Posted: Aug 21, 2017 1:31 pm
scott1328 wrote: I do not accept that "could have done otherwise" is the sine qua non of free will. I also do not accept your claim about what "most people" claim free will to mean. For my part, to claim any effect as acausal is incoherent; that is, such a claim is not even wrong. You may thus infer that I reject any formulation free will that requires non-caused choices.
Well go back to the Jerry Coyne video I posted a while back and look at the data he provided for the USA and India. But I agree by changing our definitions we can flip free will into and out of existence.
Having said that the 'problems' of not being able to otherwise remain.
scott1328 wrote:As far as "could have done otherwise," I take this to mean that you are asking me if the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic, to which I will take no stance. I simply don't know.
No I don't mean that. While you might not know it is true, I am asking what do you think about the ability of being able to do otherwise?
scott1328 wrote:But, there could be other interpretations of "could have done otherwise" perhaps you had another in mind?
Independent of cause whether deterministic, quantum or some other option as yet unimagined.
scott1328 wrote:I have several times offered up a different formulation of free will and you reject it out of hand as "compatibilism." As though labeling an unfavored stance refutes it.
Ah you begin to sound like David here. But I do think compatibilism allows us to miss the point that we might not have been able to do otherwise.