Is libertarian free will coherent?

[The Thinker]

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.

The chemicals have to existed in a certain state, in a certain form, with a certain interaction -- namely like the brain. If I were to begin taking parts of your brain away, at some point you would not be able to make logical decisions, and if I continue, at some point later, you would cease to be conscious. The prefrontal cortex handles our complex decision making. Without that, you wouldn't be able to solve complex problems. Emergence is a well known concept in science and philosophy. Wetness emerges from having a lot of H2O molecules interconnected, that single molecules do not have.

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?

These aren't points, these are questions. And ones I've already answered.

1. It isn't necessary. That's why people sleep walk, and can even commit homicide while unconscious. And that's why you can do things automatically without having to think about it. You cannot based your science on your personal experience. It isn't reliable. We feel that our consciousness drives the body, but science has shown this to be false. The brain causes consciousness. Every test shown has shown that something happens in the brain before we decide anything. As neuroscientist Christof Koch says, "the standard conception of free will, that has the soul hovering above the brain and making it "freely" decide this way or that, is an illusion. It simply does not work at the conceptual or empirical level."

2. You've reached a false conclusion because your premise was false. Conscious awareness is not a necessary part of the process.

And you never answered any of my questions. Basically this is how you operate:

Step 1: ask the atheist a bunch of questions and demand they be fully answered
Step 2. if they are answered pretend they weren't and keep asking them, or change the subject
Step 3. if they weren't answered proclaim that atheism/materialism etc. is false
Step 4. when the atheist asks a bunch of questions, either refuse to answer, or eventually retort to "I believe it on faith"
Step 5. repeat

So to prove me wrong you now must answer these questions:

1. How is it that animals can make rational decisions if they have no soul and are just made of atoms? Wouldn't this be impossible on your view?

2. Wouldn't all the empirical evidence we already have, that I listed here be impossible on your view? How do you refute or accommodate this into your view?

[The Thinker]

That is not at all what he asked you Thinker:

Oh the irony. The guy who doesn't answer questions asked to him is demanding other people answer questions!

[The Thinker]

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.

Anytime you want to make a positive argument showing conscious mind controlling physical body, or that it can exist without being caused by a functioning brain, be our guest.

[Joel]

Given that we live in a universe whereby every event or state of affairs (including all human decisions and actions) are the necessary consequences of antecedent states of affairs,...

Wow, you must be omniscient, to be able to know that.

...then LFW is by definition logically incoherent.

That doesn't follow. Even if you were correct about this universe, there may be a possible universe in which your premise is not true.

You seem to be leaning towards the hypothesis that an immaterial component within us (e.g. the soul) can influence the material brain...am I wrong?

I haven't seen a reason in this thread to take a position one way or the other.

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.

A definition isn't a claim/premise. It's just a definition. All definitions are arbitrary/conventional, and all discussions ought to begin with them.
My only claim, in what you quoted there, was in my second sentence: "A first cause is the only reasonable way to save determinism/causality."

It wasn't an analogy, and I wasn't talking about volition. I was talking about "pure determinism". As a reminder, what I said was:

"Even within pure determinism, you don't have a linear 'stream', but a complex web. Consider a rock. Any number of things could cause the rock to move, and even apply many forces on the rock simultaneously..."
(emphasis added for this post)

No analogy to volition was intended. The rock was intended as an example of something in "pure determinism".

[Joel]

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.

No I'm asking you to make this kind of argument for something/anything else. (not for LFW). Something that you are sure is logically possible.

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.

I'm not talking about format so much either, but the substance. I think probably no one is understanding what is the substance of the kind of thing which you are asking us for. So an example (for something different--not LFW--something that you believe is logically possible) would be extremely valuable to us all. (And, obviously, it would need to be an argument other than a trivial "Its true, therefore it's possible" argument.)

[The Thinker]

No I'm asking you to make this kind of argument for something/anything else. (not for LFW). Something that you are sure is logically possible.


