6 1

Can I tell a lie? (see full description)

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.

  • 13 votes
  • 1 vote
Word 8 Feb 13

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.




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.

Not convinced that we, our thoughts are strictly "observer". We perhaps most likely have not chosen to aquire information, knowledge, we hear because our ears are designed to receive sound 24/7. We can hold information recieved and from that point while hold the information in conscious thought make a decision about that aspect of activity.

You say, "We presume authorship of our thoughts and activity but are merely watching things go down as an adjacent spectator."

At a baseball game, there are spectators: spectators catch fly balls.

Throwing a ball(knowledge)at a person that is not expecting the ball(knowledge), they catch. Then, they decide to throw it back (or give a response. )

The ball(knowledge) being in their hands initially was not their choice.

But to say after the ball(knowledge) was recieved, any thing done with the ball(knowledge) is not by choice of the person because they did not have a "wanting" cause in the first place to receive to ball?

What to do with the ball (knowledge) when recieved unexpectedly could be a limitation for choosing what to do afterwards, but still not seeing a lack of free will deciding choice.

The ball(knowledge)is in your hands no matter your choice or not. What are you going to do, now? Are you going to say, it is not for your free will choice to make because it is not your fault (causation) the ball got their?

Some small spark of brain activity prior to awareness of a decision is the causation for the decision prior to our awareness of a decision? So we are saying, blame the decision on the spark that sparked before I knew it sparked with the decision already made?

I am thinking, I am standing at a fork in the road. At this fork, I observe 2 options and "think" I have a choice.

I am unaware of the semi truck (brain activity) behind my eye balls. All of the sudden I am hit by the semi truck and my observations forced down one option?

I understand addiction. I have smoked cigarettes for a few years, but have wanted to quit.

I can understand the "addiction force" on my thoughts causing me to keep smoking. I have even been poor, homeless under a bridge with no money to buy cigarettes and still go looking for ashtrays to get cigarettes not fully smoked left by others.

I have wanted to quit for several years, yet, the chemical reaction of the addiction force causes my brain to keep thinking I need a cigarette, but the part of my thoughts does not seem strong enough to block out the addiction force of thought.

So, I can understand, with in thinking, a force that is stronger or at least has affect on thoughts that I don't want to smoke.

I know I could stop, and many people have. Yet, the fighting of the thoughts wanting a cigarette has been easier to appease than to think thru not smoking.

At some point most people are socialized and cognitively complex enough to be expected to act responsibly. Illegal acts done after great deliberative effort are judged more harshly than those deemed heat of the moment. So that a brain produces our thoughts and behaviors doesn’t always absolve us

@Scott321 I asked another guy in another conversation into "no free will" about:

now if you could just train your brain spark to do what you wanted.

Is there any research to go about training a brain spark to do what you want it to do?

If it is figured out by science that we have no control over our choices, should science figure out how to get them in our control?

@Scott321 just think of all the murders that could be prevented if brain spark training was possible. Then people could control the brain spark before it made them kill someone.


Anybody who answers this poll is a bigger liar than someone who leaves it blank.

Makes sense, how does leaving it blank make one a liar?

@Word Everyone lies.

@barjoe yes, but the point is about "free will".

Did you read the full description or only see the 2 poll questions?

@Word I read out but I guess I didn't understand it. I reread it. If I said I understand it now, that would be a lie. No offense.


I always lie. Even this true statement is a lie. Now figure this out logically.

Conflation, true lie. Oxymoron.


Folded Mexican Pizza j/k that is technically a taco. This is a lie "marshmallow"

I had researched the word few years ago.

Interesting if you're into that sort of information.

This meaning of the Spanish word "taco" is a Mexican innovation, but in other dialects "taco" is used to mean "wedge; wad, plug; billiard cue; blowpipe; ramrod; short, stocky person; [or] short, thick piece of wood." In this non-culinary usage, the word "taco" has cognates in other European languages, including the French word "tache" and the English word "tack (nail)."[citation needed]

According to one etymological theory, the culinary meaning of "taco" derives from its "plug" meaning as employed among Mexican silver miners, who used explosive charges in plug form consisting of a paper wrapper and gunpowder filling.[1]



This is a lie. The required word is "Burrito ". I just lied.

Word Level 8 Feb 13, 2021

After considering, I will say: The required word is "Taco".

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:576238
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.