On 7/18/2012 6:28 AM, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto: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 
    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).

That seems like a strange conception of what it means "to have". I have a motorcycle. The fact that it is external and is mine because I paid for it and it is registered in my name doesn't negate my having it.


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