(July 5, 2016 at 3:36 pm)Ignorant Wrote:(July 5, 2016 at 3:23 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: In short this is my argument against the incompatabilist free will of "could have done otherwise":
In what sense is this meant?
In the sense of us determining otherwise. If indeterminism is true a set of dice 'could have done otherwise' in the sense that they could have rolled otherwise. But that's no kind of freedom.
The problem is that a free will requires a free determinination, but our will however determined is ultimately determined by other things if determinism is true, and if determinism is false then our will doesn't determine anything. If determinism is true there is no willing at all.
(July 5, 2016 at 3:33 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Defining the ideas relative to compatibilism or (in)determinism is over my head. Any chance you'd care to finish these sentences (or equivalent) for me:
A choice is...
A choice is a free choice if...
Thanks in advance.
A choice is free if we define "uncoerced" and "voluntary" to mean "free".
The problem with that is no one defines the existence of that kind of "free choice" or "free will", so the fact many people believe they have more ultimate freedom of that and the argument that was going on by philosophers regarding the relevance of determinism to free will is ignored and not addressed.
It's like philosophers started talking about one thing and then the compatabilist stepped in and changed the subject... (compatablism just means the belief that free will is compatible with determinism. Well, who denies any kind of freedom so broad that it is compatible with a fully deterministic universe anyway? That's why it ignores the whole question. It jumps in with a trival truth.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXWDkwSyjpU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrS1NCvG1b4
