Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian  You said that if determinism is not true that would mean you couldn't run the exact same processes exactly the same way over and over again. And above you say that should determinism not be true then our actions would not correspond to desires, feeling or beliefs. |
Actually, I should have said something like, if one could go back in time and view things without influencing them then entirely deterministic processes would rerun themselves exactly. Alternatively, if deterministic processes have no memory and you ran them again as they were run before then they could be rerun exactly and sequentially over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian ... indeterminism means intrinsically random (rather than apparently random). |
Yes, uninfluenced by anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian ... although subject to various influences, it is my self per se which decides upon a course of action -- is wholly in accord with determinism? |
Yes and I'm also talking about a "self" not a "Self".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian But if determinism is wholly compatible with free will as everyone understands this concept, why then is there a debate about it? |
It depends on what one wants from "free-will." If you want moral choice then the majority of philosophers are compatibilists. The other libertarian notion of free-will is spill-over from the free-will of theologians, folk-psychology and employment. Folk-psychology wants a free-will that survives bodily death, theologians want a free-will that deals with the problems of a perfect God and an imperfect world, and for some philosophers free-will debates gives them another thing to write about so it helps justify their job.