Is libertarian free will coherent?

[The Thinker]

You said: Changing this mindset with change your brain state. It sounds like you are saying that changing the mindset changes the brain? Or are you just saying that the brain changes the brain? I'm not following.

That was a typo. The information about this way of thinking enters your brain and that changes the way you think, just like all information you have.

But the fact remains that you have no control over anything you think, do or say. Including whether you are defeatist or determinist. Or whether you are proactive or not.

So? Since LFW is incoherent, you face the same problem.

We're all products of our environment. That's why changing the environment is important.

[seer]

That was a typo. The information about this way of thinking enters your brain and that changes the way you think, just like all information you have.

I'm not sure I follow, for instance you have been exposed to the idea of fatalism but it did not change your way of thinking. What decides what changes ones thinking or not?

So? Since LFW is incoherent, you face the same problem

.

I do not face the same problem since I believe that conscious deliberation plays a causal role, and conscious reflection has real influence on deciding what ir true or not.

We're all products of our environment. That's why changing the environment is important.

Yes changing the environment as we are determined, for good or ill.

[The Thinker]

I'm not sure I follow, for instance you have been exposed to the idea of fatalism but it did not change your way of thinking. What decides what changes ones thinking or not?

I was talking about situations where it does change the way you think. Whether it does or doesn't depends on your prior state, and subsequent states.

I do not face the same problem since I believe that conscious deliberation plays a causal role, and conscious reflection has real influence on deciding what ir true or not.

Yeah but since you can't choose your thoughts, you're still an automaton.

Yes changing the environment as we are determined, for good or ill.

Which includes getting rid of religion.

[Joel]

Well first, I apologize if I haven't always been clear. There's a lot of comments going around.

Fair enough. If it would help, we could take things one at a time. We could start with focusing solely on the think-before-you-think paradox, and ignore all else in the meantime. If you like that idea, then when you respond, only respond regarding this one paradox, and omit replying to the rest of this post.

Every thought you have is a thought that appears in your consciousness. You couldn't have chosen it beforehand because you'd have to think of the particular thought and its content first and then decide on whether or not to think it. But of course, that's impossible and illogical.

It seems you are equivocating on the term "thought". Let me take this bit by bit:

"Every thought you have is a thought that appears in your consciousness."
By which is meant, state X, state Y, state Z,...

"You couldn't have chosen it beforehand..."
For example, "You couldn't have chosen state Y prior to being in state Y..."

"...because you'd have to think of the particular thought [Y] and its content first..."
The only way this makes sense is if here you mean "You'd have to contemplate the idea of Y first". Sure, but the idea of Y is not the same as actually being in state Y (this is where you are equivocating). So it doesn't imply that you have to actually be in state Y prior to being in state Y.

"...and then decide on whether or not to think it..."
That is, "and then decide on whether or not to transition to state Y."


Thus much for the think-before-you-think paradox. We would move on to your "uncaused-therefore-uncontrolled" paradox, but you didn't actually rebut my objection to that paradox ("If all changes are caused and controlled by the agent, then none of the changes is uncontrolled by the agent. So it is absurd for you to claim that there is something remaining not controlled by the agent.")
So we go right on to the MISCELLANEOUS section (which you may feel free to cut down in size):

You need to explain how the agent exercises LFW in doing what it causes. ... Causing X is not the same having LFW over X.

Here I am only rebutting your "uncaused-therefore-uncontrolled" argument. All I have to do is deny the antecedent (uncaused), and then your conclusion (uncontrolled) does not follow.

You need to logically explain how the agent chooses its next states in an LFW manner and I want detail. Merely claiming it does doesn't suffice. Why do I have to repeatedly ask this?

Because by asking for that, you are asking for a positive argument. I am only rebutting your arguments.

No, there is no state prior to the action that is the necessary cause of the action (that would be determinism).

I'm willing to entertain all possible scenarios and pick out what's wrong with each. First, having a state prior to the action is not necessarily determinism. Second, by excluding this, it forces you to adopt the view that we make actions with no prior mental state thinking about the actions.

We're not excluding having a prior state. We are only excluding a prior state being the necessary cause of the action. State X is the prior state, in which you are contemplating the ideas of states Y and Z. But state X is not sufficient to cause either of them.

