Compatibalism

[seer]

Truth is what corresponds to reality? Reality corresponds to reality. What is the truth part? Is truth reality itself? It is it a proposition? Is it a mental state a person has? Can a computer have a truth? Be more specific.

Are you kidding? It is when our understanding, our knowledge, our conscious mental states correspond to reality. Thinker you know this is basically what Aristotle taught, so you are being slimy again. But if you have a better definition please share it was us all.

Oh and I proved my point of view more than a year ago. You've never refuted what I wrote. Instead you try to move the goal posts to give an impossible standard no one can demonstrate.

That is a complete falsehood. The only thing you showed was that it would be possible for you to be determined to believe a truism. But I never argued against that, my point is, and was, that in any given situation, you could not logically demonstrate or know if you were determined to believe a truism in that particular instance. That you were not determined to believe a falsehood to be true.

[The Thinker]

Are you kidding? It is when our understanding, our knowledge, our conscious mental states correspond to reality. Thinker you know this is basically what Aristotle taught, so you are being slimy again. But if you have a better definition please share it was us all.

I'm just trying to get clarification on your view so that you don't weasel out of the challenge by moving the goal posts. I will accept your basic view: a truth is when a mental state corresponds to reality. But here's the problem, no one can logically prove their mental state corresponds to reality. No one can disprove that they're not a computer simulation. That's my whole point. You want me to meet a standard no one could meet, not you, not anyone.

That is a complete falsehood. The only thing you showed was that it would be possible for you to be determined to believe a truism. But I never argued against that, my point is, and was, that in any given situation, you could not logically demonstrate or know if you were determined to believe a truism in that particular instance. That you were not determined to believe a falsehood to be true.

I showed it's logically possible, and that is all anyone with any view could possibly do. If you disagree, show me how any view that can logically prove that any particular mental state corresponds to external reality. And you did shift the goal post many times. You still never even showed LFW itself was even coherent. You literally just said we have to believe it is true on faith! You cannot believe something is true when there is a logical proof it's incoherent.

[seer]

I'm just trying to get clarification on your view so that you don't weasel out of the challenge by moving the goal posts. I will accept your basic view: a truth is when a mental state corresponds to reality. But here's the problem, no one can logically prove their mental state corresponds to reality. No one can disprove that they're not a computer simulation. That's my whole point. You want me to meet a standard no one could meet, not you, not anyone.

But I'm not asking you to demonstrate that we are not in the Matrix, that is not the point.

I showed it's logically possible, and that is all anyone with any view could possibly do. If you disagree, show me how any view that can logically prove that any particular mental state corresponds to external reality. And you did shift the goal post many times. You still never even showed LFW itself was even coherent. You literally just said we have to believe it is true on faith! You cannot believe something is true when there is a logical proof it's incoherent.

But that is not the question. Again, how do you know that you were determined to believe a truism in this instance? And this is our difference - in my view conscious rational deliberation, conscious weighing of evidence and circumstance is the driving force in our ability to come to rational conclusions. In your view we are determined by non-rational forces to believe A or B, conscious rational deliberation plays no causal roll in discovering the truth. You are literally at the mercy of natural forces that care nothing for truth or logic or fact.

[The Thinker]

But I'm not asking you to demonstrate that we are not in the Matrix, that is not the point.

But if you cannot do that you cannot show with 100% logical certainty that your mental states corresponds to reality, since your mental state would not. In other words, you're asking for something no one could do. It's literally impossible.

But that is not the question. Again, how do you know that you were determined to believe a truism in this instance?

How does one "know" anything? If truth is when your mental state corresponds to reality, how can anyone know that's the case? You cannot know anything with 100% logical certainty about external reality. Do you admit now that your request is impossible even for you? If not, show me how.

And this is our difference - in my view conscious rational deliberation, conscious weighing of evidence and circumstance is the driving force in our ability to come to rational conclusions.

On your view your conscious rational deliberation, conscious weighing of evidence and circumstance is necessarily uncaused, because if it was caused it would be determined by something other than your mental state. Being that it's uncaused, you can't control it, because by definition you cannot have control over something uncaused. And something uncaused would have no necessary connection to a reality that happened before it. Any connection would only be a coincidence. So on your view you couldn't even argue that your conscious states have any likelihood of being related to anything before it, whereas I can. Oh, and your LFW is logically incoherent.

So your view is less supported than mine for conscious reliability. You've never refuted this. I really want to see your best argument against it and not a deflection that says "but on your view ......."

In your view we are determined by non-rational forces to believe A or B, conscious rational deliberation plays no causal roll in discovering the truth. .

