Free Will And Free Choice

[fromderinside]

I'm absolutely certain this is the first unambiguous response you've given to my original question (post #745 - 2 weeks ago). I have no idea why you felt it necessary to avoid giving me a straightforward answer until now.

I have given more than a few straightforward answers.

I disagree (you could always attempt to prove me wrong with an actual quote).

One is sufficient. This isn't a gotcha circle jerk thread.

 

[DBT]

I'm absolutely certain this is the first unambiguous response you've given to my original question (post #745 - 2 weeks ago). I have no idea why you felt it necessary to avoid giving me a straightforward answer until now.

I have given more than a few straightforward answers.

I disagree (you could always attempt to prove me wrong with an actual quote).

Or you could check for yourself. If you cared to make an effort you could begin with the post you originally responded to, but failed to critique or address: post #727.

 

[DBT]

I disagree (you could always attempt to prove me wrong with an actual quote).

One is sufficient. This isn't a gotcha circle jerk thread.

I don't think he's actually reading any replies, just skimming and making comments.

 

[The AntiChris]

I disagree (you could always attempt to prove me wrong with an actual quote).

Or you could check for yourself.

So you can't provide a quote but don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you're mistaken.

I'm annoyed that you wasted my time for 2 weeks with your evasions.

 

[fromderinside]

Ditto with your demands.

 

[DBT]

I disagree (you could always attempt to prove me wrong with an actual quote).

Or you could check for yourself.

So you can't provide a quote but don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you're mistaken.

I'm annoyed that you wasted my time for 2 weeks with your evasions.

I gave you a post number where I quoted from the article ''cold comfort in compatibilism'' - are you too tired to make the effort? Do I have point to the very post that you responded to?

Looks like I need to spoon feed:

From post #727



Cold comfort in Compatibalism;

''How is this supposed to work? First, we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes (and perhaps a dash of true chance). Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X. At this point, we should ascribe free will to all animals capable of experiencing desires (e.g., to eat, sleep, or mate). Yet, we don’t; and we tend not to judge non-human animals in moral terms. Exceptions occur, but are swiftly dismissed as errors of anthropomorphism.''

Given that we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X.....How is it supposed to work?''

What I said in post# 736;


The argument from semantics is shallow and flawed. To say 'set a bird free' describes relative conditions, superficial appearance, the prior state of the birds confinement compared to being set free from its cage.

The bird itself had no choice in its confinement in the first instance, nor subsequently being released into the wild. Whatever happened to the bird was determined by its environment, its captors and the world at large. The bird had no choice in what happened to it.

It was not a matter of decision making in terms of free will.

When the term free will is used in common language, the underlying states and conditions, environment,state of the mind/brain, etc, that put someone into a givven situation, are not generally considered, making it a mere figure of speech.

The nature of the decision making process is not being considered''

Post #738:

The Punch and Judy Puppet show.

The Puppets (or marionettes) are manipulated by a Puppeteer hidden behind the screen working the strings that bring his Puppets into action.

Judy, being annoyed by Punch's insensitive comments has a habit of hitting punch over the head with a stick, which she does quite often: Judy is free to hit Punch. Punch, apparently tired of getting constantly hit, grabs Judy and ties her up: Judy is no longer free to hit Punch.

Punch, apparently feeling sorry for Judy's plight, free's Judy from her ropes, whereupon Judy is freed and able to renew her attack on Punch with even greater vigour.


As the word ''free'' is commonly used, within the context of this little deterministic world of the Puppeteer and his stage play, the puppets may be said to freely perform actions upon stage. The Puppeter being the determinant and motor function of their actions.

Now apply this principle to the world at large, where the 'Puppeteer' is Determinism - ''when, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.''

Again, without the possibility to choose otherwise in any given instance in time, where lies freedom of will?''

Post#755;

Word usage alone does not establish the reality of the thing in question.

God is love.
Love exists.
God is real.

Post #768

''Freedom of action is not free will for all the given reasons.

Random quantum events do not allow freedom of will for all the given reasons.

Absence of coercion does not equate to free will for all the given reasons.

The absence of external constraints does not equate to free will for all the given reasons.''


Post#770;

Why Compatibilism Is Mistaken.

here are some major difficulties in compatibilism, which I think damage it irreparably.

Take Hobbes’ claim, largely accepted by Hume, that freedom is to act at will while coercion is to be compelled to act by others. This does not give us a sure reason to choose this ‘freedom’.

