I shy away from getting too specific with the definitions since some philosophers disagree as to exactly how the terms should be used. For example, the SEP supports your minimal view on compatibilism that allows for a distinction: "Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism." but the Oxford Companion to Philosophy does not "Compatibilism is a view about determinism and freedom that claims we are sometimes free and morally responsible even though all events are causally determined." For the Oxford companion you must be a soft determinist (as you define it) to be a compatibilist, but for the SEP the terms are distinct. Not saying one is right or wrong, just noting that they are inconsistent in the reference literature at best. I expect the distinction is rarely made because most people don't want to deny two of the three premises of the trilemma, when they only need to deny one to address the contradiction. It is also one of the reasons that most philosophers are very clear in their papers about what they mean by specific terms, since the minute differences can matter greatly, but (while there is agreement in general as to the meaning of terms) often there is disagreement on the specifics.

@@CarneadesOfCyrene I have the same outlook on life as the Oxford Companion to Philosophy ,namely ,that we are sometimes free and morally responsible though all events are causally determined.

Qqq+qqqq jill

When u r in the dream u feel like u have a free will about the situations in the dream. But it's false as ur mind is deciding what u or even other person in front of u would do. So it's all predetermined by mind. U just have a feel of free will. But till the time u don't come out u won't realise it. So til the time we r under the realm of Maya( illusion of this universe) we tend to feel that we have a free will. So we can not push away the responsibility. The person who truly understands the determinism will not react to whatever happens to him. Because he is realised. But most of the people who talk about determinism is just by intelect not by realisation. Thats why moral ethical responsibility comes automatically. As person has not realised it. To make it simpler. Suppose in the dream if u meet someone and he tells that oh man it's a dream. U r not really doing anything here. Just ur mind is. Even if u understand it there it will take time to really realise.so things happening in the dream will affect ur emotions there. So realisation is imp. Thats why just by believing in determinism and saying am not responsible is not applicable without that realisation. B cause when that realisation will come person will never do anything wrong or something like that. Why would he be doing wrong as he understood that whatever happened to me was predetermined and he would just accept.

We'll cover both compatibilism and incompatibilism. What specifically do you mean by hard incompatibilism?

@@CarneadesOfCyrene The belief that the universe is indeterministic and there is no free will.

@@Philosophuncultist God is not simply playing dice with the universe.

@@thotslayer9914 do you mean deist?

@@Philosophuncultist That’s not quite accurate: it’s the belief that there is no free will regardless of whether or not there is determinism.

That would be covered in the compatibilist video, hopefully.

Frankfurt cases are silly. Free will is all about could have done otherwise.

It means that people don't make evil choices, that they are just a product of their circumstances. No matter how evil someone seems, there was nothing they could have done differently. A murderer was destined to be a murderer, they could not have chosen otherwise. We might put them in prison to keep them from doing it again, but we aren't punishing them for a choice they made, because they can't make a choice.

Sounds more liberating than frightening. Me, a murderer, is a product of the environment (family, society, genetics) rather than an agent of destruction. Had I been raised in a “proper” home with guidance on wellbeing, I likely would not be in jail for murder.

How do you define free will? Can anyone do otherwise from God's will? If not but you think free will exists, you are a compatibilist. You need to define what makes some actions free and some actions not free. One of the problems for you being a theistic is the partial free argument. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sNSYa5B_m7e9iHk.html

@@CarneadesOfCyrene 1. I will try to define free will: It's the will that is not determined by the initial states or circumstances at the moment of will Will is a selection between opposites! In a demand for action! To explain my definition let's take an example: We have three "Adams" all identical persons in identical places with identical circumstances and conditions and physical states and chemical composition Let's suppose the first Adam have will to eat the forbidden Fruit! For free will to exist there must be a possibility that the other two Adams will have a will not to eat it ! 2. As I said in my last comment, God's willed that we have free will, so whatever we will is included in God's will As you give a car's key to your child and you say do whatever you want, so every possible action is included in your deal with your child! 3. Free actions are the actions that God's created in accordance with our will that we have claimed to be free ! So if you have will to eat that chocolate and God created this action in you , then this is a free action and you are responsible for it! Otherwise, not a free action is the action that happens in non consciousness or the one that God's create not in accordance to your will ! So the I'll person that has uncontrollable hands, his action is not free ! 4. I have to clarify that in my view and the view of my school of theology: free will exist whether there is an action or not! We differentiate between actions and will ! 5. In the video of partial free will, I don't agree on two points, BCDF cases are all in the same state of free will , actions has no relationship with will , as everyone has a free selection between opposite things , they have free will! No one according to my view has a direct control on his body! 6. The problem of evil can be solved easily in my school by one of the three claims a. Evil doesn't exist! b. Evil and good are subjective c. Mercy is a an action attribute not an essence attribute , and action attributes goes back to will of God ! And thanks for the answer the beneficial videos My respects !

