Is libertarian free will coherent?

[seer]

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.

There is no misrepresentation Tass, because the bottom line is the same - we have no control over what we think, do or believe. If you believe that all events are predetermined and inevitable then you are a fatalist by definition.

[The Thinker]

There is no misrepresentation Tass, because the bottom line is the same - we have no control over what we think, do or believe. If you believe that all events are predetermined and inevitable then you are a fatalist by definition.

Once again....

Tassman is right. You never learn anything, it seems. No wonder you believe all this incoherent nonsense.

[seer]

Once again....

Tassman is right. You never learn anything, it seems. No wonder you believe all this incoherent nonsense.

determinism - (philosophy) a philosophical theory holding that all events are inevitable consequences of antecedent sufficient causes; often understood as denying the possibility of free will

It doesn't matter Thinker, that is the point. Whether fatalism or determinism the bottom line is the same, all events are inevitable and we have no control over what we think, do or say.

[Joel]

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.

It's at t2.

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.

I'm not seeing the connection. How is your think-of-it-before-you-can-think-of-it paradox entailed by "if the will/thoughts/soul is uncaused then we cannot be in control of it, because it is impossible to control an uncaused thing."?

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.

I see, so what you are arguing here (pushed back a step, as you say, to the first thing) is that if the agent is uncaused (when the agent LFW controls and causes the agent's action), then the agent cannot control the agent. What does that even mean? In what sense does the agent not control the agent when the agent does control the agent's actions (including perhaps mental actions like contemplating an idea)? Surely the only meaningful sense in which the agent controls the agent is in controlling the agent's actions. That is: all changes that result from the LFW choice (external and/or internal to the agent) are caused and controlled by the agent. All the changes are caused: by the agent. What else is there to control?

[Joel]

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.

I would consider "logically possible", "logically coherent", and "internally consistent" as being synonymous (as has "The Thinker" treated them). "Cohering" with external propositions/facts is a different matter. Coherent usually refers to something cohering with itself.
And no it need not be plausible. If something has any possibility at all, however improbable, it is logically possible.

It is logically incoherent for you to argue that somehow your will can override the laws and constants of nature...

I'm not arguing that. I explicitly disagreed with that when you said it before.

But LFW is logically impossible in a determined universe.

So? The advocate of LFW denies a determined universe in that sense. The very disagreement is between LFW and determinism.

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.

What assumption? That an infinite regress is insufficient? I argued that earlier. Turtles all the way down would be insufficient to support anything.

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.

Sorry, I was too terse. I meant, "...an infinite regress (and I've already established that any infinite regress is insufficient to determine the state of affairs and you haven't objected to that) could...".

[Tassman]

It doesn't matter Thinker, that is the point. Whether fatalism or determinism the bottom line is the same, all events are inevitable and we have no control over what we think, do or say.

[Tassman]

I would consider "logically possible", "logically coherent", and "internally consistent" as being synonymous (as has "The Thinker" treated them). "Cohering" with external propositions/facts is a different matter. Coherent usually refers to something cohering with itself.
And no it need not be plausible. If something has any possibility at all, however improbable, it is logically possible.

I'm not arguing that. I explicitly disagreed with that when you said it before.

So? The advocate of LFW denies a determined universe in that sense. The very disagreement is between LFW and determinism.

What assumption? That an infinite regress is insufficient? I argued that earlier. Turtles all the way down would be insufficient to support anything.

Sorry, I was too terse. I meant, "...an infinite regress (and I've already established that any infinite regress is insufficient to determine the state of affairs and you haven't objected to that) could...".

[seer]

Tass, do we have any control over what we think, do or say? And if all our acts are not inevitable in your deterministic sequence of events then what isn't inevitable?

[seer]

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.

That is nonsense, of course the Muslim or Christian can choose to abandon their faith. A good part of the Catholics I grew up with no longer practice faith.

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."

You can not show cause and effect, there are too many other variables. Do you really think that a country like Norway would have more crime if the majority of the country became devote Christians?

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 still 63% of the world is religious, only 11% are committed atheists. Obviously atheism deviates from the norm, probably a mental defect.

[The Thinker]

It doesn't matter Thinker, that is the point. Whether fatalism or determinism the bottom line is the same, all events are inevitable and we have no control over what we think, do or say.

It does matter, because fatalism is the belief that nothing you do will affect your future - so why do anything. Determinism is the belief that all effects have causes and that what you do today will affect your future by causing it - so it makes perfect sense to be proactive.

[seer]

It does matter, because fatalism is the belief that nothing you do will affect your future - so why do anything. Determinism is the belief that all effects have causes and that what you do today will affect your future by causing it - so it makes perfect sense to be proactive.

