Compatibalism

[Tassman]

How is it incoherent if conscious rational deliberations play a real role? And I did not agree subconscious is the only driver in the decision making process.

Logical coherence must make sense on a fundamental level; recognise all available and known facts; and be internally consistent. Libertarian Free-will does not do this. It illogically claims that an agent can override the lifetime of antecedent experiences that subconsciously determine why we tend to choose X rather than Y.

And again Tass, why won't you directly admit that in your worldview all our thoughts and acts are determined? Come on, I want to see you say it - just once.

The fact of you acknowledging subconscious influences having any role in determining the decision-making process renders LFW logically incoherent. What you’re incorrectly calling Libertarian Free-will is in fact 'compatabilism'...i.e. 'soft determinism'...not LFW.

[Littlejoe]

Bertrand Russell wrote that "the circumstances of men's lives do much to determine their philosophy" in his History of Western Philosophy. "Our circumstances, in line with the determinism of physics and biochemistry, predetermine our choices and therefore, free will is an illusion".

This is not to say we don’t make choices, but these choices are heavily influenced by our social conditioning. A well socialised person will instinctively conform to the values of his society; it is to these values that a person is held to be morally responsible.

Sure, Russell wrote that, and it might be true...or it might not. Russell wasn't foolproof. This argument has been going on for multiple millennia without a clear resolution. To say Russell had the definitive word is speculative at best. I'm sure I could go digging and find philosophers who disagree with Russell, that wouldn't make them right either. I contend Russell believed what he wrote, I don't believe it. A person CAN override his desires, his lifetime of conditioning and choose "other than" he normally or logically or otherwise would. That makes free will NOT an illusion.

[Tassman]

Sure, Russell wrote that, and it might be true...or it might not. Russell wasn't foolproof. This argument has been going on for multiple millennia without a clear resolution. To say Russell had the definitive word is speculative at best. I'm sure I could go digging and find philosophers who disagree with Russell, that wouldn't make them right either. I contend Russell believed what he wrote, I don't believe it. A person CAN override his desires, his lifetime of conditioning and choose "other than" he normally or logically or otherwise would. That makes free will NOT an illusion.

This is a bald assertion, there’s no reason to think this. Who’s to say that the “overriding of a desire” is not itself determined by social conditioning? A well socialised person will instinctively conform to the values of society whereas a badly socialised person will not.

[seer]

Logical coherence must make sense on a fundamental level; recognise all available and known facts; and be internally consistent. Libertarian Free-will does not do this. It illogically claims that an agent can override the lifetime of antecedent experiences that subconsciously determine why we tend to choose X rather than Y.

How is it logically coherent to say that everything we think do or say is ultimately determined by the non-rational laws of nature that care nothing for logic, truth, morality or rationality itself?

The fact of you acknowledging subconscious influences having any role in determining the decision-making process renders LFW logically incoherent. What you’re incorrectly calling Libertarian Free-will is in fact 'compatabilism'...i.e. 'soft determinism'...not LFW.

Nonsense, that does not follow. It is not either or. But again, why won't you admit that in your worldview all our thoughts and acts are determined?

[shunyadragon]

Deja vu . . .

Ground hog Day again, again, again, again, and again over and over again.

[Littlejoe]

This is a bald assertion, there’s no reason to think this. Who’s to say that the “overriding of a desire” is not itself determined by social conditioning? A well socialised person will instinctively conform to the values of society whereas a badly socialised person will not.

What's sad is you think you defeat what you call "my bald assertion" with one of your own. Just because you say it's possible does not make it so...hence the argument for millennia.

[The Thinker]

How is it logically coherent to say that everything we think do or say is ultimately determined by the non-rational laws of nature that care nothing for logic, truth, morality or rationality itself?

Because you're once again making the fallacy of division: assuming the parts have to have the same properties of the whole. The laws of physics which are impersonal, amoral, and ateleological can allow for massive levels of complexity to arise at higher levels, which to us is the domain in which our rational philosophies exist. There's no contradiction.

The true contradiction, is in accepting that the laws of physics are impersonal, amoral, and ateleological, and believing we somehow break the laws of physics when we do something logical, which is of course empirically false. That's a view that requires cognitive dissonance.

Nonsense, that does not follow. It is not either or. But again, why won't you admit that in your worldview all our thoughts and acts are determined?

Tassman is correct. Your view is compatibilism, but you're pretending it's LFW. You just cannot admit LFW is false because your whole worldview falls apart if you do. So you instead prefer an incoherent position.

[seer]

Because you're once again making the fallacy of division: assuming the parts have to have the same properties of the whole. The laws of physics which are impersonal, amoral, and ateleological can allow for massive levels of complexity to arise at higher levels, which to us is the domain in which our rational philosophies exist. There's no contradiction.

The true contradiction, is in accepting that the laws of physics are impersonal, amoral, and ateleological, and believing we somehow break the laws of physics when we do something logical, which is of course empirically false. That's a view that requires cognitive dissonance.

