Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Tassman]

Then make a coherent argument Tass that anything you just said is true, that your brain caused you to to understand this issue correctly.

I did not say it was "true" necessarily, but that it's logically consistent. Something which your Libertarian Free-Will is not. That's the difference.

[seer]

I did not say it was "true" necessarily, but that it's logically consistent. Something which your Libertarian Free-Will is not. That's the difference.

So you can not logically make the case that what your brain reported is true, but it is logically consistent? BTW - can you tell me exactly where Joel's argument is logically inconsistent?

[The Thinker]

All but the sentence I bolded is just you (re)stating your conclusion, and thus add nothing to the discussion.
As for the bolded sentence, you are just claiming that there is a paradox with the (non-deterministic) state machine I've described. Yet it seems completely unnecessary to be in state Y prior to being in state Y. You haven't explained how your paradox can apply to this.

Thus much for the think-before-you-think paradox.

I may sound repetitive at times but that's mostly because all you're doing is asserting we have LFW over and over. Given the fact that you haven't provided any evidence that LFW is coherent, my point still stands. The fact remains that every thought you have is one that appeared in consciousness that you could not have chosen before hand. I've repeatedly asked you to show why this is not the case and you fail every time. That's because logic is on my side, and it is impossible to show something that is logically impossible.

As I recall, the first horn of your 'dilemma' is that if the change is caused, then it is caused by something external to the agent, and therefore not controlled by the agent. But the "then" doesn't follow. It could be caused by the agent.

That is a total nonsensical answer. Just to repeat, the dilemma is that either our thoughts/will are caused or uncaused. Claiming our thoughts are caused by the "agent" -- (which you previously claimed is the same as the mind which would make your answer incoherent) doesn't resolve the dilemma because if the agent is uncaused the agent cannot control the agent and therefore cannot have control over its thoughts/will. And claiming that the agent causes the action and therefore has LFW is incoherent -- because the agent must be uncaused in everything it does -- including causing actions --- it therefore has no control over what actions it causes, hence no LFW.

Whatever that is, it isn't a change. Change is the only thing about which it is meaningful to say that it is controlled or not.

As a reminder, what I'm saying here is that:
a) all the state and change in the agent is caused.
b) In the case of LFW, the change is caused and controlled by the agent.
c) In the case of LFW, the agent is not caused (by anything external or by the agent's prior state) to do so.

And (c) doesn't contradict (a) because the thing in the agent that does the causing is not a pre-existing state and is not a change. (Any change involved is something that was caused by the agent.)

If it's not change, how does the agent go from not performing action A to performing action A? Something in the agent must change to materialize that action, otherwise you're not making any sense. Now we know from science that neurons fire in the brain which make the muscles tense and perform the action. All of this is change. On dualism, the idea is that the soul/mind desires the action and then makes it happen by some force that interacts with the physical body to cause the physical action. But that force that the soul/mind enacts to make the physical body do what it wants is a change. And the force either has a cause or not. If you say the agent causes that force through its mind or some mechanism, then the agent either has to have a cause that causes that force, or be uncaused. Either one negates LFW.

So your a,b,and c, makes no sense. The state in the agent is caused, you say, and caused and "controlled" by the agent. If the causality can be traced back to an uncaused event in the agent ("spontaneous" as you say) then the agent has no control over it. You again are just asserting this. And once again -- caused X does not = LFW controlled X.

I was only rebutting your argument that the change is uncaused and therefore uncontrolled. LFW denies that the change is uncaused. I'm not saying that that implies controlled. I'm only saying you can't argue "uncaused therefore uncontrolled" if the change is caused.

And I'm saying that all you're doing is pushing the problem back one step to an uncaused event that led to the cause and therefore negates LFW. If everything the agent initiates is uncaused, it can't have any LFW control over it. No matter what you're stuck in a logical conundrum and you're basically just asserting your POV and once again starting to waste my time.

That is the "if" which is necessary for the discussion. We already discussed that.

That if is the very thing that's incoherent that I've shown and neither you nor anyone else has rebutted.

