Have something to say about this video? Signup and
login to share your thoughts with the community.
His whole compatibilistic argumentation is based on the fallacy of equivocation (pretending or implying that propositions about one sense of a word are true about a different sense of the same word, without proving it explicitly). You can't disprove the proposition "If the world is deterministic, there is no free will" by redefining the term "free will", it's illogical. Too bad he can't see it.
Also, compatibilistic free will is definitely Not "the only kind of free will worth wanting", nor is it "real magic" (in the sense that it is physically real as opposed to supernatural/"authentic" magic) because - and he admits this - we already know from quantum physics that The World Is Not Deterministic! :)
Just because something is avoided (evitable) in the context of an "agent" avoiding something, does not mean that the outcome of that avoidance (for example, avoiding an arrow) was avoidable (evitable). Dennett confuses the context of the word inevitable applied to determinism, with the context of it applied to an "agent". This is a VERY incorrect correlation between the context of how a word is used. Determinism does in fact mean everything that happens is inevitable ... because it cannot happen any other way (ie. It is unavoidable that I will avoid something at such and such time).
I agree with Donjoe's comment above with the exception of his last sentence: "We already know from quantum physics that The World Is Not Deterministic!"
We do not "know" this. We know that the world is non-local, but Bohemian Mechanics makes inherent indeterminism obsolete.