Is libertarian free will coherent?

[The Thinker]

According to whom? You?

There are no authorities in science. None.

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.

I'm asserting that the human brain, when functioning properly, cares. This is what causes emotion, consciousness, and allows rationality. No brain, no rationality. All the evidence shows this. It is the pattern and arrangement of the atoms that make up the brain, it isn't just lots of atoms, it has to be in the form of a brain. If you claim otherwise the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

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.

On emergentism, everything can still be physical too.

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.

The studies do prove otherwise. Not a single test has ever shown that consciousness comes first, and causes the brain. It is always the other way around. Brain causes consciousness. If you think an immaterial consciousness that isn't itself caused by the physical brain can have a causal impact on the physical brain, the burden of proof is on you to show this is true. Can you do that?

Simple question: How do you explain the fact that our brains decide before we are consciously aware such that scientists can tell what decision you're going to make before you even know about it? That should be impossible on your view.

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.

I already refuted that idea. Consciousness isn't always a necessary part of cognitive processes. That's why people can do thinks unconsciously, like sleep walk. And you never answered my question about how does your view explain the fact that animals make rational decisions when they're just atoms.

[seer]

There are no authorities in science. None.

Really? Do you think you know this subject better than Harris?

I'm asserting that the human brain, when functioning properly, cares. This is what causes emotion, consciousness, and allows rationality. No brain, no rationality. All the evidence shows this. It is the pattern and arrangement of the atoms that make up the brain, it isn't just lots of atoms, it has to be in the form of a brain. If you claim otherwise the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

No Thinker, I have no reason to assume that chemicals care about anything - even a lot of chemicals together. You are begging the question - where else in nature do we find chemicals that care?

I already refuted that idea. Consciousness isn't always a necessary part of cognitive processes. That's why people can do thinks unconsciously, like sleep walk. And you never answered my question about how does your view explain the fact that animals make rational decisions when they're just atoms.

First, I have no idea what is going through one's mind when he is sleep walking. Perhaps he is consciously dreaming that he is walking down the street when he is really in his kitchen That is still a conscious acts. And again, I never said that we could not act rationally - a fly will act rationally when he tries to escape you. Consciousness need not be necessary in all cases to be necessary in some or most cases. And in these studies Thinker, even the ones with simple muscle bursts, the act does not happen without conscious awareness. You could claim that conscious awareness is not necessary - but then that begs the question - why didn't the act happen before awareness, especially in the cases where there was such a long delay. It makes no sense. Consciousness would not be necessary, or even useful, for any act - whatsoever.

[The Thinker]

Really? Do you think you know this subject better than Harris?

On this particular point, yes. I'm not saying emergence is true, I'm saying it's a possibility, and Harris doesn't accept that it's possible. And yes there are no authorities in science. Science isn't like religion.

No Thinker, I have no reason to assume that chemicals care about anything - even a lot of chemicals together. You are begging the question - where else in nature do we find chemicals that care?

In a chimpanzee brain. How do you explain that?

First, I have no idea what is going through one's mind when he is sleep walking. Perhaps he is consciously dreaming that he is walking down the street when he is really in his kitchen That is still a conscious acts. And again, I never said that we could not act rationally - a fly will act rationally when he tries to escape you. Consciousness need not be necessary in all cases to be necessary in some or most cases. And in these studies Thinker, even the ones with simple muscle bursts, the act does not happen without conscious awareness. You could claim that conscious awareness is not necessary - but then that begs the question - why didn't the act happen before awareness, especially in the cases where there was such a long delay. It makes no sense. Consciousness would not be necessary, or even useful, for any act - whatsoever.

Are you telling me that there are no muscle bursts done unconsciously? That is completely false and you know it. In these tests the subjects were told to consciously make a decision. These tests show that the brain make the decision before conscious awareness. This is empirical evidence that your view is false. So what's your rebuttal?

The mere existence of people doing things unconsciously refutes your view, because your view is that consciousness is the driver. So explain it.

[seer]

On this particular point, yes. I'm not saying emergence is true, I'm saying it's a possibility, and Harris doesn't accept that it's possible. And yes there are no authorities in science. Science isn't like religion.

And he did say that he doesn't know how it is possible even in principle.

In a chimpanzee brain. How do you explain that?

Do chimps care about the laws of logic? I must have missed that.

Are you telling me that there are no muscle bursts done unconsciously? That is completely false and you know it. In these tests the subjects were told to consciously make a decision. These tests show that the brain make the decision before conscious awareness. This is empirical evidence that your view is false. So what's your rebuttal?

The mere existence of people doing things unconsciously refutes your view, because your view is that consciousness is the driver. So explain it.

