Does my desktop computer have the ability to act? Do non-human animals? When is this ability to act inserted into the world?
No. It doesn’t make the choice to act.
They can, to a limited degree.
It’s simply the product of having the ability to act, and the capacity to make the choice to act. It can be further refined as being goal-directed or not, conscious or unconscious.
I submit that it happens at the moment in time when the object in question is aware of its options and is not over-ridden with instict based reactions or pre-determined instructions (computer).
What is your criteria for having the ability to act?
Isn’t compatibilism just an attempt to save face? What does it actually mean beyond analysing hu,an thought processes
I’ve tried to understand how Compatibilism solves the problem numerous times before. Every time I find myself agreeing with William James and Kant that it is nothing but a “quagmire of evasion,” and “word jugglery.” I truly don’t understand how it supposedly occupies some type of middle ground.
Can you think of any criteria that would include rocks?
Make me.
In the simplest terms, it’s just willful movement. Stones can’t move at all, engines can move but not willfully.
Rocks are pre-determined NOT to act…?
I am quite happy that compatibilism does solve one Free Will problem- ‘How is it possible to believe in a physically determined universe at the same time as allowing Free Will?’, the answer being- we accept that there is a social construct called Free Will that has great explanatory power. It makes justice systems and discussion of human behavior simple and easy to maintain. It makes no claim to the actual causation of the effect by such ‘Free Will’, merely allowing ir as an object of discussion, not an object in the real world.
Not that I agree with it, pan-psychism.
There’s no reason to include rocks as having the ability to act. But rocks are made of matter, and have energy. I was just bringing rocks up in a poor attempt to illustrate there’s a difference between non-intentioned systems and intentioned systems.
Bringing up my rock example over and over does not prove free will.
It might, at best, have bacteria in it that we could argue about whether they are part of the rock, and whether they have intention. But never mind.
What about the electric eye that keeps my garage door from going down if it’s interrupted? It acts internally according to external perceptions. Does it make decisions? Is it an agent? Does it have will? Is it free will?
Please supply criteria for when Free Will enters the world:
Rocks
Plants
Bacteria
Reptiles
Mammals
Apes
Chimpanzees
Early hominids
Pre-classical Homo sapiens sapiens
Q1: yes
Q2: no
Q3: no
Q4: no
At the risk of repeating myself:
I submit that it happens at the moment in time when the object in question is aware of its options and is not over-ridden with instinct based reactions(self preservation) or pre-determined instructions (computer).
Sentience.
Let’s see…taking free will to mean the freedom at act according to one’s determined motives, the criteria would be a) the ability to act, and b) the ability to form motives.
That removes rocks, plants, and bacteria.
Frankly, I don’t know enough about reptiles to make an intelligent judgement about their ability to form motives.
Mammals - some, yes.
Apes - quite possibly; probably need to consult a primatologist.
Early hominids - it appears so, depending on how early you mean. Certainly Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.
Homo sapiens - yes.
No thanks. You are going to believe whatever you want anyway.
And when in phylogenetic development would that be and how do we know?