(March 14, 2012 at 4:31 pm)genkaus Wrote: Until now, we've only been arguing about my definition of free-will.
Apologies, but its because its incomprehensible. It appears to be non-theological compatibilism. I.e. Not supernatural, but the future is not set, and our choices can change it.
This is the position you represented, and I discussed my position contrary to that. Simply because I don't believe compatibilism is defensible. So from my point of view, it appeared to be trying to have the compatibilist cake, but avoiding the problems it causes.
Once again, I'm sure you don't see this as your view, I simply can't get my head around what position you are actually taking. Which is fine, so I think you're right, its time to move the discussion forward, and I'm glad you're part of it, as it really has challenged my noodle, and I love that.
I'm hard determinist as stated, and its not the illusion of free will that frightens me, but the illusion of morality which frightens me more as a direct implication.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
