javra

Not to be rude, but the enterprise we term “philosophy” does not revolve around your personal preferences, no more than it revolves around mine. Can y...

I can readily understand that. For what its worth, I don't myself subscribe to an origin of existence; an origin of the universe as its commonly known...

Libertarian free will has been espoused in many different flavors, ture. And I personally don’t subscribe to libertarian free will being completely de...

Will translates into volition. How does intellect get to be understood? Going by its original Latin roots, intellect could be understood as the unders...

To bring this back to the thread’s subject, when construed as expressed in my previous post, libertarian free will can then be neither a) random - for...

That’s not what I said in my post. What I expressed is that one can intend the same distant intent B by choosing a different option toward it, with ea...

Maybe I was overly literal in the words' etymological meaning: with both tyrant and monarch being loose synonyms for despot, i.e. a single ruler with ...

Off topic though this might be ... The point I intended to make is that the British “constitutional monarchy” as it currently stands is not a monarchy...

May I be corrected if wrong, but it was about whether one really has a choice in what one chooses. Again, if one does, then liberarain free will holds...

Not exactly. gives a good example. I'll let others take over for now.

You're in many a way placing the cart before the horse. If one can choose any of the two options via one's own volition, that is termed liberatrian fr...

Why "god" and not a "brain-in-vat dragon"? It has nothing to do with god, nor with the omniscience omnipotence I take it you're here addressing. It me...

Nor really. It has nothing to do with rewinding time, and certainly has nothing to do with any god. Assume your right now have two options of either r...

Can you be explicit on whether or not "all that crap" allows for you having chosen differently than what you do or else did?

For the record, it has nothing to do with rewinding time. (It has to do which what is and is not possible at any juncture of choice-making. which as e...

I'm getting headaches again. So I'll stop.

Can you clarify what you're here addressing. As a reminder, what I was addressing is in relation to what you expressed here:

Than why did you just specify the possibility of free will thus defined as being contingent on "genuine randomness"?

Unless one introduces some form of a hybrid event in one's metaphysics, I still don't get how randomness can account for any notion of free will. But ...

Granted. Bohm does have a lot of interesting things to say.

As a reminder, do you believe that you could have chosen otherwise at an past juncture of choice-making (i.e., at any juncture in which you decided up...

Got it. I'm still curious though: What then would be your gut feeling regarding this in terms of free will?

If you're not yet familiar with this, the delayed-choice quantum erasure experiment gets extremely interesting. Nothing conclusive about it in this re...

But here your saying that the first is 100% determined and the second is 100% random. Neither then are hybrid events. Where is the hybrid event at?

:up: I agree. Maybe I should have been clearer.

OK. But how do you reason this hybrid metaphysics to work? This has direct baring on what you are wanting to claim for free will.

It might come as no surprise that others disagree with this. So how do you rationally conclude this affirmation? Not that any of this addresses the re...

OK. Why not?

I've already explained why. But (unless I need to give further replies) I'll stop.

No. And how does that address the question you've yet to answer?

No. First off because it addresses hypotheses regarding physics at a quantum level which have in no way been evidenced to directly influence, much les...

The question was about that conscious choice, and not about whether rivers make decisions. But I guess you're not taking this seriously. Oh well.

To my surprise, I fully agree with this statement as written. (You might recall that in the other thread I used the term "semi-determined" or somethin...

OK. Then, a compatibilist will necessarily believe in the reality of some form or other of free will. If so, to reinforce 's comment, how can free wil...

You've explained options via randomness, but not the choice between options which is taken. How can randomness account for the very act of deciding wh...

How is this not playing footloose with definitions derived from a word's common use? One can entertain compatibilism but cannot oneself be a compatibi...

What technicality could that possibly be?

I missed that in the OP. My main point in addressing Ancient Athens was that a democracy can engage in war just fine. Athens as democracy did great in...

Just to check: We do agree that compatibilism entails the reality of free will, right?

No. It's not an answer to the first question. The first question regarded what a "random free will" can possibly signify, and if the idea of such a ra...

Sure. Here were my two questions: Here was your reply which you insist answered the questions: For starters, my two questions are such that the second...

Okey dokey, then. (In the world I live in, however, context is quite important to individual words, such as the ones you've quoted. Apparently not so ...

OK. But neither question asked was in any way answered.

Agreed. Yes. With the caveat that "determined' here entails "causally inevitable". I'd again agree.

None of which is a reply to what I asked. It does not destroy free will when free will is defined as: If however does necessarily deny the very possib...

How can the stance of "compatibilism" be compatible with randomness? In other words, if one's actions of will are random, how then can one be stated t...

In trying to stave off potential headaches, he's a compatibilist in the sense of free will being defined as "anything one wills to do that is not obst...

Yes, and it might also be worth commenting that most of Ancient Greece was not democratic. The Spartans, with which the Athenians battled, for one exa...

Which brings to mind: Ancient Athens was an exceedingly functional democracy (among male citizens) with excellent military prowess all in one bang. So...

True that. But the British “constitutional monarchy” is such that the mon-arch (the sole ruler) is a figurehead which has no real power to rule anythi...