(August 20, 2016 at 2:49 pm)Gemini Wrote:(August 20, 2016 at 2:43 pm)RozKek Wrote: It's bs. They believe in determinism, yes, but they've dumbed down free will to exclude determinism. E,g they might say"Free will is freely forming and acting on ones intent", thing is, it's not free if it's already determined is it? How do you determine something that is already determined? You form and act on intent but the way you form your intent, the way you act on your intent, none of it is free. Compatibilist "free-willers" believe in determinism but ignore determinism when they're talking about free will. Their definition of free will for some reason doesn't take determinism into account.
We haven't dumbed it down or ignored determism. We've just defined free will as, "What mentally healthy agents exercise when they are free from duress/coercion by other agents."
That's what I'm talking about. You, for some reason, in your definition of free will, exclude all the other "factors" that determine whether we have a free will or not. And I'm asking, why? It's similiar to cherry picking verses from the Bible in order to turn it into a peaceful religion. You cherry pick everything that allows for some kind of severely reduced/dumbed down free will. Your definition of free will is not intact with reality. If you judge a criminal in court based on your definition of free will, you've judged him wrongfully.