zowhat

We define terms using other terms which we define using other terms. We can't do this forever. Most every chain of definitions begins with some form of experience. Same with chains of arguments. The constant demands for definitions and arguments misunderstands how all of this works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

Everyone is free to discuss other topics, but then you are no longer discussing free will. Feel free to discuss moral responsibility, basic desert, the physical ability to have turned left when you turned right, etc, but these are different topics. They are not unrelated, but equating these questions with the free will question are major category errors.

The possibilities are (1) It follows logically from the definitions of free will and determinism that they are compatible. (2) It follows logically from the definitions of free will and determinism that they are incompatible. (3) It doesn't follow logically from the definitions of free will and determinism either that they are compatible or incompatible.

The claim that both use the same definitions but come to different conclusions is incoherent.

Much of the discussion on this sub and in philosophy in general uses -ism and -ist words extensively, often exclusively. These words are category words and don't refer to one single idea. Libertarianism or compatibilism are poorly defined families of ideas, not single ideas. A sentence about one of these is true or false depending on which version of these you mean. It's like people arguing about whether cars are red. It's pointless. Some are and some aren't.

These terms are useful in giving us a general idea of what is talked about. Like if I asked where you lived and you said "Utah". That's not useless, but I still can't find your house. I need more information to do that.

If you say yo

Imagine I have a deck of cards. I put the five of hearts face down on the table and ask you what it is. To me it can only be the five of hearts, because I know what it is, and to you it can be any card at all. You say the ace of spades. I turn it over and it is the five of hearts.

Is it true that it could have been a different card"?

To me no and to you yes. If we don't ask "to who" then there is no correct answer.

If the world is deterministic, could we have done otherwise? To Laplace's demon no, and to the rest of us yes.

If we don't ask "to who" (or better yet "from which point of view") there is no correct answer. We can say yes and we can say no, and be right both times, or be

Imagine I have a deck of cards. I put the five of hearts face down on the table and ask you what it is. To me it can only be the five of hearts, because I know what it is, and to you it can be any card at all. You say the ace of spades. I turn it over and it is the five of hearts.

Is it true that it could have been a different card"?

To me no and to you yes. If we don't ask "to who" then there is no correct answer.

If the world is deterministic, could we have done otherwise? To Laplace's demon no, and to the rest of us yes.

If we don't ask "to who" (or better yet "from which point of view") there is no correct answer. We can say yes and we can say no, and be right both times, or

People have blamed each other for many reasons throughout history. The idea that we should only blame them if they made a free will choice is a recent development that was a result of a lot of discussion until we finally settled on this current criteria. Saying we should only hold people morally responsible if they have made a free will choice is not the same thing as saying they really are morally responsible.

The whole world : by free will we mean X
The philosophers : by free will the whole world means Y
The whole world : no we don't
The philosophers : do too
The whole world : nuh uh
The philosophers : do too times a thousand
The whole world : do not times a kajillion billion
The philosophers : we have degrees in philosophy so we are right
The whole world : appeal to authority fallacy
The philosophers : hey, we invented the appeal to authority fallacy
The whole world : you also redefined free will to prove Y
The philosophers : did not
The whole world : did too
The philosophers : nuh uh

to be continued

Determinism says that every single thing that happens down to the tiniest detail is determined (it's in the name) by antecedent (past) causes. Every eye blink, every burp, the number of grains of sand in the Andromeda galaxy, everything. Forget about the entailment definition, that's a redefinition.

Fatalism only says that various final results will happen but how it happens is not necessarily determined. It may be your fate to move to Seattle, but there are many possible ways that can happen.

Libertarian free will is what every human being including you experiences every waking moment of our lives.

https://www.youtubetrimmer.com/view/?v=_rZfSTpjGl8&start=69&end=95&loop=0

It