Philosophy Overdose
Daniel Dennett discusses the philosophical issue of free will, arguing that although theoretical free will is impossible, practical free will – the kind of free will worth wanting – is possible, even in a deterministic universe. In particular, he argues that there’s a notion of “could’ve done otherwise” which isn’t threatened by determinism. For, what matters for freedom is not the ability to do otherwise given identical conditions (which indeed is impossible), but only the ability to do otherwise under relatively similar kinds of circumstances. And in that sense, it’s entirely possible to choose or act differently than one does, even if one’s actions are causally necessitated or determined by prior causes of the universe.
Source
Practical Vs. Theoretical Free Will (Daniel Dennett)
Great Philosopher! THANKS FOR POST…
Absurd. Dennett only continues to confuse what is a relatively simple matter, were it not for his earlier work that brought about much of the confusion. Determinism completely prohibits our having potentially done otherwise. He also needs to finally come clean, and say that morality does not require that we sustain the illusion of a free will.
I just can't follow Dennett down this rabbit hole. There are at least three steps where he's thinking something is required and it really isn't. So, of COURSE basic concepts like free will and active powers don't fit in his worldview anymore! He gave up these basic, necessary things at one or more of those unnecessary steps.
Does anyone know what paper from Christoph Cox he is talking about? I tried to find it, no luck.
According to Michio Kaku: "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has settled the Free Will – Determinism debate in favor of Free Will." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6I
Daniel Dennett is simply avoiding the actual question by redefining free will. In his definition, he ignores prior causes that made the person choose at the person did. Dennett claims that free will is impossible, so he simply redefines the term in order to save the idea of morality. But this is just a trick.
For example, for everyday practical purposes, it's ok to assume that the earth is not moving. I mean, when we are driving a car… it's helpful to assume that the road itself is not moving for merely practical purposes. But the REALITY is that the earth IS moving.
So it is exactly the same as his "practical free will". It's just a trick of words.