Sam Harris' and Daniel Dennett's views on free will are almost identical in consequence imo

holy fuck i used the wrong word there. oops.

replace indescribable for indiscernible there

>If free will is defined as "the ability to choose between two actually possible to occur choices"
>Then I would argue free will exists.
That means you think the mind is a non-physical Unmoved Mover that is not subjected to causality.

To be able to choose between two possible choices goes against physics and requires you to be a literal God.

It's like saying that water running downhill could have chosen another direction under the exact same set of circumstances.

No, I believe the mind can perceive two (or many more) distinct future paths, the mind can simulate reality, the mind is a simulation (and more, multiple simulations),

The mind can take a minute, and simulate the causal events of what would occur using its memory, knowledge, and reason, and awareness of laws of physics and nature, to determine what would occur if choice A was chosen

Then the mind can do the same thing for what would occur if choice B was chosen,

The mind can be aware that choosing choice A is physically possible. The mind can be aware that choosing choice B is physically possible.

The mind can be aware that it is up to it, to choose choice A or choice B.

The minds awareness of its ability to choose either choice A or choice B, is free will.

The minds awareness and ability to move its contents and body to effect change inside and outside is its will,

The awareness that it is up to it to choose between A and B is its freedom.

You can cherry pick examples inwhich choice A and B (and C and D and E and F potentially... all sorts of nearly infinite combos of choices possible)

But for my stance, I would only need to provide a single example, that would prove, that free will, according to agreed upon definition, is possible.

Thank you friend. The 'Free Will VS. Determinism Debate' is very interesting as there are religious people who are either for Free Will or Determinism and non religious people for the same. Very interesting.

Mr. Harris, if there's no free will, whats the purpose of your book? In a world without free will nothing can change one's predetermined mind, so why bother? In fact, why bother arguing with anyone, ever, at all, if everything is set in stone and fated from the get-go?

Unless you're trolling, you have a seriously unsophisticated understanding of what a lack of free will entails. Lacking free will doesn't mean that we can't change our minds or have them changed, it doesn't negate the positive effects of motivation, etc. It's just that looking back at the decisions you did make in life, and all the beliefs you have formed, you can't say that you were "free" to do or believe other than what you did. In order to have been free there would have to have been a "you" that existed outside of the causal chains of the universe that had no cause itself. What happens in our conscious minds is just the end of a long chain of causality that completely determines what happens in our minds and that we have no control over.

>>>reddit

Tagore is the fucking man btw.

:3

i can use spoilers if you want :3

Harris thinks on the level of atoms and Dennett thinks on the level of people. "Free will" is not a concept that makes sense on the level of atoms. Atoms don't have wills, let alone free wills. You could say they are forced to do what they do by the laws of physics. But on the level of persons "free will" makes sense. Obviously people have wills. And as long as nobody is forcing them they have free wills. It doesn't make sense to say that people are forced to do something by the laws of physics because that's conflating two different levels.

Can't into basic metaphysical presuppositions of modern science or a basic understanding of neuroscience.

You sound retarded right now bro. You obviously don't even understand the basic issues surrounding this argument. You're literally suggesting the mind is a substance that exists independently of the physical universe or the causal laws that operate within it. If the mind can "freely choose", it's not subject to the same deterministic causal laws as the rest of the physical universe.

Basically, the idea is that if the "mind" is a product of the brain, and the brain is just a bunch of chemicals that behave solely according to the laws of chemistry (which ultimately reduce to the laws of physics), then the state of your brain, and ultimately your mind, is completely predetermined.

Iqbal is better though

A child at a shelter is choosing which dog to adopt, a black lab or a golden retriever. A year prior, the child was knocked over and bitten by a black lab, causing psychological trauma associated with black dogs. The child chooses to adopt the golden retriever. Was this choice "free"?

Yes, it's called cartesian concept of the mind which was and is a common view in philosophy. Philosophy of the mind is much more heterogeneous than posts like these would assume, there are 20 or so major views on the nature of the mind and the relationship of physical and metaphysical.
People who sprouted neuroscience in every post have little knowledge on the actual subject, as shown by how oblivious they are to the arguments against the mainstream determinism.
That said,cartesian conception of the mind has some serious problems and I personally look elsewhere.
And if the child chooses the black one that bit it?

