[MoSattler]

> For, there is clearly bound up in such arguments the assumption that those being reasoned with are free to change their minds based on the merits (or demerits) of the evidence presented.

I understand that the author is arguing sincerely, but certain statements raise concerns about whether they fully grasp the concept of determinism.

Why is it necessary to assume the existence of free will for a person to be capable of evaluating new evidence and have a subsequently revised opinion based on this new information?

[zikzak]

One thing I use to help to understand this: when you watch a movie you nothing about, there are things in it that surprise you, delight you, and seem new despite the fact that the movie was made long before.

I feel a consequence of determinism is that time is a matter of perception. Something we use to understand our environment. But, really, we are players in a movie that we are also watching.

The feeling of deciding is no different than the feeling of coercion. It's centered around ego. We evolved to feel like we make decisions. That's it, that's all. The deciding, though, is done.

Another example. I play for my son movies featuring pizza. I ask if he remembers how good the pizza was last weekend. I suggest we have it for lunch but find we are out of leftover pizza.

Is it free will when he asks for pizza for dinner? Or did his environment make that choice inevitable?