Posted: Aug 07, 2019 8:22 pm
by Cito di Pense
romansh wrote:
zoon wrote:
As you say, I would probably do better to stick to the core compatibilist argument: we ordinarily make a distinction between actions which were coerced, and actions which were uncoerced, or free. This distinction has consequences both in ordinary social life and in the law; we are much more likely to hold someone personally responsible for an uncoerced, or free, action, and to respond with blame and punishment, or praise and reward.

What we are doing is separating different causes into various buckets. Which is fine. Some of these buckets of causes under certain conditions can be deemed freely willed. And in turn the actions resulting from these buckets of causes under certain conditions can be considered worthy of sanction or reward. Depending on our world views, upbringing etc, we can have a fine old time debating whether actions were freely willed.

And what you're doing is hunting around for causes. That's fine when you can keep track of all the billiard balls and their collisions, which are deemed perfectly elastic, but that is only a model. When we can't do that, we fall back on colloquial language, and probabilities, and are not fussing with metaphysical causes. You seem to prefer going down the hole of determinism, instead of down the hole of freedom. It's still just a big hole filled with bullshit and populated by dichotomists who imagine they're the little lights in the darkness, thinking they might be smart enough to carry an argument, when it's just the torch they're carrying for their belief systems. What a bunch of fucknuttery.

GrahamH wrote:
I'm tempted to associate free will with liberty - experiencing a wide open space of possibilities with safe paths to take rather than a closed-in hard to navigate maze.

Look! There's another one who wants to keep a candle burning in the window. Sing with Uncle John Fogerty: Long as I can see the light!