Compatibalism

[The Thinker]

That is not what your own link concluded. And he quoted the studies, start for instance around 8:35 (the Paul, Linda, Patrick experiment) that consciousness is absolutely necessary to get the right answer. You are being more than disingenuous Thinker.

That wouldn't mean consciousness is causal. It would mean that in certain more difficult tasks, to get the right answer, a brain process needs to happen that creates conscious experience as opposed to one that doesn't. He even says at 12:25 "the question is whether the representations that are driving behavior are conscious or not," which is fancy speak for whether the brain states that are driving you are ones that are making you conscious or not. The colloquial way of saying this is "are you in a state of consciousness that is driving your behavior or an unconscious state"? But someone like you would take that to mean: "A ha! Consciousness drives behavior!" No. That's just the layman's way of describing it as he says.

[Tassman]

And you can not logically demonstrate that you were determined to spit out a truism above. You are just a sock puppet spitting out what the non-rational laws of nature caused you to spit out. Right or wrong, true or not.

YOU explain how libertarian free-will acts independently from the antecedent subconscious forces that comprise YOU as a person. You have NEVER answered this question and yet you constantly demand answers from others.

[seer]

That wouldn't mean consciousness is causal. It would mean that in certain more difficult tasks, to get the right answer, a brain process needs to happen that creates conscious experience as opposed to one that doesn't. He even says at 12:25 "the question is whether the representations that are driving behavior are conscious or not," which is fancy speak for whether the brain states that are driving you are ones that are making you conscious or not. The colloquial way of saying this is "are you in a state of consciousness that is driving your behavior or an unconscious state"? But someone like you would take that to mean: "A ha! Consciousness drives behavior!" No. That's just the layman's way of describing it as he says.

First Thinker, one thing is perfectly clear, this is not a "settled" issue, Mr. Shea makes that perfectly clear. Second, you are not correct. After the Paul, Linda, Patrick experiment he clearly says consciousness can in fact "reprogramme non-conscious tendencies." That statement would not be merely colloquial, but completely misleading if you are right. Mr. Shea is adamant, even though consciousness is not always the main driver (like in the Golf experiment) it can and often does play a real role, causal role. That completely counters what you have contended for months.

[seer]

Of course you make choices, so does my dog. That does make them any less determined. And the fact that you have no control over what you think do or say - right or wrong, true or not. You will forever remain a biological slave to the non-rational forces of nature.

[The Thinker]

First Thinker, one thing is perfectly clear, this is not a "settled" issue, Mr. Shea makes that perfectly clear. Second, you are not correct. After the Paul, Linda, Patrick experiment he clearly says consciousness can in fact "reprogramme non-conscious tendencies." That statement would not be merely colloquial, but completely misleading if you are right. Mr. Shea is adamant, even though consciousness is not always the main driver (like in the Golf experiment) it can and often does play a real role, causal role. That completely counters what you have contended for months.

It is a settled issue. Because we know from quantum mechanics and relativity that there are no forces at work other than the 4 found in nature. And a soul force or mental force is not there. What Shea is talking about is just a matter of semantics, he uses colloquial language to describe certain things because it's easier. You then think consciousness is a "thing" that exists separately from the physical that has causal power on that. That would require that we violate the fundamental laws of physics every waking moment of our lives - which of course doesn't happen. When he says consciousness plays a role he's talking about how for certain tasks the brain states that are driving you are ones that are making you conscious.

[The Thinker]

Of course you make choices, so does my dog. That does make them any less determined.

That's not true. Define the "you" that makes the choices. In fact, give a chronological order of evens when you think free will happens.

And the fact that you have no control over what you think do or say - right or wrong, true or not. You will forever remain a biological slave to the non-rational forces of nature.

Which is actually more rational since because on a LFW view your actions must be acausal spontaneous fluctuations, and you cannot by definition have control over something uncaused, so it is totally illogical to claim your thoughts or actions have any logical connection to what happened before it on LFW.

We've been down this road so many times and yet you still insist that you somehow have the rational view, and me and Tassman don't, when in fact it's the exact opposite.

[seer]

It is a settled issue. Because we know from quantum mechanics and relativity that there are no forces at work other than the 4 found in nature. And a soul force or mental force is not there. What Shea is talking about is just a matter of semantics, he uses colloquial language to describe certain things because it's easier. You then think consciousness is a "thing" that exists separately from the physical that has causal power on that. That would require that we violate the fundamental laws of physics every waking moment of our lives - which of course doesn't happen. When he says consciousness plays a role he's talking about how for certain tasks the brain states that are driving you are ones that are making you conscious.