Bro, there is a little mini nano problem. Your first claim. "Therefore laws of physics needs a cause in every moment of existence" . Laws of physics have always be there (one can say this laws dont have cause nor end); the never "come and go" as you say. The laws of physics are inherently part of the nature of the world without the need of "God" (an external actor to the world). A PERFECT WATCH WITHOUT A WATCHMAKER. And what is funny about all. You and I cant possibly knows if the laws of physics have cause and end our are eternal.

@@gabrielrevigliono8241 1. Physical Laws are just patterns, they only exist inside our minds ! 2. Those patterns are possible states of patterns ( you can think of thousands of other patterns that can exist) 3. A possible state to happen needs a cause ! 4. Laws are not eternal because they show inside time, time has a beginning then those patterns has beginning at most with the beginning of time ! 5. I haven't said that laws come and go, I say that in every moment they exist they need a cause for existence Time consists of moments which are discrete quantities! 6. Laws are not actors, they are a description of actions! And every action is God's creation! 7. An example of that is the fire that when we put inside it a cotton it burn ! Even if that happens 100% of time that doesn't mean that fire is a real cause for burning, it's just a pattern! And similar examples is a box that throws red papers! You can conclude a pattern that this box only throw red papers, but you can't conclude that this pattern which is law is the cause for the redness of the paper! There must be a real thing that selects the color

@@dakyion 1. "Physical Laws are just patterns, they only exist inside our minds". Are you telling me that laws of physics are a inherently part of our reason and not the mechanicus of the world (a.k.a. the laws exist between some "special" gears of WATCH and not the WATCH itself). And if the laws of physics exist only in our minds, you are telling me you can broke, bend, create and destroy the laws of physics at your own desires our your own reasons. The laws of physics are more than simple patterns; this patterns prove the laws of physics but they are not these patterns. The patterns need the laws of physics to exist but the laws of physics dont need these patterns to exist. And most importantly, the laws of physics predate us as a species; we only become aware (to some extent) of the laws of physics. 2 and 3. That is not necessarily; again, the laws of physics (time and space included) may simply have been always been there because they are an essential part of the world (the WATCH). The gears in the WATCH may come and go but the WATCH IS AETERNAL.

Free will is just an illusion Like we feel in the dream that "I am taking some decision" but those decision is taken by mind ..u have a feel that u r taking decisions in the dream. It's same here. And why past can not control future? Because present is always hiddnly going to be there. U r skipping or the argument sake. I give u one example. If I make a statement tomorrow KZfaq will crash. So there are just two possibilities. 1 the statement is true 2 the statement is wrong And fun part is either one of these possibilities is going to happen tomorrow. For sure. Just we don't know it right now. Means tomorrow either you tube is going to crash or it will not. Just we don't know. Means whatever is gonn happen is gonn happen. Just we don't know. I hope i tried to convey

No, you actually made an absurd conclusion from your premises. P1) The past determines the present. P2) The present determines the future. C) The past determines the future. You've literally denied the logical conclusion. It is not relevant that "the present is needed before the future" because the present is already determined by the past, hence why the future is also determined by the past.

Aristotle actually outlined two distinct conditions for moral responsibility that are nowadays commonly viewed to be necessary and mutually sufficient conditions: freedom/control and knowledge. In Nicomachean Ethics III.1. Might be of interest for you.

@@incollectio thanks i will check it

You may get more choices but you you still dont get free will .You will not be the cause of the choices you end up making even with more knowledge.

@@gooner173 i appreciate ur response but knowledge may make u know alternative option that u weren' t aware of it or it may enable u to create or adjust an alternative option from the start

@@skepticedge2792we can causally learn but we do not freely choose what we will learn

you are the product of your circumstances. so it goes. KEvron

If only this was the graffiti that gangs tagged things with, and instead of fighting over territory they debated angrily in the streets over things like whether free will exists, or if knowledge could be gained without experience.

@@CarneadesOfCyrene them's fighting words. KEvron

@@CarneadesOfCyrene Truth wont feed them, shelter them or clothe them. Philosophy is a luxury, not a need.

@@thotslayer9914 Explain yourself.

Why do you think that?

@@ErnolDawnbringer my computer makes choices all the time. Does it have free will?

@@roybecker492 you can't even compare them. Computers are raw coded preprogrammed. Though machine learning can possibly change that one day but we are definitely not there yet. Far from it. Vs. Humans are learning agent. They can learn and have a plethora of choices from which they can make decision. Plus Humans can reprogram their thinking. Plus Humans have the potential to ignore their "pre programming" and can will to choose otherwise.

@@roybecker492 btw what about you? Did something force you to reply to my comment? you are conflating free will with something else. We are talking about determinism here. Do you believe you were destined to reply this comment? That you didn't make that choice?

@@ErnolDawnbringer Humans are preprogrammed by Genetics and Enviornment.