On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Why not. That's the compatibilist view of 'free will' and that's
> apparently why Sam Harris disagrees with compatibilism: he defines 'free
> will' to be *conscious* authorship of decisions.
I think that is what is meant by typical defenders of free will too.
> In the course of a day almost all my decisions are made without conscious
> thought, like which keys to strike in typing the previous line. Earlier
> today I had to enter a computer generated random security code; I had to
> think about each character. So was the latter an exercise of free will and
> the former wasn't??
That's a good question for defenders of free will to answer. I think they
would say that you can always stop consciously your "unconscious will"
(that's one of the defences against Libet's experiments). However, Most of
the day we are not even conscious that we could exercise that kind of free
will, so ... I gues 99% of the time our decisions are not "free willed".
And it makes no difference, of course.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at