement would finally allow us to chart patterns and rates of cognitive growth and decline over the life course as well as over decades. The Flynn Effect might have been explained long ago had we historical data of this sort. *
The metaphor of chess perfectly shows what I tell you, maybe we don't even disagree. The Chess Grandmaster can even throw the table aside if he wishes, he is free to do all the regulatory moves, and even more if he gets creative. But it is certainly limited by the circumstances to do what it does. He certainly cannot fly or be omnipotent to do anything. But if it is free between a certain range of options.
Direct knowledge of your emotions.
Freewill is simply a feeling you get when you make a decision.
In the same exact way, someone could argue that their god (Krishna) is REAL because they can feel Krishna's love in their heart.
I know my god loves me because I experience a feeling of (god's) love.
Would you accept this as "incontrovertible evidence" of the existence of Krishna?
More than a feeling I would say it is a perception. I perceive that I have freedom when I do any action. Being able to feel free or not. I can feel that I have no freedom and still perceive that I have it. We are always free to act as we want, although sometimes we feel that we are tied and that we do not have freedom. As you can see, there is a difference between intuiting and feeling.
You are perceiving a feeling.
No rational person believes a human can "do anything they want".
I'm certain there are a great many things you would do (that you are not currently doing) if it were truly as easy as snapping your fingers.
Your current slate of "choices" are determined by your history and biology. And your ability to make "good choices" is also determined by your history and biology.
A person born with a low IQ cannot "choose" to have a higher IQ.
I don't say that there are no circumstances that limit our freedom. I speak of free will, not absolute freedom. Your framework for action is limited by your current state of circumstances, however, you are free to act as you wish within that framework.
It depends, do you think the IQ is innate?
Do you believe a Chess Grandmaster is "free" to move the pieces "wherever they want"?
Or are they constrained by their training and experience and their goal (desire) of winning?
And as to your second point,
There have been a large number of scientific studies attempting to increase a person's general IQ (including projects like lumosity), and although a (low or average IQ) person can generally improve performance on a specific game with practice, that improvement does not translate into increased general proficiency (they are unable to generalize their problem solving skill and apply it to other systems).
aND, 3 MINUTES,
The metaphor of chess perfectly shows what I tell you, maybe we don't even disagree. The Chess Grandmaster can even throw the table aside if he wishes, he is free to do all the regulatory moves, and even more if he gets creative. But it is certainly limited by the circumstances to do what it does. He certainly cannot fly or be omnipotent to do anything. But if it is free between a certain range of options.
Wouldn't you say they must always choose their best move?
I would say that, and even more, I think he would almost always do it, but he is free to choose another movement if he wishes.