On Apr 27, 8:41 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 27, 11:49 am, 1Z <[email protected]> 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 thought. > > > > > 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 compatibilist FW. But you can't prove libertarianism is true and comaptibilism false just 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
