Question

Regarding the approach that claims there is no free will:
If I continue to adhere to this approach, then even the intuition that we see what we see is nothing but an illusion, since although studies can investigate the eye and how it functions, it is impossible to prove that what the eye does is actually reflected in consciousness. And even if we perform actions with our body (like raising a hand) that present “proof” for what we see, that does not prove that what we see is not an illusion.
The illusion could process what is happening (unconsciously) and express it in what is called “seeing.” And create the illusion that we are seeing through our eyes. (It sounds like a conspiracy, it should be noted.)
And nevertheless, intuitively everything leads to the conclusion that the eye does reflect reality to our consciousness. (Because how could one prove otherwise? And what would we gain from a different proof?)
By the way, even to test vision itself (by observation, which is itself included only within vision) would be contradictory if it turns out that our vision does not reflect the truth. (How could one conclude that what we saw in observation is nothing but a deception? And if we assume it is not a deception, perhaps the result itself is a deception?)
Even if such a test relies on hearing, perhaps our hearing also deceives us?
And in fact, it is not guaranteed that the tools we created to test vision have not themselves undergone deception. (The result denies its own premises.)
And perhaps this is actually what is happening with the question of free will?
Only with the question of free will, there is even more tension because of the principle of causality.
(By the way, I once read that predictability does not contradict free will.)
Of course, all this is assuming that choice is similar to vision in terms of its intuitive status.
Is this roughly what you mean in some of your remarks regarding free will?
And do you think predictability does not contradict free will?
Thank you