My recent looking into Illogical atheist Sam Harris's discussion against free will has had me thinking about it a lot.
I posted the other poll and got a few responses and some opposition to my premise.
I thought of this idea and curious about response and feedback.
Read the entire instructions and make sure you fully understand or do not proceed.
The required word is "TACO". What I am wanting is a response that is a blantant, deliberate, knowing lie. I would want a deliberate, well thought out, with plenty of time for you to recant or change your mind typed answer. Premeditated lie and an admission that you lied. Lie as to what the "required word" is. Type in a response giving time for you to stop before sending "The required word is [ type a word other than taco ]."
Are you under duress to lie? Is anyone forcing you to complete this request? Are you aware that after completing this request you will have written an intentional lie? For the purposes of the request here, are you aware there is no punishments intended for making the lie? After making the lie, you are free to correct your statement in another post and type the correct phrase [The required word is "Taco".] Are you willing to admit that you intended to lie, with the intentions of admitting the lie afterwards? Do you understand this is not intended to promote any other lies especially not associated with this request.
Can anyone tell me it is absolute that no free will exist in your experience? And, why you think this.
As a foot note, It has been written "God cannot lie". Either you are proving you are not that God or that statement is incorrect if you are that God and lie here.
I’m not a fan of Harris, but he is making the reduction of perceived volition toward antecedent brain activity. He goes further back in time than the famous Libet experiment with more powerful brain scanning tech. This antecedence is near impossible to dispute. All the activity asked for in the OP depends on brain activity outside our awareness. We presume authorship of our thoughts and activity but are merely watching things go down as an adjacent spectator.
I would say “free will” is a vague or ambiguous term anyway. Is its loss something to be mourned?
The antecedence of brain activity explored by experiment though applies to simple on the spot behavior. We can ruminate or reflect over long spreads of time before making a decision. We can put off the impulse for one marshmallow now for two later. We can exercise self-control. We can convey or conceal information from others. These are points made by Daniel Dennett. We can also reflect upon what is desirable to desire (following Harry Frankfurt). We are not entirely compelled to act nor passive tumbleweeds subject to banal impulse. And contra Harris attempt at a sorites, it is not tumors all the way down (based on loose analogy of Charles Whitman). Dennett was right to counter Harris extrapolating from dysfunction. We can be negatively free from external constraints and positively to do things too, but the term free will often trades on ambiguity. We aren’t free in the sense of thinking and behavior not coming at physiological cost or in the libertarian ghostly sense. I would prefer to focus on the competencies we do have that compatibilists bundle as free will.