[The Thinker]

Do you mean in the sense of one person communicating it to another person via a medium like sound or light?
Or do you mean that all knowledge is obtained by empirical observation?

The former.

[Joel]

As for the bolded sentence, you are just claiming that there is a paradox with the (non-deterministic) state machine I've described. Yet it seems completely unnecessary to be in state Y prior to being in state Y. You haven't explained how your paradox can apply to this.

The fact remains that every thought you have is one that appeared in consciousness that you could not have chosen before hand. I've repeatedly asked you to show why this is not the case and you fail every time.

Your first sentence is your conclusion (thus does nothing to prove it). Your argument for that conclusion is your think-before-you-think paradox. Your problem is that, in the (non-deterministic) state machine I've described, it is completely unnecessary to be in state Y prior to being in state Y, so your paradox does not apply, so you have no reasonable argument for your conclusion.

Thus much for the think-before-you-think paradox.

As I recall, the first horn of your 'dilemma' is that if the change is caused, then it is caused by something external to the agent, and therefore not controlled by the agent. But the "then" doesn't follow. It could be caused by the agent.

Whatever that is, it isn't a change. Change is the only thing about which it is meaningful to say that it is controlled or not.

As a reminder, what I'm saying here is that:
a) all the state and change in the agent is caused.
b) In the case of LFW, the change is caused and controlled by the agent.
c) In the case of LFW, the agent is not caused (by anything external or by the agent's prior state) to do so.

And (c) doesn't contradict (a) because the thing in the agent that does the causing is not a pre-existing state and is not a change. (Any change involved is something that was caused by the agent.)

That is a total nonsensical answer. Just to repeat, the dilemma is that either our thoughts/will are caused or uncaused. Claiming our thoughts are caused by the "agent" -- (which you previously claimed is the same as the mind which would make your answer incoherent) doesn't resolve the dilemma because if the agent is uncaused the agent cannot control the agent and therefore cannot have control over its thoughts/will. And claiming that the agent causes the action and therefore has LFW is incoherent -- because the agent must be uncaused in everything it does -- including causing actions --- it therefore has no control over what actions it causes, hence no LFW.


If it's not change, how does the agent go from not performing action A to performing action A? Something in the agent must change to materialize that action, otherwise you're not making any sense. Now we know from science that neurons fire in the brain which make the muscles tense and perform the action. All of this is change. On dualism, the idea is that the soul/mind desires the action and then makes it happen by some force that interacts with the physical body to cause the physical action. But that force that the soul/mind enacts to make the physical body do what it wants is a change. And the force either has a cause or not. If you say the agent causes that force through its mind or some mechanism, then the agent either has to have a cause that causes that force, or be uncaused. Either one negates LFW.

So your a,b,and c, makes no sense. The state in the agent is caused, you say, and caused and "controlled" by the agent. If the causality can be traced back to an uncaused event in the agent ("spontaneous" as you say) then the agent has no control over it. You again are just asserting this. And once again -- caused X does not = LFW controlled X.

Much of your reply here is not directed at what I'm saying.
- I didn't claim thoughts are equal to the mind. You did. I said that was silly.
- You try to complain that "the agent cannot control the agent", but I already answered that, "Whatever that is, it isn't a change. Change is the only thing about which it is meaningful to say that it is controlled or not."
- You are still thinking that there must be an uncaused change in the agent prior to the agent causing a change. But that's denied by my (a). The problem is that you are just complaining that LFW isn't determinism. Or you are imposing a restriction of determinism onto LFW, and then absurdly using that to derive a contradiction. Yes of course there is a change, but it is caused by the agent (see (a)).
- You seem to be suggesting that my (c) contradicts (b), but it does not seem to do so. You seem to be just claiming that.

all you're doing is asserting we have LFW over and over.

That is the "if" which is necessary for the discussion. We already discussed that.

That if is the very thing that's incoherent that I've shown and neither you nor anyone else has rebutted.