Did you completely miss what I said. You are generalizing that just because we can, at times, we can do things unconsciously, therefore everything we do do can be done unconsciously. And again, in these tests the act is not completed until there is conscious awareness - why is awareness even in the picture if it so unnecessary? Why didn't we act in your 7-10 second study long before we were aware?

[The Thinker]

And he did say that he doesn't know how it is possible even in principle.

I don't care. The problem with you theists is that you think that we atheists think like you. That is, you think that you can just quote an atheist like Harris or Dawkins and we all think their word is like scripture. Weak emergence is:

Do chimps care about the laws of logic? I must have missed that.

Chimps and monkeys know how to do math. This is not instinct, it's rationality. How do you explain that? Why should their fully material brains even be able to guide them through life at all on your view? Chemicals don't care about falling off a tree. Chemicals don't care about adding blocks. So how do chimps and monkeys do any of this without a soul?

Did you completely miss what I said. You are generalizing that just because we can, at times, we can do things unconsciously, therefore everything we do do can be done unconsciously.

No I never said that. I said that the fact that we can do anything unconsciously proves your view is wrong since it would be impossible.

And again, in these tests the act is not completed until there is conscious awareness - why is awareness even in the picture if it so unnecessary? Why didn't we act in your 7-10 second study long before we were aware?

Still sticking to your MO I see:

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 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

I said it sometimes occurs, sometimes it doesn't. So it isn't necessary. The fact that it doesn't always occur disproves your view. As to why consciousness awareness occurs before you act, this could simply be due to the fact that it takes the brain time to produce consciousness and the act itself, but it takes the brain less time to produce consciousness. Here's a quote from author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist:

By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done.

[seer]

I don't care. The problem with you theists is that you think that we atheists think like you. That is, you think that you can just quote an atheist like Harris or Dawkins and we all think their word is like scripture.

OK

Chimps and monkeys know how to do math. This is not instinct, it's rationality. How do you explain that? Why should their fully material brains even be able to guide them through life at all on your view? Chemicals don't care about falling off a tree. Chemicals don't care about adding blocks. So how do chimps and monkeys do any of this without a soul?

Yes you reward monkeys for doing the right thing. From your link:"When I first began training the monkeys on the addition task, I thought I would have to wait for many weeks before they understood the task..."

No Thinker, I don't think monkeys care about logic, or the rules of math, I do however think they like Kool-Aid and can be pretty clever in getting what they want

No I never said that. I said that the fact that we can do anything unconsciously proves your view is wrong since it would be impossible.

I didn't say it was impossible, I said there is no good reason to assume that conscious awareness is not necessary for any possible action.

By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done.

Most of the work does not mean all of the work.

[Joel]

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.

The logical possibility/impossibility of anything is always dependent entirely on logic. That's what logical possibility means.
And lack of knowledge of a defeater is not a positive argument for something being logically possible. There might exist a logical defeater that we just haven't yet been clever enough to discover/realize. (And refuting a defeater would not be a positive argument either.)

[The Thinker]

Yes you reward monkeys for doing the right thing. From your link:"When I first began training the monkeys on the addition task, I thought I would have to wait for many weeks before they understood the task..."

No Thinker, I don't think monkeys care about logic, or the rules of math, I do however think they like Kool-Aid and can be pretty clever in getting what they want

But how can brain chemicals learn anything? Brain chemicals don't know how to do math. On your view there must be a soul to do anything rational, and cooperating in a mathematical test to get a reward cannot be instinct. Cleverness requires a brain that can think rationally.

I didn't say it was impossible, I said there is no good reason to assume that conscious awareness is not necessary for any possible action.

Your view would require it to be impossible. How could a person do anything non-instinctual without being conscious of it on your view?

Most of the work does not mean all of the work.

But how could the brain even be preparing to make your decision before you are consciously aware at all on your view? The existence of this is incompatible with it, since on your view the immaterial soul/mind is the initiator of the thought and action.

[The Thinker]

The logical possibility/impossibility of anything is always dependent entirely on logic. That's what logical possibility means.

I know, and that's exactly why your response to me made no sense. It's a false analogy.

And lack of knowledge of a defeater is not a positive argument for something being logically possible. There might exist a logical defeater that we just haven't yet been clever enough to discover/realize. (And refuting a defeater would not be a positive argument either.)

I agree. There is simply no logical contradiction with me flying. Just make your argument logically demonstrating LFW is coherent. It should be so easy for you since you believe it is.

[Joel]

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 think it is good policy to assume anything is possible until proven impossible. (Note that's not the same thing as assuming everything true until proven false.) The alternative--to rule out possibilities a priori without proof--seems foolish.

It seems that way to you only because you are bringing in additional assumptions of yours and adding them to what I've said.

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.

First of all that's not correct. You've committed the fallacy of "denying the antecedent" here. You are saying that if the premise is false (or can't be shown to be true), then the conclusion is false. Which does not follow. All that would do is show that particular argument to be unsound. It would shed no light on whether the conclusion is true.

