(March 16, 2012 at 6:16 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Honestly Genkaus, I think we do. I think the only person confused is yourself, and I don't want to offend. (Hell with free will, we're all confused to a certain extent).
Your definitions comply with determinism, but no matter what you do, you still make a non-sequitor leap to free will because the "agent" appears to make a choice.
You have not successfully defined how the agent is different from the illusion of it, and I know we're starting to retread old ground. So I don't expect you to respond beyond what you have done already.
I'm starting to suspect a level of argumentum ad temperantiam. Taking a position between the two sharply contrasting views yet with no evident veracity of the claim.
We are retreading old ground.
If there was an unjustified leap from the determinism-compatible premises (the definition) to free-will, then that would suggest a position where free-will is incompatible with determinism. Mine is not such a position.
As for the illusory aspect, I've said that if an agent is considered as an illusory entity (or supernatural) then free will would be illusory (or supernatural) as well. The issue of the agent's metaphysical existence is still open to question (i.e. what constitutes the self?).
Finally, the Golden Mean fallacy - to my understanding - requires acceptance of common understanding of two contradictory positions and then try to find a common ground. My position relies of rejection of the common understanding - thus making it probably more controversial.