Is libertarian free will coherent?

[The Thinker]

Okay, so we are just back to me resolving your apparent contradiction about having to contemplate an idea before you decide to contemplate it. And what I did was to explain that contemplating an idea at t1 (during deliberation) does not necessarily determine whether you will be contemplating that idea at t3. And if it doesn't determine that, then there still exists the possibility of freedom of choice (at t2) in whether to contemplate the idea at t3. Thus the apparent contradiction vanishes.

(In addition to that I pointed out at least two ways you don't need to contemplate the exact same idea at t1. And again the apparent contradiction vanishes.)

You have not shown, demonstrated, or explained anything about how t2 is a LFW event. All you did was just say it is, or is possible. On top of that you haven't shown, demonstrated, or explained why t1 is a LFW event either. Literally nothing you just said shows, demonstrates, or explains LFW. T1 doesn't have to determine t2 in order for the incoherency to occur.

[Joel]

Okay, so we are just back to me resolving your apparent contradiction about having to contemplate an idea before you decide to contemplate it. And what I did was to explain that contemplating an idea at t1 (during deliberation) does not necessarily determine whether you will be contemplating that idea at t3. And if it doesn't determine that, then there still exists the possibility of freedom of choice (at t2) in whether to contemplate the idea at t3. Thus the apparent contradiction vanishes.

(In addition to that I pointed out at least two ways you don't need to contemplate the exact same idea at t1. And again the apparent contradiction vanishes.)

You have not shown, demonstrated, or explained anything about how t2 is a LFW event. All you did was just say it is, or is possible....Literally nothing you just said shows, demonstrates, or explains LFW.

True. What I did was make a negative argument: to explain why your apparent paradox is not a contradiction. Because you said "As far as positive or negative arguments, it doesn't matter to me which one you make."

But now you are back to insisting on a positive argument, in which case I say, I don't know how to do that for anything, and I'd like you to give an example.

On top of that you haven't shown, demonstrated, or explained why t1 is a LFW event either.

Of course. I said that it is irrelevant whether t1 events were the result of LFW choices or not. And it itself is not the making of a selection (libertarian or otherwise).

T1 doesn't have to determine t2 in order for the incoherency to occur.

Oh? Explain to me the paradox in the case in which t1 does not determine t2, t3. If it still results in a contradiction, tell me what is the proposition that is both true and not true at the same time in the same sense.

[Tassman]

If you think the topic of this thread doesn't warrant consideration, nobody is forcing you to participate.

Perhaps it is possible for the choosing and acting of that agent to be part of the laws and constants of nature. (It's not thought that all laws of nature are known. It's also not certain that the laws of this universe's nature are the only logically possible set of laws.) Or perhaps it is beyond the laws and constants of nature. I haven't seen a need to take a position on that either way.

But this argument depends upon unknowns that might

A definition can be understood in two equivalent ways: (1) It is the assigning of a label to something so that we can use that label (term) as a convenient way to refer to that thing. Or, equivalently, (2) it is the explanation of what we mean when we use a particular term. It is a convention--not something that is objectively true or false. Thus it is adopted as a convention and not something needing to be proved or disproved. There is no point to debating or arguing about definitions.

Premises, on the other hand, are claims about objective reality, are objectively true or false, and thus are potentially subject to debate, proof, and disproof.

We could take some examples from Euclid's Elements.
For example he defines the term "line" to mean a length without breadth.
Now that's not something that is objectively true or false. Other languages might refer to the same thing by a different word than "line". (In fact, Euclid, writing in ancient Greek, did use a different word than "line".) There's no point in arguing about what label we use to refer to the thing. Rather, he is just stating the definition as the convention, so we know what he's talking about when he uses the term. The definition is not predicating anything except the usage of a term.

After his definitions, his first actual premise is that, on a plane, it is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point. Unlike the definitions, this is an objective claim, that is true or false. It is predicating something other than the usage of a term. (Now it's true that Euclid didn't prove his premises (or "postulates"). He assumed that they would be seen as obviously true by his readers. My point here is to illustrate the difference between a definition and a premise.)

