That’s what it is to be a compatibilist. They are determinists who believe that there is still a meaningful use of the phrase free will, despite the apparent determinism of the universe. They would redefine free will to not mean I have the ability to supervene on the natural laws, but that when you make a decision absent certain forces compelling a particular choice, that’s what we mean by free will.
For people arguing they have free will, they typically mean they have the ability to do other than what they did do. That is, whenever they make a choice, they do so under the belief that they could have, in principle, made a different choice. As far as science is concerned, such a free will does not exist, because the behaviors you exhibit appear to be completely explainable in terms of the environment impressing upon you, and the effects that impression has on your neural activity. There is no “you” making free decisions in this picture. There’s just stuff bumping into other stuff, and how is that free?
Regarding a general consensus of free will, that’s just not even an argument anyone should care about. Plenty of people are flatly told they have free will because, “they don’t have a choice, God made them with free will”. Others/most are simply uneducated or under-read on the subject. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean their opinion should weigh on our conclusions. If you show most people an optical illusion and ask them if it appears to be moving, they’d say yes, even though science will tell you there’s nothing moving.
I personally am a hard deterministic regarding free will. I think we have a will but nothing about it is free. It is subject to natural laws just as a rock rolling down a cliff. That’s fine. There’s a related philosophical position of compatibilism, which believes that we have a determined will, but that the truth of the determination does not undercut our ability to talk as if and use the phrase free will as if we really do have such a thing. In this sense, compatibilists would say we don’t have the ability to do other than what we are determined to do, but since we might not yet know what we are determined to do, then that ignorance captures what is meant by free will. So compatibilists are determinists, they just think free will as a concept is compatible with that determinism.
Removed by mod
They wouldn’t condemn Hamas or the Oct 7th attacks, however.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
No, I won’t. You know it happened, that’s why you demand a source, pretending if I can’t produce one that you’re justified in your position. You’re not. You’re a liar, and an abuser, a defender and sympathizer of terrorists. Disgusting. If you insist someone be destroyed, I’d sooner it be the ones who refuse to live in peace. Good riddance.
Are you excusing the terrorist organization that invaded Israel and brutalized babies, including shooting and burning them? That’s what you chose to get on the internet and defend?
So you demand that Israel be destroyed. That’s what this is. Your pro-Palestine stance is nothing but an anti-zionist, anti-semitic position masquerading as love. Israel has the right to defend themselves. They have the weapons to defend themselves. They declared war on a terrorist organization, who committed acts you have yet to denounce. Brutalizing babies. Invading homes and murdering people, uploading it on their Facebook. You’re defending all of that. If that’s the case, I hope Israel is successful, and you haven’t given a single reason why I shouldn’t. There can be no one-state solution with Hamas next to them. There can be no two-state solution with Hamas next to them. You know this, but you don’t care, because you demand Israel be destroyed. There’s nothing to say to you then. I support Israel’s right to defend itself and that means destroying Hamas. If you think the nation with the strength to defend itself should just roll over and suicide, keep crying while Israel does what it must. I bet they’d love to go back to their homes and not have to worry about any of this, but they aren’t allowed to.
You think what Hamas did to those Israeli children doesn’t deserve response? You don’t believe Hamas will work ceaselessly to destroy Israel? Israel is defending itself. It’s a war. Hamas made it one. Destroy them as swiftly as possible. Civilians will die, as happens in every war. Quit crying about it.
You think there’s anything that can be done? Get over yourself. It’s a war. Israel has to do what must be done, as swiftly as possible. You know that, based on what Hamas has said and done. You know when you’re pushing this pro-palestine narrative, you’re conveniently leaving out all these problems. You’re defending terrorists that shoot and burn babies.
I would call this determinism as much as anything else. Whatever you discover by reflecting on memories, you make your decision based on those memories, ergo there was a reason that determined your choice.
I would just agree that we have a “will”. It’s the “free” qualifier that’s disputed.
Sorry, I can’t agree. We have ignorance about the future, but that doesn’t mean my decisions are undetermined. As far as I can tell, everything is either determined or not determined. If it’s determined, then I was not free to choose it. If it’s not determined, then it’s random, in which case I again could not have freely chosen it. You seem to be moving towards compatibilism, which accepts determinism but believes determinism can still be compatible with a notion of free will, e.g. our ignorance of the future is what we mean by free will.
Personally, I think life is very interesting bring a wet robot! However, I understand why most reject the concept out of hand.