Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is libertarian free will coherent?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I believe humans have a 'Will' but it is not necessarily free in terms of Humans have a potential of 'Free Will,' but it is not often exercised.
    Schopenhauer famously said, "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants."
    Blog: Atheism and the City

    If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Correction: many Christians believe in libertarian free will.
      It is not controversial to say most Christians believe in libertarian free will. Calvinists are a percentage of Protestants and Protestants are a minority of Christians. Catholics are half the Christian population and the Catholic church accepts LFW. Protestants of the Lutheran interpretations also believe in LFW. That easily makes a majority.

      On a subject this contentious, I wouldn't touch Wikipedia with a 10-ft. pole.
      I'm pretty well educated in the subject and Wiki does a decent job summarizing the positions.

      This does not seem to me to be a valid attack on LFW, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. AFAICT, LFW doesn't deal with how, for example, thoughts arise, but with how we respond to the thoughts which arise. Do thoughts have causes? Sure. They typically come from external or internal stimuli or our subconscious (which is a sum total of our lifetime stimuli and resultant thoughts). They can also come from spiritual sources.
      LFW deals with both how thoughts arise and how we exercise our will. The exercise of the will is itself a thought in the mind which would face the same problems as the will itself. If thoughts have spiritual sources, what are those sources? Is that the soul? If so I already addressed that.

      For starters, you could provide support for your assertion that LFW requires (1), (2), and (3). I didn't see any in your post.
      Anyone who understand LFW knows that (1), (2) and especially (3) are required. If you deny any of these, you must deny free will. There's no way around it. If we don't have (1) how can the will be free in any sense if we have no control over it?
      Blog: Atheism and the City

      If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
        Most participants on this site are religious to some extent and most seem to be Christians. Most Christians believe in libertarian free will. That is, they reject determinism, are incompatibilists, and believe that our will, mind, and consciousness is not determined by anything and are free to choose any number of possible courses of action. Libertarian free will requires at least 3 things:

        (1) We are in control of our will
        (2) our mind is causally effective
        (3) in the same situation we could have done otherwise

        This view is popular among lay people but not among scientists and philosophers. Why is this? It's because libertarian free will is incoherent.

        One simple question to ask the libertarian is: do our thoughts have causes? Yes or no?

        If our thoughts have causes, what ever caused that can't be our will or our mind, because our thoughts are our will and mind. Saying that the soul causes the thoughts just pushes the issue back one step further, because the question now becomes, does the soul have a cause? If it does, then what ever caused it can't be the soul or the mind or the will, it has to be something other. And once you have that, you are essentially admitting that your will is not truly free, since it has a cause that is not us and that we cannot control.

        If our thoughts do not have causes, then you are saying that it begins to exist without a cause. This could violate the kalam cosmological argument's first premise (everything that begins to exist has a cause) and would essentially falsify it. If our thoughts had no cause they would be totally random fluctuations and it would be a mere coincidence that they had any connection to the physical world or reality.

        On top of that, the ability to choose your thoughts is logically impossible. You can't have a thought, about a thought, before you have a thought. You can't choose what your next thought, desire, or idea will be. In order to do that, you'd have to think about it, before you think about it. That's incoherent. 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. Thoughts arise in consciousness and we have no control over it.

        Right now I'm only asking for a justification of (1) above. (2) and (3) is a whole other argument that only adds to the difficulty the libertarian has.

        So what's a libertarian free will believer to do? Here are some typical nonstarter responses:

        1. If we don't have free will moral responsibility goes out the window!

        This is an informal fallacy known as an appeal to consequences. The undesirable consequences of a thing say nothing about whether it is false. For example, creationists will often say, "If we evolved then we're just animals. I don't like that, so evolution is false." This is a fallacious way of reasoning. The undesirability of being related to monkeys says nothing about whether evolution is true.

        2. If we don't have free will rationality goes out the window!

        This is similar to an appeal to consequences but not quite. If libertarian free will itself is not coherent and its coherency cannot be established, then you cannot claim that without it there is no rationality. You'd be arguing from a square-circle.

        Basically, I want to challenge all believers in libertarian free will to make a positive argument for the coherency of libertarian free will. I don't need every single detail explained, I just need you to show how it is even logically coherent and not self-refuting. Or, admit that you can't. So who is up to the challenge? I want respondents to focus on the positive argument for LFW, not fallacious appeals to consequences.
        By "logically coherent," I suppose you mean "not self-refuting."