I'm not talking about format so much either, but the substance. I think probably no one is understanding what is the substance of the kind of thing which you are asking us for. So an example (for something different--not LFW--something that you believe is logically possible) would be extremely valuable to us all. (And, obviously, it would need to be an argument other than a trivial "Its true, therefore it's possible" argument.)

It would have to be an argument that doesn't violate the logical law of non-contradiction. Showing something to be logically possible is trivial. For example, it is logically possible for me to fly. There is no inherent contradiction there, even though it is physically impossible for me to do so. We can entertain a possible world where people can fly without the aid of technology since there is no logically necessary reason why the laws of physics in our world must be the case in all worlds. Such a world is logically possible.

Something logically impossible is something that cannot exist or occur because its very existence would be a contradiction. For example, I cannot be both temporal and atemporal in the same world. I either exist in time or not in time. There can be no logically possible state of affairs where I am timeless and

[Joel]

It would have to be an argument that doesn't violate the logical law of non-contradiction. Showing something to be logically possible is trivial. For example, it is logically possible for me to fly. There is no inherent contradiction there, even though it is physically impossible for me to do so. We can entertain a possible world where people can fly without the aid of technology since there is no logically necessary reason why the laws of physics in our world must be the case in all worlds. Such a world is logically possible.

Something logically impossible is something that cannot exist or occur because its very existence would be a contradiction. For example, I cannot be both temporal and atemporal in the same world. I either exist in time or not in time. There can be no logically possible state of affairs where I am timeless and

Your example is just you claiming it, not a positive argument. If I similarly said something like, "There is no inherent contradiction with LFW (or your (1)). We can entertain a possible world where people can make LFW choices (or "control their will"), since there is no logically necessary reason why the laws of physics in our world must be the case in all worlds. Such a world is logically possible." then you would say that that's not an argument. You would say that I'm just assuming the conclusion (that it is logically possible).


Going by what you say here, I gather that instead, you would need to show in detail how you flying like superman is logically possible, by listing a complete chronological order of events and substances that are relevantly involved in you flying, in that other possible universe? Something like that would be required? Can you flesh out the example with such an argument for us? So we can see the kind of detail you are requiring.

[The Thinker]

Your example is just you claiming it, not a positive argument. If I similarly said something like, "There is no inherent contradiction with LFW (or your (1)). We can entertain a possible world where people can make LFW choices (or "control their will"), since there is no logically necessary reason why the laws of physics in our world must be the case in all worlds. Such a world is logically possible." then you would say that that's not an argument. You would say that I'm just assuming the conclusion (that it is logically possible).


Going by what you say here, I gather that instead, you would need to show in detail how you flying like superman is logically possible, by listing a complete chronological order of events and substances that are relevantly involved in you flying, in that other possible universe? Something like that would be required? Can you flesh out the example with such an argument for us? So we can see the kind of detail you are requiring.

The logical possibility/impossibility of LFW is not dependent on laws of physics. I've even granted you dualism for the sake of argument in our debate. It is dependent entirely on logic. And with LFW we have a defeater: my argument. With the logical possibility of my flying, we don't.

[Tassman]

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

[Tassman]

Wow, you must be omniscient, to be able to know that.

Nope, just logical!

That doesn't follow. Even if you were correct about this universe, there may be a possible universe in which your premise is not true.

I haven't seen a reason in this thread to take a position one way or the other.

A definition isn't a claim/premise. It's just a definition. All definitions are arbitrary/conventional, and all discussions ought to begin with them.

My only claim, in what you quoted there, was in my second sentence: "A first cause is the only reasonable way to save determinism/causality."

It wasn't an analogy, and I wasn't talking about volition. I was talking about "pure determinism".

No analogy to volition was intended. The rock was intended as an example of something in "pure determinism".

[seer]

I did not quote mine anything Tass and you know it. Harris said what he said.


That is begging the question, there is no reason to assume that chemicals care about anything, you can't just wave your magic emergent wand and claim victory. I do know that our conscious minds care about these things. And really Tass, what do atheist have but reductionism?


