I just want to inject my feelings here about some of the word games academics play. In particular, the "free will" found in compatibilism should never have been accepted as even a viable definition. Words mean what they fucking mean, and redefining them to mean something different does NOT solve the problem-- it constitutes a refusal to accept that one can't solve it.
So: "Free will is the freedom to act." No. Will is the intentional stance of a sentient being, who will RESIST stimulus based on internal ideals, and impose those ideals on the physical world. It necessarily implies that the will cannot be found in a physical monism.
So: "Free will is the freedom to act." No. Will is the intentional stance of a sentient being, who will RESIST stimulus based on internal ideals, and impose those ideals on the physical world. It necessarily implies that the will cannot be found in a physical monism.