Being determined by non-rational forces is the only way our conscious rational deliberation can have any degree of connection with what happened before it. On your view it can't, since it's uncaused, and you cannot by definition have any control over uncaused events. I really need you to directly try to refute this, since you've been dancing around it for a year. Prove this wrong.

You are literally at the mercy of natural forces that care nothing for truth or logic or fact

On your view, what explains why you get something wrong vs get something right? Is there a causal force? Or an explanation? What's in control? How do you explain mental ill-ness where people are totally detached from reality? If you say it's due to a brain disease, then on your view you are still at the mercy of natural forces.

And for the 30th time, the forces underlying your brain don't have to care about truth or logic in order for your brain to be able to arrive at truth or logic. That makes the fallacy of composition, again and again and again.

[seer]

Being determined by non-rational forces is the only way our conscious rational deliberation can have any degree of connection with what happened before it. On your view it can't, since it's uncaused, and you cannot by definition have any control over uncaused events. I really need you to directly try to refute this, since you've been dancing around it for a year. Prove this wrong.

Thinker I never said that conscious rational deliberation is completely disconnected from what went before, only that it has a real causal effect. A real effect on what you come to believe and know is true. In your world conscious rational deliberation plays no causal role in truth finding. You believe what non-rational forces dictate that you believe, right or wrong, true or not. And these forces that dictate your beliefs are not rationally controlled - so one has to ask, what at bottom is controlling your thoughts Thinker? Do you even know?

[shunyadragon]

Hi,

If I may, I have always thought about how libertarian free-will could "fit in" to a causally determined universe. To my mind, libertarian free-will is committed to the existence of something that does not fit in to a causally determined universe. What that something is hard to say. If it's the soul, I guess I'd have to define what it is. If it's an emergent property, I'd have to spell how the nature of the relation between the subvenient properties that give rise to supervenient properties capable of causing things independently of the causal nexus that governed the activity of the subvenient properties. In this case, the causal chain of antecedent occurrences would include the emergence of such supervenient qualities, but I wonder if we might ask about whether or not such supervenient qualities would constitute an additional causal chain from which free-will decisions could issue. So, it may "fit in" to a causally determined universe at the threshold, but once that threshold had qualitatively shifted, new capacities for originating causal chains had been causally determined to be. So, perhaps I could say that we are in a causally determined universe, but that causal chains can culminate in the causal production of new capacities, able to originate causal chains in a way that is not causally dependent on the causal chains that gave rise to the said capacities.

There is no problem with dealing with causal chains in the NMN world view. An NMN naturally causally determined physical existence (universe?) would not be causally dependent on causal chains. The nature of such a naturally caused existence would eternal without first nor last cause.

As far as libertarian free will need not be made to 'fit in' anything, and I do not believe libertarian free will, or any concept of human will whether free or not, is committed to the existence of something that does not fit in to a causally determined universe (ie God). The bottom line is likely that neither libertarian free will, compatibism nor strict determinism adequately describe the nature of will. It is best to conclude that humans have a will and it is not necessarily entirely free. The causal chains involving human choices have different possibilities, but there will always be limits by many factors that limit the possible choices, and limit free will.

[The Thinker]

Thinker I never said that conscious rational deliberation is completely disconnected from what went before, only that it has a real causal effect. A real effect on what you come to believe and know is true.

You don't have to say it is completely disconnected, for it to be disconnected. Being disconnected is a logical entailment from your view - whether you admit it or not. If your thoughts or your "conscious rational deliberation" is uncaused, you cannot by definition have control over it and it cannot be definition have any relation to what went before it since it is completely uncaused. If you deny this, then refute this.

In your world conscious rational deliberation plays no causal role in truth finding.

The alternative of my view, which is your view, makes even less sense than mine. I've given you the reasons why on your view you wouldn't be able to trust your thoughts at all. If you deny this, then refute this.

You believe what non-rational forces dictate that you believe, right or wrong, true or not.

You believe what random spontaneous uncaused conscious thoughts pop into your mind, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, true or not. That is an entailment from your view. So why should I agree with your view? On my view, at least there is a chance my thoughts correspond to reality, since my thoughts are caused by my brain interacting with what came before in a causal fashion. Your view negates that.

And these forces that dictate your beliefs are not rationally controlled - so one has to ask, what at bottom is controlling your thoughts Thinker? Do you even know?

They don't have to be rationally controlled in order for my thoughts to be able to rationally comprehend the world around me. You've got a completely backwards religious view of the world stuck in your head that thinks mind comes first, and then the physical, when all data shows the physical comes first, which produces the mind. Atoms don't have to be rational in order to create a system that is rational. You make that fallacy over and over. My brain is controlling my thoughts. And my brain is an evolved system that took 4 billion years of evolutionary refinement that allows me to rationally interpret my surroundings.