Secondly, definitions are not premises, and are not things that need to be shown to be true, for an argument to be sound. Definitions are not true or false; they are just the establishing of the convention--what the arguer intends to mean by the terms used in the premises.

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."

even though you just above had claimed to know with 100% certainty 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".

I think I'm justified in what I said, because determinism requires that the state of affairs be determined by causes and necessity. But the idea of an infinite causal regress is insufficient to determine the actual state of affairs. So postulating one is insufficient to save determinism.

It may depend on the sense in which we mean "before".
If we mean temporally prior, my understanding is that the consensus among cosmologists is that time (as we know it) had a beginning at the big bang, so there is nothing temporally prior to the big bang.

But if we mean causally prior (which we probably do, because that's what we're discussing), then I think we have good reason to think that there must be something causally prior to the big bang. The big bang cannot have come to be from nothing. Nothing cannot cause anything (because then it wouldn't be nothing), and something cannot cause itself to come to be.

Beyond that, infinite regress doesn't help us either, so at some point, tracing causes back, we'd have to run into a 'first cause'.

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".

Wait, so you don't think humans making choices are deterministic? So do you believe in libertarian free will? Or something between LFW and determinism?

But as for the rock thing, all I was saying was that it seemed you were picturing a linear, non-branching "causal stream", and I was suggesting that a "web" would be a better picture, even within pure determinism (and for pure determinism, I used a rock as an example, for explaining the web). A fortiori, if there are additional factors besides pure determinism, I'd expect the whole to be at least as complex as the 'web' I described for determinism. And like your position here, I was saying that choice is an integral part of the whole web of causality. (As opposed to being something that "overrides" the causal web, which was the objection to which I was responding.) It now sounds like we don't differ much on this point.

[Joel]

And lack of knowledge of a defeater is not a positive argument for something being logically possible. There might exist a logical defeater that we just haven't yet been clever enough to discover/realize. (And refuting a defeater would not be a positive argument either.)

I agree. There is simply no logical contradiction with me flying. Just make your argument logically demonstrating LFW is coherent. It should be so easy for you since you believe it is.

So we agree that knowledge (or lack thereof) of defeaters is irrelevant to providing a positive argument. But then you only stated the conclusion again. You haven't shown us how to make the kind of positive argument you are looking for.
It's not easy for me to do it, because I don't know what the substance of such an argument would be like (and I'm not sure that it is possible to give such an argument for anything). That's why I'm asking you to provide an example.

Is it so easy for you to give the example argument with regards to you flying (because you believe you flying is logically possible)?

[Tassman]

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

You constantly repeat this same quote as if it's holy writ and representative of the majority of neurologists and biologists. It's not... and Harris himself says its not.

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?

Chemicals do not care about anything. But the brain can and does care. This is the consequence of natural selection and applies to all social species, not just human beings.

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

The conscious mind implements what the subconscious dictates.

Do chimps care about the laws of logic? I must have missed that.

They do actually. Chimps are quite capable of deductive reasoning as evidenced by their ability to figure out how to survive and thrive in their environment. E.g. A chimp can reason how to open nuts using a stone as a tool. He can make drinking cups out of a large leaves and lure insects out of their nests with a stick. All these things are based upon the laws of logic.

[Tassman]

I think it is good policy to assume anything is possible until proven impossible. (Note that's not the same thing as assuming everything true until proven false.) The alternative--to rule out possibilities a priori without proof--seems foolish.

improbable as to warrant discounting their existence altogether.

It seems that way to you only because you are bringing in additional assumptions of yours and adding them to what I've said.

First of all that's not correct. You've committed the fallacy of "denying the antecedent" here. You are saying that if the premise is false (or can't be shown to be true), then the conclusion is false. Which does not follow. All that would do is show that particular argument to be unsound. It would shed no light on whether the conclusion is true.

Secondly, definitions are not premises, and are not things that need to be shown to be true, for an argument to be sound. Definitions are not true or false; they are just the establishing of the convention--what the arguer intends to mean by the terms used in the premises.

A premise of a deductive argument needs to be demonstrably true for the conclusion to be shown as true.

even though you just above had claimed to know with 100% certainty 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".

I think I'm justified in what I said, because determinism requires that the state of affairs be determined by causes and necessity. But the idea of an infinite causal regress is insufficient to determine the actual state of affairs. So postulating one is insufficient to save determinism.

It may depend on the sense in which we mean "before".
If we mean temporally prior, my understanding is that the consensus among cosmologists is that time (as we know it) had a beginning at the big bang, so there is nothing temporally prior to the big bang.

But if we mean causally prior (which we probably do, because that's what we're discussing), then I think we have good reason to think that there must be something causally prior to the big bang. The big bang cannot have come to be from nothing. Nothing cannot cause anything (because then it wouldn't be nothing), and something cannot cause itself to come to be.

