Free Will or Determinism is a false dichotomy. Determinism is the Passive feeling raised to the level of philosophy. Free Will is the Active feeling. Determinism, being Passive, implies the Active. It is the feeling of being acted upon. All Action logically implies Passion, and all Passion logically implies Action. This is not a form of compatibilism, because compatibilism asserts the validity of the original false dichotomy of Free Will & Determinism.
You have to explain the terms within a consistent model. Free-will vs determinism as in objective versus subjective, depends upon the model used to describe both physical and mental entities. We explain physical entities like orbits of particles in an atom with 'models' as we do with the orbits of planetary bodies using another model. We do have a 'subjective' model to accurately explain the 'mental' entities that are part of the 'objective' model that we recognize that also exist in other people's minds.
As our minds as well (which exist only as a mental entity, that is described as having both objective and subjective parts, this 'subjective' model has to be explained with a consistent model of the 'mind-body' problem. Not impossible, it just requires being consistent with definitions.
The model which is also part of our 'subjective' experience is also producing the model as well as part of the objective model, needs to be described so that the model both represents the experience in one mind that may also exist in another mind.
Then after you've made a consistent model that points to all parts of the mind-body problem then you have essentially an entity called agreement, that agreement is essentially what we would say is money, as it successfully validates and legitimizes all the requirements of 'existing', being 'real, and having passed all the thresholds of 'agreements' between minds.
And all the sub-aspects of agreement are currencies.
donutbakery 0 points 2.9 years ago
You have to explain the terms within a consistent model. Free-will vs determinism as in objective versus subjective, depends upon the model used to describe both physical and mental entities. We explain physical entities like orbits of particles in an atom with 'models' as we do with the orbits of planetary bodies using another model. We do have a 'subjective' model to accurately explain the 'mental' entities that are part of the 'objective' model that we recognize that also exist in other people's minds.
As our minds as well (which exist only as a mental entity, that is described as having both objective and subjective parts, this 'subjective' model has to be explained with a consistent model of the 'mind-body' problem. Not impossible, it just requires being consistent with definitions.
The model which is also part of our 'subjective' experience is also producing the model as well as part of the objective model, needs to be described so that the model both represents the experience in one mind that may also exist in another mind.
Then after you've made a consistent model that points to all parts of the mind-body problem then you have essentially an entity called agreement, that agreement is essentially what we would say is money, as it successfully validates and legitimizes all the requirements of 'existing', being 'real, and having passed all the thresholds of 'agreements' between minds.
And all the sub-aspects of agreement are currencies.