tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post4419062845809928424..comments2023-07-05T10:01:57.835-05:00Comments on Ciceronianus; causidicus: Something Regarding Free Willciceronianushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6246444662492868163.post-19412369008287304032012-12-18T10:39:04.788-06:002012-12-18T10:39:04.788-06:00I haven't read Harris's book on free-will,...I haven't read Harris's book on free-will, but only listened to his lecture about the book. My problem with Harris's lecture is that in the lecture he seems to assume that free-will is Absolute Free-Will often associated with the Libertarianism position (i.e. agent causation). He immediately dismisses compatibalists' attempt to redefine freewill as no better than how theologians try to redefine God. I thought this dismissal was too quick and rash, yet Sam Harris seems too sure of himself that he made the right move. <br /><br />I think it's unfortunate that Harris does not even try to familiarize himself with the philosophical literature of free-will, he simply went straight to neuroscience to find the answer, but even neuroscience is having some difficulties interpreting Libet's experiment. Philosophers like Alfred Melee and Daniel Dennett were involved in interpreting whether the Libet experiment disproves free-will, you even have some neuroscientist with background training in philosophy who argued that Libet's experiment doesn't provide enough evidence against free-will. <br /><br />While I should read his book, from what I gather from his lecture it seems that Harris is complacent with the idea of free-will as "Absolute free-will" rather than trying to consider variety definitions of free-will that is found in the philosophical literature. I feel like this is a big mistake on Harris's part....Philonoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07636773211085335941noreply@blogger.com