[seer]

Y
They don't have to be rationally controlled in order for my thoughts to be able to rationally comprehend the world around me. You've got a completely backwards religious view of the world stuck in your head that thinks mind comes first, and then the physical, when all data shows the physical comes first, which produces the mind. Atoms don't have to be rational in order to create a system that is rational. You make that fallacy over and over. My brain is controlling my thoughts. And my brain is an evolved system that took 4 billion years of evolutionary refinement that allows me to rationally interpret my surroundings.

So what controls your thought Thinker? And what controls the controller?

[mattdamore]

I have to figure out how to know when someone has replied to me! Do you know how I can do that? I'd hate to accidentally leave you or someone in the lurch.

There is no problem with dealing with causal chains in the NMN world view. An NMN naturally causally determined physical existence (universe?) would not be causally dependent on causal chains. The nature of such a naturally caused existence would eternal without first nor last cause.

This could be my fault, but I'm having trouble understanding you. I do agree that NMN would not have a problem with causal chains. I don't quite understand what it means to say that NMN causally determined physical existence. NMN is an ethical theory according to which objective moral values exist and God does not. As an ethical theory, I have to be misunderstanding you when you say that such a theory determines physical existence, and because I don't understand it I can't assess whether or not it would or wouldn't be dependent on causal chains. Lastly, I'm not quite understanding natural causation as eternal causation, at least in this context.

As far as libertarian free will need not be made to 'fit in' anything, and I do not believe libertarian free will, or any concept of human will whether free or not, is committed to the existence of something that does not fit in to a causally determined universe (ie God). The bottom line is likely that neither libertarian free will, compatibism nor strict determinism adequately describe the nature of will. It is best to conclude that humans have a will and it is not necessarily entirely free. The causal chains involving human choices have different possibilities, but there will always be limits by many factors that limit the possible choices, and limit free will.

This is interesting. Assuming that the physical universe exists, why do you think that libertarian free will fits in to such a universe? Second, what do you mean by the will being "not necessarily entirely free" such that neither libertarian free will, strict determinism nor compatibilism are adequate to describe it? Third, I think I agree with the idea that causal chains involving human choices have different possibilities. Such chains are neither logically, metaphysically nor physically necessary. Lastly, I also agree with the idea of limits that narrow possible choices. If you mean that the idea of narrowing possible choices is what limits free will, I agree in a sense. I agree that it limits my free will in the sense that my free will can no longer choose among as many options. But it seems to me that there is a sense in which I disagree. I've read in the literature on freedom a distinction between "freedom of action" and "freedom of the will". In the sense in which I don't think it limits my free will, the narrowing of possible choices would merely limit my freedom of action. This seems to follow from the idea that even if the will were in absolute bondage, it could still will for that which is "out of reach". For example, a bird whose wings were clipped, if it could, might still will to fly . . .

[The Thinker]

So what controls your thought Thinker? And what controls the controller?

My brain. My brain is made of matter and matter follows the laws of physics.

It's apparent that you want to totally avoid all the problems with your view. I've given you several problems with it, and you completely ignore them and try to deflect. Is it that you recognize your views problems but are too afraid to confront them?

[Leonhard]

So what? Psychologists make tons of error, but the field of psychology is sound. There are tons of erroneous theories of economics, but there's plenty that makes perfect sense. There's tons, and tons, and tons of hogwash articles about physics and mathematical rabbit hole abstractions that don't go anywhere, with 99.999% of all theoretical suggestions about new physics being bunk. Most of all of the results, findings, theories and hypotheses in medical science are wrong.

The fact that a field can make mistakes is the norm, not the exception, and not by itself any indication that the field of study is off base.

Nearly every argument and conclusion they made about the physical universe was wrong...

That depends entirely what you mean by 'Wrong'. Newtonian mechanics is 'wrong' within a certain narrow definition, and 'verified' within another. Aristotle founded the first notions of rules of logic and deduction, categorized nature, promoted empiricism, and discussed various aspects of art that are still part and parcel of analysing structures of story to this day.

Their arguments (and yours) are purely academic, untestable and therefore ultimately useless

On the contrary, Aristotelianism begins with empiricism, with our senses and experiences. "Nothing is in the mind that wasn't first in the senses." - St. Thomas Aquinas.

You're arguing against a strawman, and I have a feeling that you've never studied this subject in any serious way.

I thought we were discussing libertarian free will, not whether or not we have reasons for thinking that hylomorphic dualism to be true? I'm just containing myself within the narrow confines of the thread, wherein you've advanced the notion that libertarian free will couldn't possibly make sense. You didn't merely argue that we don't have any good reason for holding it to be true. You've specifically argued that libertarian free will is somehow incoherent.