Imagine that you were a free-floating spirit, equal to God in your capacity to choose. God gives you the unwelcome news that shortly you are to be placed on Earth, and that you will be endowed with a range of fundamental passions, chosen entirely at the caprice of God. Would you choose to be free, in Hobbes’sense of acting at will, or might you consent to being coerced?

It is very far from clear that you would automatically choose to be free. Much would depend on the nature of the coercion. If you did not know what your fundamental desires were going to be, you might well decide to hedge your bets and back the field. It might be far better to be coerced by others (perhaps most people are good) than to be free to pursue un-chosen but possibly dubious desires. A free-floating ethically-minded spirit that feared an imminent endowment of psychopathic desires would certainly wish for an alert constabulary and swift incarceration: this spirit would wish to be coerced.

This thought experiment makes it clear why coercion by others might be morally preferable to being caused to act upon one’s desires. It seems very odd, though, that we might have good reasons to choose what compatibilists define as coercion, and reject what they claim to be freedom.

Nor is it obvious that if we were on Earth with a range of un-chosen passions, we would choose to have the intellectual ability which Dennett thinks characterises human freedom, as opposed to the mindless behaviour of the Sphex wasp for instance. Imagine that, rather than for laying eggs, one had a disposition for random acts of extreme violence. Is one better off by having the wit to see that the .357 Magnum is overrated and that the 9mm is similarly effective, but with more shots? If one had the murderous impulses of an Eichmann or a Himmler, is one’s situation necessarily improved by being able to flexibly respond to the logistical problems of machine-gunning large numbers of people? Is the murderous intelligence involved in industrialising genocide ever a gain? Similarly, if we knew that we were going to have passions that we have not chosen, is it obvious that we would ask for the ability to pursue these passions flexibly and imaginatively? Perhaps if we knew that we were to have unknown passions and be held responsible for our actions, we would choose to be incompetent. Perhaps the priority would be first to do no harm: one could not risk being good at being bad.

It is not obvious then that we would choose to be caused by our own desires rather than coerced by others; and nor is it obvious that we would choose to be able to successfully pursue our desires if we did not know what those desires were to be.



As to Dennett’s claim that the planet has evolved ‘evitability’, it seems obvious that if strict determinism is true then human evolution is also one event after another, and the destruction of asteroids by humans follows inevitably from cause and effect, given the first composition of the universe. If we destroy an asteroid, for the strict determinist it was inevitable that we would. Indeed it is quite conceivable that humans are minor characters in a game played by the gods, involving striking planets with asteroids. Perhaps one of the moves in the game is to seed a target planet with humans to prevent your opponent successfully striking it with his asteroid. It is hard to think of an absolute reason why determinism might not be our lot. There seems to be no meaningful distinction to be drawn between what happens and what might have happened, on which we can hang some third theory of human existence to sit alongside determinism and libertarianism.

It seems that we are either caused, and our actions are caused events, or we are free. The middle, compatibilism, is excluded''

Post#793
''In other words, there is no definition of free will that is not seriously flawed, not compatibilism, not the 'ability to have chosen otherwise,' not 'that's how words are used/semantics,' not the ability to 'select from a set of realizable options,' not 'to act without external constraints' etc. etc.''



There is more, but this is sufficient.

 

[DBT]

I disagree (you could always attempt to prove me wrong with an actual quote).

Or you could check for yourself.

So you can't provide a quote but don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you're mistaken.

I'm annoyed that you wasted my time for 2 weeks with your evasions.

I gave you a post number where I quoted from the article ''cold comfort in compatibilism'' - are you too tired to make the effort? Do I have point to the very post that you responded to?

Looks like I need to spoon feed:

From post #727



Cold comfort in Compatibalism;

''How is this supposed to work? First, we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes (and perhaps a dash of true chance). Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X. At this point, we should ascribe free will to all animals capable of experiencing desires (e.g., to eat, sleep, or mate). Yet, we don’t; and we tend not to judge non-human animals in moral terms. Exceptions occur, but are swiftly dismissed as errors of anthropomorphism.''

Given that we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X.....How is it supposed to work?''

What I said in post# 736;


The argument from semantics is shallow and flawed. To say 'set a bird free' describes relative conditions, superficial appearance, the prior state of the birds confinement compared to being set free from its cage.

The bird itself had no choice in its confinement in the first instance, nor subsequently being released into the wild. Whatever happened to the bird was determined by its environment, its captors and the world at large. The bird had no choice in what happened to it.

