On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well ... you are the one who continue to mock free-will, despite many of > us have given new precise, and compatibilist, definition of it, and you do > this without making precise that you limit yourself to the non sensical > notion. > > Dear Bruno, compatibilist free-will is defined as "without coercion". Metaphisical (non-compatibilist) free-will is a property or ability people claim to have when making decisions (i.e. they are so absolutely free that even natural law does not coerce them). Compatibilist free-will is NOT something people have, since it is defined by the external situation to the agent (i.e. the agent is not externally constrained). I think you have also defined free-will as not knowing (even in principle) what we will finally do. But this is again not something people have, but just something that happens to us. To reiterate, compatibilist free-will is not a property of the agents involved, and thus, it is hardly "that something" people claim to have. Compatibilist free-will is just a way of telling people that they will be considered responsible even though they do not have metaphisical free-will. -- 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.
