Posted: May 20, 2017 4:21 pm
romansh wrote:DavidMcC wrote:
Please explain what is "compatibilist" about biological free will,
Biological free will is compatible with physics (cause and effect even at the quantum level) ...
That's fine with me. If it wasn't, I would consider that it was impossible to have it.
in fact our wills are determined by physics.
Now, that's where you go wrong. Being compatible with the laws of physics allows for INDIRECT determination of one's will by the laws. This allows for us to have a choice, rather than be the slave of our environment.
I am surprised I have to explain this.
I have encountered various "compatibilisms" over the years, such as "compatible with god", etc. That's why asked. Apparently, you haven't heard of that. Maybe it's another case of language evolution.
DavidMcC wrote:and why you evidently regard incompatibilism as some sort of "badge of honour".
This further exemplifies your lack of knowledge David.
Hard determinists and libertarians are both incompatibilists. So why would I regard incompatibilism as a badge of honour?
One thing about libertarians though they recognise that hard determinists and libertarians are talking about similar concepts of free will.
Having said that libertarians have given compatibilists a hard time and accused them of word jugglery.
In fact soft determinist was original coined as a pejorative but today is used as a synonym for compatibilist.
We are both determinists. The only exception (in recent memory) seems to James who occasionally sticks in his halfpenny's worth.
Whatever. It's all what Cito calls "philo-wibble" to me. I suspect that my "lack of knowledge" is really just the changed meaning you have given to the C-word.