Ian says, Like I said : "Yes Steve, but when people say "Compatibilism is the position that free will and determinism are compatible rather than mutually exclusive positions." They are not (cannot be) using the SEP definition of determinism you cite. They are using a less greedy definition - a la Dennett (who you also cite)."
Regards Ian On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:34 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Steve said to dmb: > I can see how you would think you need to do that [give up on Steve] given > the embarrassing position you find yourself in. You've berated me for > "improper use of terms" while you've been found to have been defending > compatiblism as the exact opposite of what your beloved SEP defines it to > be. You berated me for months for asserting two mutually exclusive > fundamentally conflicting ideas... > > > dmb says: > Thanks. That's a really great example. As usual, you're pressing a point > that has already been answered. Like I said, all you have to do is find the > answer and add the phrase "like I said" to front of it. > > Like I said (at least twice): > ...For anyone to maintain a compatibilist position, one has to use a softer > definition of "determinism", a version soft enough to allow for the freedom > it is supposedly compatible with. And, obviously, one has to use a softer > version precisely because it's logically impossible to say that freedom is > compatible with a total lack of freedom. That's the kind of nonsense I've > been complaining about throughout this debate. 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
