Is libertarian free will coherent?

[seer]

What's wrong seer? Is it too hard to admit you can't show LFW is coherent. It's OK.

Is that all your brain chemicals can say? You need to take them to the woodshed!

Still waiting for you to understand the fallacy of division. Can you try explaining it for me?

Why, I'm still waiting for you to show why brain chemicals care about the laws of logic. For you to prove that the whole does actually act differently than the parts in this case. That the whole cares about logic.

[The Thinker]

Is that all your brain chemicals can say? You need to take them to the woodshed!

Translation:

Seer: I don't want to admit my views are incoherent so I'll just keep acting like a child.

Bravo!!!

Why, I'm still waiting for you to show why brain chemicals care about the laws of logic. For you to prove that the whole does actually act differently than the parts in this case. That the whole cares about logic.

Why? Because I need you to let me know you understand the concept, because from the way you're acting you clearly don't.

The whole does act differently, and I've already given you the evidence many, many times. But each time you just ignore it. So why should I waste time with your demands?

Here's just one for you since you're not a good reader:

Predicting free choices for abstract intentions

Source: http://www.psych.unimelb.edu.au/sites/live-1-14-1.msps.moatdev.com/files/SoonHeBodeHaynes_PredictingAbstractIntentions_PNAS13.pdf

-Researchers are able to show that the outcome of a free decision to either add or subtract numbers can already be decoded from neural activity in medial prefrontal and parietal cortex 4 seconds before the participant reports they are consciously making their choice.


-In the current study, participants were not cued to make decisions at specific points in time but were allowed to make decisions spontaneously. By asking participants to report when they first consciously decided, we could investigate what happened in the brain before the decisions were consciously made. We found that both medial frontopolar cortex and posterior cingulate/precuneus started to encode the specific outcome of the abstract decisions even before they entered conscious awareness. Our results suggest that, in addition to the representation of conscious abstract decisions, the medial frontopolar cortex was also involved in the unconscious preparation of abstract decisions.

© Copyright Original Source

This is totally inexplicable on your soul hypothesis view and shows that it is false. The brain makes our choices before we are consciously aware of it.

[One Bad Pig]

Here's just one for you since you're not a good reader:

Predicting free choices for abstract intentions

Source: http://www.psych.unimelb.edu.au/sites/live-1-14-1.msps.moatdev.com/files/SoonHeBodeHaynes_PredictingAbstractIntentions_PNAS13.pdf

-Researchers are able to show that the outcome of a free decision to either add or subtract numbers can already be decoded from neural activity in medial prefrontal and parietal cortex 4 seconds before the participant reports they are consciously making their choice.


-In the current study, participants were not cued to make decisions at specific points in time but were allowed to make decisions spontaneously. By asking participants to report when they first consciously decided, we could investigate what happened in the brain before the decisions were consciously made. We found that both medial frontopolar cortex and posterior cingulate/precuneus started to encode the specific outcome of the abstract decisions even before they entered conscious awareness. Our results suggest that, in addition to the representation of conscious abstract decisions, the medial frontopolar cortex was also involved in the unconscious preparation of abstract decisions.

© Copyright Original Source

This is totally inexplicable on your soul hypothesis view and shows that it is false. The brain makes our choices before we are consciously aware of it.

No, it doesn't falsify anything; it just means that our subconscious plays a role in the choices we make.

[seer]

The whole does act differently, and I've already given you the evidence many, many times. But each time you just ignore it. So why should I waste time with your demands?

But that is not what I am asking. I'm asking why brain chemicals care about logical rules or logic in general. And if they don't what does?

This is totally inexplicable on your soul hypothesis view and shows that it is false. The brain makes our choices before we are consciously aware of it.

Nonsense, from one of your studies:

-Researchers show that it was possible to decode the decision outcomes of such free motor decisions from the pole of anterior medial prefrontal cortex (BA 10) and the precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), up to 7 s before subjects were aware of their intention.
-Taking into account the temporal delay of the BOLD signal (which is in the order of a few seconds), it is possible that these signals reflect processes up to 10 seconds before the actual decision.

Really Thinker, the brain makes the decision 10 seconds before I am consciously aware? That makes zero sense. How could I ever decide to turn left at the last second if I missed a turn? And like I said, why is conscious awareness necessary before the decision is actually made. Why did I not act ten seconds ago when my brain made the decision?

[The Thinker]

No, it doesn't falsify anything; it just means that our subconscious plays a role in the choices we make.

No, sorry, it means your brain is making the decision before you are aware of it, just like a materialist would predict.

[The Thinker]

But that is not what I am asking. I'm asking why brain chemicals care about logical rules or logic in general. And if they don't what does?

Individual brain chemicals don't care, but the system as a whole does. This is called an emergent property. To deny this you'd have to refute emergence.

Nonsense, from one of your studies:



Really Thinker, the brain makes the decision 10 seconds before I am consciously aware? That makes zero sense. How could I ever decide to turn left at the last second if I missed a turn? And like I said, why is conscious awareness necessary before the decision is actually made. Why did I not act ten seconds ago when my brain made the decision?

Wow, you really are dimwitted aren't you? It says the brain can make decisions up to 10 seconds prior, it doesn't say this happens every time. Did you even graduate high school? Seriously. It's like talking to a 7 year old with you.

[Joel]

But the only thing being asked for in this thread is logical consistency.

