Michael Shermer explains why Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky are WRONG about free will. 

Randomness is not free will.

This is a really bad representation of the compatiblist position.

Technically, if we travel back in time, we would make the same decision as before but only if we traveled back to the exact time we made the previous decision. If we traveled back 2 seconds earlier, a different decision is possible because of unpredictable chaoticism. It’s not linear; if we went back 4 seconds earlier instead of 2, the chances of making a different decision doesn’t double but may increase ten times. So for example, if you went back in time to yesterday at the outdoor restaurant, to 5 seconds before you ordered chocolate ice cream for dessert, there could be the aroma of various foods swirling through the air (in a chaotic unpredictable way) and we wouldn't be able to predict, predetermine, or preclude the possibility of you smelling a certain aroma causing you to choose a flavor different from chocolate.

Compatibilism is so wack. This is pure gibberish

I wish, for once, that experts discussing free will would define it. Coherently. And if we have free will, doesn't that mean that we are miraculously able to do things that run in place of the normal worldly course of everything happening due to immediately antecedent conditions? How do we get around those conditions? ("Here, a miracle occurs.") Also, where on the evolutionary scale do creatures besides man stop having free will? My cat will choose between two foods I put out, so it would appear she can make a decision between two options and probably has as much free will as many people in certain situations. On the other hand, if I put two goldfish foods in different ends of the tank and my goldfish clearly shows a preference for one, is it exercising free will or simply following a primitive law of attraction? Single cell organisms may choose to head toward a light source. A plant may bend toward a window, too. Why is this question always framed about mankind?

I think Sam makes a much better case for his side

Michael clearly doesn't understand what Sam is saying in relation to free will. Even if Michael's point of "nothing will happen exactly the same if we rewind time and play it back", it would just mean that the person making decisions in the new/current situation would be subject to the same process of non-free-will in that new context.

Please have Thomas W. Clark on. He speaks on determinism a lot. Plus his essay, "Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity" is very interesting (Sam Harris did a podcast episode on it - The Paradox of Death).

What is this guy talking about, he doesn't understand determinism at all? He is arguing against something that Sam never said.

Shermer is consistent; he's wrong about virtually every viewpoint he takes.

Wow that is so funny he totally didn't say anything that makes sense. Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky said if you where born exactly like another person, with exact same outcome. Then your actions would be the same. This is just a hypothesis. They never said this can happen! "You can learn from your actions" Yes of course you can! Who said we couldn't He just doesn't get it. Let me put it this way. Let say you deside to buy two groceries on the supermarket the other day and when you came out. You bought 5. If I asked you If this was your free will, most likely you would say yes. But let say this store has now a very clever AI, that analyses every single purchase you have ever done in your life in that store. What kind of food you prefure, what is your favorite chocolate. On a exact time of the day, the AI can determine what you most likely will choose in this store. And people don't realise, that our memory is very poor. We also get distracted all the time, so let say in that supermarket. You stood in line, and desided to buy a snickers bar near the counter. You don't remember that chilhood memory when you tried it that lovely day. And all those emotions with it. You visited your grandmother and she gave it to you, you just FEEL connected to that bar, you grab for it. And let say this AI can predetermine with a very high accuracy what you will buy and not buy on a specific part of the day, of the week, of the year, so then you will get discounts directed to your favorite items. Why do you think they have snickers bar near the waiting line. The way supermarkets are build is a big science. And the more connected we are to technology the easier we can be targeted to certain types of products in any given moment. Before you enter the store. Then the question is, do you really have free will then?. When someone can predict what you will do beforehand? To say you have free will, is like saying you don't get affected by commercials. The truth is, of course we do. We just don't realise it.

This is very easy: if you assess and conclude you have free will, then you do. If you believe you do not, then you do not. How can you assign thoughts to another person? Sam Harris and Sapolsky BELIEVE they have reasoned it out...they have not. Ever thought that SOME have free will and others do not???

The fact that you sit there wearing headphones to me means none of what you say is legitimate, Your bla bla bla is meaningless. I say all this because my prefrontal cortex thus did process the whole presentation,