Summations Only

Yeah, that's why we're arguing. Exactly, which is why it is wrong to say the will is free, full stop. Free is an absolute, so if you don't mean absolutely free, you need to qualify the statement with, "The will is free of pixies," etc.That's also why I said the situation with the gunman is functionally the same as the one without the gunman. The only difference is that there is one additional factor at play in the environment, and that one addition happens to be something else with a will. It most certainly changes the morality of the situation, but not the functionality of the situation. I agree.

I think you and I basically agree here. The only minor difference is that where I say we should revise the term "free-will" to be philosophically coherent and able to cope with determinism you reply "Why should we?" and instead advocate that a new term be used to describe that which compatibilists are advocating (asserting?) as "free will".It's a semantic issue about what term should be used. And frankly I'm torn but come down vaguely on the Revisionist side of things on the basis that much of the things we use free will to mean in practical terms are compatible with determinism even if much of the other metaphysical baggage just isn't.

Yeah, I can certainly see the appeal. Once the debate has been settled between libertarians and determinists, maybe revising the definition would make sense, but as long as there is still debate over whether people are free of determinism or not, changing the term's definition only serves to muddy the waters of that debate.I also think there is a perfectly good term already available: will. We can use will to describe everything that compatibilists and revisionists want to use free will for, but without introducing an absolute adjective when an absolute is not warranted.

But Free Will doesn't mean that you're free to fly around like Superman or will millions of dollars into your pocket.... there's still contraints. Yeah it just moves it back; you have the will to not be shot by the guy and that's why you do what he says.But it *is* less free than if he wasn't there.There was other confusion between posters about whether or not you'd eat a shit sandwich, iirc. Obviously, that's gross and nobody would want to, but you could will yourself to do it if you really wanted too. So that could still be free will even if you weren't stoked about doing it.

Like....The laws of physics?But doesn't that lead to determinism?

Which is why I'm willing to allow some constraints, like violating gross laws of physics or logic.But, this just begs the question of where do you draw the line. As a determinist, I feel thet physics determines everything, from the inability to fly, to the inability to choose other than you ended up choosing. Why? It certainly appears that it is, but I contend that that is the illusion. Just because there isn't an obvious cause to your action doesn't mean one isn't there, or that a million little causes combined aren't constraining your choice just as much as the gunman.And even if I concede that it is freer, that doesn't mean it is free.$.50 for something is freer than $1.00 for the same thing, but that doesn't make it free when you only pay $.50. The point of that subthread was that doing what you want, if what you want is fully determined, doesn't make you any freer. Your desire is not free and you don't have the ability to not act on your desire, so where does freedom come in? The only answer is that you are free to act on your desire...but that would seem to be true always.Even with the gunman, you are "free" to act on your desire to remain alive. Just because that desire is placed in conflilct with another desire doesn't necessarily mean you're any less free. If it did, then anytime desires were placed in conflict, you're not free, and so I challenge you to find a time when you don't have competing desires.

Yeah, that makes it seem like its not absolute, full stop, to me. Thus making free will an illusion, I agree with that. I just thought the "abosulte-full stop" part was a little misleading/confusing. Go the other way with it: if I tied you down so you couldn't do anything at all, then you'd loose practically all the freedom of you will. But sometimes you have more constraints than others. But its never absolutely, full stop, free... because there's always some contraints.

Yes, if the laws of physics are completely deterministic.

I would argue that it should be. However, when normal, everyday people speak about free will, they know that willing yourself to fly is impossible, so I'm attempting to use it as it is commonly used. Technically, you'd lose the ability to act on your will in many respects, but you could still scream (unless gagged), or wriggle, or imagine a nice big ham sandwich.All of our actions are constrained by the environment we are in, i.e. a gravity well constrains our ability to fly, a vaccuum constrains our ability to breathe, etc. Being tied down is just another environment that constrains our options. That's the illusion. Somtimes the constraints are more obvious, but if you can only do one thing at any given time, how is that any more or less constrained? There are always constraints that make it such that you can only do one thing, even if it may seem like you could have done otherwise.So, it's never absolutely free, and in my opinion, it's never even remotely free.

Gotcha. Oh, ok, I see what you mean. With hard determinism, there was only one option for you from the beginning no matter what, so in that sense, there's only one level of contrain-ness: totally contrained. That makes sense. Yeah, like at all. Right: determinism. No free will.

Yep, you got it. Welcome aboard.

As I said, Christianity was just an example. The Abrahamic religions are good ones, because their scriptures very clearly contain the contradictions and confusion of the MITS, not because they invented this confusion, which they most certainly did not! I like the cartoon I posted earlier of Moses identifying the problem.Your link asks the participants this [my brackets]:

quote:

---

In Universe A [completely deterministic], is it possible for a person to be fully morally responsible for their actions?

---

fully morally responsible.It then takes the clear majority answer of "no" as meaning majority incompatibilism. The trouble is that the answer "no" is compatible with compatibilism. The guy assumes that compatibilism means that determinism is compatible with an extreme libertarian concept of "will", which can't exist unless we are uncaused prime causes; essentially, gods! Then we could be fully responsible.Compatibilism can only work with a realistic concept of will.Despite that, nearly 25% of the MITS in the sample actually do hold us as being fully responsible in a fully deterministic world.The survey in your link shows clear majority of non-determinists, when the universe chosen (B) is described as nearly deterministic with the exception of some human decisions.Put similar questions phrased differently to the MITS, and it's well established that you can get different and conflicting answers.I watched the video. The guy says that, while philosophers are divided on these questions, the MITS in any culture seems to find them easy to answer, as if his results showed that. Actually, his results show both division and cultural differences.Finally, it might be a good idea not to go too much on surveys with sample sizes like this:

quote:

---

Finally, our total sample size was 231, broken down as follows:

​

US=66
India=55
Hong Kong=40
Colombia=70

---

(And I'm sure all of the above goes for the survey I mentioned in which 75% appeared to be compatibilists in a certain described scenario).

To some extent, If you are unconscious you very well can not exert your will. Excellent question, which is why I like reading your post. You force one to consolidate ideas.I think it would be difficult to take ourselves out of the picture. (so to speak) we live in a deterministic universe.
As Dr. Adequate has stated, "I get by alright." The system works. The thing that is thinking it has a freewill, (The Self) isnt that illusory as well? But that does not prevent it (The Self) from making choices. Illusions are the maps, the terrain is reality. We interface reality through our conciousness/brain. As a free agent with a conscious mind and will we can do what we choose. It is advantageous for a creature to be able to navigate and model reality as closely as the brain seems to be able to do. However the bad news is, no matter how calculating and careful our individual choices, we are at the mercy of everyone else's choices for better or worse. Determinism, we just can not escape it.

Thanks, but I've always been an incompatibalist... there is one thing tho: I'm not much of a determinist

What do you mean by this? Do you believe you can break causality?