        I propose to show that libertarian free will, if that is real, is not rational (that term is to be strictly defined and applied accordingly).

        For now I simply postulate that any given human has a choice of distinct actions to undertake every conscious moment. One exception is that he cannot choose to do literally nothing--he always must take action even if it is to simply continue his present course of action. How is he to make a choice of several possible actions? An example may be, 1) wash the dirty dishes in the sink; 2) watch the Star Wars movie; 3) go for a walk in the neighborhood park; 4) finish the thank-you note to Aunt Sara. Whatever his choice may be, his reasons for making that choice cannot be exhaustive and in toto sufficient to justify it. In other words, the choice is not rational in a sense.

        It is possible that the choice cannot be wholly irrational, either, because it is possible that the human applied logic to his decision-making, perhaps to reject some of his possible choices as impossible.

        That is an incomplete argument, but I await questions or objections.
        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
          Why is this? It's because libertarian free will is incoherent.
          Barely into the first post and already begging the question.


          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
          If our thoughts have causes, what ever caused that can't be our will or our mind, because our thoughts are our will and mind.
          More begging the question. And really? Thoughts can't give rise to other thoughts?


          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
          On top of that, the ability to choose your thoughts is logically impossible.
          More begging the question.


          Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
          You can't have a thought, about a thought, before you have a thought. You can't choose what your next thought, desire, or idea will be. In order to do that, you'd have to think about it, before you think about it. That's incoherent. 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. Thoughts arise in consciousness and we have no control over it.
          I agree this is incoherent, but it's because you've made up a bunch of things that no one actually claims. You don't have to choose your next thought for LFW to exist. That's a strawman. Free will relies on action (i.e., the ability to choose which thoughts to act upon), not control of the thoughts themselves.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            This does not seem to me to be a valid attack on LFW, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. AFAICT, LFW doesn't deal with how, for example, thoughts arise, but with how we respond to the thoughts which arise. Do thoughts have causes? Sure. They typically come from external or internal stimuli or our subconscious (which is a sum total of our lifetime stimuli and resultant thoughts). They can also come from spiritual sources.
            You're correct with a caveat. Philosophy of the mind and free will discussions are very closely linked. What you think the mind is and how it works will directly inform your view on free will.


            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            For starters, you could provide support for your assertion that LFW requires (1), (2), and (3). I didn't see any in your post.
            Technically, (3) isn't required though it's often claimed to be. (1) and (2) are more or less inherent to what free will is: that you can choose your actions, and that your choices can be effected. I will say that (2) is somewhat arguable, but I don't know many people that see any point in claiming you have free will if you can't make your choices become reality.