(I assume that you mean here by "universe" not this universe, which you were saying had a beginning, along with infinite other universes. I assume that here you are referring to some larger 'universe' that contains this and all other sub-universes.)
First, I don't know that that's likely. That's just something you said.
Secondly, I've explained the reason for raising the notion: It is the only way to save causality/determinism. The alternative: postulating an infinite regress is insufficient to determine the state of affairs, and would mean causality/determinism is incomplete/insufficient, and would require us going beyond it which would be abandoning it. Are you comfortable abandoning causality/determinism? You say "Nothing can be beyond determinism," in which case you must reject infinite regress as a solution. Thus you must accept some 'first cause'.

thinkthink

[seer]

I actually feel sorry for you and people like you who have been brainwashed for years by religious views and people. I want to make sure that future generations are not poisoned this way, because it is clear that your brainwashing is so ingrained that you can never see the wrongness of your beliefs.

Faith is dangerous.

Again, do you see how stupid this is coming from your worldview? You already admitted that we have no control over what we believe, do or say. If we are brainwashed it is because we were determined by the antecedent forces of nature to think this way. Besides, perhaps a common religion is necessary for survival, social cohesion, and a sense of purpose and worth. Perhaps we evolved into the kind of creatures that need religion, in some form, to function correctly. Who knows - certainly you don't.

[The Thinker]

True. What I did was make a negative argument: to explain why your apparent paradox is not a contradiction. Because you said "As far as positive or negative arguments, it doesn't matter to me which one you make."

But now you are back to insisting on a positive argument, in which case I say, I don't know how to do that for anything, and I'd like you to give an example.

No. That's the thing. You didn't make a successful negative argument showing that there is no contradiction. The contradiction is still there because you haven't addressed it, you mere claimed that at a certain time the agent makes a LFW decision.

Of course. I said that it is irrelevant whether t1 events were the result of LFW choices or not. And it itself is not the making of a selection (libertarian or otherwise).

So that means neither of your examples were LFW. Not one.

Oh? Explain to me the paradox in the case in which t1 does not determine t2, t3. If it still results in a contradiction, tell me what is the proposition that is both true and not true at the same time in the same sense.

There are two horns of the paradox, which makes it a dilemma. You know how dilemmas work, don't you? One is that if our will/thoughts/soul (or whatever you call the first thing involved) is caused, then our will isn't free because we had no control over it. The other horn is that if the will/thoughts/soul is uncaused then we cannot be in control of it, because it is impossible to control an uncaused thing. To control it would be to caused it, and since it's uncaused, it can't be controlled.

So all you've done is claim that t2 or t3 is not caused by t1 which would make it uncaused - which means you've stuck yourself on the second horn of the dilemma. The proposition that is contradictory would be claiming our will/soul/mind or whatever at t2 or t3 is controlled by us, and yet is uncaused. That is inherently contradictory and doesn't satisfy my (1).

[The Thinker]

Again, do you see how stupid this is coming from your worldview? You already admitted that we have no control over what we believe, do or say. If we are brainwashed it is because we were determined by the antecedent forces of nature to think this way. Besides, perhaps a common religion is necessary for survival, social cohesion, and a sense of purpose and worth.

There is nothing stupid at all on my worldview, in fact quite the opposite. In my worldview things have causes and reliable effects, on yours they don't. So on your view, telling someone something or educating them would have no causal connection because your view requires that our thoughts be uncaused. By me advocating against dangerous religious thinking, I'm trying to be the cause that has the effect of making people less religious, in the same way that someone else was the cause that made you religious. Do not confuse determinism with fatalism. That is an elementary mistake.

A common religion isn't necessary for survival in the modern world. It may have helped us hundreds or thousands of years ago, but we don't need it anymore in the same way a grown up child doesn't need training wheels anymore.

Perhaps we evolved into the kind of creatures that need religion, in some form, to function correctly. Who knows - certainly you don't.

