people have free will

PRO: If we are puppets, who is the puppet master? God? But Sam Harris is an atheist.CON: I think you may have taken that out of context. It means puppet to causality! It means that you are free as long as you do not care how your decision was made (free will or not) I think that's what he meant anyways!I am trying to say hat this is a really bad analogy. Our choices are the result of brain activity. But at the same time, our brain activity is the result of choices. Some of these choices are deliberate. I may decide to think about something. Some of the choices are made unconsciously, but they are still a consequence of deliberate choices. For example, I may deliberately choose to avoid eating meat because I do not want animals to be harmed. But, having years been on a vegetarian diet, I will skip the meat dishes on the buffet without consciously thinking about it. Still, not eating meat was a conscious decision. But it was not made at the time of the buffet, but a long time ago. In the puppet analogy, not only does the puppet master control the puppet. But the puppet also controls the puppet master. So we have basically two puppet masters controlling each other. In other words, they are completely intertwined. In this way, our brain and us are intertwined intimately. We cannot separate one from the other. We control the brain, and the brain controls us. The brain and me are one and the same. CON: If you knew that all of your choices were simply an event that you were merely witness to, it would imply that you are bound to past causes without free choices! Simply not agreeing is not evidence against this proposal! Your argument is that the choice to go left or right is "Free will" I'm saying it is merely making a choice with extreme limitations while assuming it was made freely! This is an illusion! Your choice was not made by "you" but external factors that you are unaware of!I am not only a witness to my choices. I actually made those choices, and those choices is part of who I am. Knowing that my choices are the result of previous causes does not limit my freedom a bit, because I control most of those previous choices. Those previous causes are brain activity, and I and my brain are intertwined. CON: Sam perfectly illustrates this by pointing out that what "you" are is subject to debate! You see a conscious decision made by "you" and manifested into reality. But you fail to see how you were just part of an event that made "you" when you made your choice!I suppose it is subject to debate, so let's debate it. The meaning of "me" is perhaps best explained in existentialism [1]:"A central proposition of Existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the most important consideration for individuals is the fact that they are an individual—an independently acting and responsible, conscious being ("existence")—rather than what labels, roles, stereotypes, definitions, or other preconceived categories the individual fits ("essence"). The actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called their "true essence" instead of there being an arbitrarily attributed essence others use to define them. Thus, human beings, through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a meaning to their life.""It is often claimed in this context that people define themselves, which is often perceived as stating that they can wish to be something—anything, a bird, for instance—and then be it. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would constitute an inauthentic existence. Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that people are (1) defined only insofar as they act and (2) that they are responsible for their actions."One of the core ideas in existentialism is that we create our own identity by the choices we make. We decide what we stand for and what we do not stand for. We decide what we feel responsible for and what we do not feel responsible for. Harris, and others who think like him, does not think he is responsible for anything. After all, it is "external" things that determine his behavior and he is merely a unparticipating witness. So Harris chooses to define himself to be very small in this sense. And yet, despite how he defines himself, I am sure he has pride, and feels responsibility etc. The notions of identity, responsibility and free will are intimately intertwined. Even if we believe that all our choices are consequences of prior events, this is just a lame excuse for not taking responsibility for your actions. IN the same way, a CEO takes responsible for everything that happens in his company, even things he has no direct control over (because usually, he has some indirect control over it).PRO:Sometimes we make a choice that goes against the path of the least resistance.CON:I can see why you would think that. However, I think we are talking about "counter choices" Where you make a decision in opposition to the path most traveled. This does not invite "free will" to create a new path. A new path is taken but out of opposition! Even your choice to take that path was all part of a chain of causes where you simply react! You may not be witness to why you chose to carve the new path of least resistance but it was not made freely!But this sounds like circle reasoning. If I choose a path of least resistance, I have no free choice because that's the obvious choice.But if I choose not the path of least resistance, I have no free choice because I am making oppositionist, and that the only oppositionist choice. But we are forgetting that I have the choice of being an oppositionist or not. PRO (original definition of free will):the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibilityCON: That is what you, Dennet, and Harris and I imagine when you say "free will"! We are not lost on this concept. This is also the biblical concept. It means that you have free conscious control to be judged for your actions! Even if we find a sense of justice in this idea. It is an illusion. It is cohesive as morality. Where no objective morality actually exists.Dennett has studied the notion of "free will" extensively and he certainly did not just borrow his notion from religion. I do not believe that there is such a thing as absolute morality. We are responsible for most of our actions. How such actions are judged is an entirely different question. PRO: I just made the free choice to respond to your arguments.CON: I do appreciate that. It is most obviously not a free decision. Many factors contributed. Many we can even see (like me asking you) What else were you going to do? Ignore me? Still an external factor made that decision. You just watched your body type it You say many factors contributed to it, but you only mention 2. The first one is that you asked me. But clearly, even if you asked me I could have chosen not to respond. The other factor you mentioned is that my body typed it. But that is not really an external factor. And even if you would consider it an external factor, it was I who "ordered" my body to type it.CON: Here's a formula I want to try out! "Free will"= dividing by zero! It is illogical. It does not make sense in the model of our observable universe! I disagree. It makes perfect sense. One only has to define it in a sensible way, and I think I did.I thank my opponent for this debate. To all the voters I ask the question: Who are you going to vote for? For the person, who thinks you are all puppets, or for me, who think you are responsible people who make free choices.It is your free choice -- really!!![1] http://en.wikipedia.org...