compatibilism

Originally posted by humy
...
Not "Instead". It is BOTH true that compatibilism is compatible with determinism AND determinism may be false (regardless of whether you accept compatibilism as valid ) .

Well, compatibilism does off a low-grade vague, incomplete and imprecise definition for free will, but it still assumes that determinism is true.

Unlike tw, you do have a sense of social awareness. I'm autistic though, so faint praise, right?

Originally posted by humy
what are you talking about? I didn't ever claim pseudo-random quantum events exist but there are plenty of people who do (with erroneously-based belief as we cannot yet rationally know one way or the other)

Okay, my bad, yes you say such doesn't exist. Who brought the subject up and why?

I don't know what the subject is, you aren't very linear. You say 'one way or the other'. What are those ways?

Originally posted by apathist
Really. So if determinism is false, what is compatibilism compatibilizing?

'free will' being defined so that it is compatible with determinism. What has that got to do with whether determinism is false? The definition would work either way.

Originally posted by apathist
You say 'one way or the other'. What are those ways?

one way being every outcome being purely determined (even if it sometimes appears to be random) and the other way being there are same outcomes that are not purely determined but rather are truly-random (as opposed to pseudo-random). Science doesn't yet tell us which is true (and might never do so) thus we cannot yet rationally know which is true.

Originally posted by apathist
Well, compatibilism [b]does off a low-grade vague, incomplete and imprecise definition for free will, but it still assumes that determinism is true.
[/b]

no, it doesn't. I have already shown you the wiki quote, edited by experts on this, that clearly (and correctly) asserts it doesn't.

Here it is again;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
"...
this definition of free will does NOT rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism
..." (my emphasis)

Do you comprehend that meaning of the above wiki assertion?
Do you deny its correctness?

Originally posted by humy
free will' being defined so that it is compatible with determinism. What has that got to do with whether determinism is false? The definition would work either way.

If determinism is false, the offered definition is irrelevant. There's no need to appease determinism. Re-offer under better sponsorship, if you like.

Which I already did for you. I mean for the compatibilists. I'll say it again. The compatibilist definition for free will is just a vague, low-grade, weak, useless and ineffective version of the definition used by science as it actually studies free will.

Originally posted by humy
this definition of free will does NOT rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism

I'm so proud of compatibilists for using a definition that doesn't require determinism! They straddle a fence and are not committed to either side.

If determinism is false, they kinda look funny out there. At any rate, if determinism is false, then their definition is irrelevant. We should use the relevant definition. To the extent their definition can fit into reality, this is a good thing.

Originally posted by apathist
If determinism is false, the offered definition is irrelevant.

whether determinism is false is irrelevant to the definition of compatibilism in the same way it is irrelevant to the definition of 'square'.
X being compatible with Y doesn't imply the truth or falsity of Y.
The definition of a perfect circle being compatible with the physical existence of something that is shaped as a perfect circle doesn't in itself imply the truth or falsity of there actually physically existing something shaped as a perfect circle.

There's no need to appease determinism.

What is wrong with your comprehension?
Here is it yet again;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
"...
this definition of free will does NOT rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism
..." (my emphasis)

which part of that do you not comprehend?

The compatibilist definition for free will is just a vague,

in what way "vague"? I for one understand it perfectly and easily. It isn't vague at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
"...They define free will as freedom to act according to one's motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions...."

What part of the above do you find 'vague' and in exactly what way?
Can you give any example of two opposing i.e. contradictory interpretations of that same above wiki assertion?

Originally posted by apathist
I'm so proud of compatibilists for using a definition that doesn't require determinism!

it also doesn't require no determinism. Therefore whether determinism is true is irrelevant to the definition of compatibilism.

Here is it yet again;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
"...
this definition of free will does NOT rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism
..." (my emphasis)

Originally posted by humy...
What is wrong with your comprehension?
Here is it yet again;...

You are not slow, so you behave on purpose.

Compatibilism is dependant on determinism. If determinism is false, then compatiblism is false. This isn't rocket science.

Originally posted by apathist
If determinism is false, then compatiblism is false.

NO; I say yet again; compatiblism is NEITHER true or false because it is a DEFINITION, NOT a theory; understand?
definition ≠ theory
A definition may be valid or invalid as a reasonable definition but NOT true or false.
A word may have one meaning in one language and a totally different meaning in another language; in both languages its definition may be valid but neither is true or false because they are NOT theories, they are definitions. Is the definition of "cat" 'true'? Or is it merely valid as in generally accepted and not too vague and not contradictory? What if the word "cat" had totally different definitions reflecting two totally different meanings in two different languages? Which of the two definitions then will be the 'true' one? How can they both be 'true' if they contradict each other?
A THEORY may be true or false (if it is unambiguous); NOT a definition.

Originally posted by humy
one way being every outcome being purely determined (even if it sometimes appears to be random) and the other way being there are same outcomes that are not purely determined but rather are truly-random (as opposed to pseudo-random). Science doesn't yet tell us which is true (and might never do so) thus we cannot yet rationally know which is true.

Eventually you will realize that indeterminate does not equal random. It is a big step!

Originally posted by humy
NO; I say yet again; compatiblism is NEITHER true or false because it is a DEFINITION, NOT a theory; understand?...

I see you have a blind spot here. I'll try carefully:

Here in smurfville, x!

Smurfville is wrong, X may be right, but not because of smurfville.

Originally posted by apathist
I see you have a blind spot here. I'll try carefully:

Here in smurfville, x!

Smurfville is wrong, X may be right, but not because of smurfville.

why are you suddenly talking gibberish? SPEAK ENGLISH!

Originally posted by apathist
Eventually you will realize that indeterminate does not equal random. It is a big step!

Eventually he will realise that for the last few pages you have been using some words in a non-standard way but not letting on to him that you are doing so, thus causing totally unnecessary miscommunication. Troll much?