Hacker News Reader

> Ponder this.

Everything you're saying is old hat to anyone as familiar with the literature on free will and cognitive science as I am.

Nothing you are saying is in any way inconsistent with the view of free will I have been defending.

View on HN

Yes it is, because you are defining free will to be the illusion of choice, and that is not the common understanding of what free will means. You are intentionally misleading people who will read your comments about "free will" as a justification to continue believing free will actually exists.

I've responded to these invalid claims elsewhere. We simply disagree on these points, and I see no point in continuing to argue about them.

What is invalid about them? You claim free will exists. Yet if you admit "free will" is simply believing you have a choice when the underlying reality is that you don't actually have a choice, only the illusion of it, you are intentionally not admitting the truth which is your definition of free will is a LIE!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com