You are saying the thought about the action arises at the same exact time as the action is materialized.

No the idea of the possible actions (transitioning to Y or transitioning to Z) are contemplated in state X.

since you've already admitted that the agent change is uncaused (in order to avoid determinism) it can't be caused by the agent -- because it's uncaused by definition it can't be caused by anything.

No, I'm saying all changes (internal and external to the agent) are caused: by the agent. It's just that the agent wasn't sufficiently caused to cause them. I am denying that there is any change in the agent that is uncaused.

If whatever happens that results in the agent causing an action is itself uncaused - meaning, if every state the agent is in prior to the action is uncaused - then the agent cannot have control over the action.

You are still imagining that there must be something that happens that results in the agent causing the action. I deny that. The agent simply and spontaneously causes the action.
Also, every state (and thus every change) in the agent is caused. But that does not contradict the agent causing one of those changes without being caused to cause it.

Careful. You are very close to circular reasoning there. What you should say is that the "if" is supposing for the sake of argument, the very thing that we asking whether it is logically impossible. Which is entirely appropriate for both your side and my side of the argument. If we were discussing "married bachelor", then absolutely it would be reasonable to start with "If a married bachelor existed..." and then continue on with "...then he would be married and not married, which is a contradiction." The "if", far from being an inappropriate assumption, is required for the kind of investigation we are undertaking. It's up to you to deduce a contradiction from the "if".

I've already done that above and in my initial post on this thread.

If so, then this particular complaint of yours here vanishes.

So let me correct it. I don't agree that the first part - the if - is coherent. The changes cannot be controlled by the agent because at every point, everything the agent does and thinks is uncaused

No, everything the agent does and thinks is caused. And that is logically consistent with the if: "If all the changes that pertain to the LFW choice are caused and controlled by the agent..." So what you say here doesn't show any contradiction in the "if".

That thing is the agent. The agent is not caused to cause the changes. But that does not imply that any change that occurs lacks a cause.

OK. Then the agent has no LFW. I was referring to the force that the agent has that makes the action happen.

How is what I said not LFW? It is exactly LFW.
And if you are referring to the force that makes the action happen, that is caused: by the agent.

[Joel]

We're all products of our environment. That's why changing the environment is important.

Unfortunately you have no ability to choose whether (or how) to change your environment. (Under determinism.)

[Joel]

Are you saying that your "infinite, eternal universe or multiverse" is not an infinite regress of causes? The regress is either infinite or finite, right? Either it had a first cause, or you have infinite regress. You deny that there is a first cause, so the only option left is that it is turtles all the way down.

Nobody has denied that actions would be effective under determinism. It's just that "if we didn't make such decisions" would be impossible. So the point here is that you aren't actually disagreeing with Seer on this. You are both saying that under determinism, our actions are determined, cannot be otherwise than they are, and thus we cannot control them.

But decisions made under the illusory assumption of free will are nevertheless causally effective...

As I said right there, "Nobody has denied that actions would be effective under determinism."

are subject to physical law.

That doesn't follow. An unmoved mover, by definition acts upon material entities without itself being acted upon. I see nothing logically contradictory about that.

Secondly, I believe I already explained this when I first discussed causality as being like a 'web'. Your question is like asking how a car's engine could drive its driveshaft (and thus wheels) at the same time an electromagnet is pulling on the car. The two forces sum. The two causes can be thought of as two threads in the web that meet together, and their interaction yields the final effect. Likewise I would propose that a LFW choice is one thread, that may meet other threads in the web and combine to yield the final result. The only difference in the case of LFW, is that the LFW thread has a recent beginning. Your question seems silly to a proponent of LFW. No proponent of LFW thinks that having the ability of LFW would prevent, say, someone from coming up behind you and knocking you down.

What about the web of causality are you not understanding? There are many threads of the web inside the agent. Some of the threads have their beginning in the agent. Some have their beginning outside the agent. I see nothing contradictory about that.

[Tassman]

Are you saying that your "infinite, eternal universe or multiverse" is not an infinite regress of causes? The regress is either infinite or finite, right? Either it had a first cause, or you have infinite regress. You deny that there is a first cause, so the only option left is that it is turtles all the way down.

infinite deity.

