On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> ? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as
> incompatible with science or scientific attitude. But third person
> determinism does not entails first person determinism, nor do determinism in
> general prevents genuine free will. People believing that determinism per se
> makes free will impossible confuse themselves with God.
> But now I am no more sure what you are saying. Are you OK with hard
> determinism? Are you OK with block-multiverse, or block-mindscape?
I think your position rests on an invalid conflation between the fact
that it posits multiple *actual* futures, all of which *will* occur -
and the "folk" intuition that there are multiple *possible* futures,
and that it is *ultimately* our conscious experience of making a
choice which determines which one of those possible futures becomes
You say the former, but in doing so you allude to the latter.
Which is true of all compatibilist positions...and that's why
compatibilists insist on redefining existing words like "free will"
and "choice" and "responsibility".
Because if you don't re-use those words - retaining their flavor
without their substance - it becomes impossible for compatibilists to
connect to their traditional meaning in any convincing way.
Using less misleading terms would make it obvious that compatibilism
has nothing to do with free will at all. Compatibilism is about
building a world view that makes it possible for society to continue
largely as before while accepting determinism.
"Dr. StrangeDennett: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Determinism".
Repurposing the term "free will" is a propaganda move, to make the
medicine go down easier.
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
For more options, visit this group at