And I don't think it's unfair to say that you've failed to advance that argument. Your one sole objection seems to be that you demand of your opponent that he deliver some sort of nebulous complex, neuroscientific description of how the will interacts with the neurons, which results in action. And somehow, sans that, libertarian free will makes sense.

That is a logical fallacy. We can have good reasons for thinking that we have free will and that free will by necessity isn't determined solely by external past antecedents, but has also some internal component to the person namely their 'will'.

You have not demonstrated that libertarian free will is logically coherent in a causally determined universe.

First of all, yes I have, at least in so far as I've shown one metaphysics wherein it makes sense. I have no idea why you suddenly slap on the extra demand of 'causally determined'.

I understand you just don't like the metaphysics I used and you're sorta flailing against it, however you're only making yourself look stupid. You accuse it of being unscientific, without even asking what that would mean here since there's nothing in Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics that is counter to modern science. On the contrary, it's probably our only bet for having a realistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics!

Secondly, do you mean to say 'deterministic universe', because 'causally determined' would simply means that whatever happens, have causes. Though I think you mean that one could in principle predict future events from antecedent causalities.

All events and decisions are determined by an unbroken chain of antecedent occurrences and the level to which we have influence over our future is largely dependent on present and past.

This is begging the question. Presumably, this is precisely what is being discussed. Stomping your foot and insisting on the conclusion isn't all that convincing Tassman.

So when are you actually going to argue against libertarian free will?

[Tassman]

My brain. My brain is made of matter and matter follows the laws of physics.

It's apparent that you want to totally avoid all the problems with your view. I've given you several problems with it, and you completely ignore them and try to deflect. Is it that you recognize your views problems but are too afraid to confront them?

What he recognises, historically, is that his "solution" to the problem is unacceptable to the likes of us. Namely, libertarian free-will is logically incoherent but that God grants it to humans because he loves us. In short, the magic solution.

[Tassman]

So what? Psychologists make tons of error, but the field of psychology is sound. There are tons of erroneous theories of economics, but there's plenty that makes perfect sense. There's tons, and tons, and tons of hogwash articles about physics and mathematical rabbit hole abstractions that don't go anywhere, with 99.999% of all theoretical suggestions about new physics being bunk. Most of all of the results, findings, theories and hypotheses in medical science are wrong.

The fact that a field can make mistakes is the norm, not the exception, and not by itself any indication that the field of study is off base.

No conclusions of any

That depends entirely what you mean by 'Wrong'. Newtonian mechanics is 'wrong' within a certain narrow definition, and 'verified' within another. Aristotle founded the first notions of rules of logic and deduction, categorized nature, promoted empiricism, and discussed various aspects of art that are still part and parcel of analysing structures of story to this day.

On the contrary, Aristotelianism begins with empiricism, with our senses and experiences. "Nothing is in the mind that wasn't first in the senses." - St. Thomas Aquinas.

I thought we were discussing libertarian free will, not whether or not we have reasons for thinking that hylomorphic dualism to be true? I'm just containing myself within the narrow confines of the thread, wherein you've advanced the notion that libertarian free will couldn't possibly make sense. You didn't merely argue that we don't have any good reason for holding it to be true. You've specifically argued that libertarian free will is somehow incoherent.

Libertarian free-will is logically incoherent in a world that is demonstrably causally determined.

And I don't think it's unfair to say that you've failed to advance that argument. Your one sole objection seems to be that you demand of your opponent that he deliver some sort of nebulous complex, neuroscientific description of how the will interacts with the neurons, which results in action. And somehow, sans that, libertarian free will makes sense.

That is a logical fallacy. We can have good reasons for thinking that we have free will and that free will by necessity isn't determined solely by external past antecedents, but has also some internal component to the person namely their 'will'.

You have not empirically demonstrated that this

First of all, yes I have, at least in so far as I've shown one metaphysics wherein it makes sense. I have no idea why you suddenly slap on the extra demand of 'causally determined'.

Your metaphysical argument may "make sense" provided one accepts its unverified premise that there's some internal component to the person namely their libertarian free 'will'. But there's no good reason why should one accept this premise.

This is begging the question. Presumably, this is precisely what is being discussed. Stomping your foot and insisting on the conclusion isn't all that convincing Tassman.

So when are you actually going to argue against libertarian free will?

You have yet to show that it exists.

[seer]

What he recognises, historically, is that his "solution" to the problem is unacceptable to the likes of us. Namely, libertarian free-will is logically incoherent but that God grants it to humans because he loves us. In short, the magic solution.

More automated messages from the sock puppet.

[shunyadragon]

So what controls your thought Thinker?

The 'Sock Puppet Master.'

And what controls the controller?[/QUOTE]

The 'Sock Puppet Master controls God too.'