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

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.
    But therein lies the problem with your argument, its based on how you feel. You feel as though you have free will, but how you feel tells us nothing about what is. Physics explains the cause and effect nature of material existence, and being that there is no evidence of a soul, or free willed agency, to overide the causal chain, then it would seem that consciousness and the associated feeling of free will are nothing more than epiphenomenal effects of brain activity. Consciousness is an awareness, an epiphenomonal effect of brain activity, its not a thinking agency in its own right, if it were it would have no need of a physical brain, so what you need to explain, i think, is how it is that consciousness itself, an epiphenomenal effect, can be the cause of what the brain unconsciously chooses to think or do.
    Also, perhaps I missed it, but I don't think that you have pointed out any real problems with determinism, other than its undesirable aspects.
    Last edited by JimL; 12-12-2015, 09:50 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
      FWIW, I have frequently found that most people initially espouse some version of LFW but when pressed will retreat to a compatibilist position.
      Freedom and responsibility. Some people seem to start out in life with a sense of victimhood and limited options but learn to take responsibility, while others initially assume that all things are possible until they encounter insuperable obstacles, but perhaps most don't give these questions much thought. Wisdom seems to acknowledge how we have limited ourselves and where we could still do more. None of this seems to correlate much with religion or lack thereof.
      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


      • #33
        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.
        Worse. In most classical theological traditions, the single cause is God Himself / Itself.

        So, ultimately, God is the cause of everything we ever do. So, based on those 'traditional assumptions', you are right.

        Originally posted by The Thinker View Post

        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.


        I was going to go into that a little more here; and I might take you up on your challenge as we get deeper into the subject: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Will-Ex-Nihilo


        -7up

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          FWIW, I have frequently found that most people initially espouse some version of LFW but when pressed will retreat to a compatibilist position.
          Does God know everything? Or does God know everything that is possible to know?

          Does God know all that will happen because God lives outside of time altogether? or Does God have foreknowledge because of some kind of hyper-intelligent prediction?


          The kind of free will we have depends on the nature of God's foreknowledge/omniscience. We don't know the nature of God's foreknowledge/omniscience, so we cannot say for sure what kind of free will we have.



          -7up

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            Does God know everything? Or does God know everything that is possible to know?

            Does God know all that will happen because God lives outside of time altogether? or Does God have foreknowledge because of some kind of hyper-intelligent prediction?


            The kind of free will we have depends on the nature of God's foreknowledge/omniscience. We don't know the nature of God's foreknowledge/omniscience, so we cannot say for sure what kind of free will we have.
            With respect to god, foreknowledge would substantiate that the cause of the future existence is the creator of that existence. Whether the world is tenseless, as in the B-theory of time where the future exists together with the present and the past, or if not tenseless as in the A-theory of time, where the future does not yet exist, in either case, if the future existence is known by the creator of it, then the creator of it is its cause. To predict is not to know, and even if prediction were the case, the prediction would be based upon the creators knowledge of the design or pattern of what he himself created.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              But therein lies the problem with your argument, its based on how you feel. You feel as though you have free will, but how you feel tells us nothing about what is. Physics explains the cause and effect nature of material existence, and being that there is no evidence of a soul, or free willed agency, to overide the causal chain, then it would seem that consciousness and the associated feeling of free will are nothing more than epiphenomenal effects of brain activity. Consciousness is an awareness, an epiphenomonal effect of brain activity, its not a thinking agency in its own right, if it were it would have no need of a physical brain, so what you need to explain, i think, is how it is that consciousness itself, an epiphenomenal effect, can be the cause of what the brain unconsciously chooses to think or do.
              Also, perhaps I missed it, but I don't think that you have pointed out any real problems with determinism, other than its undesirable aspects.
              Jim one of the problems is that you never can know if your brain caused you to believe a truism, but caused you to believe a falsehood to be true. Then with epiphenomenalism your conscious reasoning, applying the laws of logic, rational deliberations play no role in the process. You think you are logically working through a problem but you are not - you are only thinking what your non-rational brain chemicals dictate that you believe - right or wrong, true or not.
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Jim one of the problems is that you never can know if your brain caused you to believe a truism, but caused you to believe a falsehood to be true. Then with epiphenomenalism your conscious reasoning, applying the laws of logic, rational deliberations play no role in the process. You think you are logically working through a problem but you are not - you are only thinking what your non-rational brain chemicals dictate that you believe - right or wrong, true or not.
                I would counter that argument by saying that though you could never know if your unconscious brain caused you to believe a truism, you could say the same with regards to conscious reasoning and deliberation. The underlying process itself would be the same in either case. The processing of information that brings about logical and rational conclusions doesn't require consciousness of the processor. If your consciousness, or distinct soul, or spirit, is a thinking thing in its own right, rather than an epiphenomenal effect of brain activity, then it would have no use of a physical brain. But when you say that "you think you are working through a problem, but you are not," I think that is mistaken, being that, in my opinion, you are your brain, and your brain is a thinking thing, an information processor, then it is you who are working through the problem, and you who are coming to logical conclusions.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  With respect to god, foreknowledge would substantiate that the cause of the future existence is the creator of that existence. Whether the world is tenseless, as in the B-theory of time where the future exists together with the present and the past, or if not tenseless as in the A-theory of time, where the future does not yet exist, in either case, if the future existence is known by the creator of it, then the creator of it is its cause. To predict is not to know, and even if prediction were the case, the prediction would be based upon the creators knowledge of the design or pattern of what he himself created.
                  I agree with you.