It seems you've forgotten our whole discussion of the "if". I'm only stating LFW as the "if" hypothesis, which is not circular reasoning on my part, but is required for the discussion. We both start with the "if LFW", and see whether contradictions follow or not. You claim to have shown that contradictions do follow. Your complaint, that I keep stating and explaining the content of the "if", is invalid.
(And my (a), (b), and (c) above are all part of the if. They are explaining the content of the "if" in more detail.)

[Tassman]

So you can not logically make the case that what your brain reported is true, but it is logically consistent?

BTW - can you tell me exactly where Joel's argument is logically inconsistent?

[seer]

So you can not logically demonstrate that what your brain reports to your brain is true, which means that you can not logically demonstrate that what you just said about adaptive behavior is correct. Talk about incoherent.


But it is not a causally determined universe, and prove that sub-conscious influences are the only driver in this picture, as opposed to conscious rational thought having an effective role.

[Tassman]

So you can not logically demonstrate that what your brain reports to your brain is true, which means that you can not logically demonstrate that what you just said about adaptive behavior is correct. Talk about incoherent.

But it is not a causally determined universe,

and prove that sub-conscious influences are the only driver in this picture, as opposed to conscious rational thought having an effective role.

[seer]

Again nonsense Tass, I said logically prove the above is true. Not just rattle off your beliefs.

What other "driver": God? There's no credible evidence of an immaterial entity such as a deity operating in the material universe.

No, I'm saying that conscious rational deliberation is also a key part. Do you like, Thinker, deny this?

No, I'm saying that sub-conscious influences are not the only part of this picture, that conscious rational deliberation (the agent's own will) plays an effective role. If not you are left with an infinite regression of cause and effect links, which is irrational.

[Tassman]

Again nonsense Tass, I said logically prove the above is true. Not just rattle off your beliefs.

No, I'm saying that conscious rational deliberation is also a key part. Do you like, Thinker, deny this?

No, I'm saying that sub-conscious influences are not the only part of this picture, that conscious rational deliberation (the agent's own will) plays an effective role. If not you are left with an infinite regression of cause and effect links, which is irrational.

[seer]

OK, then make a logically deductive case that your brain, on any given subjective, is causing you to believe something true. That is the only question before us Tass, not your subjective idea of how it works.



First, do you agree that our conscious rational deliberations play an effective role in the decision making process? Or do you agree with Thinker that they don't - yes or no.


Sure as soon as you show me how we can move through an infinite number of past causal events to reach this present point.

[Tassman]

OK, then make a logically deductive case that your brain, on any given subjective, is causing you to believe something true. That is the only question before us Tass, not your subjective idea of how it works.

First, do you agree that our conscious rational deliberations play an effective role in the decision making process? Or do you agree with Thinker that they don't - yes or no

Sure as soon as you show me how we can move through an infinite number of past causal events to reach this present point.

[seer]

Sheesh Tass, you are being particularly dense! It is not about empirical facts or logical deduction it is about what you brain causes you to believe. If your brain causes you to believe that 2+2=5 that is what you would believe. Applied logic plays no role since you have no control over what you consider true or not.


No Tass, you answer the question, which you have been avoiding in one way or the other for a while now. Do you agree with Thinker that our conscious rational deliberations play no role in the decision making process. It is a yes or no.

I never said otherwise, I said both play a effective role. Both the conscious and the unconscious. So do you agree that the conscious plays an effective role?


We don't what? If I have a problem so do you - yours is infinite regression.

[The Thinker]

Your first sentence is your conclusion (thus does nothing to prove it). Your argument for that conclusion is your think-before-you-think paradox. Your problem is that, in the (non-deterministic) state machine I've described, it is completely unnecessary to be in state Y prior to being in state Y, so your paradox does not apply, so you have no reasonable argument for your conclusion.

Joel, you've been asserting all along your conclusions without any proof by simply declaring LFW happens at a certain point. If you aren't going to support that, I need not refute it. Besides, I have a reasonable argument for my conclusion. If you think of the content of state Y before you think of state Y, that is not a LFW choice. The content just appeared in your consciousness. And as such, even if this were the case, when you actually think about state Y, it is not an LFW choice.

Thus much for the think-before-you-think paradox.