What? Why should we assume that the non-rational can create it's opposite - the rational? Or the that non-conscious forces can create their opposite - consciousness? Neither rationality and consciousness are not in any sense, or on any level, inherent in physical laws - no matter how complex. Besides biological life on earth show me any natural physical structure (most much more older than us) that have reached rationality or consciousness.

Tassman is correct. Your view is compatibilism, but you're pretending it's LFW. You just cannot admit LFW is false because your whole worldview falls apart if you do. So you instead prefer an incoherent position.

That is just stupid since I made it clear that I believe that conscious rational deliberation can over-ride or control subconscious intents and desires when they are presented to the rational mind.

[Carrikature]

A person CAN override his desires, his lifetime of conditioning and choose "other than" he normally or logically or otherwise would. That makes free will NOT an illusion.

One overrides one desire with another desire. It's not moving beyond one's desires but giving a different one higher priority. That's not illogical or somehow "other than".

Everything about who we are as persons determines what we even see as options. There's no getting to "other than". At best, you get to a surprising outcome because you didn't expect that a given option would be the priority it turned out to be.

I don't fully agree with Russell on everything, and he's definitely not infallible, but "predetermine our choices" is pretty much spot on.

[The Thinker]

What? Why should we assume that the non-rational can create it's opposite - the rational? Or the that non-conscious forces can create their opposite - consciousness? Neither rationality and consciousness are not in any sense, or on any level, inherent in physical laws - no matter how complex. Besides biological life on earth show me any natural physical structure (most much more older than us) that have reached rationality or consciousness.

Because it would be as illogical as saying non-flying parts cannot create something that can fly. In other words, your assumption is based on a fallacy. Consciousness and rationality is only a property of living things (so far as we know, AI notwithstanding). We shouldn't assume anything. We should go out and actually find the truth by investigating it. And we've done that (well, not all of us). And what we've found is that humans are made of atoms, and there are no forces our atoms governing us besides the 4 natural forces known to physics - no exceptions, and that these forces are described by non-rational, amoral, and ateleological laws.

So your whole way of thinking is flawed. You're assuming your conclusion before even investigating an answer to it.

That is just stupid since I made it clear that I believe that conscious rational deliberation can over-ride or control subconscious intents and desires when they are presented to the rational mind.

And that's incompatible with the laws of physics, so it's empirically false. (and yes, your belief makes scientific claims, since it would require consciousness to have causal power on the physical world - so you can't just claim that you "reject materialism" and think you've got a way out). And you believe unconscious brain factors can determine conscious thoughts and behavior and yet it's still "free", right?

[seer]

Because it would be as illogical as saying non-flying parts cannot create something that can fly. In other words, your assumption is based on a fallacy. Consciousness and rationality is only a property of living things (so far as we know, AI notwithstanding). We shouldn't assume anything. We should go out and actually find the truth by investigating it. And we've done that (well, not all of us). And what we've found is that humans are made of atoms, and there are no forces our atoms governing us besides the 4 natural forces known to physics - no exceptions, and that these forces are described by non-rational, amoral, and ateleological laws.

But non-flying parts do not and can not turn into something that flies without direct intelligent intervention. If I give you a trillion years your 4 natural forces could not organize and create a simple biplane, never mind a 747, which when it comes to function and complexity does not come near the complexity of the human brain.

[seer]

So your whole way of thinking is flawed. You're assuming your conclusion before even investigating an answer to it.

We are speaking of properties or functions (rationality and consciousness) that are not inherent to the laws of nature or matter and energy. As a matter of fact rationality and consciousness are opposite of what we find in matter and energy which are non-rational and non-conscious. Can you give another example (apart from what is under consideration with biological life) where matter and energy create something not inherent, at least in part, in their nature - where they produce something completely opposite of what they are.

[Tassman]

What's sad is you think you defeat what you call "my bald assertion" with one of your own. Just because you say it's possible does not make it so...hence the argument for millennia.

There’s nothing “sad” about facing up to reality.

When you say that “a person CAN override his desires, his lifetime of conditioning and choose "other than" he normally or logically or otherwise would” WHO is doing the choosing? And how can that person be free from antecedent social conditioning and life experiences that comprise the subconscious. In short, that person cannot.

[Tassman]

How is it logically coherent to say that everything we think do or say is ultimately determined by the non-rational laws of nature that care nothing for logic, truth, morality or rationality itself?

Natural selection has programmed us to assume agency where there is only nature, just as the laws of nature have programmed all living things to evolve and instilled in them the instinct of survival. This is how nature works seer; it has nothing to do with your endlessly repeated crap about “nature caring nothing for logic, truth, morality”.

[seer]

Natural selection has programmed us to assume agency where there is only nature, just as the laws of nature have programmed all living things to evolve and instilled in them the instinct of survival. This is how nature works seer; it has nothing to do with your endlessly repeated crap about “nature caring nothing for logic, truth, morality”.

You are missing the point. Nature in fact does not even care for or programme for survival. As far as rationality, how on earth do you know when you are determined to spit out a truism? Like above? Is what you just posted a fact or were you determined to believe a falsehood to be true?