On Apr 27, 8:41 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:49 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Only if there is free will. Without free will, of course compulsion is
> > > the same as causation.
> > Nope. We can define compulsion in terms of conscious choice by
> > an agent. THat distiuishes it from blind determinism, even if it
> > is deteministic itself.
> What is 'conscious choice by an agent' other than free will?

eg  a deterministic choice that is accompanied by higher order

> > > > If someone weighs up options and makes
> > > > a bad choice,
> > > Then they are exercising free will.
> > Not necessarily. A computer programme can weight options.
> They aren't options if the program is determined to always select the
> one which best matches its scripted criteria.

They're options in a sense. P

> It's not a choice.
> Nothing is optional. It's mechanical. There is a computation but no
> preference or conscious experience of choosing.

It's not a free choice. It's not libertarian FW. Libertarian FW isn't
FW. But you can't prove libertarianism is true and comaptibilism false
by noting that choices happen, in some sense.

> > > > they have not been compelled and so are responsible
> > > > even if the process of choice was metaphysically deterministic.
> > > Black is white, even though it is black?
> > Nope. If you are not compelled. you are legally free, irrespective
> > of metaphyscial determinism and indeterminism.
> It sounds like you are saying that if you have no free will, you are
> still free (to exercise your will)?

I am saying that the argument "you are not free if you are compelled"
does not
transalte into "you are not free if you are detemined"

> > > > Under determinism, it makes sense to punish a person in order to
> > > > modify
> > > > their behaviour.
> > > Under determinism, it wouldn't matter how much sense it does or
> > > doesn't make.
> > In the sense that we might be determined to behave irrationally.
> > But that doesn't mean we are. if we can find sense in deterministic
> > behaviour, there is no need to regard it as irrational.
> What would be the point in finding sense in anything in a
> deterministic universe?

Who knows, but it could happen anyway.

> > >Sense is only causally efficacious if we have the
> > > freedom to choose what to do with our understanding. Without free
> > > will, we would have no choice but to punish or not punish, just as the
> > > criminal would have no choice but to commit or not commit crimes.
> > Even if we had no free choice, it can still make sense.
> I've just explained why it can't.

I don; think so.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to