I'm going to start with an obvious precautionary point. If this topic becomes about the 'problem' of free will then it will have missed the point of this topics folder entirely. The problematising of free will is misleading both because it is unclear as to whether there could ever be a solution at all and because in giving it form one ends up drawing the boundary lines that would inevitably, (pun wholly intended), lead to your own response. This point, to be made may need an example or two so here goes... If for instance you separate the will from action to such an extent that you can says alongside Schopenhauer "...you cannot will what you will" even do you can will and act then the very act of separation makes the point for you. This also happens from the other side with Dennett, who is quite willing to say that the free will that matters is the action involved in the choice itself, one chooses to 'avoid' or not, the future cannot be known or changed under either determinacy or indeterminacy. It is simply what happens but you choose it at that time and indeterminacy insofar as it would leve you with equal options none of which better than the other, to to the complete absence of veridical use in predictive future guessing. You would be forced to be "Buridan's ass" without knowing what are actions would cause at the moment of choice. Note that this has the 'Will' in a completely different place. Neither system actually allows you to 'will what you Will' but the placement as to where it counts as freedom is what changes the point. (I have deliberately chosen similar so far). Sam Harris et al on the other hand want to remove any separating process, either you know everything that leads to your choice in minute detail or it is not free choice/will leading to the conclusion that since it is a fact that the brain has started before you openly decide to do the action of the decision then it is not an act of free will. In this case the moment of choice is entirely not yours and so Free will has disappeared even on that level.(How this is any different is again...apparently a matter of the emphasized boundary line or rather on whether it is drawn at all). I can hear the response, the uproar, that I have talked so long and not mentioned the more metaphysical versions involving God etc. We shall of course talk about any form of systematization versus individual choice here. We could mention...Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, et al I shall need to post again, my caution stopped me from offering an opinion in the space provided.
Note that this has the 'Will' in a completely different place. Neither system actually allows you to 'will what you Will' but the placement as to where it counts as freedom is what changes the point. (I have deliberately chosen similar so far).
Sam Harris et al on the other hand want to remove any separating process, either you know everything that leads to your choice in minute detail or it is not free choice/will leading to the conclusion that since it is a fact that the brain has started before you openly decide to do the action of the decision then it is not an act of free will. In this case the moment of choice is entirely not yours and so Free will has disappeared even on that level.(How this is any different is again...apparently a matter of the emphasized boundary line or rather on whether it is drawn at all).
I can hear the response, the uproar, that I have talked so long and not mentioned the more metaphysical versions involving God etc. We shall of course talk about any form of systematization versus individual choice here. We could mention...Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, et al I shall need to post again, my caution stopped me from offering an opinion in the space provided.