Eise

@sethoflagos: are you sure you used the compatibilist definition of free will? If you apply the libertarian definition of free will, sure, then these statements are inconsistent.

Exception: Hard determinism precludes free will. I hate the words 'hard determinism' (and of course its companion 'soft determinism'). Compatibilism's determinism is just as hard as what is supposed to be 'hard determinism'. Nope. Compatibilism is the view that there is no contradiction between the concepts of determinism and free will. Incomaptibilsm and compatibilism do not really differ in their positions what determinism is. They differ in their conception of what free will is. So to make the steps as clear as possible: Compatibilism is the position that there is no conflict between determinism and free will Even stronger: without determinism free will would be impossible So if the world is completely determined, the possibility for free will exists Randomness in relationship between events only disturbs the possibility for free will to exist We know the real world is not deterministic through and through Given that randomness possibly plays only a small, maybe even no role, free will is possible So my idea of 'sufficient determinism' just means that we need enough determinism for compatibilist free will to be possible. The wiggle room does not exist: either events are random, or they are determined. Randomness disturbs compatibilist free will, determinism makes it possible. To say it simple: the more events relate deterministically, the less our free will is disturbed by random events. I read it a second time, and I do not get it. Might be just me.

It can be done... This is the way I did it: And then copy, or better cut, the complete text from the 'Reply to this topic' box, and paste it into the topic you want. I had to google it also.

I use 'sufficient determinism' because we do not live in an absolutely determined universe. Now small random hiccups may not disturb much, but if the deviations from determinism become too big, it disturbs the connections between my intentions, knowledge, decisions and actions. For free will to be possible, their relations must be pretty fix determined. The possible actions are given by our surroundings: e.g. in a restaurant, it contains a menu card, on which my 'alternative actions' are listed. Supposing that it is a free choice, i.e. nobody coerces me to some special choice, then what I will choose then depends on me only. So given the situation, my preferences determine what action I will take. Then the action is really free. And I couldn't care less if the action potential goes up before I become conscious of my choice. There is simply no contradiction between determinism and free will. Compatibilism is not the view that there somehow is a little wiggle room in determinism in which we can choose. It is the view that free will can only exist in a determined world, so arguments in favour of determinism does in no sense argue against compatibilist free will. If you would like to give another 'Frankfurt case', one that can also be understood by somebody who is not in the world of active chess players, maybe we can discuss that.

Of course Ekin = ½mv2. The higher the velocity, the more energy you need. That is even in Newtonian mechanics the case. Nope. The Lorentz transformations are like a rotation, they change our perspective.

Not force. To keep up an acceleration, you need a constant force, not more and more force. 'Energy' is correct, to keep up the force, you need energy. Not for the rocket that is accelerating. As long as the rocket has energy to keep the force doing work, it can accelerate. There is no resistance. But for a 'left behind observer', she sees that the speed of the rocket approaches c, but never reaches c. She will also see that the acceleration becomes less and less. But the momentum steadily increases, as long as the force is doing its work.

I wouldn't call it 'the essence', but 'essential', I think so, yes. Our minds are built up from simpler mechanisms. Just as a computer is built up on flip-flops, logical ports, which for them selves are also built up of smaller components (transistor, capacitors etc), but on higher level runs a program, e.g. a simulation of the universe. Yes, too full... But... In the first place, not epiphenomenal. Epiphenomalism is in my eyes just another form of dualism. I prefer 'supervenience' as concept to describe the relationship between the brain and the mind. And in the second place, determinism is a necessary condition of free will.

You forgot the opposites: You did a good thing =>You did it because you had no choice ("determinism" for you) I did a good thing =>I did it because I chose to do it ("free will" for me) It depends on the situation: do you want to avoid blame, or do you want to get praised... Take your pick! Precisely. Neurons do not act, nor do they have intentions. But we have. Yes, because it is not bleeding obvious. AFAIK there have many studies, that show that imprisonment does not help, in fact, show the opposite. Maybe @iNow has some interesting references?

