I have responded directly,
I know you think you have.
The problem is that you seem to interpret my attempts at
critical examination of your anti-free will claims as positive advocation of compatibilist free will. They are not the same thing.
The result is that I don't get direct answers to my questions because you are more intent on discrediting compatibilist free will (most of your latest post is taken up with this despite the fact that I stated quite clearly earlier that "
I'm not arguing for compatibilism").
- bold mine.
I tried once already, by posting a link to Stanford's page on compatibilism, and isolating one teeny tiny bit
(which COULD have been misunderstood or misinterpreted because it was out of context, though [
I thought] not purposefully or misleadingly out of context, given that I linked to the text, AND said WHERE on the page the bit I quoted were yanked from [
1.3] which I
also said was NOT LONG - sigh...)
from the pertinent text.
DBT: AntiChris clearly wrote (right there in the part I quote now, and which I put in bold text in
this post, that they were
not arguing for compatibilism, but was attempting to offer "critical examination of your anti free will claims".
He was not trying to refute incompatibilism (at least from what I can understand); but attempting to find out what other people in this thread actually know about compatibilism. If I am wrong, AntiChris can tell me, or not. Their choice. In the thread or in private. Matters nothing at all, and is irrelevant to what we are discussing, in any case.
The easiest thing to do would be to begin a thread about compatibilism (in my view). I will if no one else will venture to do it. I will wait a few days. Hopefully [MENTION=384]fast[/MENTION]; will return, or someone who knows a good deal about it. Maybe [MENTION=344]Speakpigeon[/MENTION]; ?
Speaky! Where are you? Come in, Speaky!
ETA: D'oh! AntiChris snuck one in whilst I was editinginging.