As I said right there, "Nobody has denied that actions would be effective under determinism."

No, my argument, which you've omitted, is that decisions made under the illusory assumption of free will are nevertheless causally effective

That doesn't follow. An unmoved mover, by definition acts upon material entities without itself being acted upon. I see nothing logically contradictory about that.

What about the web of causality are you not understanding? There are many threads of the web inside the agent. Some of the threads have their beginning in the agent. Some have their beginning outside the agent. I see nothing contradictory about that.

[seer]

I was talking about situations where it does change the way you think. Whether it does or doesn't depends on your prior state, and subsequent states.

So again, we have no control over how we process this or our conclusions. So preaching fatalism may or may not have an effect. And again, I see no real difference between the two - it is the same end for determinism and fatalism - no control.

Yeah but since you can't choose your thoughts, you're still an automaton.

I choose which thoughts or desire I will follow or reject everyday. I chose to respond to you - I was not determined.

Which includes getting rid of religion.

Except we have no control over that, and the human person is inherently religious. Good luck. Perhaps you should try the way of the atheists like Stalin or Mao or a Pol Pot. The fact is atheism has nothing to offer but death and dust.

To quote Macbeth again

And all our yesterdays have lighted foolsIt is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Tassman]

I choose which thoughts or desire I will follow or reject everyday. I chose to respond to you - I was not determined.

Well, you have the illusion that you're freely choosing your thoughts or desires. But this doesn't take into account subconscious influences based upon the processing of memories and thoughts of which you're not directly aware. What you feel you're freely choosing is the sum total of all these influences.

[seer]

infinite deity.

Yet you still run into an infinite regression of causes. How how it is possible to move through an infinite range of causes to reach this point. Just as if we were to move backward through those infinite number of past causes we could never reach or visit them all - for no matter how many you reach there would still be an infinite number ahead. It is nonsense. Nevermind the fact that you have zero evidence for your great god "Multiverse."

[seer]

Well, you have the illusion that you're freely choosing your thoughts or desires. But this doesn't take into account subconscious influences based upon the processing of memories and thoughts of which you're not directly aware. What you feel you're freely choosing is the sum total of all these influences.

I don't believe you. I think your brain is playing tricks on you again.

[Tassman]

I don't believe you. I think your brain is playing tricks on you again.

For you to claim that you're "freely choosing your thoughts or desires" you must ignore the fact that they arise from subconscious influences based upon the processing of memories and thoughts of which you're not directly aware. On what basis do you deny the existence of these factors in you decision-making processes?

[seer]

For you to claim that you're "freely choosing your thoughts or desires" you must ignore the fact that they arise from subconscious influences based upon the processing of memories and thoughts of which you're not directly aware. On what basis do you deny the existence of these factors in you decision-making processes?

No Tass, I believe conscious rational deliberation plays an effect role in the process, along with subconscious influences. Both are part of the process, which Thinker and it seems, science, is denying.

[The Thinker]

Unfortunately you have no ability to choose whether (or how) to change your environment. (Under determinism.)

We don't have the ability to control our will regardless because LFW is incoherent. Determinism has nothing to do with it.

[The Thinker]

Fair enough. If it would help, we could take things one at a time. We could start with focusing solely on the think-before-you-think paradox, and ignore all else in the meantime. If you like that idea, then when you respond, only respond regarding this one paradox, and omit replying to the rest of this post.

Sure but they at times tie into one another and so I'm not sure if this is possible.

It seems you are equivocating on the term "thought". Let me take this bit by bit:

"Every thought you have is a thought that appears in your consciousness."
By which is meant, state X, state Y, state Z,...

"You couldn't have chosen it beforehand..."
For example, "You couldn't have chosen state Y prior to being in state Y..."

"...because you'd have to think of the particular thought [Y] and its content first..."
The only way this makes sense is if here you mean "You'd have to contemplate the idea of Y first". Sure, but the idea of Y is not the same as actually being in state Y (this is where you are equivocating). So it doesn't imply that you have to actually be in state Y prior to being in state Y.

"...and then decide on whether or not to think it..."
That is, "and then decide on whether or not to transition to state Y."