This is hilarious. The guy who believes incoherent things due to his religion is telling me that religion is necessary to function properly. The irony. The safest countries in the world are usually the least religious, and the most dangerous are usually the most religious. So this is total nonsense.

[seer]

There is nothing stupid at all on my worldview, in fact quite the opposite. In my worldview things have causes and reliable effects, on yours they don't. So on your view, telling someone something or educating them would have no causal connection because your view requires that our thoughts be uncaused. By me advocating against dangerous religious thinking, I'm trying to be the cause that has the effect of making people less religious, in the same way that someone else was the cause that made you religious. Do not confuse determinism with fatalism. That is an elementary mistake.

Utter bunk Thinker, in your world everything is determined - nothing escapes. We have no control over what we think, do or believe. And that includes religious beliefs.

A common religion isn't necessary for survival in the modern world. It may have helped us hundreds or thousands of years ago, but we don't need it anymore in the same way a grown up child doesn't need training wheels anymore.

How do you know that? Even today the vast majority of human beings are religious. There is an old saying; you don't knock a wall down until you know why it was put up in the first place. You believe that the majority of humanity can live without the hope and transcendent purpose that religion offers - but you can not know that. And you think that man can now give up religious beliefs - has man really changed that much? I doubt it.

This is hilarious. The guy who believes incoherent things due to his religion is telling me that religion is necessary to function properly. The irony. The safest countries in the world are usually the least religious, and the most dangerous are usually the most religious. So this is total nonsense.

You mean the safest countries with a historical Christian background? The ones that were saved from Fascism and Communism by the largely Christian USA? And how safe is China, Cuba, North Korea? How safe was the Soviet Union? And yes, obviously in the evolutionary sense, religion was selected for - and probably for a good reason.

[Joel]

No. That's the thing. You didn't make a successful negative argument showing that there is no contradiction. The contradiction is still there because you haven't addressed it, you mere claimed that at a certain time the agent makes a LFW decision.

No, what I said was:

"Okay, so we are just back to me resolving your apparent contradiction about having to contemplate an idea before you decide to contemplate it. And what I did was to explain that contemplating an idea at t1 (during deliberation) does not necessarily determine whether you will be contemplating that idea at t3. And if it doesn't determine that, then there still exists the possibility of freedom of choice (at t2) in whether to contemplate the idea at t3. Thus the apparent contradiction vanishes.

"(In addition to that I pointed out at least two ways you don't need to contemplate the exact same idea at t1. And again the apparent contradiction vanishes.)"

Of course. I said that it is irrelevant whether t1 events were the result of LFW choices or not. And it itself is not the making of a selection (libertarian or otherwise).

So that means neither of your examples were LFW. Not one.

My model never required that t1 be a LFW choice. That t1 is not LFW does not imply that t2 is not. So your statement here does not follow.

Oh? Explain to me the paradox in the case in which t1 does not determine t2, t3. If it still results in a contradiction, tell me what is the proposition that is both true and not true at the same time in the same sense.

There are two horns of the paradox, which makes it a dilemma. You know how dilemmas work, don't you? One is that if our will/thoughts/soul (or whatever you call the first thing involved) is caused, then our will isn't free because we had no control over it. The other horn is that if the will/thoughts/soul is uncaused then we cannot be in control of it, because it is impossible to control an uncaused thing. To control it would be to caused it, and since it's uncaused, it can't be controlled.

So all you've done is claim that t2 or t3 is not caused by t1 which would make it uncaused - which means you've stuck yourself on the second horn of the dilemma. The proposition that is contradictory would be claiming our will/soul/mind or whatever at t2 or t3 is controlled by us, and yet is uncaused. That is inherently contradictory and doesn't satisfy my (1).

You switched here to a different apparent paradox. We were talking about your think-before-you-think paradox in particular, and I asked you to explain it in the case in which t1 does not determine t2, t3. But instead here you are talking about a different apparent paradox.

