Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 11:11:35 GMT
tpfkar Just so you are aware, cupcakes has never been arguing for strictly deterministic compatibilist free will. He has taken issue with any claims that have been made that our decisions are the product of deterministic processes, and says that the conclusion drawn from the Libet experiments are incorrect. He's trying to save face. I have never denied the existence of 'compatibilist free will', because that concept is reshaping the definition of 'free will' and then applying it to something which is known to exist. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence for or against the proposition. I have always argued that all is cause and effect, that we're right there in it part and parcel, and free will is us making decisions via us and acting on them. I haven't changed in this regard one iota. Libet's interpretation does not make sense to me nor is it consensus but is in fact highly disputed among "secular scientists and philosophers". I'm not interested in categories vs. just describing positions because people botch them both inadvertently and cynically attempt to use them to dismiss and avoid actually justifying positions and implications.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.So in other words, you don't know what free will is or how it works, or what the implications of it are, you are just extremely desperate for it to exist. This is reminiscent of people who lose their faith in mainstream Christianity and then experiment with all sorts of different types of 'spirituality' and different paradigms of 'God', so that they don't have to give up altogether on the idea that God exists. |
|
