Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Sparko]

Um no, what I've described is what most people understand to be libertarian free will. I didn't set it up to be incoherent, it already was. You are a moron and you just don't want to admit defeat, so you hide behind a compromised version of free will which I predicted you would.



Coercion from what? How do you make those choices? If your brain determines all of your choices prior to your conscious awareness is that free will?

You clearly don't have enough subject matter experience here, moron.

wow so you are basing your entire theory on the Libet study? Where they were told to randomly move their finger and it showed that the brain was getting ready to move the wrist before the person was conscious of it? really? THAT is why you don't believe in free will? did you even actually READ the study or just some popscience article about it?

First of all the participants were only getting ready to move their wrists in the first place because they were told to do so, so they were mentally preparing to move it. That is their free will determining that they will soon move their wrist. Now they hadn't decided when exactly to move it until they actually made the decision, but the brain would still be showing that it was preparing to move because they were anticipating that they would move it. not yet.. not yet... not yet... now! move. Derp.

Libet himself didn't think his experiment showed a lack of Free Will and even said it left room for conscious veto of the action.

Here are some links that you might want to read:

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...periments.html

http://www.bethinking.org/human-life...conscious-will

[Sparko]

Everyone. If you claim you have control over your will, then you're back tracking and affirming the first LFW conditional I mentioned and you'd by contradicting yourself, yet again.

No I mean in the philosophical sense. You obviously are thinking there is some conscious entity that should or should not have control of their will. An "I" that has a mind and can make decisions. You can't even argue against free will without admitting there is a self-aware conscious identity that can easily make decisions.

[The Thinker]

No I mean in the philosophical sense. You obviously are thinking there is some conscious entity that should or should not have control of their will. An "I" that has a mind and can make decisions. You can't even argue against free will without admitting there is a self-aware conscious identity that can easily make decisions.

Yes, having control over your will is a requirement for LFW. If you concede that you conceded LFW. Agree?

As to your last sentence, you have to define what you mean by "make decisions". Does that involve a person being determined to chose X vs Y? Does that involve a person spontaneously and randomly choosing X vs Y. Does it require that you are in control of your will? Explain.

[The Thinker]

wow so you are basing your entire theory on the Libet study? Where they were told to randomly move their finger and it showed that the brain was getting ready to move the wrist before the person was conscious of it? really? THAT is why you don't believe in free will? did you even actually READ the study or just some popscience article about it?

Um are you kidding me? I have never mentioned the Libet study one time during this debate. It's completely irrelevant. This is the stupidest thing you could say.

First of all the participants were only getting ready to move their wrists in the first place because they were told to do so, so they were mentally preparing to move it. That is their free will determining that they will soon move their wrist. Now they hadn't decided when exactly to move it until they actually made the decision, but the brain would still be showing that it was preparing to move because they were anticipating that they would move it. not yet.. not yet... not yet... now! move. Derp.

Completely irrelevant and disconnected with what I wrote. Clearly a sign you intend to avoid something.

Libet himself didn't think his experiment showed a lack of Free Will and even said it left room for conscious veto of the action.

I've already read those links and have done research on the Libet experiment and what Libet thought is irrelevant to this discussion. My argument is an a priori argument. And we have way more and better evidence than what Libet did over 30 years ago that supports my point. Jeez, you really are gunning for the moron olympics aren't you?

[Joel]

P1) X causes Y
P2) X was not caused to cause Y
P3`) By definition you cannot control something uncaused
C) Therefore, X did not control whether Y was caused to be

And I've been saying P3` this entire time and you leaving that out deliberately is a little disingenuous and clearly intended to somehow make me look bad. That's why I think you're a dishonest douchbag.

I think I see what you are trying to do here. Let me try to rephrase your argument slightly to make it more rigorous:

P1) X causes Y
P2) P1 is uncaused.
P3`) By definition you cannot control something uncaused
C) Therefore, X did not control P1.