It was not a matter of decision making in terms of free will.

When the term free will is used in common language, the underlying states and conditions, environment,state of the mind/brain, etc, that put someone into a givven situation, are not generally considered, making it a mere figure of speech.

The nature of the decision making process is not being considered''

Post #738:

The Punch and Judy Puppet show.

The Puppets (or marionettes) are manipulated by a Puppeteer hidden behind the screen working the strings that bring his Puppets into action.

Judy, being annoyed by Punch's insensitive comments has a habit of hitting punch over the head with a stick, which she does quite often: Judy is free to hit Punch. Punch, apparently tired of getting constantly hit, grabs Judy and ties her up: Judy is no longer free to hit Punch.

Punch, apparently feeling sorry for Judy's plight, free's Judy from her ropes, whereupon Judy is freed and able to renew her attack on Punch with even greater vigour.


As the word ''free'' is commonly used, within the context of this little deterministic world of the Puppeteer and his stage play, the puppets may be said to freely perform actions upon stage. The Puppeter being the determinant and motor function of their actions.

Now apply this principle to the world at large, where the 'Puppeteer' is Determinism - ''when, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.''

Again, without the possibility to choose otherwise in any given instance in time, where lies freedom of will?''

Post#755;

Word usage alone does not establish the reality of the thing in question.

God is love.
Love exists.
God is real.

Post #768

''Freedom of action is not free will for all the given reasons.

Random quantum events do not allow freedom of will for all the given reasons.

Absence of coercion does not equate to free will for all the given reasons.

The absence of external constraints does not equate to free will for all the given reasons.''


Post#770;

Why Compatibilism Is Mistaken.

here are some major difficulties in compatibilism, which I think damage it irreparably.

Take Hobbes’ claim, largely accepted by Hume, that freedom is to act at will while coercion is to be compelled to act by others. This does not give us a sure reason to choose this ‘freedom’.

Imagine that you were a free-floating spirit, equal to God in your capacity to choose. God gives you the unwelcome news that shortly you are to be placed on Earth, and that you will be endowed with a range of fundamental passions, chosen entirely at the caprice of God. Would you choose to be free, in Hobbes’sense of acting at will, or might you consent to being coerced?

It is very far from clear that you would automatically choose to be free. Much would depend on the nature of the coercion. If you did not know what your fundamental desires were going to be, you might well decide to hedge your bets and back the field. It might be far better to be coerced by others (perhaps most people are good) than to be free to pursue un-chosen but possibly dubious desires. A free-floating ethically-minded spirit that feared an imminent endowment of psychopathic desires would certainly wish for an alert constabulary and swift incarceration: this spirit would wish to be coerced.

This thought experiment makes it clear why coercion by others might be morally preferable to being caused to act upon one’s desires. It seems very odd, though, that we might have good reasons to choose what compatibilists define as coercion, and reject what they claim to be freedom.

Nor is it obvious that if we were on Earth with a range of un-chosen passions, we would choose to have the intellectual ability which Dennett thinks characterises human freedom, as opposed to the mindless behaviour of the Sphex wasp for instance. Imagine that, rather than for laying eggs, one had a disposition for random acts of extreme violence. Is one better off by having the wit to see that the .357 Magnum is overrated and that the 9mm is similarly effective, but with more shots? If one had the murderous impulses of an Eichmann or a Himmler, is one’s situation necessarily improved by being able to flexibly respond to the logistical problems of machine-gunning large numbers of people? Is the murderous intelligence involved in industrialising genocide ever a gain? Similarly, if we knew that we were going to have passions that we have not chosen, is it obvious that we would ask for the ability to pursue these passions flexibly and imaginatively? Perhaps if we knew that we were to have unknown passions and be held responsible for our actions, we would choose to be incompetent. Perhaps the priority would be first to do no harm: one could not risk being good at being bad.

It is not obvious then that we would choose to be caused by our own desires rather than coerced by others; and nor is it obvious that we would choose to be able to successfully pursue our desires if we did not know what those desires were to be.



As to Dennett’s claim that the planet has evolved ‘evitability’, it seems obvious that if strict determinism is true then human evolution is also one event after another, and the destruction of asteroids by humans follows inevitably from cause and effect, given the first composition of the universe. If we destroy an asteroid, for the strict determinist it was inevitable that we would. Indeed it is quite conceivable that humans are minor characters in a game played by the gods, involving striking planets with asteroids. Perhaps one of the moves in the game is to seed a target planet with humans to prevent your opponent successfully striking it with his asteroid. It is hard to think of an absolute reason why determinism might not be our lot. There seems to be no meaningful distinction to be drawn between what happens and what might have happened, on which we can hang some third theory of human existence to sit alongside determinism and libertarianism.

