--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Sam Harris has posted a second follow up to his post on his > own blog about free will (the link to which tartbrain originally > posted on this forum). In this post he takes a slightly different > tack on the subject: > > You Do Not Choose What You Choose > > Many readers continue to find my position on free will > bewildering.
As I have suggested about other believers in the lack of free will here (and that they have failed to reply to), if they are so convinced that there is no free will, WHY are they working so hard to convince others (whom they insist have no free will) to change their minds and embrace the "no free will" position? If Harris is correct, his thoughts on this matter and his ability to decide for free will or against it are not his own. The decision was made for him. He at no point had the ability to "choose what he chose." If he is correct, all of the people he seems a bit perturbed with for not understanding or agreeing with his position *also* have no free will. Just like him, they also at no point had the ability to "choose what they chose." So why is he continuing to argue, as if they (or *anyone* reading what he writes) had the free will to choose to change their minds as a result of reading it? Something in this scenario doth not compute. > Most of the criticism Iâve received consists of some > combination of the following claims: > > 1. Your account assumes that mental events are, at bottom, > physical events. But if the mind is distinct from the brain > (to any degree), this would allow for freedom of will. > > 2. You admit that mental eventsâ"like choices, efforts, > intentions, reasoning, etcâ"cause certain of our actions. > But such mental states presuppose free will for their very > existence. Your position is self-contradictory: Either we > are free to think and behave as we will, or there is no such > thing as choice, effort, intention, reasoning, etc. > > 3. Even if my thoughts and actions are the product of > unconscious causes, they are still my thoughts and actions. > Anything that my brain does or chooses, whether consciously > or not, is something that I have done or chosen. The fact > that I cannot always be subjectively aware of the causes of > my actions does not negate free will. > > All of these objections express confusion about my basic > premise. The first is simply falseâ"my argument against > free will does not require philosophical materialism. There > is no question that (most) mental events are the product of > physical eventsâ"but even if the human mind were part soul- > stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious > operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the > unconscious physiology of your brain does. > > Continues: > http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/you-do-not-choose-what-you-choose/