Sorry, buddy. But you've made absolutely no arguments that challenge the think-before-you-think paradox. It's logically impossible to do so, so you will never win this.

Much of your reply here is not directed at what I'm saying.
- I didn't claim thoughts are equal to the mind. You did. I said that was silly.
- You try to complain that "the agent cannot control the agent", but I already answered that, "Whatever that is, it isn't a change. Change is the only thing about which it is meaningful to say that it is controlled or not."
- You are still thinking that there must be an uncaused change in the agent prior to the agent causing a change. But that's denied by my (a). The problem is that you are just complaining that LFW isn't determinism. Or you are imposing a restriction of determinism onto LFW, and then absurdly using that to derive a contradiction. Yes of course there is a change, but it is caused by the agent (see (a)).
- You seem to be suggesting that my (c) contradicts (b), but it does not seem to do so. You seem to be just claiming that.

-Regardless if thoughts are equal to the mind or not, the same problem occurs: no LFW choice in thoughts. All you ever do is push the problem back one step. That solves absolutely nothing.
-The agent cannot control the agent if the initiating factor is always uncaused. All you've said is that the change is caused - you didn't say a damned thing about it being LFW controlled. This is the 10th time I've mentioned this. Caused doesn't = LFW control.
-Yes, there must be an uncaused change in the agent prior to the agent causing change, or their must be a prior caused. To claim that an agent exists and just "spontaneously" (your word) does an action is not in any way LFW. There would be no explanation why the agent did action X vs. action Y. It would be totlly random and spontaneous. If I eventually trace the chain of causality of an agent's action back to an uncaused event, there is no LFW. Period. Your (a) is nonsensical. The state and change in the agent is caused -- by the agent who spontaneous and isn't caused. That is not in any way LFW.
-If your c is true, then the agent is not caused, then there is no control the agent can have over the changes it causes. Hint: Caused doesn't = LFW control. Nothing in your a,b, or c explains LFW or shows that it is true.

I think maybe it's time you give a full, detailed chronological order of events of what happens when you think an LFW choice is made. You've previously said that the "agent" is the same thing as the body/soul/mind. Is there one of these that is ontologically superior or fundamental? Is the soul more fundamental then the body? Is the mind more fundamental than the soul? Does any one of these things cause the other. When an agent makes an action, does the soul cause the mind which causes the body to act? Are they all ontologically simultaneous or one before the other? If they are one before the other what is the first thing that happens to cause what?

This are all extremely important to any possible coherency of LFW. Simply declaring the agent causes X is not plausible. If the agent is the body, then bodies all have physical causes, which negates LFW.

It seems you've forgotten our whole discussion of the "if". I'm only stating LFW as the "if" hypothesis, which is not circular reasoning on my part, but is required for the discussion. We both start with the "if LFW", and see whether contradictions follow or not. You claim to have shown that contradictions do follow. Your complaint, that I keep stating and explaining the content of the "if", is invalid.
(And my (a), (b), and (c) above are all part of the if. They are explaining the content of the "if" in more detail.)

I'm not necessarily charging you with circular reasoning. I'm charging you with assuming the very thing that's incoherent. If LFW is incoherent, then any "if...then" hypothesis assuming it must lead to incoherent results and be impossible. And once again your a,b,c makes no sense. For one thing, saying all change and states in the agent are caused -- by the agent, means the body causes the body -- since you've previously said that the agent is the body and the change is the body.

[Tassman]

Sheesh Tass, you are being particularly dense! It is not about empirical facts or logical deduction it is about what you brain causes you to believe. If your brain causes you to believe that 2+2=5 that is what you would believe. Applied logic plays no role since you have no control over what you consider true or not.

No Tass, you answer the question, which you have been avoiding in one way or the other for a while now. Do you agree with Thinker that our conscious rational deliberations play no role in the decision making process. It is a yes or no.

I never said otherwise, I said both play a effective role. Both the conscious and the unconscious. So do you agree that the conscious plays an effective role?

feel

We don't what? If I have a problem so do you - yours is infinite regression.