It seems that we are either caused, and our actions are caused events, or we are free. The middle, compatibilism, is excluded''

Post#793
''In other words, there is no definition of free will that is not seriously flawed, not compatibilism, not the 'ability to have chosen otherwise,' not 'that's how words are used/semantics,' not the ability to 'select from a set of realizable options,' not 'to act without external constraints' etc. etc.''



There is more, but this is sufficient. And once again: I was not dealing with compatibilism alone, but all definitions, common usage, semantics, etc....

 

[The AntiChris]

This:

..Another long-winded diatribe against compatibilism...

Despite the fact that I made it clear 10 days ago:

I'm not arguing for compatibilism.

The following are quotes from a frustrated user who had been patiently trying to engage with you on a thread on the old FRDB ( The relationship of conscious choice to free will..) from 8 years ago..

So we've determined at this point that you are completely incapable of directly answering any questions.

You've been shown wrong as much as any human being can be shown to be wrong, but won't admit it.

You have declared yourself beyond reasoned conversation.

Nothing changes.

 

[fromderinside]

Indeed.

You keep on keeping on regardless of what the one you pester replies.

Such is persecution not discussion.


attempt to separate ......


Good job DBT.

 

[The AntiChris]

Such is persecution

 

[fromderinside]

dnr

 

[WAB]

Hey everybody - why don't we just start over and begin a thread on compatibilism - then everyone can have a fresh start and we can approach the subject without all the unnecessary squabbling? I am including myself here, by the way. I know I can be stubborn and act silly - and there is a virtue in being able to admit it.

We musn't think that someone is making unacceptable "demands" of us if:

We have not understood something, or missed a few posts here and there; or if THE OTHER person has done the same. We're all human.

Going on and on trying to get the last word, or acting out some kind of silly one-upmanship is not productive of anything.

Again: I am not being a hypocrite here, because if and when I do act like an ass, I admit it, and I will apologize. If I have made an error and it is proven to me, I will admit it, and apologize publicly. It feels MUCH better to simply do that than swallow my pride and carry on as if nothing happened.

Also! Lol - bear in mind: silence does NOT equal consent on a message board. There is no need to spend thirty pages on back and forths simply to get in a last word, or a last jab. This always ruins the threads, as it has in the past, and which it will continue to do.

Just my tuppence.

 

[DBT]

This:



Despite the fact that I made it clear 10 days ago:



The following are quotes from a frustrated user who had been patiently trying to engage with you on a thread on the old FRDB ( The relationship of conscious choice to free will..) from 8 years ago..

So we've determined at this point that you are completely incapable of directly answering any questions.

You've been shown wrong as much as any human being can be shown to be wrong, but won't admit it.

You have declared yourself beyond reasoned conversation.

Nothing changes.

Prof was just like you, he didn't actually read what I said or what I quoted. Then, just like you he got caught out misrepresenting me. I called him out on it and at first he pretended nothing had happened, I insisted, whereupon he scurried off never to return.


You claimed that I can't provide a quote in spite of the fact that I have quoted and cited several articles, saying ''So you can't provide a quote but don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you're mistaken'' - then when I quote and cite the material that I in fact posted you dredge up something from eight years ago, someone who, just like you, made little or no effort to read or understand what was being said.

So poor form and sour grapes on your part, another frustrated poster who does not read or consider what is being provided.


Why? Well because I am not arguing anything more than what is supported by reasoning in the articles, neuroscience, logic and evidence (the mechanisms of decision making and motor actions).

 

[DBT]

Hey everybody - why don't we just start over and begin a thread on compatibilism - then everyone can have a fresh start and we can approach the subject without all the unnecessary squabbling? I am including myself here, by the way. I know I can be stubborn and act silly - and there is a virtue in being able to admit it.

We musn't think that someone is making unacceptable "demands" of us if:

We have not understood something, or missed a few posts here and there; or if THE OTHER person has done the same. We're all human.

Going on and on trying to get the last word, or acting out some kind of silly one-upmanship is not productive of anything.

Again: I am not being a hypocrite here, because if and when I do act like an ass, I admit it, and I will apologize. If I have made an error and it is proven to me, I will admit it, and apologize publicly. It feels MUCH better to simply do that than swallow my pride and carry on as if nothing happened.

