Is libertarian free will coherent?

[seer]

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.

It is a reason, why is it that I had friends who were raised Catholic who now practice Buddhism, or are agnostic?

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).

Good so we agree that it not necessarily religion that causes higher levels of crime. Which was what you implied.

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.

Just goes to show that you can brainwash the common sense out of a man.

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

So the evolutionary process deceived us again! I wonder what it deceived you about? That Epiphenomenalism is true? BTW your link it pure assumption based on nothing.

[Tassman]

Just goes to show that you can brainwash the common sense out of a man.

What it shows is that the critical thinking skills consequent upon higher education enable the religiously acculturated to break free of such unsubstantiated nonsense.

[seer]

What it shows is that the critical thinking skills consequent upon higher education enable the religiously acculturated to break free of such unsubstantiated nonsense.

I guess men like Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Kepler, Pascal, Newton, Robert Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Max Planck, Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, William Daniel Phillips, Frank J. Tipler, Freeman Dyson, etc... have not yet reached your level of intellectual acumen Tass... Those poor deluded fellows.

[The Thinker]

It is a reason, why is it that I had friends who were raised Catholic who now practice Buddhism, or are agnostic?

Because those friends were exposed to Buddhism in such a way that it had a causal effect on their way of thinking.

Good so we agree that it not necessarily religion that causes higher levels of crime. Which was what you implied.

I didn't mean to imply that, I meant to dispel the myth that religion makes people and societies better. That is empirically false as the data shows. The least religious societies are the safest usually, and the most religious societies are the most violent usually. That you know of a few people whose lives are better once they found Jesus is anecdotal, and not relevant.

Just goes to show that you can brainwash the common sense out of a man.

Religion is common sense? Ha! It often requires you believing incoherent things, like LFW. That's not common sense.

So the evolutionary process deceived us again! I wonder what it deceived you about? That Epiphenomenalism is true?

The things we believe are true have to be supported by evidence, good evidence. LFW isn't; epiphenominalism is.

BTW your link it pure assumption based on nothing.

The link is just supposed to be a summary. If you want to see some of the other evidence in favor of it, read this post here.

[The Thinker]

I guess men like Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Kepler, Pascal, Newton, Robert Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Max Planck, Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, William Daniel Phillips, Frank J. Tipler, Freeman Dyson, etc... have not yet reached your level of intellectual acumen Tass... Those poor deluded fellows.

Let's not forget that prior to the 1800s, in many European countries it was illegal to profess atheism openly. This made people who were doubters pretend to be religious even though they weren't. This still exists today, in many parts of the world, especially in Islamic countries. And the social pressure to conform to the dominant religion is still widespread even in countries where atheism is not illegal.

By the late 1800s, once atheism/agnosticism started becoming socially acceptable, you saw a tremendous consensus change from believing in god to not believing in god/doubting god. And since the time of Einstein, atheists and agnostics have dominated the sciences, both social and the physical. And definitely for philosophy.

So your point is mute. Francis Collins believes in god for moral reasons, which is one of the worst reasons to believe in god. And this is a reason why many scientific contemporaries believe in god- it's mainly because they as scientists lack the philosophical knowledge to show how morality has nothing to do with god.

[seer]

Because those friends were exposed to Buddhism in such a way that it had a causal effect on their way of thinking.

Thinker the point is that just because you are born in a country with a dominate religion does not mean that you will follow that religion, which you implied.

I didn't mean to imply that, I meant to dispel the myth that religion makes people and societies better. That is empirically false as the data shows. The least religious societies are the safest usually, and the most religious societies are the most violent usually. That you know of a few people whose lives are better once they found Jesus is anecdotal, and not relevant.

That is just silly, you can not make that claim, like I said there are too many variables. Perhaps if all Norwegians or Danes were devout Christians their societies would be better still. And perhaps the violent societies that are largely religious would be even more violent with out religious belief. These things just can't be quantified.

Religion is common sense? Ha! It often requires you believing incoherent things, like LFW. That's not common sense.

Well religions belief is certainly common to the human condition.

