Search results for query: *

It has been discussed to the point of ad nauseum. But none of it has gone beyond semantics, how various sides define free will, compatibilists have a version, Libertarians their version, common usage of the term, etc. None of it resolves the issue. That demonstrates the very ignorance you...

There is no excuse for any of it.

I made no mention of colour. What about territory? Resources? Doesn't that come into it?

Yet we know that the physical state of the brain equates to how a person thinks and acts. A person heavily drunk or under the influence of drugs is in a different mental state. Lesions are known to alter personality, reduce cognitive abilities, etc. Then memory loss, depending on the...

So, in your view, where does that leave the concept of free will? Just a convenient social convention? ''Your Honor, he did it of his 'own free will?' Of course he did it, but why did he do it? How did he get to that point?

If the subject is free will, how does a probabilistic world - or random events - enable free will? How is free will to be defined in relation to a non deterministic world? It can't be the same as compatibalism..... perhaps some version of libertarian free will?

Tribal warfare is as old as humankind. Even the Chimps do it.

Chat? There is no chat.....after all, the weather is fine in Santa Monica.

You can get off now.

There is climate and there is weather. Think long term.

What you fail to grasp is that the given definition of determinism does not permit alternate action. Take your own definition: Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.'' Are you unable or unwilling to...

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.