            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            Opening caveat: I'm probing here to increase my understanding, which isn't especially deep. It will be helpful if you don't see this as a full frontal assault, and provide thoughtful answers.
            What's your current understanding? I'd like to help, but we need a good starting point. For what it's worth, I think there's a pretty big disconnect between 'libertarian free will' and 'free will as it's understood by laymen'.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
              It is not controversial to say most Christians believe in libertarian free will. Calvinists are a percentage of Protestants and Protestants are a minority of Christians.
              Sure.
              Catholics are half the Christian population and the Catholic church accepts LFW.
              That the Catholic Church accepts LFW and that most Catholics hold to LFW are two very different propositions.
              I'm pretty well educated in the subject and Wiki does a decent job summarizing the positions.
              Based on what I've read of your posts in general, I'm not inclined to take your word for it.
              LFW deals with both how thoughts arise and how we exercise our will.
              Okay.
              The exercise of the will is itself a thought in the mind which would face the same problems as the will itself.
              What problems does the will itself face?
              If thoughts have spiritual sources, what are those sources? Is that the soul? If so I already addressed that.
              No. The sources are angels and demons. I recognize that you very likely think those are fictitious.
              Anyone who understand LFW knows that (1), (2) and especially (3) are required. If you deny any of these, you must deny free will. There's no way around it. If we don't have (1) how can the will be free in any sense if we have no control over it?
              Well, this isn't helpful.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                It is not controversial to say most Christians believe in libertarian free will. Calvinists are a percentage of Protestants and Protestants are a minority of Christians. Catholics are half the Christian population and the Catholic church accepts LFW. Protestants of the Lutheran interpretations also believe in LFW. That easily makes a majority.
                Of course, it depends on how you define your terms. Your initial definition of 'libertarian free will' included the 'incoherent belief that our will, mind, and consciousness is not determined by anything'. I still don't think most Christians, or most people for that matter, believe that. You further said that most Christians are incompatibilists, and linked it to a definition of a strict dichotomy between free will and a deterministic universe, where one must choose between one or the other. Personally, I think such a dichotomy is foolish and ignores the common belief that our freedom is not completely undetermined but rather exists within a determined frame of reference. Some Christians contrast 'libertarian free will, the position that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes, with compatibilist free will, the view that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his or her nature and that there are constraints and influences upon our ability to choose'. The latter would be my view, and I think a typical Christian view as well as a typical view of most people, thus I don't think that there is a standard or orthodox Christian definition or dogma about the nature of free will. Just as in the contemporary Judaisms in which Christianity originated, there are a variety of Christian beliefs in the nature of free will. Josephus, writing at the same time as the gospels, pointed to various sects of Judaism that believed totally in fate (Essenes), a mixture of fate and free will (Pharisees), or free will without fate (Sadducees). The same diversity seems to have continued within Christianity.
                Last edited by robrecht; 12-11-2015, 09:19 PM.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                  You're correct with a caveat. Philosophy of the mind and free will discussions are very closely linked. What you think the mind is and how it works will directly inform your view on free will.
                  Okay.
                  Technically, (3) isn't required though it's often claimed to be. (1) and (2) are more or less inherent to what free will is: that you can choose your actions, and that your choices can be effected. I will say that (2) is somewhat arguable, but I don't know many people that see any point in claiming you have free will if you can't make your choices become reality.
                  This is helpful, thanks. FWIW, I accept (1) and (2) - or at least your representation of them - though I would argue that (2) is limited by (a) what is possible and (b) circumstance. For example, if someone is locked up in prison, but wills to be not locked up, AFAICT he would still have LFW (and thus desire to be free) even though he is not able to effect what he desires.
                  What's your current understanding? I'd like to help, but we need a good starting point. For what it's worth, I think there's a pretty big disconnect between 'libertarian free will' and 'free will as it's understood by laymen'.
                  It's quite possible I'm nearer the latter than the former. I read some about LFW when I was quite interested in Molinism a few years ago, but haven't read much since. (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity is generally content to let mystery stand rather than parse everything down to the last detail; it is, however, quite emphatic that we do have free will. Dealing with thoughts is also a major point of ascetic emphasis, especially among monastics (see, e.g., The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus).
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                    Protestants of the Lutheran interpretations also believe in LFW.
                    Not exactly. Atleast not Confessional Lutherans

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                      You obviously want me to accept LFW is true. OK. Prove it's coherent first. I'm not asking you to prove it is true, just prove it is coherent. Do you understand that?

                      Stop avoiding what you have to do - Make a positive argument showing LFW is coherent. Or admit it is not.

                      This post is the one chance for all you believers to prove LFW is even coherent. If you can't this will be up here forever as a testament to the fact neither you, nor anyone can.
                      No Thinker, before you try and take the speck out of my eye remove the plank from yours. If LFW has problems so does your deterministic epiphenomenalism...
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        No Thinker, before you try and take the speck out of my eye remove the plank from yours. If LFW has problems so does your deterministic epiphenomenalism...
                        What problems would those be seer? Just because you don't like what determinism entails, doesn't mean that there is a problem with determinism per se. The problem with LFW is that no one who believes in it can seem to come up with a positive argument in defense of it. When you argue that determinism is fatalistic, or that that it leaves no room for responsibility etc etc., that isn't an argument against determinism, it is just a statement of your dislike of it. What The Thinker is asking for is a positive argument supporting LFW, not for an accounting of the things that you dislike about determinism.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          What problems would those be seer? Just because you don't like what determinism entails, doesn't mean that there is a problem with determinism per se. The problem with LFW is that no one who believes in it can seem to come up with a positive argument in defense of it. When you argue that determinism is fatalistic, or that that it leaves no room for responsibility etc etc., that isn't an argument against determinism, it is just a statement of your dislike of it. What The Thinker is asking for is a positive argument supporting LFW, not for an accounting of the things that you dislike about determinism.

