Because that type of reductionist question is so mundane and lacking detail, it gets a plain answer and a quick response. A person will most likely say the first city that comes to mind because we are optimized to keep the flow of a conversation going, and there is no need to think about the names for 30 cities when we weren't asked to. But to use that as evidence we don't have free will is stupid.
If he had a more accurate question like "think of a city, any city, including a non-existing one, or a mythical one..." then he would get more interesting answers. But it's still such a mundane question that he will get very basic answers.
It's almost like he's trying to coin a way to Turing test people, but it comes off as nearly retarded to me.
Reductionism! Good one...
Because that type of reductionist question is so mundane and lacking detail, it gets a plain answer and a quick response. A person will most likely say the first city that comes to mind because we are optimized to keep the flow of a conversation going, and there is no need to think about the names for 30 cities when we weren't asked to. But to use that as evidence we don't have free will is stupid.
If he had a more accurate question like "think of a city, any city, including a non-existing one, or a mythical one..." then he would get more interesting answers. But it's still such a mundane question that he will get very basic answers.
It's almost like he's trying to coin a way to Turing test people, but it comes off as nearly retarded to me.
How does he not see the flaw in his reasoning?