No. I have read a little Frankfurt, but I do not like his contrived examples. And then you pick one of the most contrived ones as example ... No, I was just referring to my conception of free will, in which (sufficient) determinism is even a necessary condition for free will to exist. Well, what is the difference between the meanings of my conception of free will and your's of 'uncoerced'? Nope. But that would deviate too far from the topic of the thread. Only this: an argumentatively reached consensus between members of a speech community (be it society as a whole, or a bunch of experts) is more then just 'subjective'. In absolute terms,I agree. Assuming 'IRL' means 'in real life', it is not absolute, per definition. If they are 'competing' I think you mean the alternatives you have in one choice. A 'free action' is an action in which I recognise that it is according my intentions and knowledge. Just fresh this morning: Does Science Really Show Free Will Doesn't Exist? Here's What You Need to Know. It is mainly reactions on Sapolsky's recent book Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. The review of Sapolsky's book of course goes a little deeper, so if somebody is interested, go there too: Simply said: just another scientist who shows that my disclaimer is correct. Just in case that one day I might change my disclaimer: Daniel Dennet, Darwin's dangerous idea. As an aside, Dennett is one of those philosophers who are very science oriented; and one of the most vocal about the fact that we have free will (compatibilist free will, of course).

True, 'uncoerced' sounds less ambiguous than 'free will'. But still 2 remarks: as you still stick to the position that we have no free will, but not specifying precisely in which meaning, people may think that for you all actions are coerced. So what would an honest 'declaration' be? E.g. "We have no libertarian free will: everything is determined. However, we are able to distinguish between actions that are coerced and and those that are not. This is the relevant meaning for our practice of blaming, praising, responsibility etc."? You have something in common with Sam Harris. In his pamphlet Free Will, he also argues against it, but when arguing that our practice of criminal law does not has to change much, he is doing this exactly in the same terms as compatibilists defend we have compatibilist free will. A bit mean, I would say, is that there is obviously some allergy against the words 'free will'. But not against what compatibilists really are defending. I hope you also see that when discussing politics, e.g. about imprisonment, we think very much alike. It looks like that our practical differences are not that big. No. It means that as a society we must agree on how we should react on offenders. 'Objective' is the absolute opposite of 'subjective' only in the context of facts. It looks different in questions of morality and values. There one can give arguments for one's position, but they will never be objective. But they might convince somebody. Or it gives the possibility for someone to argue more precise against one's position.

I think the correct way to interpret this as free will, is that you could hit your hand with a hammer, if you wanted to. Obviously, you know yourself good enough that you would never want it, so you also can be pretty sure you will never do it. Full ack!

Moslims, Hinduists, Jews, etc would not agree with that. The bible is a bundle of different writings by many different people, and it was decided by humans which writings it would contain. So it is a collection of subjective impressions by many different people. It definitely is not 'THE Word of God'. And the bible says that the Apocalypse was expected during Jesus' lifetime, or shortly after.

It is not philosophy that decides that. It are lawyers and judges when there was coercion involved, and psychiatrists/psychologists if a defendant turns out to miss the capabilities necessary for evaluating the consequences of his deeds. In the latter case, if the defendant still poses a danger for society, he could be turned in into a psychiatric clinic, in the hope he can be treated. The role of the philosophers is just to point out, that free will comes in different degrees. At least in Europe that is daily practice in judicial cases.

Yes. It is the eradication of all evil on earth by God, reestablishing his kingdom on earth. According to Jesus it had to occur soon, maybe even during his lifetime, but surely very soon. Church members of Paulus were greatly worried about the fact that some of their companions had died, even before the last day. So the kingdom of Heaven should have been in place here on earth for already nearly 2000 years according to the bible. So the bible is wrong.

Where I do not quite agree with your formulation (chemistry?), I do agree with your overall position here. We should do what is best for society. Just to extend: not just Scandinavian countries, but two other countries I know quite well, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Finding the best possible way to integrate criminal offenders, in every individual case, should be our motivation, not the urge for revenge. That may include punishment, but we should always be open for better ways top cope with them. Envy the US sentencing policy??? The Western country with the highest prisoner percentage compared with the number of inhabitants. Is there less criminality in the US than in Europe? And you know that the 'high school for criminals' is jail, don't you? Exactly.