--- 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. > 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?
Because he does not have the free will to decide not to? It just feels as if he does. > > 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/ >