But you already know, by now, how I resolve this paradox: If they are LFW chosen, then they are caused: by the agent. And if they are caused by the agent, there is no reason to think the agent didn't control them. I do not say they are "controlled by us and yet uncaused." I say they are both controlled and caused by the agent. Just because they are not caused by the contemplation of the ideas (contemplated at t1) does not imply they are uncaused. They may be caused by something else. For example, they could be caused by the agent at t2. And so this apparent paradox too vanishes.

[The Thinker]

Utter bunk Thinker, in your world everything is determined - nothing escapes. We have no control over what we think, do or believe. And that includes religious beliefs.

Determinism does not = fatalism. You're just too childish and uneducated to realize this. You don't need to have control over what you think in order for your beliefs to change.

And the hilarity of you saying this is underscored by the fact that your view is logically incoherent, and because thoughts have no causes it would be utterly pointless to teach anyone anything. But religious people like you are OK with having incoherent believes. That's why religious thinking is dangerous. Well, one reason.

How do you know that? Even today the vast majority of human beings are religious. There is an old saying; you don't knock a wall down until you know why it was put up in the first place. You believe that the majority of humanity can live without the hope and transcendent purpose that religion offers - but you can not know that. And you think that man can now give up religious beliefs - has man really changed that much? I doubt it.

I know that because over a billion people worldwide are atheists and their societies are not falling apart. Quite the contrary, countries with large atheist/secular populations tend to be the richest and safest in the world, and for religious countries it's the opposite. Even in US states that are less religious they tend to be safer and richer.

This goes directly against your false belief that religion is needed.

You mean the safest countries with a historical Christian background? The ones that were saved from Fascism and Communism by the largely Christian USA? And how safe is China, Cuba, North Korea? How safe was the Soviet Union? And yes, obviously in the evolutionary sense, religion was selected for - and probably for a good reason.

Japan and South Korea don't come from Christian backgrounds and they are among the safest and richest in the world. As far as a Christian background, the Christianity itself is not needed anymore, just like a child's training wheels. And North Korea is not an atheist country, it is the most religious country in the world. The leader is worshiped as a god.

[Joel]

Oh are you insisting on a positive argument for that too? Can you give an example of how something else is proved to be logically coherent? I'm not sure how that would be done for anything.

But this argument depends upon unknowns that might

Perhaps, but it is all that's needed to show that what you said doesn't prove LFW to be logically impossible.

Firstly, if that is a contradiction, then the infinite regress would be self-contradictory, because it would be both insuficient--requiring something additional--and would contradict the something additional.

Secondly, I'm not sure it would be a contradiction because an (insufficient) infinite regress could, as a whole, have a cause external to it. (Which for similar reasons would need to begin with a 'first cause') But either way, a 'first cause' is still needed, in which case there is no reason to propose an infinite regress.

Thirdly, you may be just arguing that if I can conclude the existence of an uncaused 'first cause' as an uncaused stopping point, why can't you just as well propose that the "the universe" is the uncaused stopping point. Well two things: (A) If you mean that in the same sense (an uncaused cause), then we are both talking about a 'first cause', and we agree that there is a 'first cause'. But (B) if you are referring to it as an infinite regress, then you aren't talking about the same thing and so it's an invalid comparison, and the infinite regress has the problems I've pointed out before.

[The Thinker]

No, what I said was:

"Okay, so we are just back to me resolving your apparent contradiction about having to contemplate an idea before you decide to contemplate it. And what I did was to explain that contemplating an idea at t1 (during deliberation) does not necessarily determine whether you will be contemplating that idea at t3. And if it doesn't determine that, then there still exists the possibility of freedom of choice (at t2) in whether to contemplate the idea at t3. Thus the apparent contradiction vanishes.

"(In addition to that I pointed out at least two ways you don't need to contemplate the exact same idea at t1. And again the apparent contradiction vanishes.)"

I know exactly what you said, you still have not in any way avoided the dilemma. You again just asserted that LFW is possible without actually showing it.

My model never required that t1 be a LFW choice. That t1 is not LFW does not imply that t2 is not. So your statement here does not follow.

I'm just mentioning this so that you are aware that not a single time on your model is LFW.

