there are plenty of compatibilists who are explicitly against retributivism. dennett is one
-
-
Replying to @gabrielamadej
okay. it's still handwaving that reduces to emotional appeals. it doesn't contain a coherent concept of what "free will" even is that doesn't rely on the concept of a soul that's somehow interactive with the world without being causally determined by it, because it can't
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
I'd be surprised, since that's exactly the most parsimonious and useful definition, why eschew it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @palecur @gabrielamadej
because on the one hand it's probably bullshit and on the other hand if it isn't bullshit it doesn't actually resolve the issue at all, it just puts it behind a Wizard of Oz curtain
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
it 100% does, though. souls are the origin of causality.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @palecur @gabrielamadej
that may actually be the case but now we either have souls that have causes or souls that don't have causes so all we've accomplished is to push the original situation into a spooky corner where we can more easily ignore it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
that's homeomorphic to solving the problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
or, less shitpostily, souls are *partially deterministic,* emerging from specific patterning of massenergy but able to act acausally upon massenergy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @palecur @gabrielamadej
that's very unlikely, but even if we got all the way to acausality, literally things happening for no reason, that's not any more anybody's idea of free will than strong determinism is
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
the reason is "the soul wants to," that's not acausal, that's literally an expression of will as the cause.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
either the soul wants to for a reason, in which case determinism, or the soul wants to for no reason, in which case acausality, neither of which is free will
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
reasons aren't determinism any more than "because this is my will" is acausal, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @palecur @gabrielamadej
"for a reason" in the causality sense, not the self-narrativization sense if there's an alternative to the soul's wants, or the person's because there is actually no necessity to be talking about souls here at all, being either caused or uncaused i'd love to hear about it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.