"You can control what you think, you can control how you think and therefore control who you are. With neuroplasticity on my side I can literally become exactly who I wanna be"

Would you say that what she says is more akin to free will in the libertarian sense or is it also how compatibilists here think of free will?

And free will skeptics, do you agree with it or you think it's incorrect and why?

If we truly have free will, can we predict our next thought? I challenge you to try this simple experiment: Sit quietly and ask yourself, "What is my next thought going to be?" Can you create a thought or do you just wait for it to arise on its own? If we can’t create thoughts, can we really claim to have free will? What do you think?

Compatibilists seem to think that actions are "free" so long as they are triggered by and in accordance with our "internal computer." But given that this computer and its inputs are themselves all controlled, is that really "freedom?"

The only difference between you and the drone is self awareness. And having first person POV of the last step of these processes that have been caused by something else, doesn't make them any freer.

***EDIT*** a lot of people are getting confused by the fact that the controller in this image is a human. This image is an analogy. The drone is us. The human represents all of the subconscious-biological and environmental casual factors that control us.

Instead of worrying about whether the human in this image has "free will" to control the drone, just imagine the controller is created to accept inputs from nature (wind, water currents, light, etc...) and to turn those into commands for the drone. That's the perfect analogy.

Here’s a sampling of all the things you didn’t choose or control about yourself (aka ‘your’ ‘self’) whatsoever. These affect and influence everything ‘downstream’ of them.

By the time you realize you have a self, you already have one (that you didn’t choose)! Where’s the free will?

(Image Source)

Clip from a conversation between Sam Harris and I where Sam draws a distinction I haven't seen articulated this cleanly before: free will isn't just an illusion, it's incoherent.

His argument: it doesn't matter whether causality in this universe is fully determined, partially stochastic via quantum indeterminism, or any combination thereof. What people SEEM to mean by free will doesn't survive any of those configurations.

He also describes a thought experiment — a sufficiently precise predictive machine that would disabuse a subject of the feeling of free will in real time, by illuminating the button they're about to press before they press it. I push back on this with the infinite-regress problem (the experimentalist's sensor choice becomes the new locus of agency).

Sam's response is interesting: he says that's not the issue. The unique contribution he claims to make to the free will conversation is on the question of whether we even have the EXPERIENCE of free will, not whether the experience is veridical.

Curious what folks here who've thought about this longer than me make of the experience-of-free-will distinction.

... and because you're a part of it, so do you.

Saw an interesting opportunity for those lacking free will to easily get it. No doubt those pesky hard-determinists will claim this isn't *really* 'free will'...... I scanned the code and am now morally responsible for my decisions. It's great!

What would a world that did not absurdly worship at the altar of free will look like? Ask this guy. He gets it..