You switched here to a different apparent paradox. We were talking about your think-before-you-think paradox in particular, and I asked you to explain it in the case in which t1 does not determine t2, t3. But instead here you are talking about a different apparent paradox.

No, it's the same paradox. The think-of-it-before-you-can-think-of-it problem applies to the second horn of the dilemma as it is entailed by it. In my original post I clearly mentioned all these problems separately.

But you already know, by now, how I resolve this paradox: If they are LFW chosen, then they are caused: by the agent. And if they are caused by the agent, there is no reason to think the agent didn't control them. I do not say they are "controlled by us and yet uncaused." I say they are both controlled and caused by the agent. Just because they are not caused by the contemplation of the ideas (contemplated at t1) does not imply they are uncaused. They may be caused by something else. For example, they could be caused by the agent at t2. And so this apparent paradox too vanishes.

This is not in any way a resolution to the paradox. I already mentioned in my post the will/soul/mind/ or "or whatever you call the first thing involved" to act as a catch-all to cover this attempt by you. Claiming the agent causes the will only pushes the problem back a step. Now the agent faces the dilemma.

Besides, saying an agent causes your thoughts doesn't actually explain anything. It's not even logical, considering that you previous said the agent is the will/soul/mind.

[seer]

Determinism does not = fatalism. You're just too childish and uneducated to realize this. You don't need to have control over what you think in order for your beliefs to change.

I didn't say that beliefs couldn't change, but how they change or what they change into is beyond your control. You have no control over whether you are religious or not. So when you claim any knowledge on any subject we can all take it with a grain of salt since you are only spitting out what you were determined to - true or not, right or wrong. Your brain chemicals pull the strings and you dance...

I know that because over a billion people worldwide are atheists and their societies are not falling apart. Quite the contrary, countries with large atheist/secular populations tend to be the richest and safest in the world, and for religious countries it's the opposite. Even in US states that are less religious they tend to be safer and richer.

Yes like I said, countries with a strong Christian history. Who were saved by the Christian USA. And this is fairly new - let's see what these countries look like a hundred years from now. No wait - they will all probably be Muslim by then - evolution in action.

This goes directly against your false belief that religion is needed.

No it doesn't. It is way to early to know.

Japan and South Korea don't come from Christian backgrounds and they are among the safest and richest in the world. As far as a Christian background, the Christianity itself is not needed anymore, just like a child's training wheels. And North Korea is not an atheist country, it is the most religious country in the world. The leader is worshiped as a god.

Japan and South Korea are not religious?

Religion in South Korea is characterized by the fact that almost half (46.5%) of South Koreans have no religion; among those that follow a formal religion, there is a dominance of Buddhism, Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism. According to the census of the year 2005, 22.8% of the population identifies as Buddhist, 18.3% as Protestant and 10.9% as Roman Catholic, totaling a 29.2% Christian population.[1] These three denominations have grown rapidly in influence only by the mid-20th century, as part of the profound transformations that the South Korean society has gone through in the past century

So half the population is religious with Christianity on the rise. And in Japan:

Religion in Japan is dominated by Shinto (the ethnic religion of the Japanese people) and by Buddhist schools and organisations. According to surveys carried out in 2006[1] and 2008,[2] less than 40% of the population of Japan identifies with an organised religion: around 35% are Buddhists, 3% to 4% are members of Shinto sects and derived religions, and 1% to 2.3% are Christians.[note 2]

Most of the Japanese (50% to 80% considering degrees of syncretism with Buddhism, shinbutsu-shūgō[3]) pray and worship ancestors and gods (神 kami, shin or, archaically, jin) at Shinto shrines or private altars, while not identifying as "Shinto" or "Shintoist" in surveys.

[The Thinker]

I didn't say that beliefs couldn't change, but how they change or what they change into is beyond your control. You have no control over whether you are religious or not. So when you claim any knowledge on any subject we can all take it with a grain of salt since you are only spitting out what you were determined to - true or not, right or wrong. Your brain chemicals pull the strings and you dance...

