Free Will And Free Choice

[DBT]

What's free? I want in on this.

Still waiting for someone to actually explain. It may be a long time waiting. Perhaps tea and scones while we wait......

With dried grapes or rasins?

Good choice. We will be waiting a long, long time.

 

[The AntiChris]

However, I'll give it one more try. Jus tell me what you believe free will to be and I'll address your definition.

Why? Seriously, why?

My particular take on the free will debate has absolutely no bearing on the criticisms I raise about your anti-free will claims/arguments - these criticisms are based solely on logical/factual errors you appear to make.

The pattern here (and in the past) is that when I raise specific questions about your anti-free will claims, you respond with a variation on one of your standard anti-free will diatribes and ignore the specific point I've raised (clearly in the belief that you've refuted any possible objection I may have raised). When I complain that you haven't dealt with my point your standard response is that you've addressed all the issues.

What you fail to grasp is that I'm not defending free will, I'm criticizing some of the dumb arguments you use to justify your rejection of free will.

 

[WAB]

I have responded directly,

I know you think you have.

The problem is that you seem to interpret my attempts at critical examination of your anti-free will claims as positive advocation of compatibilist free will. They are not the same thing.

The result is that I don't get direct answers to my questions because you are more intent on discrediting compatibilist free will (most of your latest post is taken up with this despite the fact that I stated quite clearly earlier that "I'm not arguing for compatibilism").

- bold mine.

I tried once already, by posting a link to Stanford's page on compatibilism, and isolating one teeny tiny bit

(which COULD have been misunderstood or misinterpreted because it was out of context, though [I thought] not purposefully or misleadingly out of context, given that I linked to the text, AND said WHERE on the page the bit I quoted were yanked from [1.3] which I also said was NOT LONG - sigh...)

from the pertinent text.

DBT: AntiChris clearly wrote (right there in the part I quote now, and which I put in bold text in this post, that they were not arguing for compatibilism, but was attempting to offer "critical examination of your anti free will claims".

He was not trying to refute incompatibilism (at least from what I can understand); but attempting to find out what other people in this thread actually know about compatibilism. If I am wrong, AntiChris can tell me, or not. Their choice. In the thread or in private. Matters nothing at all, and is irrelevant to what we are discussing, in any case.

The easiest thing to do would be to begin a thread about compatibilism (in my view). I will if no one else will venture to do it. I will wait a few days. Hopefully [MENTION=384]fast[/MENTION]; will return, or someone who knows a good deal about it. Maybe [MENTION=344]Speakpigeon[/MENTION]; ?

Speaky! Where are you? Come in, Speaky!

ETA: D'oh! AntiChris snuck one in whilst I was editinginging.

 

[fromderinside]

Any dipping sauce with your wrap - up?

 

[WAB]

Sure! I'll take ranch.

No! honey-mustard.























NO! Caesar!































.

 

[DBT]

I have responded directly,

I know you think you have.

The problem is that you seem to interpret my attempts at critical examination of your anti-free will claims as positive advocation of compatibilist free will. They are not the same thing.

The result is that I don't get direct answers to my questions because you are more intent on discrediting compatibilist free will (most of your latest post is taken up with this despite the fact that I stated quite clearly earlier that "I'm not arguing for compatibilism").

- bold mine.

I tried once already, by posting a link to Stanford's page on compatibilism, and isolating one teeny tiny bit

(which COULD have been misunderstood or misinterpreted because it was out of context, though [I thought] not purposefully or misleadingly out of context, given that I linked to the text, AND said WHERE on the page the bit I quoted were yanked from [1.3] which I also said was NOT LONG - sigh...)

from the pertinent text.

DBT: AntiChris clearly wrote (right there in the part I quote now, and which I put in bold text in this post, that they were not arguing for compatibilism, but was attempting to offer "critical examination of your anti free will claims".

He was not trying to refute incompatibilism (at least from what I can understand); but attempting to find out what other people in this thread actually know about compatibilism. If I am wrong, AntiChris can tell me, or not. Their choice. In the thread or in private. Matters nothing at all, and is irrelevant to what we are discussing, in any case.

The easiest thing to do would be to begin a thread about compatibilism (in my view). I will if no one else will venture to do it. I will wait a few days. Hopefully [MENTION=384]fast[/MENTION]; will return, or someone who knows a good deal about it. Maybe [MENTION=344]Speakpigeon[/MENTION]; ?

Speaky! Where are you? Come in, Speaky!

ETA: D'oh! AntiChris snuck one in whilst I was editinginging.

Yet no 'critical examination' was ever offered. Repeating 'you don't understand compatibilism' while refusing to explain whenever asked to explain is neither a critical examination or a valid argument. It's nothing.

