I'm looking to completely supersede the assumptions of compatibilism and incompatibilism. I am asserting a positive solution to the definition of free will as a physical-experiential primitive which is beneath all forms of categorization and explanation. It can only be experienced first hand and there can never be any definition beyond that experience. > > As far as judges go, any judge that believes that those they pass > judgment > > over are ruled by randomness or determinism would be a fraud, as all > such > > acts are by definition innocent. Likewise, to believe in their own > capacity > > for judgment they would be frauds to believe that their choices are > random > > or passively received by fate yet still present themselves as personally > > responsible for their own judgments. I don't doubt that some judges do > feel > > this way, but they are still frauds if they could really take their > beliefs > > seriously. > > And there is the problem: you believe compatibilists are deluded or > frauds, but they don't, because they define free will differently. How > are you going to sell them your definition when they are happy with > theirs? > I can only sell something to a person who has the freedom and the will to buy. The power to evaluate what is being sold and to control your own communications supervenes on free will. If there were no free will, everyone will have the definition which has been determined for them by circumstance. Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.