Also! Lol - bear in mind: silence does NOT equal consent on a message board. There is no need to spend thirty pages on back and forths simply to get in a last word, or a last jab. This always ruins the threads, as it has in the past, and which it will continue to do.

Just my tuppence.

Who is willing to argue for Compatibilism?

 

[DBT]

Indeed.

You keep on keeping on regardless of what the one you pester replies.

Such is persecution not discussion.


attempt to separate ......


Good job DBT.

He claimed to be giving a critique, but offered nothing more than ''you don't understand compatibilism'' - while apparently not being aware of what has been posted, then dredging up something from eight years ago when caught out. Just like Prof when he was caught out. Pure Comedy.

 

[WAB]

Hey everybody - why don't we just start over and begin a thread on compatibilism - then everyone can have a fresh start and we can approach the subject without all the unnecessary squabbling? I am including myself here, by the way. I know I can be stubborn and act silly - and there is a virtue in being able to admit it.

We musn't think that someone is making unacceptable "demands" of us if:

We have not understood something, or missed a few posts here and there; or if THE OTHER person has done the same. We're all human.

Going on and on trying to get the last word, or acting out some kind of silly one-upmanship is not productive of anything.

Again: I am not being a hypocrite here, because if and when I do act like an ass, I admit it, and I will apologize. If I have made an error and it is proven to me, I will admit it, and apologize publicly. It feels MUCH better to simply do that than swallow my pride and carry on as if nothing happened.

Also! Lol - bear in mind: silence does NOT equal consent on a message board. There is no need to spend thirty pages on back and forths simply to get in a last word, or a last jab. This always ruins the threads, as it has in the past, and which it will continue to do.

Just my tuppence.

Who is willing to argue for Compatibilism?

I would, but probably not very well, and not thoroughly, but I'd give it a shot like any good peanut in the gallery. My current position is, I think, in the compatibilist set.

AntiChris might argue against me, and show me to be a numbnuts.

Speakpigeon and fast might return? Does anyone know where they are? I am pretty sure fast is/was a compatibilist. And I reckon that Speaky at least knows quite a bit about it.

Maybe Bomb#20 and/or Angra Mainyu could be invited to lend a hand. Or Copernicus? I've no idea where they stand on compatibilism, but I warrant their input would be valuable.

Hell, I don't know!

If no-one wants to do it, then forget it.

 

[DBT]

Hey everybody - why don't we just start over and begin a thread on compatibilism - then everyone can have a fresh start and we can approach the subject without all the unnecessary squabbling? I am including myself here, by the way. I know I can be stubborn and act silly - and there is a virtue in being able to admit it.

We musn't think that someone is making unacceptable "demands" of us if:

We have not understood something, or missed a few posts here and there; or if THE OTHER person has done the same. We're all human.

Going on and on trying to get the last word, or acting out some kind of silly one-upmanship is not productive of anything.

Again: I am not being a hypocrite here, because if and when I do act like an ass, I admit it, and I will apologize. If I have made an error and it is proven to me, I will admit it, and apologize publicly. It feels MUCH better to simply do that than swallow my pride and carry on as if nothing happened.

Also! Lol - bear in mind: silence does NOT equal consent on a message board. There is no need to spend thirty pages on back and forths simply to get in a last word, or a last jab. This always ruins the threads, as it has in the past, and which it will continue to do.

Just my tuppence.

Who is willing to argue for Compatibilism?

I would, but probably not very well, and not thoroughly, but I'd give it a shot like any good peanut in the gallery. My current position is, I think, in the compatibilist set.

AntiChris might argue against me, and show me to be a numbnuts.

Speakpigeon and fast might return? Does anyone know where they are? I am pretty sure fast is/was a compatibilist. And I reckon that Speaky at least knows quite a bit about it.

Maybe Bomb#20 and/or Angra Mainyu could be invited to lend a hand. Or Copernicus? I've no idea where they stand on compatibilism, but I warrant their input would be valuable.

Hell, I don't know!

If no-one wants to do it, then forget it.

Maybe a staunch compatibilist will come along and make a case, who knows.

Given the nature of the brain, a hard task. The decision making process, motor action, etc, appears to relegate Compatibilism to mere word play. A Semantic Shuffle.

 

[WAB]

I would, but probably not very well, and not thoroughly, but I'd give it a shot like any good peanut in the gallery. My current position is, I think, in the compatibilist set.

