I was merely stating that any one can set up a thought experiment that forces one to accept the conclusion.
In your fantasy of a strictly deterministic universe, freewill is indeed incompatible.
I am comfortable in knowing that this is what you are proposing. However this in no way implies that I agree with your fantasy.
I am merely stating that your fantasy can only reach the one conclusion. But it is your fantasy not mine.
The reason I call it a fantasy is that it defies reality based observation and empirical evidence to the contrary. It appears to be willfully ignoring reality hence it's label of fantasy.
In other words I have no reason to grant your theory any credibility when it is applied to the real world.
It's all about baby steps, QQ. First take things back to the simplest, then deal with the added complexity.
With iceaura, and others, they assert that freewill is compatible with determinism. Hence the argument has focussed on that. If we can't get past that hurdle, of what use is the added complexity.
So don't be so pathetic as to claim the scenario is my "fantasy", QQ. I do not believe the universe is strictly deterministic, probably any more than you do, but it is a convenient starting point to explore, separating the compatibilists from incompatibilists. Treat it as such, and if you are an incompatibilist, as you are, then great, move on. But for the in/compatabilist debate it is the central difference and thus worthy of exploration.
What I would suggest to you is that you first acknowledge that self determination ( aka freewill) is self evident in Humans throughout history. Your conclusion that it must be a self-fraud or an illusion, is unsupported by the evidence of billions of individuals on a daily basis.
If by "free will" you are assuming that it is "free" then to do as you ask is to beg the question, QQ. You are assuming that freewill is free, therefore you conclude that free will is free.
If, however, you simply refer to the process that we call freewill, and make no assumption as to whether or not it is actually free, then I have always, and repeatedly, accepted that the process exists, and is observable.
So which is it: are you asking me to beg the question or just confirm what I'm already doing?
Then reconsider your thesis reasoning to accommodate such obvious evidence of self determination.
I have certainly considered that the process of freewill exists. It is just the "free" aspect that I question.
Simply claiming that freewill MUST be an illusion ( a fraud) is not sufficient enough to gain credibility, especially when according to your strictly determinstic universe, that very illusion or fraud that you claim to exist, is also determined; that the universe ( from it's genesis) has determined that humans run around in the false belief that they are self determined and only have an illusion of freedom.
I have never "simply claimed" anything but put forward a consistent logical argument for it, starting with Baldeee's formulation.
If you can't follow that, and thus see the conclusions simply being an unsupported claim, then that is for you to address.
[qupte]You prove also that your reading is rose tinted, suggesting strong confirmation bias when you illogically claim me to be an " Incompatabalist" when in fact every post I have made to this thread has indicated other wise, in fact the label "Compatabalist" whilst a label I would wish to avoid, is more appropriate.[/quote]I can only guess that you have zero idea of what an incompatibilist actually is...
To quote wiki: "
Incompatibilism is the view that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that persons have a free will."
You have stated, quite clearly, that freewill is impossible in a deterministic universe. Yet you don't consider yourself an incompatibilist?
Perhaps you are confusing the label with those who claim freewill is actually free or not? That is not what compatibilism or Incompatibilism refer to. Some incompatibilists, perhaps such as yourself, argue that while freewill is at odds with determinism, freewill does exist and determinism is false. The issue for you to resolve is then how does a non-deterministic universe lead to free will being actually free? What other aspect is there to the universe, beyond the strict determinism, that gives rise to free will?
My own particular understanding is very different to both compatablists and incombatalists, though leaning towards compatibility more so than incompatibility. ( the ancient Stoics are close but not quite on the mark IMO )
No, you are categorically an incompatibilist. Your own admission is the epitome of a definition of the incompatibilist position: free will is incompatible with determinism.
The metaphysical libertarianists, however, are incompatibilists that believe free will is still actually free, because they consider determinism false, although they would surely need to explain how indeterminism can lead to a free will that is actually fre, rather than just being a process.
How you have arrived at the conclusion that I am an "Incompatabalist" is rather perplexing and troubling with regards to the credibility of your mental faculty.
It's the simple case of taking your admission and using previous knowledge to match you to the label that exactly matches that admission. So as well as confirming that my mental faculty is working just fine, thanks, it does show that you're simply not aware of the terms.
The rest of your post is premised on your extraordinary and irrational leap to presume that I am an "incompatabilist" and accordingly deserves no further response.
Now that you (should) know otherwise, perhaps you might reconsider? Or are you going to simply use your previous ignorance as a continuing excuse?
It is not surprising to me, as science will try to tell us all, for example, that the night sky full of stars is a light show illusion, that we really have no idea what is happening in our immediate and far universe. ( due to considerable light info delay times)
Why is the night sky an illusion? They are lights. We see the lights. They are not anything other than what they appear to be. They don't operate contrary to any underlying system, do they?
Basically striving to tell us all that we are constantly deluded and our lives are full of sensory fraud does nothing to promote trust in ourselves and our observations of our surrounding reality. Simply because someone ( the scientist, thinker etc) has a theory that offers utility premised on a fraud to begin with.
Per the argument offered, in a deterministic universe we would be deluded, but we can not escape from that delusion, and thus we base our subjective reality upon that delusion. We can do little else.
Now, if you can explain how a universe that is indeterminate due to inherent randomness at the quantum level can lead to something being able to do otherwise, please enlighten us. Or are you going to how things appear, and not even question whether they are illusory or not? I have no issue if you want to base your argument upon such practical considerations only, but please be aware that I consider such to be irrelevant to the question of whether the process of free will is actually free or not.
Now, based on the illogical Big Bang model you seek to perpetuate a fraud by claiming an impossible strictly deterministic reality and that the very thing we live for, strive for, die for, is an illusion. That reality is determined to perpetrate a fraud.
Well, to be fair, it was only in the last 100 years or so that we knew the universe was not strictly determined. But it is still appropriated to start from that assumption, since it separates compatabilists from such as ourselves.