I have no idea what this means. What does the conscious mind do or add that the subconscious doesn't?

[The Thinker]

I did not quote mine anything Tass and you know it. Harris said what he said.

Sam Harris is not an authority on consciousness. He's just expressing his view. He seems to be a strong reductionist. That's not the only view an atheist could hold.

That is begging the question, there is no reason to assume that chemicals care about anything, you can't just wave your magic emergent wand and claim victory. I do know that our conscious minds care about these things.

You're making the same exact mistake over and over again, and you never learn. Tass just told you that the chemicals themselves don't care about anything, but the system as a whole does. And how do you respond? You reiterate your claim that brain chemicals don't care about anything. Wow. I think we have a winner for the dumbest Christian award.

And really Tass, what do atheist have but reductionism?

Um, emergentism. Duh.

[seer]

Sam Harris is not an authority on consciousness. He's just expressing his view. He seems to be a strong reductionist. That's not the only view an atheist could hold.

Really, logically what is left for the atheist but reductionism? And yes, he is an expert in this field, he is a Neuroscientist with a Ph.D. from UCLA.

You're making the same exact mistake over and over again, and you never learn. Tass just told you that the chemicals themselves don't care about anything, but the system as a whole does. And how do you respond? You reiterate your claim that brain chemicals don't care about anything. Wow. I think we have a winner for the dumbest Christian award.

But all the system consists of is electro-chemical properties.That is the whole. What else is there?

Um, emergentism. Duh.

Yes the magical emergent wand, which tells us nothing. As the good card carrying atheist Sam Harris points out. But Thinker, from what you have been posting you are a reductionist, that everything can be reduced to physics - remember your formula?

[The Thinker]

Really, logically what is left for the atheist but reductionism?

I answered that.

And yes, he is an expert in this field, he is a Neuroscientist with a Ph.D. from UCLA.

Expert yes, not authority.

But all the system consists of is electro-chemical properties.That is the whole. What else is there?

That's what the individual parts consist of, but the whole has properties that the parts don't.

Yes the magical emergent wand, which tells us nothing. As the good card carrying atheist Sam Harris points out. But Thinker, from what you have been posting you are a reductionist, that everything can be reduced to physics - remember your formula?

Emergentism may be something we are forced to deal with. And the equation I showed does not in any way disallow emergentism. I'm agnostic on reductionism/emergentism. Both could be true, and both are compatible with materialism.

What we already have is knowledge that brain causes mind and I've given you plenty of empirical evidence of that. So you have to deal with it and refute it. You can't simply just brush it aside and pretend it doesn't exist, because that would be how unintelligent, ignorant people think, and you're not unintelligent and ignorant, right?

[seer]

Expert yes, not authority.

According to whom? You?

That's what the individual parts consist of, but the whole has properties that the parts don't.

But all there is are electro-chemical properties. You say that chemicals don't care, but all that there is are chemicals. So you are asserting that a lot of chemicals together, somehow do care. That is a leap and you can not just wave the magical emergent wand.

Emergentism may be something we are forced to deal with. And the equation I showed does not in any way disallow emergentism. I'm agnostic on reductionism/emergentism. Both could be true, and both are compatible with materialism.

You you did say that everything can be reduced to physics. That is reductionism. Of course you are free to change your mind, but you shouldn't attack Harris when you articulated the same position.

What we already have is knowledge that brain causes mind and I've given you plenty of empirical evidence of that. So you have to deal with it and refute it. You can't simply just brush it aside and pretend it doesn't exist, because that would be how unintelligent, ignorant people think, and you're not unintelligent and ignorant, right?

The question has always been, do immaterial thoughts have a looping effect or causal input on the process. And your studies do not prove otherwise especially in light of the fact that in none of your studies are decisions made before we are consciously aware (I'm not speaking a simple reflex actions) but of the actual decision to act. You have never given a good answer as to why the acts in this studies do not happen until we are consciously aware. Especially the study with the 7-10 second lag time. Consciousness should not even come into play - unless it is a necessary part in these kind of cognitive processes.