                  .... although, there are some assumptions being made here about HOW God creates.

                  That is another topic.


                  -7up

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    By "logically coherent," I suppose you mean "not self-refuting."
                    Correct.

                    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.
                    But what decides the choice itself? Can you list a chronology of what happens when you think someone is making a free choice?
                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                      Barely into the first post and already begging the question.
                      It is not begging the question if the question is answered.


                      More begging the question. And really? Thoughts can't give rise to other thoughts?
                      How is that begging the question? If all thoughts are not things we can choose, then the thoughts that give rise to other thoughts are just as out of our control as the original thought.


                      More begging the question.
                      It is not begging the question if the question is answered.

                      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.
                      Many LFW holders claim (1)(2) and (3) and very few if any refuse to accept either. Do you concede all three? The "choice" of what thoughts to act upon faces the same problem as the original thought - it is also something you cannot choose because you cannot have a thought, about a thought, before you have the thought. You seem to be taking a compatibilist view. My thread is not about that, it is about libertarian free will, not compatibilistic free will.
                      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


                      • #41
                        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.

                        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.
                        This thread has already gone on for quite a while, so what I'm saying might already have been stated somewhere, but this is how I view free will. I'm not sure if it qualifies as LFW or not, but frankly, I'm not sure if I care what label is put on it:

                        Whenever someone is put into a certain situation, said person has several different impulses with varying degrees of intensity. Free will is essentially being able to choose between these impulses, and not simply going with the strongest impulse at the time.

                        For example, if you're in a situation where you and several other people were involved in an accident or catastrophe, your strongest impulse would presumably be to run away and save your own life, while a second weaker impulse would be to try and save atleast some other person, at the risk of endangering your own life. In this case free will is what enables you to ignore the stronger impulse of running away, and instead choosing to act according to the weaker, but arguably more noble impulse of trying to save another person's life.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          That the Catholic Church accepts LFW and that most Catholics hold to LFW are two very different propositions.
                          True, but I'm aware of no study that shows a large percentage of Catholics reject LFW. LFW is the popular belief among most people.

                          Based on what I've read of your posts in general, I'm not inclined to take your word for it.
                          Then do your own research.

                          What problems does the will itself face?
                          The main problem that it faces in the context of this thread is that it is not free in the libertarian sense.

                          No. The sources are angels and demons. I recognize that you very likely think those are fictitious.
                          If thoughts come from angels and demons, then they are not free to us. It's little different than if I had a device implanted into your brain without your knowledge that I could control your thoughts remotely.

                          Well, this isn't helpful.
                          Sorry, but I want to push back against compatibilistic free will because that's a natural route people who understand the problems with (1)(2) and (3) go towards. I want libertarian free will defended not compatibilistic free will.
                          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


                          • #43
                            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.
                            Ok so you're a compatibilist. Fine. Then my post is not for you, it is for libertarians. I'd say most Christians are not compatibilists because most Christians I would say, accept (1)(2) and (3).
                            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


                            • #44
                              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...
                              Epiphenominalism is not self-refuting. You're LFW view is. So either make the positive argument that shows it is coherent, or admit that you cannot. Stop playing games. This post is for libertarians like you to make the positive argument. My views are not on the line here, yours are.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                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.
                                Once again the issue is not to make an argument that LFW is true, the challenge is to make a positive argument that LFW is even coherent. Can you even do that, yes or no?
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                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