4 ms·

Your other points in this thread are inadequate. Compatibilism may make perfect sense for you but that doesn't render your opinion correct against someone that

Your other points in this thread are inadequate. Compatibilism may make perfect sense for you but that doesn't render your opinion correct against someone that disagrees with your definition of free will and the common definition of free will. I find it humorous you're attempting to use mob rule now and which is why I decided to comment. If by any chance you would like to have a discussion by maybe voice? I would very much like to discuss your views vs my own and go over why I'm a hard determinist compared to being a compatibilist such as yourself. I do like to discuss these topics once in awhile with someone over chat. I try to keep an open mind and hopefully learn something new whenever that may be in my fate. Although if you're a person that's fixated on semantics and or just assumes your 60% of philosophers must be right. There isn't much point.

naasking 6y ago
> Compatibilism may make perfect sense for you but that doesn't render your opinion correct against someone that disagrees with your definition of free will and the common definition of free will. There is no "common definition" of free will, there are a series of context-specific definitions used in ethics, science, law, theology, etc. and this conflation causes considerable confusion. The notion of a "common definition", often trotted out to dismiss Compatibilism, is simply false. I don't want to be dismissive myself, but I've said my piece about hard determinism here [1] and in other posts. After participating in literally hundreds of debates on this topic on the philosophy subreddit over the years, I don't think I'll hear anything particularly new, and I think I've spent enough time on this thread at this point. I only debate this extensively sometimes because while hard determinism enjoys widespread support among scientifically minded people who conflate "free will" in science with its use in ethics, Compatibilism is unfairly dismissed and misunderstood. Cheers! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482205
- abellerose 6y ago
  Okay, no point with you then. Have a good life.
- tsegratis 6y ago
  So much like a human evaluates clocks An outside force can evaluate me, and decide if I was good or not. It wasn't my choices or anything from myself that led to that Interesting. You could go a long way with that logic. Since you can go a long way, there is also little that can be disagreed with -- even though the way you go can take you many places, and many of them good (in my non-outside-force opinion) I would ask: So there is something that makes some clocks good, and some bad. Something outside of my influence -- so from my reference point it is not determined Is this just semantics. Can I just redefine human to be human+thing_not_determined? The outside force at a minimum should be an algorithm deciding whether clocks are good or bad. The force can be fully determined, and the clocks can be fully determined. But what causes variance in clocks? The source of that variance can also be fixed -- a fully deterministic universe But from the outside force's reference point, is that variance external or internal to the algorithm? External; then the algorithm has an effectively non-deterministic view of clocks Internal; then it is no longer evaluating clocks, rather an evaluation of itself+clocks. No longer a good or bad clock; we have a good or bad God --- Conclusion: Compatibilism is compatible with a non deterministic universe Any fully determined system can be seen as non-determined when looking at a subset. Is quantum mechanics fully determined or not? In a sense it doesn't matter -- since our view of the universe will never be full, and so we can never take a fully deterministic view point??

naasking 6y ago

> Compatibilism may make perfect sense for you but that doesn't render your opinion correct against someone that disagrees with your definition of free will and the common definition of free will. There is no "common definition" of free will, there are a series of context-specific definitions used in ethics, science, law, theology, etc. and this conflation causes considerable confusion. The notion of a "common definition", often trotted out to dismiss Compatibilism, is simply false. I don't want to be dismissive myself, but I've said my piece about hard determinism here [1] and in other posts. After participating in literally hundreds of debates on this topic on the philosophy subreddit over the years, I don't think I'll hear anything particularly new, and I think I've spent enough time on this thread at this point. I only debate this extensively sometimes because while hard determinism enjoys widespread support among scientifically minded people who conflate "free will" in science with its use in ethics, Compatibilism is unfairly dismissed and misunderstood. Cheers! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482205 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482205

abellerose 6y ago
Okay, no point with you then. Have a good life.
tsegratis 6y ago
So much like a human evaluates clocks An outside force can evaluate me, and decide if I was good or not. It wasn't my choices or anything from myself that led to that Interesting. You could go a long way with that logic. Since you can go a long way, there is also little that can be disagreed with -- even though the way you go can take you many places, and many of them good (in my non-outside-force opinion) I would ask: So there is something that makes some clocks good, and some bad. Something outside of my influence -- so from my reference point it is not determined Is this just semantics. Can I just redefine human to be human+thing_not_determined? The outside force at a minimum should be an algorithm deciding whether clocks are good or bad. The force can be fully determined, and the clocks can be fully determined. But what causes variance in clocks? The source of that variance can also be fixed -- a fully deterministic universe But from the outside force's reference point, is that variance external or internal to the algorithm? External; then the algorithm has an effectively non-deterministic view of clocks Internal; then it is no longer evaluating clocks, rather an evaluation of itself+clocks. No longer a good or bad clock; we have a good or bad God --- Conclusion: Compatibilism is compatible with a non deterministic universe Any fully determined system can be seen as non-determined when looking at a subset. Is quantum mechanics fully determined or not? In a sense it doesn't matter -- since our view of the universe will never be full, and so we can never take a fully deterministic view point??