patrick.net

He's great, but his point on free will (that it is an illusion) is, well, not wrong, but misleading. We do have free will.

Heraclitusstudent says

We do have free will.

Define free will and then prove that it exists.

Ok, I would say free will means that at each point in time, "we" make a choice of what to do next.
The question is what is "we" in this sentence. What factors are considered in what we do next: our neurons connections, based on our genes, our experience, our knowledge so far. i.e. everything we consider to be "we" on a day to day basis.

Heraclitusstudent says

At each point in time, "we" make a choice of what to do next.

So does a computer. Does that have free will?

You have not defined free will. If you cannot come up with a meaningful, unambiguous definition, then your statement "we do have free will" is meaningless.

Harris' approach to issues is facinating.

Extremely sharp and articulate fellow.

Dan8267 says

So does a computer. Does that have free will?

The key concept here is that of layers. This is what Harris is missing.

On the layer of the processor or VM, a computer doesn't have a choice. Harris looks at the brain at the physical layer and says we have no choice.
At the conscious level (or software equivalent) a computer can have a choice and make a choice. Indeed even a chess program looks at possible alternatives and makes a choice.
This what Harris is missing. This is not a semantic trick. This actually what the words "choice" and "possible alternative" mean.
The contention that we have to violate the laws of physics to claim we are free to choose one way or an other doesn't make sense. This would only make sense if looked only at the physical layer.
Free will happens in us and could happen in computers but on a higher layer.

Also reentrant processes lead to chaotic systems. We know that at a physical level even a simple 3 body system with newton laws lead to solutions that are discontinuous after sufficient time. i.e. a tiny change in the start condition can lead to major change after enough time. So it goes for the brain. Harris makes it sound like because it is a deterministic physical process only one thing can happen. This may be true but this is totally misleading. Based on what we actually know of someone, virtually anything can happen at the physical layer.
On the "conscious" layer however, choices are very controlled: by logic, by knowledge, by preferences including very personal one. So the right layer to consider this, once again, is not the physical layer.