Search results for query: *

When considering whether Compatibilism has a valid argument for free will, it doesn't matter how the world really works because compatibilists define their version of free will in relation to their definition of determinism. If the world does have random events, events that alter how things...

I work with the definition given by compatibilists. I don't disagree with the definition that Jarhyn gave.

Who was talking about Libertarianism? Was anyone arguing for Libertarianism? Who brought up the term 'radical fatalism?" Why was that done? Is not the issue here about compatibilism and how they define their terms and conditions? Are they wrong? .

My words are fallacious? That's a false accusation. Utter Crock in fact. I simply refer to how compatibilists define determinism ( much the same as what you gave) and their definition of free in relation to their definition of determinism. What you see as fallacious is your own...

All I meant was that Jarhyn gave a standard definition of determinism.

I was not the one to bring it up. It makes no difference to how compatibilists define determinism and free will, or how sound their argument for free will happens to be. It fails for the given reasons. And if antecedents determine how the system evolves......? Freedom from your own nature...

I think that you defined determinism in much the same way as it is defined. Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.'' [post-975954]

Exactly. Yet it becomes an issue.

As it was you who brought up radical fatalism, you should explain how it relates to determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

If determinism is true, you can do whatever is determined, you can marry, have children, a career, you can think, feel and act.....in fact, according to the given terms, what you think and do is inevitable. You can't support compatibalism if you reject the given conditions of determinism...

Reason may or may not override instinct, it can, but it's not a matter of free will. People often act impulsively. Then they may regret their actions. What happens is a matter of how the brain responds in that instance. And training is obviously possible. Animals can obviously be...

I think that its a fair summary. These are not my personal definitions, just how Compatibilists define their terms and the implications of their conditions. Some, it would seem, want it both ways, that compatibalism is a sound argument and that determinism does not have the implication of...

We are whatever the brain is doing. Will has no control over genetics, neural architecture, social circumstances, family, language, social conditioning, etc, etc....where our wants and needs are formed.

That implies that 'our choices' work independently of how the system evolves (given determinism, without deviation), that somehow 'our choices' make a difference to the course of events....which contradicts the terms and conditions of the very definition of determinism that compatibilists use...

The evidence supports the brain as the generator of mind. That it is the brain that acquires and processes information (memory function, etc) and generates conscious activity. That mind is a reflection of the state of the brain.

If determinism is true, conscious will is as determined or fixed by antecedents as the related actions, the need or want arises and the related action follows. Anything that is fixed by antecedents is not free, including will. Will has no regulatory control. It has no realizable options in...

Again, your emotional response misses the point. I said that Compatibilists give their definition of determinism. I made no mention of radical fatalism. You and your side invoked the term ''radical fatalism''.....presumably in relation to how Compatibilists define determinism....otherwise...

You miss the point. That it doesn't work in any way you look at it. OK, let's call it radical fatalism. So it is the compatibilist who claims that free will as they define it to be, is compatible with radical fatalism. Are you arguing for compatibilism? Are you happy with that? Or...

That was a phone posting glitch....I reposted the question.

How would chaos theory or indeterminism help with the brain/mind process of decision-making or the idea of free will?