The paper affirms all the science in the contemporary evolutionary synthesis. — Dfpolis
Did you attend Trump University, or are your prejudices home-grown? — Dfpolis
Did you not read my refutation of the whole thing recently published in the Journal of Middle-Earth Studies? — Isaac
I believe in evolution though. That's in fact precisely why I believe in what they call 'free will'. — Olivier5
As you are unwilling to engage in rational discourse or even point out anything I wrote that is factually wrong — Dfpolis
I prefer 'free choice'. — Olivier5
And at the end of this evolution, there's some 'pilot in the plane' that gets generated, some navigating system for the animal, that allows full integration of sense data, memory, analysis, etc, within the same space to make for better piloting. — Olivier5
Would some kind soul offer a two or three sentence precis of just what this thread is about? The title of the thread is, "Compatibilism Misunderstands both Free Will and Causality." In as much as most of the words in the title are terms-of-art, and no definitions have been offered (please direct me if I've overlooked them), it is not clear to me the discussion can arise to the level of coherence. — tim wood
While this is not a definition, it implies the kind of free will I am defending, i.e. one that sees acts as having their causal origin in the moral agent. So, "free will" means that at least some of our moral choices are not predetermined, but originate in an informed act of the moral agent.To be responsible for an act, one must be the origin of that act. If the act is predetermined before we were born, as determinism claims, clearly it does not originate in us or anything we did. So, compatibilism is fraud. — Dfpolis
The Compatibilist Notion of Free Will
... the idea that "free will" means we can do or choose what we desire (or something similar), — Dfpolis
I then go on to discuss each type at length providing examples.for over 1800 years, philosophers distinguished two kinds of efficient causality: accidental (Humean-Kantian time sequence by rule) and essential (the actualization of potency). — Dfpolis
The notion of cause as in cause-and-effect is a presupposition of differing ways of thinking and means different things in the several ways. Thus if one argues with it, one needs the right one, and in the right sense and application. Lacking that the argument cannot be correct. And even when correctly argued, only correct in its home context. — tim wood
As to the possibility of free will, bumblebees fly and people have the capability for free will. And no account of either is of much real use unless grounded somehow somewhere someway. — tim wood
Compatibilism is an example of the old "bait and switch" sales tactic applied to moral philosophy. The bait is that you can have your moral cake (responsibility stemming from free-will) and Humean-Kantian causality (time sequence by rule) too. The switch is that the kind of "free will" that is compatible with time sequence by rule does not support human responsibility. — Dfpolis
On this, I think a person could argue a bumblebee has the capability of free will.Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. — Olivier5
Is this being confused with what, exactly, exhaustively, and reductively free will is? On yours, my, and anyone's exercise of free will, what is the argument that says it wasn't free? Is it? and, what is it? are two different questions.Whether free will exists, — Olivier5
So we need free will in order to feel comfortable in administering punishment. — Banno
Hence, we do not need to appeal to free will. — Banno
I pointed out that the very first sentence of your paper is factually wrong — Kenosha Kid
On this, I think a person could argue a bumblebee has the capability of free will. — tim wood
While I agree with the evolutionary advantages of cephalization for ambulatory organisms, there is no reason to think that the evolutionary advantages lead to anything but superior data processing and response to the environment -- no reason to think that it leads to subjective awareness, and no reason to think it leads to free will/choice. — Dfpolis
You appear to argue that free choice is essentially caused. But I think there's a slip, here - and I wonder if you mean efficient cause — tim wood
Because what, exactly, is the essential cause? It is the builder's building of the house being built. It is not in any way the builder's choice/decision to build the house. — tim wood
Yes, but building willingly and willing to build ate inseparableThe choice to build and the building two different things. — tim wood
If you want to associate moral agency with free choice, then you have to decide or figure out when the moral agency kicks in (and what kicks it). — tim wood
you shall have to decide what moral agency means. — tim wood
And then there is Mathew 5:28, wherein the thought alone would seem to establish moral agency, no choice having been made. — tim wood
And moral agency/responsibility seems a capacity people have to assign certain meanings to actions, — tim wood
And relativism avoided by appeal to and acceptance of reason, by most people. — tim wood
I suggest you read the works of naturalists such as Huxley and Dawkins, who explicitly argue that we do not need mind in nature as evolution exemplifies order emerging from randomness. — Dfpolis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.