And I can see why someone might think that that is a slam-dunk argument. But, from the LFW perspective, there's an equivocation hidden in there. Because premise (P2) can have two different meanings. the LFW advocate is affirming one meaning of (P2), but (P3) is true only when using a different meaning of (P2). Thus the argument is invalid.

The first meaning (which the LFW advocate affirms) is that P1 doesn't have a prior cause, such as when a first domino W knocks over the second domino X causing it to cause the third domino to fall over (Y).

But there is a second sense in which we can talk about whether P1 is caused: The thing that makes P1 true or not is the reality of whether or not X causes Y. Thus even if X simply, spontaneously causes Y, then X (and nothing but X) makes P1 to be actual. Thus it is the mere causing Y that causes P1 to be actual. Thus it can truly be said that X causes P1 by causing Y, regardless of whether there was any prior cause. In this latter sense, P2 is simply false.

The LFW advocate affirms (P2) only in the first sense, and denies (P3) when (P2) is understood in the first sense. There is no reason to think a prior cause (beyond X) is required for X to control whether P1 is true. On the contrary, it is reasonable to think there must not be a prior cause. X can control P1 because P1 is caused by X (in the second sense). If there is no prior cause, then it is X alone that controls and causes whether Y comes to be, thus both controls and causes and whether P1 is true.

P3 is true when the "something" is not you causing (something else).

[Joel]

Oh really? Prove it. Explain how it's logically possible to be timeless and yet "interact" with time

First, as I've pointed out to Thinker before in this thread, it's not humanly possible to demonstrate something is logically possible. The default assumption (including of skepticism) is that anything is possible until proven impossible. The burden is on the one claiming the existence of an internal contradiction.

Second, what Thinker is asking about is the same as asking about a necessary being (a being of pure actuality, thus a being that cannot change) effecting a change in a contingent being (a being with potentiality). Far from being logically contradictory, such a thing must have taken place, because there exists contingent being(s), and there cannot exist any contingent being at all unless caused by some necessary being.

[Sparko]

First, as I've pointed out to Thinker before in this thread, it's not humanly possible to demonstrate something is logically possible. The default assumption (including of skepticism) is that anything is possible until proven impossible. The burden is on the one claiming the existence of an internal contradiction.

Second, what Thinker is asking about is the same as asking about a necessary being (a being of pure actuality, thus a being that cannot change) effecting a change in a contingent being (a being with potentiality). Far from being logically contradictory, such a thing must have taken place, because there exists contingent being(s), and there cannot exist any contingent being at all unless caused by some necessary being.

right. And Thinker should realize that since his entire argument regarding free will is that every action has a cause. And everything is just physical and all physical actions are in reaction to something causing them. He even argued against an infinite regress of causality. So eventually you have to come to the big bang, and no matter existing, and no time existing, and something external to time has to cause it all to start. To be the "first cause" - it didn't cause itself, according to Thinker logic, right?

[The Thinker]

right. And Thinker should realize that since his entire argument regarding free will is that every action has a cause. And everything is just physical and all physical actions are in reaction to something causing them. He even argued against an infinite regress of causality. So eventually you have to come to the big bang, and no matter existing, and no time existing, and something external to time has to cause it all to start. To be the "first cause" - it didn't cause itself, according to Thinker logic, right?

Wow, you keep getting more moronic by the post. It's hilarious.

My argument is neutral on materialism vs immaterialism. I can grant you the existence of a soul for the sake of argument and my argument still applies and takes that into account.

My argument is neutral on whether everything has a cause or whether some things don't, because whether they do or don't both negate LFW. My argument takes into account all these things, that's why it's a good argument that cannot be refuted.

Do you even know how to read or are you just as retarded as I think you are?

Second, when it comes to the big bang you are just as ignorant as you are with free will. You really really do not understand the science or logic at all. Read this: Why So Many People Get The Big Bang Wrong (Including Atheists)

[The Thinker]

First, as I've pointed out to Thinker before in this thread, it's not humanly possible to demonstrate something is logically possible. The default assumption (including of skepticism) is that anything is possible until proven impossible. The burden is on the one claiming the existence of an internal contradiction.