The Pinocchio story is logically consistent...so?

'The Thinker' set the topic of the debate, which is only whether LFW is logically possible/consistent/coherent, not whether LFW actually exists.
If you don't like the topic, nobody is forcing you to participate.

I haven't taken a position on dualism/monism.

You want to say that it's 'turtles all the way down'?

No, it's you who wants to invoke the notion of a "first cause" without proposing a solution to the immediate question "who or what caused the "first cause"?

If everything has a cause, then it's 'turtles all the way down'.
By definition, the first cause is uncaused, and did not come to be. (So that question is self-answering.) A first cause is the only reasonable way to save determinism/causality.

The rock was not supposed to be volitional in the example. It was the thing moved, not the mover. I intentionally chose a rock as an example of a non-volitional, deterministic thing.

A rock is in no way analogous to even the most simple living creature with a brain.

I in no way used a rock as an analogy to a living creature. I thought I made that clear.

[Joel]

Basically Joel you're wasting my time, as you always do. There is no reason for me to respond to your every point because you've already conceded the argument, the rest is just trivial detail, or just your misunderstanding, and which I can easily refute.

I'll give you one last chance to make a positive argument logically demonstrating my (1): We are in control of our will.

Make it good.

How about this. Maybe none of us are really understanding what kind of thing you are asking for.
Please give us an example of a positive proof that some proposition or concept is logically possible (i.e. not-self-refuting, as you said before). Show us what that kind of argument would look like.
Clearly you don't think this kind of thing is difficult. As you just today said to Seer in post 204, "If you're so sure it is [logically possible] you should easily be able to show this." So just pick any proposition or concept (could be determinism, or whatever) that you are sure is logically possible, and show us a concrete example of such a positive proof. I think everyone still reading this thread would find that very valuable.

[Truthseeker]

Suppose a definition of LFW turns out to be self-contradicting. Why is it NOT possible to change the definition so that it is "coherent"?

[Tassman]

I get it, so a lot of chemicals care about logic!

Is that what your brain chemicals are telling you? How precious...

[Tassman]

'The Thinker' set the topic of the debate, which is only whether LFW is logically possible/consistent/coherent, not whether LFW actually exists.
If you don't like the topic, nobody is forcing you to participate.

I haven't taken a position on dualism/monism.

If everything has a cause, then it's 'turtles all the way down'.

The cause of the Big Bang, wherein our current space/time universe emerged, is as yet unknown but there is no good reason to think there was nothing before that.

By definition, the first cause is uncaused, and did not come to be. (So that question is self-answering.) A first cause is the only reasonable way to save determinism/causality.

I in no way used a rock as an analogy to a living creature. I thought I made that clear.

[seer]

Individual brain chemicals don't care, but the system as a whole does. This is called an emergent property. To deny this you'd have to refute emergence.

That is the point, you are begging the question. Why should a thousand chemicals care about logic, anymore than a few? Just to use the magic word "emergent" tells us nothing.

Wow, you really are dimwitted aren't you? It says the brain can make decisions up to 10 seconds prior, it doesn't say this happens every time. Did you even graduate high school? Seriously. It's like talking to a 7 year old with you.

Two points,

1. In cases when the brain makes the decision before awareness, in this case 10 seconds, why is it necessary for us to have conscious awareness before we actually act?

2. Which leads to the conclusion that conscious awareness is a necessary part of the process, if not why wouldn't the act happen before awareness?

[seer]

And remember what Sam Harris said about this idea of emergent consciousness

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. .

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

My point being, is that chemicals don't care about logic, but our conscious mind does. And that our conscious mind plays a causal role.

[The Thinker]

How about this. Maybe none of us are really understanding what kind of thing you are asking for.
Please give us an example of a positive proof that some proposition or concept is logically possible (i.e. not-self-refuting, as you said before). Show us what that kind of argument would look like.
Clearly you don't think this kind of thing is difficult. As you just today said to Seer in post 204, "If you're so sure it is [logically possible] you should easily be able to show this." So just pick any proposition or concept (could be determinism, or whatever) that you are sure is logically possible, and show us a concrete example of such a positive proof. I think everyone still reading this thread would find that very valuable.

Well, the thing is, you're basically asking me to make the argument showing LFW is logically coherent for you, but as I've repeatedly argued on this thread it isn't. And when I said that to seer I was basically challenging him on his own view because he acts as if it is true; his whole worldview depends on this.

Basically, what I've been asking you, and everyone else is a simple logical demonstration of my (1) in whatever format you want. It could be a formal logical argument, or simply just a few paragraphs explaining it. But I need detail. I'm not concerned about the format so much, so long as you demonstrate an example of us being able to control our will.

[seer]

Well, the thing is, you're basically asking me to make the argument showing LFW is logically coherent for you, but as I've repeatedly argued on this thread it isn't.

That is not at all what he asked you Thinker:

Please give us an example of a positive proof that some proposition or concept is logically possible (i.e. not-self-refuting, as you said before). Show us what that kind of argument would look like.
Clearly you don't think this kind of thing is difficult. As you just today said to Seer in post 204, "If you're so sure it is [logically possible] you should easily be able to show this." So just pick any proposition or concept (could be determinism, or whatever) that you are sure is logically possible, and show us a concrete example of such a positive proof. I think everyone still reading this thread would find that very valuable.