You have no control either way. Do you think someone born in Saudi Arabia has a choice in being Muslim? Did you choose to be born into a Christian family or a majority Christian country or culture? No. You are what you are because of some contingent circumstances that you had no control over.

And besides, your worldview doesn't allow us to choice our thoughts in the libertarian way because it's logically impossible. So you keep complaining about something you can't even avoid.

Yes like I said, countries with a strong Christian history. Who were saved by the Christian USA. And this is fairly new - let's see what these countries look like a hundred years from now. No wait - they will all probably be Muslim by then - evolution in action.

It is not guaranteed that Islam will dominate. We have to stop it. Many of those population projections are done entirely on birth rates, and they completely ignore deconversions. I wrote about Pew's inaccurate stats on my blog. Once secularism gets a foothold in the Islamic majority countries, it's the end of Islam.

No it doesn't. It is way to early to know.

Yes it does because the areas of the world that are still mostly religious are usually the most dangerous. And as the US has gotten less religious crime has gone down. There was more crime and racism and discrimination when the US was a "Christian country."

Japan and South Korea are not religious?


So half the population is religious with Christianity on the rise. And in Japan:

By and large, yes. According to a WIN/Gallup International poll majorities in Canada, the UK, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Israel, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, South Korea, China & Japan are either not religious or convinced atheists.


You can see an interactive map of the survey results here. Only 13% of people in Japan said they were religious, and only 44% of S. Korea.

And Shintoism and Buddhism can be mere philosophies. They do not require god belief. I actually was a Buddhist for a little while.

[Tassman]

Oh are you insisting on a positive argument for that too? Can you give an example of how something else is proved to be logically coherent? I'm not sure how that would be done for anything.

Logical coherence means that an argument makes sense on a fundamental level, recognizes all available and known facts, and is internally consistent. It may or may not be correct, but it must be plausible. Your argument is NOT plausible. It is logically incoherent for you to argue that somehow your will can override the laws and constants of nature when you, yourself, are subject to the very same laws and constants of nature.

Perhaps, but it is all that's needed to show that what you said doesn't prove LFW to be logically impossible.

But LFW is logically impossible in a determined universe. See above.

Firstly, if that is a contradiction, then the infinite regress would be self-contradictory, because it would be both insuficient--requiring something additional--and would contradict the something additional.

Secondly, I'm not sure it would be a contradiction because an (insufficient) infinite regress could, as a whole, have a cause external to it. (Which for similar reasons would need to begin with a 'first cause') But either way, a 'first cause' is still needed, in which case there is no reason to propose an infinite regress.

Thirdly, you may be just arguing that if I can conclude the existence of an uncaused 'first cause' as an uncaused stopping point, why can't you just as well propose that the "the universe" is the uncaused stopping point. Well two things: (A) If you mean that in the same sense (an uncaused cause), then we are both talking about a 'first cause', and we agree that there is a 'first cause'. But (B) if you are referring to it as an infinite regress, then you aren't talking about the same thing and so it's an invalid comparison, and the infinite regress has the problems I've pointed out before.

[Tassman]

There is nothing stupid at all on my worldview, in fact quite the opposite. In my worldview things have causes and reliable effects, on yours they don't. So on your view, telling someone something or educating them would have no causal connection because your view requires that our thoughts be uncaused. By me advocating against dangerous religious thinking, I'm trying to be the cause that has the effect of making people less religious, in the same way that someone else was the cause that made you religious. Do not confuse determinism with fatalism. That is an elementary mistake.

A common religion isn't necessary for survival in the modern world. It may have helped us hundreds or thousands of years ago, but we don't need it anymore in the same way a grown up child doesn't need training wheels anymore.

This is hilarious. The guy who believes incoherent things due to his religion is telling me that religion is necessary to function properly. The irony. The safest countries in the world are usually the least religious, and the most dangerous are usually the most religious. So this is total nonsense.

And it's one seer makes over and over again...seemingly deliberately. His entire argument is based upon misrepresenting 'determinism' as 'fatalism' despite being corrected many times.