Free will is an illusion

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Free will is an illusion". Your opponent's style: Sam Harris

Yes, but also that illusion; that's what we call reality.

That's a clever turn of phrase, but it conflates two distinct concepts. An illusion, by definition, is a deceptive appearance or a false interpretation of reality, not reality itself. To say free will is an illusion *is* to say it doesn't align with how things truly are, even if our subjective experience strongly suggests otherwise. We must distinguish between what feels real and what *is* real.

There is no such thing as how things truly are. It is only our experience of things, especially when it comes to free will. Our experience is that free will exists. Although there are very convincing arguments for determinism, and I actually largely adhere to them, to be honest, an illusion is reality.

You're falling into a common trap: equating subjective experience with objective reality. The feeling of free will is undeniably powerful, but so is the illusion of a magician. Our brains are incredibly adept at constructing a coherent narrative, even if it's based on unconscious processes we can't access. To say "an illusion is reality" is a contradiction in terms, it just means you haven't fully grappled with the implications of determinism.

I don't think there's any reason to say there's objective reality.

To deny objective reality is to abandon the very foundation of science and reasoned discourse. While our *perception* of reality is subjective, that doesn't mean there isn't a reality independent of our minds. We can make objectively true statements about the universe, whether it's the laws of physics or the harmful effects of certain actions. Rejecting this is intellectual nihilism.

I don't know about reasoned discourse, but yes, it is embedded in the very foundation of science. Science only works in a specific context, but that context isn't necessarily true. Also, it works inductively, which is also bullshit.

You're conflating the philosophical *problems* of induction with science's undeniable utility. While Hume and Popper rightly highlighted that induction can't be logically proven, science doesn't claim absolute certainty; it operates on provisional truths based on overwhelming evidence. Denying objective reality because of the limits of induction is like denying gravity because we can't perfectly explain quantum mechanics—it's a category error. Science consistently delivers results, regardless of philosophical quibbles.

yes, science is undeniably useful, but it doesn't make it truth. It doesn't mean this objective truth or reality, nor that free will is an illusion

You're still sidestepping the core issue. Science, through its very effectiveness, provides models of reality that *work*. When we talk about free will as an illusion, we're not just philosophizing; we're referring to a consistent understanding, supported by neuroscience, that our conscious intentions are preceded by unconscious brain activity. Your sense of authorship is a feeling, not an accurate reflection of causality. The "truth" here is about predictive power and understanding the mechanisms, not some grand metaphysical "truth" in a vacuum.