On Apr 18, 5:24 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 15 Apr 2011, at 21:16, Rex Allen wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > > wrote: > > >> On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > >>> Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues > >>> because > >>> we do not have free will. > > >> This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute > >> incompatibilist > >> sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which explains well the > >> correctness of a relative (to the subject) incompatibilist feature > >> of free > >> will. > > > The free will that we don't have in the "absolute incompatibilist > > sense" is the free will that most people believe in. > > How can you know that?
If most people did believe it historically, there would never have been a problem of FW. > > Compatibilist free will should be called "faux will". Or more > > charitably, "subjective will". > > Then earth does not exist. Because most people was think that earth is > a flat object > When we do some dioscovery it is better to adapt our word instead of > throwing the baby with the bath water. Always? So we should have adapted the meanings of "phlogiston" and "epicylce"? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.