Originally posted by seer
View Post
The following is the definition for free will I support.
The problem is 'apart from external influence.' This is a difficult if not an impossible provision to demonstrate. Our whole existence is an integral part of 'external influences.' First and foremost, it would be impossible to get around the external influence of natural law.
I do add another aspect of free will that 'conditions of moral responsibility' does not address. We make decisions every day of our lives within a range of possible choices that could possibly constitute free will choices. Some of these choices may be actually meaningful of future consequence concerning future chains of cause and effect outcomes, but most are just mundane choices that likely have no future consequence.
The concept of 'contrary choice' is over rated. It simply means a choice is made contrary 'diametrically opposed' to other possible choices. The only proviso in determinism, and compatibilism is that contrary choices cannot by contrary to natural law. It should be understood that the human assessment of what are 'free will' or contrary choices is subject to our anecdotal and subjective judgement, and of course our bias as to what 'free will' is.
Comment