Compatibalism

[seer]

A logically coherent argument must make sense on a fundamental level. It must recognise all available and known facts and must be internally consistent (i.e. the evidence presented actually supports what's being proposed). It may or may not be correct, but at least it's a plausible argument which warrants discussion and consideration.

But you are completely determined as to what makes sense or not. You do not make these decisions, at bottom the non-rational forces of nature dictate what you see as rational or not, whether they are true or not.

Causal determinism meets these criteria whereas your imaginary world of libertarian free-will does not, it is logically incoherent.

Then prove deductively that anything you just spit out is correct?

[The Thinker]

So basically the non-rational forces of nature programmed you to be rational.

Fallacy of composition again. You never learn.

Right, I wonder how that would work with computers.

Computers are not people. False equivalency.

But again, you have no idea if what you just said is true, you can't, you only know what you were programmed to know, and that would include your causal connection with the external world and what that entails, how you process that. Nothing escapes your Matrix of determinism.

And the alternative view, your view, is logically incoherent. So that's that.

[The Thinker]

That is dishonest Thinker, first he is not merely speaking of "conscious representations" he is speaking of conscious deliberations, and their causal effect on the process. So I will ask again, do you think he would agree with you that conscious reasoning is merely like the steam off a steam engine? Yes or no?

Yes, I think he would. He is not talking about conscious deliberations being a thing that is totally separate (yet causally influential) of the physical brain. If I sat down with him and talked about this stuff - and ironed out the semantics (which is extremely important) I think he'd agree with me and I think he'd disagree with any notion of a soul or dualism like the kind you believe in. Shea may or may not be aware of the physics involved, but your view is empirically ruled out by physics. It's also ruled out by logic, and you know this. So it cannot be taken seriously by anyone properly educated on the subject matter.

[Tassman]

But you are completely determined as to what makes sense or not. You do not make these decisions, at bottom the non-rational forces of nature dictate what you see as rational or not, whether they are true or not.



Then prove deductively that anything you just spit out is correct?

All you need do is show how libertarian free-will can work without being influenced by any antecedent causes. If you cannot do this then you are left with causal determinism or, at best, a form of compatibilism. End of story!

[seer]

Computers are not people. False equivalency.

Right, the human brain is more complicated than computers. And no one believes that the non-rational forces of nature could create even a simple working abacus. Yet you believe that these same non-rational forces did create an infinitely more complicated, rational brain.

And the alternative view, your view, is logically incoherent. So that's that.

But you can not KNOW that. You can only assume that you were you were determined to believe a truism here.

[seer]

Yes, I think he would. He is not talking about conscious deliberations being a thing that is totally separate (yet causally influential) of the physical brain. If I sat down with him and talked about this stuff - and ironed out the semantics (which is extremely important) I think he'd agree with me and I think he'd disagree with any notion of a soul or dualism like the kind you believe in. Shea may or may not be aware of the physics involved, but your view is empirically ruled out by physics. It's also ruled out by logic, and you know this. So it cannot be taken seriously by anyone properly educated on the subject matter.

Thinker, you are spinning your wheels. I watch your link four times now, Shea would not agree with you. He is perfectly clear - consciousness can and does play a causal role, that in fact it can influence the sub-conscious. And I said nothing about dualism or the soul.

[seer]

All you need do is show how libertarian free-will can work without being influenced by any antecedent causes. If you cannot do this then you are left with causal determinism or, at best, a form of compatibilism. End of story!

Oops, the sock puppet spitting out what his non-rational slave masters dictate - again.

[The Thinker]

Right, the human brain is more complicated than computers. And no one believes that the non-rational forces of nature could create even a simple working abacus. Yet you believe that these same non-rational forces did create an infinitely more complicated, rational brain.

The complexity is not important. What's important is whether there is a known natural process that can create these things. There isn't for computers, there is for brains. It's called evolution. So your comparison is apples to oranges. False equivalency.

But you can not KNOW that. You can only assume that you were you were determined to believe a truism here.

What does it mean to "know" something? Your understanding of knowledge is important here. Answer that.

[The Thinker]

Thinker, you are spinning your wheels. I watch your link four times now, Shea would not agree with you. He is perfectly clear - consciousness can and does play a causal role, that in fact it can influence the sub-conscious. And I said nothing about dualism or the soul.

If you're discounting dualism or the soul, then you have no point, because then consciousness has to be an emergent property of a physical brain, and that would mean that the physical brain is what really ultimately does the causing.

[The Thinker]

Oops, the sock puppet spitting out what his non-rational slave masters dictate - again.

Opps, the random acausal fluctuations of mind thoughts that cannot have any connection with what came before it are making you spit out nonsense - again.

[Tassman]

Oops, the sock puppet spitting out what his non-rational slave masters dictate - again.

All you need do is explain how libertarian free-will can work without being influenced by any antecedent causes. Still waiting!

[seer]

All you need do is explain how libertarian free-will can work without being influenced by any antecedent causes. Still waiting!

Oh look everyone, the wind up toy is talking again! How cute...

[Tassman]

Oh look everyone, the wind up toy is talking again! How cute...

Please explain how you were able to arrive at that conclusion without being influenced by any antecedent causes.

[seer]

Please explain how you were able to arrive at that conclusion without being influenced by any antecedent causes.

It is amazing what they can make sock puppets say now a days! They sound almost human!

[Tassman]

It is amazing what they can make sock puppets say now a days! They sound almost human!

Clearly you cannot explain how you were able to arrive at that conclusion without being influenced by any antecedent causes...despite being asked many times.. Obviously not, because it's logically incoherent.