The things we believe are true have to be supported by evidence, good evidence. LFW isn't; epiphenominalism is.

That makes no sense, since you could be just as deceived about the "evidence." Or how you process the evidence or what constitutes "good" evidence.

The link is just supposed to be a summary. If you want to see some of the other evidence in favor of it

And like your original link stated: "simple overattribution of agency cannot entirely account for the belief in God..."

And I'm enjoying your back and forth with Luke Breuer on your site...

[seer]

Let's not forget that prior to the 1800s, in many European countries it was illegal to profess atheism openly. This made people who were doubters pretend to be religious even though they weren't. This still exists today, in many parts of the world, especially in Islamic countries. And the social pressure to conform to the dominant religion is still widespread even in countries where atheism is not illegal.

Silly, there is no evidence that any of these men were not committed theists, especially the modern scientists. I mean Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of human history, wrote more on theology than on science.

So your point is mute. Francis Collins believes in god for moral reasons, which is one of the worst reasons to believe in god. And this is a reason why many scientific contemporaries believe in god- it's mainly because they as scientists lack the philosophical knowledge to show how morality has nothing to do with god.

Nonsense Thinker, I have watched Francis Collins, he believes in God for more than moral reasons. As does Kenneth R. Miller, Freeman Dyson, etc... And my point is that many very intelligent men have been and are theists.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html

[The Thinker]

Thinker the point is that just because you are born in a country with a dominate religion does not mean that you will follow that religion, which you implied.

I never said that, I said there is strong likelihood that one will be the religion he/she was raised in. It's the most important factor in determining one's religion.

That is just silly, you can not make that claim, like I said there are too many variables. Perhaps if all Norwegians or Danes were devout Christians their societies would be better still. And perhaps the violent societies that are largely religious would be even more violent with out religious belief. These things just can't be quantified.

If either of those two possibilities were true, it wouldn't challenge my claim one bit. The statistics show that religion does not make societies better. If it did there would be a correlation between high religiosity and low crime.

Well religions belief is certainly common to the human condition.

That doesn't in any way make it common sense.

That makes no sense, since you could be just as deceived about the "evidence." Or how you process the evidence or what constitutes "good" evidence.

We could always be deceived by evidence - as a mere logical possibility, but that doesn't mean that things upheld by good evidence is just as good as things that aren't. That makes no sense. Good evidence on this subject matter is scientific evidence and logical coherency. Making a claim about the nature of free will and dualism is a claim onto how the physical world works, and is therefore a claim within the domain of science.

And like your original link stated: "simple overattribution of agency cannot entirely account for the belief in God..."

And I'm enjoying your back and forth with Luke Breuer on your site...

That's just one view, and the persons who said that think it's "likely" this is the case. Basically we have evolutionary explanations for god belief so it would actually be expected given our evolutionary history.

[The Thinker]

Silly, there is no evidence that any of these men were not committed theists, especially the modern scientists. I mean Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of human history, wrote more on theology than on science.

I didn't say they weren't, I said that professing belief in god in a society that criminalizes disbelief is not good evidence that god belief is always sincere, since almost everyone back then had to publicly profess belief. But I don't care if they were all theists. Back then we didn't know enough about the world to make atheism popular. Today most of the world's scientists are atheist/agnostic or "spiritual." Few believe in a personal god. Einstein thought that was childish. As for Newton, he was a unitarian. So does that mean unitarianism is more logical than trinitarianism? If no, then you admit Newton was wrong about god and religion, in which case he's no more an authority on what's correct than any one else on your list. Interestingly, Newton had quack beliefs, but we don't remember him for that, we remember him for his science.

Nonsense Thinker, I have watched Francis Collins, he believes in God for more than moral reasons. As does Kenneth R. Miller, Freeman Dyson, etc... And my point is that many very intelligent men have been and are theists.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html

Show me a reason for why he believes that isn't related to morality and I will accept that. Ken Miller - who is a very smart biologist who I respect - thinks god works through quantum indeterminacy along with Collins. But this is false:

[seer]

Show me a reason for why he believes that isn't related to morality and I will accept that.