Beyond that, infinite regress doesn't help us either, so at some point, tracing causes back, we'd have to run into a 'first cause'

No you don't have to run into a 'first cause'...as much as you want one in order to save the god hypothesis.

There are several promising hypotheses concerning what occurred before the Big Bang. The most likely possibility seems to be that our universe is part of a much larger multiverse. And the most popular form of this hypothesis would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.

Wait, so you don't think humans making choices are deterministic? So do you believe in libertarian free will? Or something between LFW and determinism?

Living creatures such as humans have the power of choice within the framework of a determined universe, and this provides the illusion of acting freely. Hence, though we feel that we can freely choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that all biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and are therefore all determined. How can it be otherwise in a universe governed by the laws and constants of nature?

[The Thinker]

So we agree that knowledge (or lack thereof) of defeaters is irrelevant to providing a positive argument. But then you only stated the conclusion again. You haven't shown us how to make the kind of positive argument you are looking for.
It's not easy for me to do it, because I don't know what the substance of such an argument would be like (and I'm not sure that it is possible to give such an argument for anything). That's why I'm asking you to provide an example.

I didn't say it was irrelevant. It is relevant. I agreed that lacking a defeater for a claim in and of itself does not mean the claim is true. If there is a defeater to a claim, then it has to be rebutted when making a positive argument for it. (We have such a defeater for LFW) I don't need to show you how to make the kind of argument I'm looking for. That's your job. I clearly outlined what it should and should not contain. It should contain a logical proof of concept - to show LFW is possible. It should not simply assert that it is possible - which is all that you've provided so far on this thread. I told you that that is not a proper argument and I'm asking you to make one.

Is it so easy for you to give the example argument with regards to you flying (because you believe you flying is logically possible)?

The flying argument is an example of something logically possible; there is no way to logically defeat that argument. If me flying is F, there is no argument that can show ~F, as F violates no logical laws. LFW does violate logical laws. If our will is caused it isn't controlled by us, and therefore not free. If it is uncaused, then it can't be controlled by us. Hence, neither possibility offers us my (1) that we are in control of our will. (Saying the agent causes the will only pushes the problem back one step, and so it isn't an argument.)

So you need to make a positive logical argument, that proves (not asserts) it is possible that we are in control of our will, which is essential to LFW.

[Joel]

improbable as to warrant discounting their existence altogether.

Perhaps, but the topic of this thread is logical possibility.

That it is possible that an agent could exist that has some (perhaps limited) capacity to act (sometimes, to some degree) as an uncaused causer. And that in doing so, the agent is in control of the agent's action, and the agent had the ability to have acted differently than the agent did.

First of all that's not correct. You've committed the fallacy of "denying the antecedent" here. You are saying that if the premise is false (or can't be shown to be true), then the conclusion is false. Which does not follow. All that would do is show that particular argument to be unsound. It would shed no light on whether the conclusion is true.

That's also not correct. There could exist some other argument that is sound, that shows the conclusion to be true. Just because the first argument you are talking about is unsound, doesn't show the conclusion to be false, and it doesn't show the conclusion to be unprovable. As I said, "All that would do is show that particular argument to be unsound."

Secondly, definitions are not premises, and are not things that need to be shown to be true, for an argument to be sound. Definitions are not true or false; they are just the establishing of the convention--what the arguer intends to mean by the terms used in the premises.

A premise of a deductive argument needs to be demonstrably true for the conclusion to be shown as true.

Of course. (The premises, not the definitions.) What's your point?

I think I'm justified in what I said, because determinism requires that the state of affairs be determined by causes and necessity. But the idea of an infinite causal regress is insufficient to determine the actual state of affairs. So postulating one is insufficient to save determinism.

The existence of a 'first cause' does not require the universe to be not governed by the laws and constants of nature. Indeed in what you quoted there, I stipulated that the state of affairs is "determined by causes and necessity". The 'first cause' would be a constant (or necessity) of nature. But, as I said, the idea of an infinite regress (governed by the laws and constants of nature) is insufficient to determine the actual state of affairs. Thus if you also suppose the totality of the causal regress to include all the instantiation of the laws and constants of nature, it would imply that there must exist something else (besides the laws and constants of nature) in order to sufficiently determine the actual state of affairs. So it would be your infinite regress (not a 'first cause') that would force us to go beyond the laws and constants of nature.

Wait, so you don't think humans making choices are deterministic? So do you believe in libertarian free will? Or something between LFW and determinism?

Living creatures such as humans have the power of choice within the framework of a determined universe, and this provides the illusion of acting freely. Hence, though we feel that we can freely choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that all biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and are therefore all determined. How can it be otherwise in a universe governed by the laws and constants of nature?