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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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.

Reply via email to