Posted: Oct 04, 2018 7:10 pm
scott1328 wrote:
Did you watch the video? Did you get to the part that directly addresses the badness of the exact definition you use?
If you are unwilling or unable to watch the video, there is a transcript available from the YouTube site.
Yes I watched it.
It's a little bit like the badness of the definition of phlogiston.
There were strawmen. eg if we have no free will then not guilty.
The Virginia man story ... should have gone along the lines … he started molesting his step daughter. Was imprisoned for it. When in prison he complained of vertigo and headaches. He eventually was diagnosed with the tumour. It was removed. His sexual tendencies went away and was eventually released. But slowly they came back. As had his tumour. On removing the tumour for the second time he returned to normal.
Anyway I even quoted his/the video's suggested alternative definition.
There were bits I agreed with. The question remains … how do we treat people (including ourselves) who cannot have done otherwise?
My point being if cannot distinguish between people who have and do not have this capacity to have done otherwise why even bother with the concept of free will.
Free will as definition has been reduced to a point where we can no longer (or care to more like) identify accurately the underlying causes for our actions. Free will is an unnecessary concept like phlogiston.