It is not sufficient that determinism be false for free will to be possible according to libertarians. — Pierre-Normand
Why not? I think that if free will is inconsistent with determinism, then the demonstration that determinism is false is exactly what is required to demonstrate that free will is possible. — Metaphysician Undercover
It might be that free will is impossible if either determinism or some other X is true. — Michael
A demonstration that determinism is false isn’t a demonstration that this other X is false, and so not a demonstration that free will is possible. — Michael
Then as an example, free will (according to the libertarian) is incompatible with both determinism and quantum indeterminacy. — Michael
Free will requires that there is some third mechanism (e.g. agent-causation) for action, and the libertarian's task is to make sense of such a thing and show that such a thing is possible. — Michael
Are you able to help me to expose the difference between these two conceptions of "free will" which are both incompatible with determinism? — Metaphysician Undercover
If our actions are the consequence of quantum indeterminacy then they are the result of random chance, not free choice. — Michael
The libertarian needs to explain what free will requires (e.g. an immaterial soul in your example) and that these requirements are possible. — Michael
John claims that humans can run at 30mph.
Jane claims that humans cannot run at 30mph because the fastest a human can run is 25mph.
Joe demonstrates that humans can run at 27.5mph.
Has Joe demonstrated that humans can run at 30mph? No. — Michael
John claims that humans can make free choices.
Jane claims that humans cannot make free choices because all actions are the deterministic consequence of some prior state.
Joe demonstrates that some actions are the indeterminate consequence of some prior state.
Has Joe demonstrated that humans can make free choices? No. — Michael
Libertarian free will remains a possibility. What's your point? — Metaphysician Undercover
Imagine, someone says "prove to me that libertarian free will is a reality". Then you attempt to make an argument which would produce the necessary conclusion. That would mean that the person that you are presenting the demonstration to would have no choice but to accept the conclusion of the reality of free will. But that instance of having no choice would be impossible if free will is the reality. Therefore, when an anti-free-willie asks a free-willie to prove the reality of free will, it's a loaded question, because if free will is the reality this is fundamentally impossible. Sure, the air is cold and thin at the top of the mountain, but enjoy the view, there is no reason to come down until some kind of need makes the decision to descend "necessary", as the means to the end. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.