 

[DBT]

However, I'll give it one more try. Jus tell me what you believe free will to be and I'll address your definition.

Why? Seriously, why?

My particular take on the free will debate has absolutely no bearing on the criticisms I raise about your anti-free will claims/arguments - these criticisms are based solely on logical/factual errors you appear to make.

The pattern here (and in the past) is that when I raise specific questions about your anti-free will claims, you respond with a variation on one of your standard anti-free will diatribes and ignore the specific point I've raised (clearly in the belief that you've refuted any possible objection I may have raised). When I complain that you haven't dealt with my point your standard response is that you've addressed all the issues.

What you fail to grasp is that I'm not defending free will, I'm criticizing some of the dumb arguments you use to justify your rejection of free will.

Repeating "you don't understand compatibilism' is not a rational criticism. Just an expression of your opinion.

As is your dismissal of "dumb arguments" - which don't happen to be my personal arguments....but perhaps you didn't notice citations or quotes, or references to neuroscience - how decisions and actions are initiated, or anything like that.

Your game is simply repeatiing 'you don't understand compatibilism.'


You should try offering something more, because to date you have offered exactly nothing of value.

 

[The AntiChris]

DBT: AntiChris clearly wrote (right there in the part I quote now, and which I put in bold text in this post, that they were not arguing for compatibilism, but was attempting to offer "critical examination of your anti free will claims".

Yet no 'critical examination' was ever offered. Repeating 'you don't understand compatibilism' while refusing to explain whenever asked to explain is neither a critical examination or a valid argument. It's nothing.

Here's the explanation again:

Classical compatibilism does not entail the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances (i.e. it does not entail indeterministic events). You can verify this by reading the available literature (a good place to start would be the section on Classical Compatibilism in the SEP).


It follows from this that if you do believe compatibilism (in all its forms) does entail the ability yo have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you misunderstand compatibilism.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not the target of your 'clarification' but to me your proposal re determinism doesn't work because compatibilism is not an option re determinism. Whether compatibilism does or does not entail the ability for you to have done otherwise or no it is not applicable to determinism. The only way one can speak about determinism re compatibilism is if one is talking about relative determinism which means from the perspective of one in a determined environment which obviously means one isn't privy to one's condition of being determined which isn't determinism in any form.

 

[WAB]

Here's the explanation again:

Classical compatibilism does not entail the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances (i.e. it does not entail indeterministic events). You can verify this by reading the available literature (a good place to start would be the section on Classical Compatibilism in the SEP).


It follows from this that if you do believe compatibilism (in all its forms) does entail the ability yo have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you misunderstand compatibilism.

Okay - I do see your point, DBT.

AntiChris has not responded to me at all, despite my having defended them, and despite a supportive rep comment. Of course this means nothing regarding the relevance or value of their participation here; but I find it a tiny bit odd. I have not explored the archives yet; but I have no reason to assume AntiChris either has a problem with me or does not have a good grasp of compatibilism.

One more time, for good luck:
[MENTION=384]fast[/MENTION]; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[MENTION=344]Speakpigeon[/MENTION]; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WAB]

"testing, testing...is this thing on? Is this an audience or an oil painting?..."

- bold mine.

I tried once already, by posting a link to Stanford's page on compatibilism, and isolating one teeny tiny bit

(which COULD have been misunderstood or misinterpreted because it was out of context, though [I thought] not purposefully or misleadingly out of context, given that I linked to the text, AND said WHERE on the page the bit I quoted were yanked from [1.3] which I also said was NOT LONG - sigh...)

from the pertinent text.

DBT: AntiChris clearly wrote (right there in the part I quote now, and which I put in bold text in this post, that they were not arguing for compatibilism, but was attempting to offer "critical examination of your anti free will claims".

He was not trying to refute incompatibilism (at least from what I can understand); but attempting to find out what other people in this thread actually know about compatibilism. If I am wrong, AntiChris can tell me, or not. Their choice. In the thread or in private. Matters nothing at all, and is irrelevant to what we are discussing, in any case.

The easiest thing to do would be to begin a thread about compatibilism (in my view). I will if no one else will venture to do it. I will wait a few days. Hopefully [MENTION=384]fast[/MENTION]; will return, or someone who knows a good deal about it. Maybe [MENTION=344]Speakpigeon[/MENTION]; ?

Speaky! Where are you? Come in, Speaky!

ETA: D'oh! AntiChris snuck one in whilst I was editinginging.

Yet no 'critical examination' was ever offered. Repeating 'you don't understand compatibilism' while refusing to explain whenever asked to explain is neither a critical examination or a valid argument. It's nothing.

Okay - I do see your point, DBT.

