From wikipedia:
In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined.
I'm reading, and having a hard time seeing the difference between compatibilism and hard determinism.
Isn't every action done out of some determined motive? Even when we choose which motive to act on, isn't that choice motivated by some other motive? Or is that the difference, that the compatibilist would say the choice to act on a motive is free and not based on another internal motive?
I guess it would help me if you could write something that briefly describes all three positions like this (not saying my descriptions are accurate, just an example):
Incompatibilist free will = Belief that we'd always choose the same thing, dependent on internal states and independent of external circumstances, and this is freedom
Compatibilist free will = Belief that we could choose differently, even with the same internal and external circumstances, and this is freedom
Hard determinism = Belief that we'd always choose the same thing, based on the same internal and external circumstances, and this is not freedom
I'm reading, and having a hard time seeing the difference between compatibilism and hard determinism.
Compatibilism=free will could exist even if determinism is true.
Incompatibilism=free will could not exist if determinism is true
Hard determinism=incompatibilism+determinism, ie no free will.
Or is that the difference, that the compatibilist would say the choice to act on a motive is free and not based on another internal motive?
Compatibilists don't generally deny that actions have motives, they deny that your own motives are a constraint on your own ...
I was trying to reconcile the fact that in a deterministic universe there could be life with free will, but I am going full circle now and am starting to think that everything is really random, if not I don't see how there could be free will in a deterministic universe.
If mathematicians measure randomness with probability, then there must be some things that have a 100% occurrence probability (in the current universe above atomic levels I presume), which now I see as special cases of randomness rather than opposites to randomness, and these lead us to think that there is determinism.
I think we may have this cognitive bias (deterministic views of reality) because it is extremely helpful to use these 100% probability occurrence things to model the universe rationally, learn, and to predict the future, but it is not the whole story or at least a complete description of reality.
What do you think?
EDIT 1: Thank you all for the comments below. I recognize I am naive in this topic.
Although I am not convinced yet, I think my possible argumentative error is:
P1: I observe free will in the behavior of living things.
P2: Deterministic physical mechanical processes don't permit free will.
C: Therefore physics must include random processes.
I think I only see a solution of free will in randomness, but maybe there are other solutions ( I will read the Free Will Sequence here on LW!)
EDIT 2: After reading some articles of the Free Will Sequence I realize the problem of investing energy around free will questions if free will is just a mistake in our thinking process.
It is something like why ask about time travel if time doesn't exist? or, why explore the mechanics of randomness vs determinism if randomness doesn't exist and thus the dichotomy "randomness vs determinism" doesn't exist in the first place?