https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
>read a daniel dennet article where he reviews sam harris's free will book*
>dennet is really patronising towards determinism
>"59 % of philosophers are compatibilists, teehee, poor deluded harris and scientists and common folks who are hard determinists"
>"if only they paid attention to philosophical progress, poor deluded plebs"
>"philosophers have a different definition of free will"
>dennet won't get to the fucking point so I just go to the link above, excited to see a non trivial use of reasoning in philosophy as I was the Munchhausen Trilemma poster / shitposter
>think to myself "oh my god, my mind will be blown"
>Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."[7]
>In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism.[2] This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination."
WHAT?! WTF? WTF? that's the fucking stupidest shit i've ever seen! That's STUPID.
>Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery."
That basically sums it up. Oh my god, philosophers you fucking slimy faggots, do SOMETHING academically worthwhile.
* yes I know harris says dumb shit and I'm not implying i'm a fan
calm down hopper
Delete this shitty thread
>>1426175
>"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
>In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined.
What makes dennet particularly egregious here is that this is exactly the reason Harris et al think free will is an illusion, because we cannot will what we will, only choose whether or not to act on our impulses.
Our mind is not restricted, but our bodies are. My thoughts are not predetermined and are free but what I can do is limited by my surroundings, by physical objects and social interactions.
I can be a /pol/ in my mind but will have to act as an SJW.
The inner experience of you as yourself is not causal because it has no objects or anything from the realm of scientific material analysis.
Yes, your mind is to an extent limited to its experience but nonetheless it is not causal and within the boundaries you make descisions and think thoughts. The more you ponder over issues the more free will you exhibit.
Your imagination is free but your actions are limited anon and fuck dennet and the other edgy fedoras.
>>1426175
The freewill versus determinism debate was never anything other than word jugglery, faggot.
It's like a "Which Game of Thrones Character are you?" Question.
>>1426199
So if I lock a cat in a box then I give it free will.
LMAO YOU FUCKING DUMB PHILOSOPHAGGOTS
AT LEAST RELIGIONFAGS HAVE THE BALLS TO WAVE THEIR STUPID CORE AROUND.
>>1426212
what is your point? No matter what experiences you have you still have free will, and free will itself cannot be categorized or defined using scinetific terms.
Sure a sentient conscious being in a box it will still have free will and will be able to use the very limited resources you had given it.
You simply cannot categorize free will or explain it using materials scientific terms. One's own internal experience of oneself cannot be discussed according to scientific terms.
Sure you can inspect one's neurons firing in one's brain and find their firings to be causal but this is only a parallel to the internal experience of the person you are inspecting.
The physical interaction with a brain will cause changes in internal experience and vice versa but this is because actual physical modification of reality is simply the putting into physical action of one's imagination and free will.