AntiChris has not responded to me at all, despite my having defended them, and despite a supportive rep comment. Of course this means nothing regarding the relevance or value of their participation here; but I find it a tiny bit odd. I have not explored the archives yet; but I have no reason to assume AntiChris either has a problem with me or does not have a good grasp of compatibilism.

One more time, for good luck:

[MENTION=384]fast[/MENTION]; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[MENTION=344]Speakpigeon[/MENTION]; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The AntiChris]

AntiChris has not responded to me at all, despite my having defended them, and despite a supportive rep comment. Of course this means nothing regarding the relevance or value of their participation here; but I find it a tiny bit odd. I have not explored the archives yet; but I have no reason to assume AntiChris either has a problem with me

You must have forgotten my original response to you (post #779).

Apologies if I've missed something. Please let me know if I've overlooked a post of yours which required a response from me.

I'm at a loss as to why you might think I might have a problem with you.

I'd be interested to know what you think is the problem with my responses to DBT.

 

[DBT]

...

 

[WAB]

AntiChris has not responded to me at all, despite my having defended them, and despite a supportive rep comment. Of course this means nothing regarding the relevance or value of their participation here; but I find it a tiny bit odd. I have not explored the archives yet; but I have no reason to assume AntiChris either has a problem with me

You must have forgotten my original response to you (post #779).

Apologies if I've missed something. Please let me know if I've overlooked a post of yours which required a response from me.

I'm at a loss as to why you might think I might have a problem with you.

I'd be interested to know what you think is the problem with my responses to DBT.

Egads! I actually did forget that post of yours. My apologies, AntiChris. I'm giving myself another

No, I don't think you have a problem with me. I had simply forgotten that initial response of yours about kennethamy. My short term memory is horrible.

I don't think there is a problem with your responses to DBT. And I don't know but it appears that DBT did not directly address this particular response you made in post #792:

Classical compatibilism does not entail the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances (i.e. it does not entail indeterministic events). You can verify this by reading the available literature (a good place to start would be the section on Classical Compatibilism in the SEP).

It follows from this that if you do believe compatibilism (in all its forms) does entail the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you misunderstand compatibilism.

Perhaps DBT will venture to say if he believes that compatibilism (in all its forms) does entail the ability to have done otherwise?

Will that help?

DBT, my good fellow, will you venture a yay or nay?

 

[The AntiChris]

No, I don't think you have a problem with me.

 

[DBT]

Egads! I actually did forget that post of yours. My apologies, AntiChris. I'm giving myself another

No, I don't think you have a problem with me. I had simply forgotten that initial response of yours about kennethamy. My short term memory is horrible.

I don't think there is a problem with your responses to DBT. And I don't know but it appears that DBT did not directly address this particular response you made in post #792:

Classical compatibilism does not entail the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances (i.e. it does not entail indeterministic events). You can verify this by reading the available literature (a good place to start would be the section on Classical Compatibilism in the SEP).

It follows from this that if you do believe compatibilism (in all its forms) does entail the ability to have done otherwise in exactly the same circumstances then you misunderstand compatibilism.

Perhaps DBT will venture to say if he believes that compatibilism (in all its forms) does entail the ability to have done otherwise?

Will that help?

DBT, my good fellow, will you venture a yay or nay?

I'm pretty sure that I've already said that compatibilism doesn't rest on the ability to have chosen otherwise, basically freedom of action/absence of coercion....which is problematic for the given reasons.

Simply defining something semantically doesn't make it a reality.

 

[The AntiChris]

DBT, my good fellow, will you venture a yay or nay?

I'm pretty sure that I've already said that compatibilism doesn't rest on the ability to have chosen otherwise,

I'm absolutely certain this is the first unambiguous response you've given to my original question (post #745 - 2 weeks ago). I have no idea why you felt it necessary to avoid giving me a straightforward answer until now.

 

[DBT]

DBT, my good fellow, will you venture a yay or nay?

I'm pretty sure that I've already said that compatibilism doesn't rest on the ability to have chosen otherwise,

I'm absolutely certain this is the first unambiguous response you've given to my original question (post #745 - 2 weeks ago). I have no idea why you felt it necessary to avoid giving me a straightforward answer until now.

I have given more than a few straightforward answers. You must have missed or misconstrued what I said. My original quote from the article ''cold comfort in compatibilism outlines the problems quite well. The article could have been critiqued at the beginning, yet nothing was offered.

 

[The AntiChris]

I'm absolutely certain this is the first unambiguous response you've given to my original question (post #745 - 2 weeks ago). I have no idea why you felt it necessary to avoid giving me a straightforward answer until now.

I have given more than a few straightforward answers.

I disagree (you could always attempt to prove me wrong with an actual quote).

 

[WAB]