NK // Apr 29, 2015 at 11:43 am
I would also add that Sam Harris types don’t realize that they haven’t progressed from semantic arguments. You may define “free will” in a certain way and then explain it away/claim it doesn’t exist, but how do you know you’ve objectively defined “free will.” This is the problem with all claims of AI, consciousness, etc. It’s not clear if any of the parties are even coming up with adequate definitions, asking the right questions, etc.
The history of physics/mathematics should be a cautionary tale. Euclidean geometry was thought to capture the “true, objective” nature of geometry, but we all know how that turned out.
Good points here.
My take on free will is that the human frame is a like a car purchased with or without a certain feature. Even if without the slot is pre-manufactured (like the plug area for a radio on the dashborad). In the same way both human physical action, and man’s systems of ethics all presuppose the reality of free will. Humanity always acts as if free will were the case, spontaneously.