Compatibalism

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, I am doing no such thing. I am only pointing to the fact he Mr. Shea clearly says that consciousness can have a causal role, can actually change sub-conscious states. You have long claimed that that did not happen. Remember you said our conscious states were no more than the steam off a steam engine.

No, he's describing the physical mechanisms that create conscious states as having an effect on the physical mechanisms that don't create conscious states. You are taking the colloquial usages of his words literally.

[seer]

No, he's describing the physical mechanisms that create conscious states as having an effect on the physical mechanisms that don't create conscious states. You are taking the colloquial usages of his words literally.

Oh Thinker stop with your colloquial nonsense. It is clearly more than that in the marriage question where conscious states, or conscious reasoning, did influence the process. The automatic or intuitive responses were generally wrong, where the conscious deliberations were generally right. Consciousness was necessary to get the correct answer. That is a causal effect.

[seer]

So when will you admit your view negates you having control over your thoughts? Are you in denial?

When will you admit that you are a biological sock puppet?

[The Thinker]

Oh Thinker stop with your colloquial nonsense. It is clearly more than that in the marriage question where conscious states, or conscious reasoning, did influence the process. The automatic or intuitive responses were generally wrong, where the conscious deliberations were generally right. Consciousness was necessary to get the correct answer. That is a causal effect.

Again, 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]

When will you admit that you are a biological sock puppet?

I've never denied that. But I've shown that is actually the coherent view since your view is as you know logically incoherent.

[seer]

Again, 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.

No Thinker, that is not what I'm doing, and you know it. As I have explained twice. Mr. Shea is clearly saying that conscious reasoning has a causal effect. Something you have denied. Do you really think that he would agree with you that conscious reasoning is merely like the steam off a steam engine?

[seer]

I've never denied that. But I've shown that is actually the coherent view since your view is as you know logically incoherent.

How do you have any idea of what is coherent or not since everything you believe,think or say, is at bottom, dictated by the non-rational forces of nature?

[The Thinker]

How do you have any idea of what is coherent or not since everything you believe,think or say, is at bottom, dictated by the non-rational forces of nature?

Your view assumes that being directed by non-rational physical forces negates the possibility of knowing or thinking anything is true or coherent. You have yet to establish that. In fact it's the exact opposite: LFW is incoherent and negates the possibility of knowing anything true.

[seer]

Your view assumes that being directed by non-rational physical forces negates the possibility of knowing or thinking anything is true or coherent. You have yet to establish that. In fact it's the exact opposite: LFW is incoherent and negates the possibility of knowing anything true.

We how does is being dictated what you think and believe by the non-rational forces of nature make your views rational?

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, that is not what I'm doing, and you know it. As I have explained twice. Mr. Shea is clearly saying that conscious reasoning has a causal effect. Something you have denied. Do you really think that he would agree with you that conscious reasoning is merely like the steam off a steam engine?

Yes that is what you're doing. I've already explained that with his own quotes. I think Shea is confusing you with language. When he talks of "conscious representations" he's talking about brain states that create conscious representations. He's not talking about a spirit ghost that contains your consciousness, as a dualist would think of it. That view is totally refuted by science. Do you even acknowledge that or do you still deny it? If you deny it, why?

[The Thinker]

We how does is being dictated what you think and believe by the non-rational forces of nature make your views rational?

Because they allow my thoughts to have a causal connection with the external world, which allows the possibility that they accurately represent what happened before it, whereas on your view that is impossible, because on your view your thoughts are necessarily acausal random fluctuations that have no necessary connection to what happened before it. If it ever did, it would be a pure coincidence.

[Tassman]

No, he's describing the physical mechanisms that create conscious states as having an effect on the physical mechanisms that don't create conscious states. You are taking the colloquial usages of his words literally.

This is an old trick of seer's and quite dishonest. He quote-mines something from a reputable scholar which he erroneously thinks reinforces his religious presuppositions, and then repeats his misrepresentation of it ad nauseam giving it the authority of holy writ. He's done this in the past with Sam Harris on Consciousness and Alexander Vilenkin on 'infinities'.

[Tassman]

So Tass, again, how on earth do you know when something is coherent or incoherent? How do you know that you were determined to have a correct understanding on this issue? Please show me the logic.

A logically coherent argument must make sense on a fundamental level. It must recognise all available and known facts and must be internally consistent (i.e. the evidence presented actually supports what's being proposed). It may or may not be correct, but at least it's a plausible argument which warrants discussion and consideration.

Causal determinism meets these criteria whereas your imaginary world of libertarian free-will does not, it is logically incoherent.

[seer]

Because they allow my thoughts to have a causal connection with the external world, which allows the possibility that they accurately represent what happened before it, whereas on your view that is impossible, because on your view your thoughts are necessarily acausal random fluctuations that have no necessary connection to what happened before it. If it ever did, it would be a pure coincidence.

So basically the non-rational forces of nature programmed you to be rational. Right, I wonder how that would work with computers. But again, you have no idea if what you just said is true, you can't, you only know what you were programmed to know, and that would include your causal connection with the external world and what that entails, how you process that. Nothing escapes your Matrix of determinism.

[seer]

Yes that is what you're doing. I've already explained that with his own quotes. I think Shea is confusing you with language. When he talks of "conscious representations" he's talking about brain states that create conscious representations. He's not talking about a spirit ghost that contains your consciousness, as a dualist would think of it. That view is totally refuted by science. Do you even acknowledge that or do you still deny it? If you deny it, why?

That is dishonest Thinker, first he is not merely speaking of "conscious representations" he is speaking of conscious deliberations, and their causal effect on the process. So I will ask again, do you think he would agree with you that conscious reasoning is merely like the steam off a steam engine? Yes or no?