I’m not sure if he’s a determist or not. Or something more complex. But of course you’re correct that people believe in free will in the incompatibilist sense.
It’s not a valid, logical concept, that’s what incompatibalist determinists are saying.
Good point, Moreno.
And as I already explained, their arguing against a ghost. Meanwhile the rest of the world utilizes the term free will in a manner that actually makes sense.
Ok, WWIII, you’re being completely inconsistent now. First you said incompatibilists derived this definition and that nobody believes it, and now you’re saying that you know that people do believe it. So…well…my point is pretty clear now. I hope you see it. You were incorrect.
Yes I agree but regardless I think determinists can make amends with the quantum findings and revise their attack against free will.
Intuitive sense, anyway.
Have you not seen the countless Free Will Vs Determinism threads, mr Angry? Most people, most people, when talking about these two views, use an incompatibilist definition, on both sides of the argument. That’s what’s used. The other definition of free will has nothing to do with determinism. If most people used that one, there wouldn’t be any “Free Will Vs Determinism” threads. There’d be no reason. That title for a thread would make as much sense as a “Christianity Vs Fractals” thread – the two topics have nothign to do with each other.
so, in short, incompatibilists did not just make up some new definition of Free Will to argue against, people, en masse, believe in this definition of Free Will, this is the classical definition of the term, the most frequent one, and the only reason compatibilists exist is because they came up with a new definition that is not mutually exclusive with determinism.
I have seen them. I wouldn’t say most compatibilists utilize the incompatibilist definition however. I think most of the time it goes by ignored though. As I’ve stated in another thread, the origin of the term free will never began as what incompatibilists have attempted to revise it to be. Free will as far as we know as its origins in religious doctrines and scriptures and meant god gave us the ability to choose, he didn’t force us to act anyway. Not that nature and laws of physics didn’t force us however. I suspect determinists in an effort to weed out this religious doctrine that god provided us the ability to choose is a conceptual battle of religious thought vs atheistic sentiment. Regardless I would surmise that many people simply don’t understand what free will was and is. If you utilize a definition that is illogical and pawn it off as the actual working definition that’s used by all, all the time, without thinking about what the definition implies and how it is illogical, then you’re simply guilty of not making any sense, regardless if you’re a determinist or a compatibilist.
If it were what does it matter?
This doesn’t really go against what I stated either.
See post on origin of free will as religious. Classical definition? I don’t know what that exactly means.
This is retarded, we both disagree with the incompatibilist definition of free will, everything else is just arguing over which definitions are feasible and which one was the original one, which doesn’t really matter. It’s actually kind of refreshing that some people out there think the incompatibilist definition is just so ludicrous that nobody could believe it, because it is really ludicrous and it’s a shame that people are illogical enough believe it. And let there be no doubt: people do.
For one thing, my OP contained the central premise that “It’s not our intuitions, but the account of them, that presents us with the ‘dilemmas’ that irony reflects”. You took issue with this OP when ultimately you have completely aligned yourself with it. Interesting.
For another thing, siding with intuition is philosophically suspicious. I don’t have a fundamental problem with it, but it’s suspicious.
Well I didn’t have an issue with what you consider your OP’s central premise. While my intuition may have led me to my stance I don’t proceed and discuss philosophy based on intuition, but always after further in depth analysis, pondering, research, whatever.
The incompatibilist definition I would imagine is and always was utilized by a large minority of the population, as we all know throughout history people are not up to speed on philosophy. Today most people don’t utilize it that way, but it is utilized that way in philosophical discussions. But looking at the big picture, they are the minority. Free will is utilized constantly in law and there is no implication that it must be the incompatibilist definition, it always implies the definition I provided you, as well as Webster’s. “Free from certain types of restraints,” Does not mean free from deterministic laws of nature.
God you’re dense, you didn’t even respond to what you quoted and then you made a point completely irrelevant to anything anybody said. I didn’t say it meant that buddy, what are you talking about?
But you haven’t presented any case for free will at all. Your intellect comes down on the side of determinism, and then you’re just stating that this is, somehow, also “free will”.