On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at