Here are the questions that Collin believes God answers, so it is just not about morality.

By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN
Adjust font size:Decrease fontEnlarge font
Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/col...?eref=rss_tops

[The Thinker]

Here are the questions that Collin believes God answers, so it is just not about morality.

Oh Ok. More bad assumption laden questions.

[seer]

Oh Ok. More bad assumption laden questions.

Fine, but it was not just about morality.

[The Thinker]

Fine, but it was not just about morality.

OK, I'm willing to accept that. Personally I like Collins and Miller - their work is superb, but their theological beliefs are irrelevant to their work. In fact, scientists use methodological naturalism during their work. I can give you a much bigger list of atheist scientists and thinkers, would you accept that smarter people adopt atheism on this basis?

[Joel]

I disagree that it's improbable. But that's not the topic of discussion.

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

No, I disagreed about overriding. I don't think LFW "overrides the laws and constants of nature." Rather it (if it exists) is part of the whole causal web/fabric. It would be part of the nature of LFW agents.

If you disagree that behaviour is determined by physical law, at what point does the brain cease being governed by physical law thereby enabling the exercise of LFW?

If LFW exists why would it not be classified as physical law? Ultimately physical law is just a description of that which happens.

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

I already addressed that. And it still stands that turtles all the way down would be insufficient to support anything.

[Joel]

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. [A] 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. [B] 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 added markers [A] and [B] to be able to reference those two parts. The two seem to be different lines of reasoning. I'm not sure of the connection you are drawing between the two.

Let me take a different approach to refuting [B]. As you've explained before, when you say "thought" you mean mental state. So let's try picturing the agent like a state machine. Let X be the agent's current state. Suppose that there are two possible state transitions from state X: one to state Y and one to state Z. Now if this is a deterministic state machine, then the next state (Y or Z) will be completely determined by the current state and external inputs/causes. But if the state machine is non-deterministic, then Y and Z are both possible.

And we could imagine the not-deterministic state machine agent has LFW in the matter. In state X, then, the agent freely chooses whether to go to state Y or Z. Now your objection says that the agent has to be in state Y (or Z) before being able to transition from state X to state Y (or Z). But that doesn't follow. Rather, the agent, while in state X can be contemplating the idea of state Y (or Z) without yet being in state Y (or Z). Likewise the agent in state X can be contemplating the idea of being in or transitioning to state Y without having yet made the transition. The contemplation of the idea of these things is not the reality. So it does not at all follow that the agent must transition before deciding which transition to make. It is not the case that the agent must be in state Y before freely deciding whether to transition to Y (rather than to Z). The agent needs only be in state X to make the choice.

So this apparent paradox vanishes.

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 are saying here that if the agent controls the agents actions AND does not control the agent (whatever that means), then the agent does not control the agent's actions.
You are just making a contradiction. You aren't making any sense.
So the question still stands. If all the changes are caused/controlled by the agent, then none of the changes are uncaused. None of the changes is uncaused or uncontrolled by the agent. So how can you claim there is something yet uncontrolled by the agent? There isn't anything. Thus this supposed paradox of yours vanishes too.

This much is true of both the deterministic agent (autonomous robot) and the LFW agent. In both cases all the changes are caused by the agent. The difference between them, of course, is that the LFW agent could have done otherwise than he did.

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,...

The bolded part is an assumption of determinism. Is that what your argument has really been all along? You assume determinism to prove determinism?

Now the prior mental state might limit what options are available to the agent. E.g. in the state-machine model above, the fact of being in state X from which only states Y and Z are possible, limits the options to Y and Z. But that doesn't mean that the mere fact of being in state X is sufficient to determine/cause which state (Y or Z) will be next.

And claiming "the LFW choice (external and/or internal to the agent)" makes no sense.

The quote was "all changes that result from the LFW choice (external and/or internal to the agent)..."
The intended antecedent to the parenthetical was "changes", not "choice". It would have been more clear had I placed it closer to the antecedent:
"all changes (external and/or internal to the agent) that result from the LFW choice..."
I'm sorry for any confusion that caused.