13 Feb 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI agree, but you haven't answered the question.
The levels we function upon are, indeed, many.
But to claim that our wills are not free is essentially saying we lack a will altogether:
I agree that that is his claim. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I am a compatibilist whereas he his clearly addressing people with a different view of free will.
he makes the repeated case how anything dependent upon anything else is somehow no longer free. Is the lamp independent of the table, or must it be identified by the thing which holds it aloft?
Are you a compatibilist? If so, you should have no objections to Sam Harris claims as he is not arguing against you.
To highlight a subconscious act as anecdotal evidence of one's inability to freely choose is sophomoric at best.
To be honest, I don't understand your objections. Do you consider a subconscious act to be an exercise of free will? You are being extremely vague about what your own understanding of free will is.
I asked several questions for clarification, which you seem to have avoided. Please answer them:
When you say 'not determined by' do you mean that human thought necessarily involves random inputs for free will to exist? So if for example the choice of city in Sam Harris's question was determined by life experience, then that would not be free will, but if it was determined by a truly random quantum dynamic effect in the brain, then that would be free will?
Even better: consider whether or not you're going to answer the question.
A free person is able to make the determination.
Fine, we'll go with that.
How does this 'free person' make the determination? Consciously/subconsciously? Deterministically, non-deterministically?
We have free will in the face of many obstacles.
Thats a non-answer. Answer the question.
I think part of the problem is the over-think; the concept isn't really all that complex.
Well you seem to be having great difficulty answering very simple questions on the topic.
When someone of Harris' obvious learning puts forth such erudite sounding arguments to say something so patently absurd and glaringly self-contradictory, what was once crystal clear and obvious becomes muddled and confusing.
You are yet to point out and explain a single self-contradictory or patently absurd statement of his. You just keep repeating that it is so, but can't seem to explain why you think it so.
Here's another issue which appears to elude Harris' thinking.
His claim is based upon the timing of measurable activities within the brain, relative to the supposed appearance of the thought upon the stage.
Is he sure he's seeing the precursor and not the result?
I am not sure what you are saying here. Please rephrase it.
My understanding is that Sam Harris is arguing that the sub-conscious makes decisions before the consciousness is aware of it, and the decisions are then passed up to the consciousness. Are you questioning this or not?