Second, what Thinker is asking about is the same as asking about a necessary being (a being of pure actuality, thus a being that cannot change) effecting a change in a contingent being (a being with potentiality). Far from being logically contradictory, such a thing must have taken place, because there exists contingent being(s), and there cannot exist any contingent being at all unless caused by some necessary being.

Of course it is, you can show it entails no logical contradiction. I've already showed it is impossible. God doesn't exist beyond logic. Nothing does. And to do something requires change, and change requires time. If god was timeless it would be completely impotent. I will not accept special pleading as an answer to this. These are logical necessities irrespective of one's ontology.

Second of all your logic is totally full of crap, because you are begging the question by assuming brute facts are impossible. There is no such thing as a necessary being. You gotta have higher intellectual standards dude. And if you're a Thomist, Thomistic metaphysics negates LFW. If it is the case that "Whatever is changed is changed by another," or, in its more traditional formulation, "Whatever is moved is moved by another," (the Aristotelian principle) then you cannot have a self-caused cause. Your will must be changed or moved by "another" thing, and whatever moved or changed that must be due to another thing, and so on, and that gets gets you determinism which negates LFW.

That's why Catholic metaphysics is self-refuting.

[The Thinker]

I think I see what you are trying to do here. Let me try to rephrase your argument slightly to make it more rigorous:

P1) X causes Y
P2) P1 is uncaused.
P3`) By definition you cannot control something uncaused
C) Therefore, X did not control P1.

And I can see why someone might think that that is a slam-dunk argument. But, from the LFW perspective, there's an equivocation hidden in there. Because premise (P2) can have two different meanings. the LFW advocate is affirming one meaning of (P2), but (P3) is true only when using a different meaning of (P2). Thus the argument is invalid.

The first meaning (which the LFW advocate affirms) is that P1 doesn't have a prior cause, such as when a first domino W knocks over the second domino X causing it to cause the third domino to fall over (Y).

But there is a second sense in which we can talk about whether P1 is caused: The thing that makes P1 true or not is the reality of whether or not X causes Y. Thus even if X simply, spontaneously causes Y, then X (and nothing but X) makes P1 to be actual. Thus it is the mere causing Y that causes P1 to be actual. Thus it can truly be said that X causes P1 by causing Y, regardless of whether there was any prior cause. In this latter sense, P2 is simply false.

The LFW advocate affirms (P2) only in the first sense, and denies (P3) when (P2) is understood in the first sense. There is no reason to think a prior cause (beyond X) is required for X to control whether P1 is true. On the contrary, it is reasonable to think there must not be a prior cause. X can control P1 because P1 is caused by X (in the second sense). If there is no prior cause, then it is X alone that controls and causes whether Y comes to be, thus both controls and causes and whether P1 is true.

P3 is true when the "something" is not you causing (something else).

What the hell are you talking about? You are totally wasting my time with your nonsense.

P1 is a premise. It isn't the thing in question. X is the thing. By changing X to P1 you are completely changing my view or deliberately trying to confuse. If X is uncaused you have no control over it by definition and if X causes Y you cannot have had control over Y either. You need to refute that. It is pointless arguing with you on this since you're just going to make the same refuted claim a million different ways.

[Cornelius89]

I have no problem with an infinite regress, in principle. My argument to demi was that if can't have an author since it would have no ultimate cause, and therefore it is insufficient as an explanation of free will.

It's irrelevant whether you don't have a problem with infinite regress or not: some cardinality of infinity had to generate the laws. So you're trapping your position by your own logic imo. For example, why is gravity as weak as it is? Why is the gravitational constant "G" a certain value and not something bigger or smaller? Let's say because the way the BB developed the laws of physics. So there is something that originally dictated the power of this infinite regress, even though it's infinite (this is how Cantor solved Zeno's Paradox: using cardinality). I'm simply trying to point out that your argument would mean that no existence can ever exist: we should all be staring at a black void right now if your argument is true (and even if we were, it wouldn't, if you care for me to elaborate).

