"[1] - Libertarian definition - Free will exists if your will is ultimately undetermined."
Okay so you really don't understand. I guess you've never heard of hard incompatabilism or so-called 'pessimism' on the matter.
Furthermore I am creating no false dichotomy when I assume you are either talking about compatabilism or incompatabilism. It's a perfectly true dichotomy, of course, since either your definition is compatable with it or not.
This is a waste of time. I said I would reply once because I have tirelessly been through this so many times on the forums without a satisfactory counter-answer and so I'm pretty secure on the matter anyway, I just thought I'd have one more pop at it.
It was a mistake for me to not keep my word. It just seems kind of rude of me to just hit and run post. But sorry I can't continue this because to suggest that libertarian free will is proven if we are ultimately undetermined is incorrect. That would suggest that undetermined random chance would be free will.
And that's a contradiction anyway since the whole point of the "will" is willpower, it is used to literally will us... and we're not willing anything if we are random like dice. Or even if we are "reasonably probabilistic". If it's down to chance, probability or determinism there is not libertarian free will.
Libertarian free will is the idea that we could somehow ultimately will things (which is to determine them) without determinism (which contradicts the ability for us to determine things). It's a pro-free will incompatabilism. The alternative to that is not only hard determinism or compatible "soft" determinism, there is also hard incompatabilism or "pessimism", which is what I subscribe to, as did the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer and Albert Einstein.
Okay so you really don't understand. I guess you've never heard of hard incompatabilism or so-called 'pessimism' on the matter.
Furthermore I am creating no false dichotomy when I assume you are either talking about compatabilism or incompatabilism. It's a perfectly true dichotomy, of course, since either your definition is compatable with it or not.
This is a waste of time. I said I would reply once because I have tirelessly been through this so many times on the forums without a satisfactory counter-answer and so I'm pretty secure on the matter anyway, I just thought I'd have one more pop at it.
It was a mistake for me to not keep my word. It just seems kind of rude of me to just hit and run post. But sorry I can't continue this because to suggest that libertarian free will is proven if we are ultimately undetermined is incorrect. That would suggest that undetermined random chance would be free will.
And that's a contradiction anyway since the whole point of the "will" is willpower, it is used to literally will us... and we're not willing anything if we are random like dice. Or even if we are "reasonably probabilistic". If it's down to chance, probability or determinism there is not libertarian free will.
Libertarian free will is the idea that we could somehow ultimately will things (which is to determine them) without determinism (which contradicts the ability for us to determine things). It's a pro-free will incompatabilism. The alternative to that is not only hard determinism or compatible "soft" determinism, there is also hard incompatabilism or "pessimism", which is what I subscribe to, as did the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer and Albert Einstein.