Any mental state in your consciousness is a state you could not have chosen. This goes for X,Y, and Z. They all appear in your consciousness. It doesn't matter if state X only has the content of state Y but is not identical - if I grant that. Neither of them you control - they all appear in consciousness, every mental state, one after the other. So the idea of Y, and being in state Y are both mental states that fall under this category. Claiming that you can just contemplate the "idea" of Y first does not in any way get you out of the paradox. Contemplating the idea of Y is itself a thought you couldn't have chosen beforehand, and neither is the State of Y. At no point does LFW enter the picture. There is no logical way out of this paradox.

Thus much for the think-before-you-think paradox. We would move on to your "uncaused-therefore-uncontrolled" paradox, but you didn't actually rebut my objection to that paradox ("If all changes are caused and controlled by the agent, then none of the changes is uncontrolled by the agent. So it is absurd for you to claim that there is something remaining not controlled by the agent.")
So we go right on to the MISCELLANEOUS section (which you may feel free to cut down in size):

I did rebut that. First, even if I grant your scenario, "caused" does not entail "controlled" in the LFW way. As I mentioned already 3 times, a determined agent can "cause" an action. You've never rebutted that. Second, if the agent is uncaused to enter state X and state X is the desire to cause an action, then the agent had no LFW to be in that state X. Then if the agent causes that action in state Y, and if nothing causes the agent to be in state Y, then the action in state Y faces the same problem as state X. The agent had no LFW over any of it. Every state it enters is uncaused and thus uncontrolled by the agent. Mere cause doesn't = LFW control.

Here I am only rebutting your "uncaused-therefore-uncontrolled" argument. All I have to do is deny the antecedent (uncaused), and then your conclusion (uncontrolled) does not follow.

But you can't deny that as per the above.

Because by asking for that, you are asking for a positive argument. I am only rebutting your arguments.

You cannot rebut my arguments by merely asserting over and over again that the agent has LFW.

We're not excluding having a prior state. We are only excluding a prior state being the necessary cause of the action. State X is the prior state, in which you are contemplating the ideas of states Y and Z. But state X is not sufficient to cause either of them.

Whatever it is in the agent that you think is sufficient to cause the action is itself uncaused and therefore cannot be controlled by the agent.

No the idea of the possible actions (transitioning to Y or transitioning to Z) are contemplated in state X.

The agent has no control over state X, since it's uncaused, and so if the decision is made in state X on whether to do Y or Z, it is not LFW.

No, I'm saying all changes (internal and external to the agent) are caused: by the agent. It's just that the agent wasn't sufficiently caused to cause them. I am denying that there is any change in the agent that is uncaused.

'Caused' doesn't = LFW control. How many times do I have to educate you on that?

And again, you already said the agent is = to the mind and body. The mind cannot cause the mind. That is illogical. So your whole "the agent causes the action" makes no logical sense and thus is not in any way a refutation of my post.

You are still imagining that there must be something that happens that results in the agent causing the action. I deny that. The agent simply and spontaneously causes the action.

Then the agent has no LFW because an uncaused thing cannot by definition be controlled. This is basically an admission of defeat.

Also, every state (and thus every change) in the agent is caused. But that does not contradict the agent causing one of those changes without being caused to cause it.

No, you just admitted above that the agent spontaneously causes actions, and there's no prior cause to the agent, thus the agent has no LFW. And again, 'Caused' doesn't = LFW control. If I'm pushed into a wedding cake and I destroy it, I "the agent" caused it, but no where here is there any LFW. And so you just asserting the agent causes an action is not a demonstration of LFW being coherent. It's just an assertion.

If so, then this particular complaint of yours here vanishes.

Nope. You still haven't rebutted a single one of the problems with LFW.

No, everything the agent does and thinks is caused. And that is logically consistent with the if: "If all the changes that pertain to the LFW choice are caused and controlled by the agent..." So what you say here doesn't show any contradiction in the "if".

If everything the agent thinks and does is caused, then the agent has no LFW. You just stuck yourself on the first horn of the dilemma in order to get out of this contradiction.

How is what I said not LFW? It is exactly LFW.
And if you are referring to the force that makes the action happen, that is caused: by the agent.

You are completely delusional. The agent cannot have control over anything "spontaneous" (your word) and uncaused. Absolutely nothing you've offered here makes any sense.