Originally posted by humy 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'.
...[text shortened]... ense'.
I choose to use the definition offered by science,
No, you don't.[/b]
definition of free will, according to
science: is internally generated, rather than being determined by the immediate environmental context
compatibilism; is freedom to act according to one's motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions
I provided a link on the first; you provided a link on the second. The resemblance and similarity is obvious, to say the least. Both are talking about free will; the first, which is studied by science, is also known as volition.
Originally posted by humy 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.
That's a real point. Perhaps 'random' processes are involved. That doesn't affect the scientific view.
You seem unaware that if 'truly random' processes occur, then determinism is false. And if determinism is false, then compatibilism is irrelevant.
Originally posted by humy 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..
Science studies reality - everything they can get their hands on. They have their hands on something here. In other threads I've given plenty of evidence that this is true. So has wildgrass. You are wrong here, humy. That volition is free will, and that the issue is scientifically studied, with progress being made, is a fact.
The idea that it is irrational to claim that science studies something unless you are happy with definitions is hubris beyond comprehension. You actually think the massive amounts of scientific study and data on the issue are irrelevant because you are incredulous? Good grief.
Originally posted by humy strawman; I never said/implied anything about a need for me to be "happy" with a definition; and you KNOW this. Please don't be dishonest.
True true true. You never said the word happy. Everything is okay buddy. I understand your distress. I was out of line.
Originally posted by twhitehead By the standard definitions of those words, it is a true dichotomy and they are opposites. That you refuse to use standard definitions is fine, just don't impose your definitions on what I say.
The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, per standard definitions.
Originally posted by apathist The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, per standard definitions.
Randomness is another subject.
You are going to have to expand on that, as you are not making sense. You will also note that I did not originally say 'determinism', I said 'deterministic'.
compatibilism
13 Jun '17 21:56
Back to Top