Thinker, that is not the only definition of fatalism, again:

Fatalism

Fa"tal*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. fatalisme.] The doctrine that all things are subject to fate, or that they take place by inevitable necessity.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resourc...ism&use1913=on

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/fatalism

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fatalism?rdfrom=Fatalism

Again, if you believe that all events take place by inevitable necessity then by definition that is fatalism.

[The Thinker]

That is nonsense, of course the Muslim or Christian can choose to abandon their faith. A good part of the Catholics I grew up with no longer practice faith.

It is not nonsense to conclude that the primary reason you're a Christian is because you grew up in a Christian family/environment. And it is not nonsense to conclude that the primary reason Saudi Arabians are Muslim is because they grew up in a Muslim family/environment. What religion you are is mostly due to where you happen to be born. That's why god judging people on what they believe is retarded.

You can not show cause and effect, there are too many other variables. Do you really think that a country like Norway would have more crime if the majority of the country became devote Christians?

I can show cause and effect. What causes religion to drop is higher living standards. In other words, when countries start getting rich, they tend to become less religious. This is sometimes called the existential security thesis (EST) or the socioeconomic security hypothesis (SSH). For more information on the latter see Gregory Paul's paper The chronic dependence of popular religiosity upon dysfunctional social conditions.

And still 63% of the world is religious, only 11% are committed atheists. Obviously atheism deviates from the norm, probably a mental defect.

LOL. It's the poorest and least educated people that are usually the most religious - and the most educated are usually the least religious. Far from being a mental defect, atheism is realizing your imaginary friends are imaginary.

Belief in god is actually explained as evolutionary defect- called the hyperactive agency detection device.

[The Thinker]

Thinker, that is not the only definition of fatalism, again:



Again, if you believe that all events take place by inevitable necessity then by definition that is fatalism.

Who said all things? Some things won't happen. I won't sprout wings and fly anytime ever. Fatalism doesn't involve causes, it thinks that things will just happen. That's what makes it different from determinism.

[The Thinker]

It's at t2.

According to your bare assertion. You didn't logically show it.

I'm not seeing the connection. How is your think-of-it-before-you-can-think-of-it paradox entailed by "if the will/thoughts/soul is uncaused then we cannot be in control of it, because it is impossible to control an uncaused thing."?

Do I really have to spell this out to you? It's very obvious. If something is uncaused, you can't have control over it. If you can't have control over it, it can't be freely willed. You'd have to have the ability to cause it before the thought exists in the same way a being that created itself would have to exist before it exists.

I see, so what you are arguing here (pushed back a step, as you say, to the first thing) is that if the agent is uncaused (when the agent LFW controls and causes the agent's action), then the agent cannot control the agent. What does that even mean? In what sense does the agent not control the agent when the agent does control the agent's actions (including perhaps mental actions like contemplating an idea)? Surely the only meaningful sense in which the agent controls the agent is in controlling the agent's actions. That is: all changes that result from the LFW choice (external and/or internal to the agent) are caused and controlled by the agent. All the changes are caused: by the agent. What else is there to control?

What does it mean? It means the agent cannot control it's will, desires, nor its actions. It cannot control anything. You can't tell me anything distinct between what you think is an LFW choice or action vs one that is completely determined - or spontaneous and random (although like I said that latter would not involve any causal/logical connection to the situation). And you have the logical paradox I've been telling you over and over again, that you have not resolved. The agent not controlling the agent cannot control its actions, because its actions stem from thoughts, mental processes, thinking, (on dualism) which cause them, and the thoughts, mental processes, and thinking cannot be controlled by the agent - because to claim they can is to face the original dilemma. And claiming "the LFW choice (external and/or internal to the agent)" makes no sense. And I'm not going to accept any degraded form of LFW. I want you to show the real deal as I outlined in my original post.

So stop wasting my time again, and make a logical argument showing LFW is coherent. Seriously.

[Tassman]

Tass, do we have any control over what we think, do or say? And if all our acts are not inevitable in your deterministic sequence of events then what isn't inevitable?

For the thousandth time: "YOU" are not separate from your brain, you ARE your brain. It is our physical brain, following the known laws of science that determines our actions. ALL the available evidence indicates that our decisions (and that of all sentient creatures) are in and of themselves essential components of the deterministic causal chain. Mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events and play a crucial role in determining what will happen.

There's not a shred of credible evidence supporting your assertion that one can exercise agency outside of the laws of science. If you think one can exercise agency outside of those laws, present your evidence. To date, despite numerous requests, you've been totally unable to support your assertion of LFW. You've been conspicuous by your silence. You demand your opponents explain themselves but are not prepared (or able) to do the same...in short, you're exercising 'double standards'.