"The problem is that no account of causality leaves room for free will [...]" fourth paragraph. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harri ... 68804.html
Bam, it all falls right there.
Some other problems with his reasoning:
- Like most other people, he misses the concept of decision space
, and how that relates to free will.
- He thinks that the lack of intellect in certain decisions are equal with no free will. He fail to realize that choices are not only made at the intellectual level, but also the being level.
- He fails in the introduction of the article, with refuting the three points of others with nonsense. Such as claiming that a "soul-stuff" being real wouldn't change anything, thereby saying he assumes to know something that is really unknown to him.
- The choice of choice abstraction. It's meaningless to the concept of free will (and decision space), as it tries to change the definition of it. You can actually choose the reason for making a concrete choice, first you must be able to have two different models of making your choice, at the intellectual level. Instead of having two choices, you now have four potential choices. However, this is just expanding the decision space, the free will is just the same. Then you will say, one didn't choose which of the two reasoning models to go by. Because it's outside the awareness of the intellect
, means nothing to the existence of free will, sometimes a decision is taken at the being level, and then you may be aware of it, or not.
"I do not choose to choose what I choose. There's a regress here that always ends in darkness
." See? Stuck in the intellect (ignoring his firm belief that no account causality would allow free will; because that's close-mindedness and simple belief)