AntiChris might argue against me, and show me to be a numbnuts.

Speakpigeon and fast might return? Does anyone know where they are? I am pretty sure fast is/was a compatibilist. And I reckon that Speaky at least knows quite a bit about it.

Maybe Bomb#20 and/or Angra Mainyu could be invited to lend a hand. Or Copernicus? I've no idea where they stand on compatibilism, but I warrant their input would be valuable.

Hell, I don't know!

If no-one wants to do it, then forget it.

Maybe a staunch compatibilist will come along and make a case, who knows.

Given the nature of the brain, a hard task. The decision making process, motor action, etc, appears to relegate Compatibilism to mere word play. A Semantic Shuffle.

Could be.

I was just reviewing a very old and very LONG compilation (which I copy-pasted into a text doc) of posts I wrote in various freewill threads at FRDB (in the archives now) and here, since 2004 and up to around five or six years ago. At that point I was arguing for what would be called libertarian freewill nowadays, although I did come around to say that I was "pushing for some kind of compatibilism", toward more recently. I was essentially reconciling myself with kennethamy, and looking into people like Daniel Dennet ("elbow room"). But I still find Chalmers fascinating, and Sam Harris, not so much.

I am still of two minds and have a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance: I cannot deny determinism, yet I cannot accept that consciousness and the sense of volition and autonomy is an "illusion", or some kind of accidental yet evolutionary mechanism by which a 14 billion year old process "blindly" selected this and that to allow for the survival of this and that, yet without purpose or design or intentionality. It is stupefying, to say the least.

I do not believe in predetermination, either as a theological position or a metaphysical one. Which means, though I cannot deny that all actions have causes, and subsequently that no action can be performed without prior conditioning, influence, and various levels of compelling force, I can still as yet not accept that everything that happens and has happened in the universe was determined absolutely, once and for all, at some undefined beginning (Big Bang?)

If we can put any kind of a time line on the universe, like this 13.7 billion years-old number, then how do we reconcile that with the notion that the universe has existed eternally, without beginning?

Is there a mover unmoved, a prime mover, a God or god or gods? Turtles? If no, then what was the first cause? If we have infinite regress, how do we arrive at 13.7 years? It is one thing for metaphysics to fail at explaining eternity. But how does physics explain it?

Perhaps the Big Bang was actually a little big bang, a tiny bubble in a Pacific ocean of bubbles? Perhaps this 13.7 years is like, a second ago to some super duper intelligent entity somewhere?

"It just is" is satisfying to a person with a good handle on Negative Capability (Keats), but maybe not as emotionally satisfying as "God did it" to a person comfortably numb with faith. Is it better to be comfortable yet deluded, or satisfied yet not convinced? I mean for me. Because I have waffled between the two. I do know that one of those states caused a few moments of true happiness for me. But at the same time I do not regret that, now, I am more sane, but less happy.

I should, and probably shall, bow out of this whole mess quite soon, as I sense my battery is dying. Ah well. It was fun while it lasted.

Once more into the abyss, dear friends!

 

[fromderinside]

I've always believed that free will is an illusion of those from their position of being after the fact perceiving beings who
aren't privy to their condition, though determined, presume they have choice. Facts can't add up. So deity and morality are improvised to explain away the disconnects between reality and perception. Obviously that is not, can not be, compatibilism.

 

[WAB]

I've always believed that free will is an illusion of those from their position of being after the fact perceiving beings who
aren't privy to their condition, though determined, presume they have choice. Facts can't add up. So deity and morality are improvised to explain away the disconnects between reality and perception. Obviously that is not, can not be, compatibilism.

You may be right, fromder. But AntiChris sent me a link which is very excellent for its clarity, and its lack of verbal razzle-dazzle and word salad. The page is pretty long, but all is concise and methodically arranged. It was written in response to (and partial refutation of) the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on it. Which I believe has been posted in this thread. At any rate that is easily found.

I don't want to link to this gentleman's page because I contacted the author of his article, and asked him for permission to post the link in-thread. He has not responded to me on that, as of yet, though he did respond to a comment I left on his site. I can send a link along to you, or anyone else, via rep comment, or by PM. If you would like, that is.

Doesn't mean you will agree with the guy's views, of course, but he explains the compatibilist position far, far better than I could. Which comes as no real surprise, I am sure.

And that's the troooooth, pfffffffffffffffffttttttttttt.... (Lily Tomlin)