>Atoms don't have wills
Explain double slit experiment then, pham

best video

youtube.com/watch?v=aAnlBW5INYg

It is assumed the child is not a masochist.

Yes?
If you're going to say that it wasn't, you have to prove first that there was exact 0% chance of a child choosing a black dog. If there's even a 0.0000000000000000000000000001% of the child choosing the black dog, that means he has its own agency and choice, i.e. free will

Try responding to my points mong

*mang

Start reading my post you responded to, when you come across a point you do not believe is correct, quote that point, and explain what is incorrect about it. I have read your conflated obfuscated red herrings sitting on strawmen posted on expanded goal posts.

My initial points stand justifiably unwavering, quote them and directly attack them. I understand all the arguments you can possibly have, I know why they are wrong, slow and steady, one by one, attack my points... that is, if you can.

Try this experiment:

"I know that I can physically lift my right arm"

"I know that I can physically lift my left arm"

"Right now neither arm is being lifted, but if I wanted to, I bet I could lift my right arm, or my left arm...heck I bet I could lift both at the same time... heck I bet I could potentially lift them at varying velocities.... heck I bet I could lift them while also moving my hands and fingers in 1 particular way... heck I bet I could lift my right arm, or my left arm, or both, 1 mph or 2 mph or ..... while also moving my hands and/or my fingers in a slightly different particular way..... heck a slightly different particular way from both of those ways..... heck I bet if I wanted to, I know I can physically spin, so if while choosing which and how to raise my arms, I know I can also choose to whether I will spin or not... heck even choose which direction... heck even at what velocity.... heck I could even whistle a tune while I make all these choices.... heck I physically know many different tunes desu.... heck I know I can stand and spin on 1 leg, maybe I will choose what leg to spin on.... but wait..... theres a problem...... who is going to force me to make all these choices of which I am aware I have the power to make...... right now I am standing still with the awareness of all these choices I can freely make.... why is nothing happening...... heck... why is nothing happening..... still nothing is happening..... why..... why is nothing outside of my awareness determining what choices I make....

right now, I can raise my left hand or my right hand.... or both.... I know this... I know this... I know I can.... I know the choice is mine..... here I go... I am behind a curtain and you cannot see me, I will make my choice...

.... ok, I made my choice..

"BRO, IF YOU LIFTED YOUR RIGHT ARM BEHIND THE CURTAIN.... THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE WAY, IN THAT EXACT MOMENT OF ETERNAL HISTORY OF REALITY, THAT YOU COULD HAVE POSSIBLY RISEN YOUR LEFT ARM INSTEAD BRO.... ITS JUST IMPOSSIBLE.... YOU COULD HAVE SPEND YEARS, OR WEEKS, OR SECONDS, OR DECADES, DEBATING... DRAWING ELABORATE SCHEMA... LEFT OR RIGHT.... LEFT OR RIGHT... LEFT OR RIGHT..... BUT SOMEHOW... YOU CANT EXPLAIN THIS... SOME REASON... SOME DETERMINED REASON.... WHATEVER YOU WOULD HAVE END UP CHOSING, MUST HAVE BEEN WHAT YOU CHOSE..... YOU CANT CHOOSE ALL CHOICES.... WE KNOW THAT... SO WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE, YOU COULDNT HAVE CHOSEN ANYTHING ELSE.... BECAUSE WHAT YOU CHOSE AND WHAT YOU CHOOSE IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU CHOSE AND CHOOSE, EVERYTIME.... "

"But I know that I can lift my right arm, or my left arm.... I am aware that both are physically possible... lifting right, lifting left, lifting right, lifting left.... see I can from this moment of inaction, choose either... you are just hung up on the fact that because the situation requires one choice to be made, we are aware there can only be one certainty, because I had to choose one or the other, you think I couldnt possibly choose the other... I am certain, in arbitrary or not situations such as this,, that I could have chosen the left or the right... because it is so simple to just choose the left or the right... we can do this trial a million times... I can choose all right. I can choose all left. I can choose left right left right left right... I can choose right left right left right left.... I am aware all the possibilities are possible. In the moment of inaction, and my awareness of the possibilities, the choice is freely up to me to choose."

Everything is absolutely determined, besides minds that are aware their awareness can control at least some of their thoughts and actions.