“Why do I think reality exists?”
Is already answerable. You can list a number of reasons why you hold this belief.
There are also reasons for believing in non-illusory forms of free will and consciousness. If that argument is sufficient to establish realism in some cases, it is sufficient in all cases.
You are not supposed to dissolve the new question, only reformulate the original one in a way that is becomes answerable.
Supposed by whom? EY gives some instructions in the imperative voice, but that’s not how logic works.
His argument is that if free will is possibly an illusion then it is an illusion. If valid, this argument would also show that consciousness and material reality are definitely illusions.
So it disproves too much.
But there is a valid form of the argument where you argue against the reality of X on addition to arguing for the possible illusory nature of X.
There are no “unique exceptions”, we are algorithms,
That’s much more conjectural than most of the claims made here.
There are also reasons for believing in non-illusory forms of free will and consciousness. If that argument is sufficient to establish realism in some cases, it is sufficient in all cases.
Supposed by whom? EY gives some instructions in the imperative voice, but that’s not how logic works.
His argument is that if free will is possibly an illusion then it is an illusion. If valid, this argument would also show that consciousness and material reality are definitely illusions.
So it disproves too much.
But there is a valid form of the argument where you argue against the reality of X on addition to arguing for the possible illusory nature of X.
That’s much more conjectural than most of the claims made here.