Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 1:27:08 GMT
The compatibilist definition is only the perceived ability to make choices, but the compatibilist also believes that there is only one possible choice for each scenario. Given that the full chain of causality leading up to that choice (and which will determine our decision in that moment) is opaque to us, we have the illusion that there are many different paths that we can take, and that the final decision springs forth from our will. But if we can't direct our thought processes before having the thoughts, then we are effectively only witnessing the decisions that our brain is predetermined to make (or makes randomly through some kind of quantum physics incoherency). We aren't directing our will at all, because in order to do so we would need to have an even more fundamental will with which to direct our will. There is no empirical evidence that if you wind back the clock ten minute everything will turn out the same so how can you say such a thing? Time travel to the past is impossible, so we could never have experimental proof. But to even imagine that the conscious actor would be have differently is impossible. For a start, you would at least need to introduce dualism - there would need to be some kind of ethereal force directing the brain to behave differently than it otherwise would have done, most probably one that would need to transcend time. Secondly, you would then need to explain the why the ethereal 'soul' was caused to choose differently the second time, but the whole point of the free will argument is that behaviour isn't constrained by causality, so once you'd found what caused the soul (or whatever you would call it) to choose the way it did you would have defeated the argument in favour of free will. |
|
