--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
Really? (as in SNL "Really!!??") Are you suggesting that its only one of two discrete possibilities. Either: 1) one is totally independent of any outside or internal sub conscious forces makes decisions or 2) some entity makes the decisions and then tells him what to do? (I know "mother is at home", but is she calling all the shots? (Cut to old aspirin commercial "Mother! I would rather do it myself!!")) Do you consider your culture, family, education, training, career, to have any effect in molding, shaping or filtering your, or anyone's, thoughts as to what the "best thing" to do in any moment is? Are you, or anyone, conscious of every single normally (in we mere mortals) subconscious process that shapes our thoughts, impulses, motivations and desires? If not, then I suggest we do not have full free will -- and yet there is no "entity" that has made our decisions for us. Is it not true that some posters have no free in that they have not choice but to respond to your proddings? The degree of freewill that we have appears to be the issue: a) some, b) a little or c) none. Total Free will is not an option, IMO. Given that the intellect is generally the inner "deciding" mechanism (perhaps along with "gut" or intuition) are what we normally perceive to be the agents of free will. But how free is the intellect? It has been uber trained, conditioned, programmed and pavloved to act in specific, complex ways (of and for which we are no longer fully conscious of the inner processes). Personally, I don't see huge amounts of ACTUAL free will -- though I concede its very easy to see a lot of imaginary free will i our decisions and actions. Perhaps you have transcended all outer and inner conditioning, training, programming, influences, culture, etc and make each decision in totally fresh and independent ways, free of any axioms or postulates as to how the world works, looking at each new problems and its solution outside the context of any history or other events. I have not achieved that state -- and frankly, not sure I care for it. I do agree with your attachment theme. With less attachment, and the ability to go with what is happening in each moment, not tied to needed, desired, or "out to be" outcomes, one is "freer". However, even that is not real Free Will, IMO. (Did I get that right mother/god/dictating entity? I seem to be hard of hearing this morning as you dictate my every word and impulse.) :) > 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/ >