Now you asked "What caused the Big Bang?" I hear this all the time by people who misunderstand the BB.

As an atheist I hear: NO ONE CREATED SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING? This is the name of the first chapter in Christian Apologist Frank Turok's book "Stealing God." Other variations of the question go, "How do you get something from nothing?" or "How does nothing create everything?" or still yet, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The popular view out there especially among theists is that atheists believe "nothing" somehow created everything. If you're an atheist in any kind of situation talking or debating with theists you can be sure some variation of these questions will come up at some point, and you've got to be prepared to give a response.

First, some of these questions assume that the ontological default state should be nothing, and not something, and theists who ask these questions will almost certainly not have shown any justification why that should be so. I don't think one can even come up with an objective prior probability for such an assumption. Second, many of these questions usually rely on a faulty assumption about the big bang. Many people falsely assume the the big bang entails there there was a state of nothingness, and then *poof* you get a big bang. That's not what it says. That's not even what inflationary theory says. They both simply say that there was a first moment when t=0. There wasn't anything prior to that; there was no state of "nothing" from which everything came out of. And since space and time are tied together, as Einstein showed, with no space prior to t=0, there was no time. So you can say that the universe always existed in that at every moment of time the universe exists. In this sense, the universe is omnitemporal. That means there was always something. Somethingness might be the ontological default, and not nothingness.

So no atheist must be committed to the view that "nothing created everything." This is an absurd parody of the atheist position on cosmic origins, and far too many religious apologists and atheists alike believe this. Now of course it is always possible that there was spacetime prior to the big bang. If there's an infinite amount of spacetime prior to our universe's big bang, then most of these questions are mute anyway. And if there is a finite amount of spacetime prior to our universe's big bang, the same principle applies to the absolute origin.

I didn't pose the question as if it trumps the atheist position. I'm well aware of the fallacies that can come out of using the arguments you're talking about. It was a rhetorical question that was designed to show that either something came out of nothing or there's an infinite regress.

But either way, free will is negated.

How do you get this conclusion from what you wrote?

That makes no sense. If you cannot control what thoughts, desires, or will arises in your mind, as you can't, you have no free will. You can't choose what your next thought, desire, or idea will be, without that thought, desire, or idea already popping into your consciousness in a manner you couldn't have freely controlled.

Controlling what thoughts (out of habit) or desires (not will) arise in your mind is not equivalent to free will (LFW). I can certainly choose what my next thought is, how do you assume I can't? For example, I chose to come back to this forum after years of absence, even though I had inclinations before.

In order to choose your next thought, you'd have to think about it, before you think about it. That's incoherent. You can't have a thought, about a thought, before you have the thought. If you can't choose your next thought, or any of your thoughts, how is your will or mind controlled by you, and in what sense is it free? It isn't.

Again, your error is that you treat existence as a predicate. I don't need to have a thought about a thought: I just have a thought. You assume that something needs a causation (a thought), without it having its own power (of existence), and then proceed to claim you disproved free will. You confuse some physical aspects of man's psychology with the classical Cartesian Dualism of mind vs brain.

Thoughts arise in consciousness and we have no control over it.

The granddaddy of all of your assumptions. Not even connected to your previous sentences with any proof lol.

[demi-conservative]

At this point, it is useless to even argue with him because he has locked himself into his own little room and everything "proves" him right. Even evidence to the contrary. He is as bad as Darfius and his "Great Delusion"

Like I said at beginning! What is point of arguments with mindless robot?

He's stuck in stupid subroutine!! Since he no has free will he no has control over nonsense he like to spout

[The Thinker]

Like I said at beginning! What is point of arguments with mindless robot?

