Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 11:09:14 GMT
tpfkar Compatibilist free will isn't something that's amenable to 'evidence', because it's just reshaping the definition of free will to fit reality. So there can be neither evidence for or against compatibilism, it's merely a question of semantics. You most certainly haven't presented any neuroscientific evidence of free will in action, merely rebuttals of the Libet experiment. If you can find a peer reviewed experiment that presents evidence of free will (the libertarian kind) in action, then I'll eat my shirt. I don't particularly care about compatibilist nor other categories that people use slightly differently and others try to distort for purpose, nor of course what you try to casually dismiss because you wanna. What normal people think and have thought is both that cause and effect is universal we are part of it and we make choices and act according to our free will. Trying to pigeonhole it into distorted categories or just making up absurdities is the cynical attempt to reshape it for purpose. And feel free to eat your libertarian shirt all you want, all the searching is for evidence against free will, as all actual evidence has supported it and the only real line against it at this time is the highly contested, debated, tumultuous philosophical kind.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.In terms of compatibilist free will, there could never be any evidence that doesn't support it, because all those philosophers done is to observe an aspect of reality and then redefine the term "free will" to refer to something that actually happens as opposed to something that is logically incoherent. So it's a bit like if some people wanted to use the term 'unicorn' to refer to a Shetland pony, there would be no way of proving them wrong when they asserted that "unicorns are real", because in accordance with the way that they use the term "unicorn", the thing that they are referring to using that term is a real thing. But there's no evidence whatsoever for any broader or more meaningful definition of free will. There's no evidence which would reject the assertions made by Libet's experiment, even if the experiment itself was procedurally flawed in some way. |
|
