compatibilists do acknowledge that necessity is a problem for the notion of free will, so they carefully craft a definition that takes external necessity into account, yet ignores or dismisses internal necessity
Internal necessity
IS US.
Of course it is. Nobody denies it, or has said otherwise.
Good. That's the end of this daft thread, and the dozens like it.
You missed the point.
Which is 'internal necessity is us' does not equate to free will. ''It is us, therefore free will'' is not a valid argument for the reality of free will.
Internal necessity has nothing to do with will, yet alone free will.
The claim has no merit.
...but it's not the full picture or entirely true - external inputs, etc.
Oh.
So you DO deny it, and you DO say otherwise.
Shit.
You seem to be getting agitated, bilby.
You missed the point, that internal necessity, regardless of it being 'us' does not equate to free will.
Internal necessity is no more an example of free will than external necessity, which is considered by compatibilists to be a restriction on free will. Where the latter is acknowledged but the former is dismissed.
Neural function is neither willed or subject to will
Intelligence is neither willed or subject to will .
Decision making (determined) is not willed or subject to will.
Response, determined by the state and condition of the system as it evolves is not willed, chosen or regulated through will.
Given the above, to claim free will is a false. Function, determined by the architecture, function and state of the system (not chosen or regulated by will) does not equate to free will.
The issue is that compatibilists acknowledge that necessity is a constraint on the notion of free will, yet not only fail to account for internal necessity, which is not only 'us' but all events, both external and internal that shape and form our makeup and how we think and act.
WTF is "us", if not "all events, both external and internal that shape and form our makeup and how we think and act"?
That's what we are. We are the sum of our experiences.
That it is 'us' doesn't automatically equate to free will.
For instance;
''The
compatibilist might say because those are influences that are “outside” of the person, but this misses the entire point brought up by the free will skeptic, which is that ALL environmental conditions that help lead to a person’s brain state at any given moment are “outside of the person”, and the genes a person has was provided rather than decided.''
''The
increments of a normal brain state is not as obvious as direct coercion, a microchip, or a tumor, but the “obviousness” is irrelevant here. Brain states incrementally get to the state they are in one moment at a time. In each moment of that process the brain is in one state, and the specific environment and biological conditions leads to the very next state. Depending on that state, this will cause you to behave in a specific way within an environment (decide in a specific way), in which all of those things that are outside of a person constantly bombard your senses changing your very brain state. The internal dialogue in your mind you have no real control over.''
I won't bother with the rest because it's already repetitive enough..