He's stuck in stupid subroutine!! Since he no has free will he no has control over nonsense he like to spout

You keep saying mindless robot, yet the irony is that you're the one on this site who most closely writes like a mindless bot.

You've got 3rd grade logic.

[The Thinker]

It's irrelevant whether you don't have a problem with infinite regress or not: some cardinality of infinity had to generate the laws. So you're trapping your position by your own logic imo. For example, why is gravity as weak as it is? Why is the gravitational constant "G" a certain value and not something bigger or smaller? Let's say because the way the BB developed the laws of physics. So there is something that originally dictated the power of this infinite regress, even though it's infinite (this is how Cantor solved Zeno's Paradox: using cardinality). I'm simply trying to point out that your argument would mean that no existence can ever exist: we should all be staring at a black void right now if your argument is true (and even if we were, it wouldn't, if you care for me to elaborate).

Completely wrong. Nothing has to generate the laws. Why does something have to "dictate the power" of an infinite regress? Either there is an infinite regress of explanations, a logically necessary one, or a brute fact. No matter what you do however, a brute fact is unavoidable. Even if you posit that there is a god.

I didn't pose the question as if it trumps the atheist position. I'm well aware of the fallacies that can come out of using the arguments you're talking about. It was a rhetorical question that was designed to show that either something came out of nothing or there's an infinite regress.

Well, I'm glad at least you recognize those fallacies. But no, you're dichotomy is actually wrong. It is not the case that there either has to be an infinite regress or something comes out of nothing, because again, nothing never existed. There could be a finite amount of events and no "nothing."

How do you get this conclusion from what you wrote?

My point is that all your infinite regress talk is irrelevant. Free will is a priori rules out because it entails a self-contradiction.

Controlling what thoughts (out of habit) or desires (not will) arise in your mind is not equivalent to free will (LFW). I can certainly choose what my next thought is, how do you assume I can't? For example, I chose to come back to this forum after years of absence, even though I had inclinations before.

That's not a free choice, that's the desire of coming back to this site arising in your consciousness through a physical brain process that you were consciously unaware of. You're confusing the thought arising in your consciousness with you being able to choose it. If I had a device implanted in your brain that could control your thoughts and you were unaware of it, from your subjective position you would receive those thoughts or desires in exactly the same way if that device was not implanted in your brain: you would just suddenly get the conscious desire to do X. Even if you rationally evaluated whether or not to do X, if all those rational thoughts were created by me, you would think this is of your own "free" will. You would have no way to tell whether it was or not based purely on how those thoughts arise in your consciousness. Therefore, you cannot use the argument that because thoughts arise in your consciousness you, that this proves they are free.

Again, your error is that you treat existence as a predicate. I don't need to have a thought about a thought: I just have a thought. You assume that something needs a causation (a thought), without it having its own power (of existence), and then proceed to claim you disproved free will. You confuse some physical aspects of man's psychology with the classical Cartesian Dualism of mind vs brain.

I'm doing no such thing. My argument does not assume we have or don't have souls, nor that thoughts have to have causes or not have causes. But it insists that they either do, or don't, and that neither possibility allows for LFW. See above for my explanation showing just having a thought is not free will.

The granddaddy of all of your assumptions. Not even connected to your previous sentences with any proof lol.

Nope. This is a logical necessity. You've failed above to show how you "control" your thoughts. Let me ask you this. If all your thoughts, every single one of them, arose from a physical brain process governed by deterministic or indeterministic laws of physics that you were not consciously aware of, 2 questions:

(1) Would this allow for free will as you understand it?
(2) What do you think this would feel like from the subjective perspective of a person that's any different from what we experience now?

[demi-conservative]

You keep saying mindless robot, yet the irony is that you're the one on this site who most closely writes like a mindless bot.

Much worse to be actual mindless robot like you.

Best for all I think if you go to asylum, check yourself in! Say 'I am crazy mindless robot that has no free will please help me!!' and you will get it!!!