I think it’s arguing a level below where I’m coming from (though possibly there’s some self-similarity here).
None of this quite settles the question of whether “free will” is actually a crucial ingredient in the best theory of human beings we can imagine developing.
I think it isn’t. Which makes the rest of the page true but irrelevant.
[Please read the OP before voting. Special voting rules apply.]
The notion of freedom is incoherent. People would be better off abandoning the pursuit of it.
Freedom meaning what?
Free choice? I don’t believe in that.
The right to make any choice which doesn’t impair the choices of others? I strongly agree with that.
I think both are unhelpful.
What do you think of Free Will Is as Real as Baseball?
I think it’s arguing a level below where I’m coming from (though possibly there’s some self-similarity here).
I think it isn’t. Which makes the rest of the page true but irrelevant.
Where does the incoherence lie?
The way freedom is usually formulated, in the notion of free will or free choices.
This is frustrating: I think I can argue against the standard argument of he incoherence of FW...but you haven’t given it...or any other,
To make sure I’m getting this right: is this the school of anti-freedom where the notion of moral responsibility is also deemed incoherent?
I would also consider the notion of moral responsibility incoherent. It’s not obvious to me that these positions have a common basis.
The latter derives from the former:
If my actions are spontaneous and uncaused, I’m not responsible for them.
If my actions are mechanically determined by atoms in my brain, I’m not responsible for them.