Originally posted by apathist
That definition is fine with me as a starting point. It is just an expression of the concept of 'volition'.
psychology of volition
[i]Volition can be studied from two perspectives. From the third-person view, [b]volitional behaviour is internally generated, rather than being determined by the immedi ...[text shortened]... choose to use the definition offered by science, without [b]adding a belief in determinism.[/b]
That definition is fine with me as a starting point.
it is not one you would ever agree with unless one day you actually think about it. So if that definition is just the 'starting point', what is wrong with it? If you say it then needs to change, clearly you are thinking there is something wrong with it else it wouldn't need changing.
It is just an expression of the concept of 'volition'.
No, it isn't. They didn't even mention the vague word 'volition'.
I understand the point, and appreciate that compatibilism acknowledges that we have volition.
You understand nothing here; 'compatibilism' does NOT " acknowledges that we have volition"; you are talking gibberish.
But the quote makes it clear that compatibilst's view our willed decisions as being 100% deterministic.
NO, it clearly doesn't. Why cannot 'will' as in 'desire' that can control our decisions originate in part from truly random processes? Nothing they suggest there rules that possibility out.
The definition they give 'free will' has the desirable attribute that it is clearly i.e. not vague.
Yet in another thread you insisted that defining free will as 'volition' to be vague!
That is because I have yet to see a clear definition of it. What about it?
First, you misrepresent my position on the definition for free will.
It is impossible to know this as you don't even know your own position on this as you have failed to adequately define it.
Second, definitions do not become 'invalid' just because other people may use other definitions
actually a definition generally is invalid if MOST people use other meanings and other definitions for that term. Why do you think the definition of the word 'cat' as meaning 'dog' is invalid?
Volition is studied by science, which is why I use their definition.
That makes no sense because;
1, you cannot rationally claim "Volition is studied by science" until someone can give an adequate definition of the vague word 'volition' so that then it at least has a chance to be studied by real science.
2, They do NOT use the word 'volition' in their definition.
But compatibilism adds the requirement that willed decisions are none-the-less deterministic.
if what you mean by "willed decisions" is THEIR definition of "free will", NO, that is false. So apparently you disagree with them.
I'm curious, what 'nonsense' definition are you talking about here?
One that vaguely goes along the unsaid lines;
You having free will is the combination of;
1, none of your decisions being controlled.
2, you control your own decisions.
1, contradicts 2. I for one say anything that is self-contradictory can be validly asserted as 'nonsense'.
I choose to use the definition offered by science,
No, you don't.