Thinker, the only thing I'm discussing now is does consciousness have a causal role. And according to Mr. Shea the answer is yes. That in fact consciousness can reprogramme non-conscious tendencies. You however, in the past, have claimed that consciousness plays NO causal role.

[seer]

That's not true. Define the "you" that makes the choices. In fact, give a chronological order of evens when you think free will happens.

What are you talking about? Are you denying that everything we think do or say is determined? Based on what?

Which is actually more rational since because on a LFW view your actions must be acausal spontaneous fluctuations, and you cannot by definition have control over something uncaused, so it is totally illogical to claim your thoughts or actions have any logical connection to what happened before it on LFW.

Didn't you recently claim that QM caused us to have random thoughts and actions?

[shunyadragon]

Descartes argument is not a skeptical threat argument, it doesn't demonstrate that rationalism is deductively invalid. It's meant to use Descartes method of doubting everything, in order to arrive at something impossible to be doubted.

One could easily ask whether 'doubting everything', in the sense that anything that isn't absolutely certain is rejected, is a sound approach.

I do not consider 'doubting everything' does not consider 'anything that isn't absolutely certain is rejected, . . .'

[Tassman]

Of course you make choices, so does my dog.

Your dog makes its choices based upon the totality of the antecedent events of its doggy life, mostly lodged in its doggy subconscious...all animals do, including you. This is how we can train dogs to behave and socialise our children to conform to the rules of sociaty.

That does make them any less determined. And the fact that you have no control over what you think do or say - right or wrong, true or not. You will forever remain a biological slave to the non-rational forces of nature.

Yes they are determined. But our mental states and choices are in themselves a part of the deterministic process and they play a crucial role in determining what happens. You have yet to explain how it could it be otherwise? Waiting!

[JimL]

Your dog makes its choices based upon the totality of the antecedent events of its doggy life, mostly lodged in its doggy subconscious...all animals do, including you. This is how we can train dogs to behave and socialise our children to conform to the rules of sociaty.



Yes they are determined. But our mental states and choices are in themselves a part of the deterministic process and they play a crucial role in determining what happens. You have yet to explain how it could it be otherwise? Waiting!

But what are our mental states and choices determined by Tass? I would argue that they are not only determined by antecedent events, or antecedent mental states, but that external extant events also play a role. In other words present mental states are not only dependent upon antecedent mental states, but also by events external to those antecedent mental states. In other words the brain doesn't exist in a vacuum. So the cause of present mental states, if they are to be defined as a cause, would be twofold, the state of things inside, as well as the state of things outside of the brain. Not sure if that comports with free will or not, but the fact that I have to think about it to come to a conclusion suggests to me that it might. What do you think?

[seer]

Your dog makes its choices based upon the totality of the antecedent events of its doggy life, mostly lodged in its doggy subconscious...all animals do, including you. This is how we can train dogs to behave and socialise our children to conform to the rules of sociaty.

But what in this picture is not completely determined in your world?

Yes they are determined. But our mental states and choices are in themselves a part of the deterministic process and they play a crucial role in determining what happens. You have yet to explain how it could it be otherwise? Waiting!

Well I'm glad you admit that you are a biological sock puppet, that explains a lot.

[The Thinker]

Thinker, the only thing I'm discussing now is does consciousness have a causal role. And according to Mr. Shea the answer is yes. That in fact consciousness can reprogramme non-conscious tendencies. You however, in the past, have claimed that consciousness plays NO causal role.

But you're interpreting him to mean consciousness is something completely separate from the physical, like the way you typically think of a soul. He's not referring to something like that. He's referring to brains states that induce conscious mental states having the power to affect brain states that do not induce conscious mental states.

[The Thinker]

What are you talking about? Are you denying that everything we think do or say is determined? Based on what?

I don't know how you would get that from what I asked. I asked you to define "you" since you say "you" makes the choice. This is an area when semantics is extremely important.

Didn't you recently claim that QM caused us to have random thoughts and actions?

What? When the hell did I say that? I'm simply giving you the consequences that are entailed by your view, and that is your view negates the possibility that you have control over what you think and do because it requires that your thoughts be spontaneous fluctuations. Your view is the irrational one, not mine.

[The Thinker]

Well I'm glad you admit that you are a biological sock puppet, that explains a lot.

We're still waiting for you to admit your view is incoherent since you claim it allows for you to control your thoughts and actions, yet it requires they have no ultimate cause, which negates you from having control.