                          Jim, do you know what epiphenomenalism is? You should. My point is, there are just as many real problems with his position as mine. I never claimed that I could make a logical argument for LFW, I have stated all along that I base it on experience and intuition.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            Of course, it depends on how you define your terms. Your initial definition of 'libertarian free will' included the 'incoherent belief that our will, mind, and consciousness is not determined by anything'. I still don't think most Christians, or most people for that matter, believe that. You further said that most Christians are incompatibilists, and linked it to a definition of a strict dichotomy between free will and a deterministic universe, where one must choose between one or the other. Personally, I think such a dichotomy is foolish and ignores the common belief that our freedom is not completely undetermined but rather exists within a determined frame of reference. Some Christians contrast 'libertarian free will, the position that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes, with compatibilist free will, the view that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his or her nature and that there are constraints and influences upon our ability to choose'. The latter would be my view, and I think a typical Christian view as well as a typical view of most people, thus I don't think that there is a standard or orthodox Christian definition or dogma about the nature of free will. Just as in the contemporary Judaisms in which Christianity originated, there are a variety of Christian beliefs in the nature of free will. Josephus, writing at the same time as the gospels, pointed to various sects of Judaism that believed totally in fate (Essenes), a mixture of fate and free will (Pharisees), or free will without fate (Sadducees). The same diversity seems to have continued within Christianity.
                            FWIW, I have frequently found that most people initially espouse some version of LFW but when pressed will retreat to a compatibilist position.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              This is helpful, thanks.
                              You're welcome.


                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              FWIW, I accept (1) and (2) - or at least your representation of them - though I would argue that (2) is limited by (a) what is possible and (b) circumstance. For example, if someone is locked up in prison, but wills to be not locked up, AFAICT he would still have LFW (and thus desire to be free) even though he is not able to effect what he desires.
                              Right. There are philosophers who have argued that you're wrong here, but there are others (who I happen to agree with) that differentiate between 'freedom of will' and 'freedom of action'. In my opinion, (2) doesn't entail freedom of action. It just means that your mind has some ability to generate action in the physical world. Since I'm a neutral monist, there's no difficulty for me to say that your mind can move your body, but a dualist technically needs some method for your mind to interact with your body.

                              This underscores my earlier point about philosophy of mind and free will being closely linked. The monism/dualism question is philosophy of mind. A lot of determinists start from a denial of dualism.


                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              It's quite possible I'm nearer the latter than the former. I read some about LFW when I was quite interested in Molinism a few years ago, but haven't read much since. (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity is generally content to let mystery stand rather than parse everything down to the last detail; it is, however, quite emphatic that we do have free will. Dealing with thoughts is also a major point of ascetic emphasis, especially among monastics (see, e.g., The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus).
                              Ok, so to summarize the basic positions:

                              A) Libertarian Free Will: The ability to choose from any option at any time (often supported by the belief that you could have chosen a different option, you just didn't)
                              B) Determinism: Your genetic makeup, upbringing, personality, etc. form 'you'. It's effectively a set of equations through which a selection of choices are processed to produce a final decision. A really important aspect of this is the idea that the equation only ever has a single outcome. For you to have chosen differently means that the things that form 'you' are different than they actually are.
                              C) Compatibilism: Everything in between. It's more of a spectrum than a specific position, in my opinion. For example, I could say that the deterministic 'you' limits the number of options you see available while maintaining that you still get to choose between those options. Your statement above about (2) being limited by circumstance could be taken as compatibilist. It's pretty close to what robrecht has been saying, as well.


                              I've told others this, but I'm a pretty big advocate of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The latter feels less technical to me, but often that's a good thing. Those two links will take you to an overview of free will at each site. I recommend reading through them both.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                Ok, so to summarize the basic positions:

                                A) Libertarian Free Will: The ability to choose from any option at any time (often supported by the belief that you could have chosen a different option, you just didn't)
                                B) Determinism: Your genetic makeup, upbringing, personality, etc. form 'you'. It's effectively a set of equations through which a selection of choices are processed to produce a final decision. A really important aspect of this is the idea that the equation only ever has a single outcome. For you to have chosen differently means that the things that form 'you' are different than they actually are.
                                C) Compatibilism: Everything in between. It's more of a spectrum than a specific position, in my opinion. For example, I could say that the deterministic 'you' limits the number of options you see available while maintaining that you still get to choose between those options. Your statement above about (2) being limited by circumstance could be taken as compatibilist. It's pretty close to what robrecht has been saying, as well.


                                I've told others this, but I'm a pretty big advocate of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The latter feels less technical to me, but often that's a good thing. Those two links will take you to an overview of free will at each site. I recommend reading through them both.
                                Thanks! Good dinner reading. The second link seems to have a narrower conception of compatibilism that you imply here. Based on the arguments there, I think I would identify more with LFW than compatibilism.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X