Hi dmb, Sorry, but as I have been trying to tell you, you are quite wrong about what is meant by compatiblism as opposed to incompatiblism. You, my friend, are clearly an INcompatiblist. That is to say that you hold that in order to assert free will we must deny determinism--that free will and determinism are incompatible.
The SEP article on compatiblism makes the issue quite clear it its opening lines... "Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem. This philosophical problem concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism Compatiblism is precisely the position that you are objecting to me taking on the grounds that you think it is a simple contradiction in terms. It happens to be the position the article attributes to Dennett, PF Strawson, Paul Russell, and others I have already quoted to you on the subject. > Steve said: > It is a quite common mainstream philosophical position called "compatiblism" > to assert that free will and determinism ought not be thought of as mutually > exclusive. > > dmb says: > I know what compatibilism is and I have been saying all along that the MOQ is > a form of compatibilism. Steve: No, you clearly didn't know what compatiblism is, but I hope you do now. It remains to be decided whether the MOQ can be thought of as a compatiblism. I think it it can, but you have been arguing _against_ compatiblism. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
