On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/18/2012 6:28 AM, R AM wrote: > > 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. > I don't think we say we have free-will in the same sense than owning a motorcycle. Here is an example of what I mean: 1) Someone is coercing you to give some secret information. A member of your family will be killed if you don't comply. You decide to provide the information: you are coerced => no compatibilist free-will, but you still exercised your "metaphysical free-will". 2) You decide to provide the information without coercion. Here you have both metaphysical and compatibilist free-will (you have not been coerced). >From the point of view of compatibilist free-will, the only difference between 1 and 2 is the external situation (the coercion). Compatibilist free will is not something you have, or something you do, or a "power" of you. It's something that happens to you. -- 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.
