Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Tassman]

yes there is. even so that has nothing g to do with LAFW. you are just trying to shift to another issue that you can win with because you lost this one miserably.l

yes there is. I've experienced it. I Was in a coma for two months, In that I remember quite clearly I was in a reality and experiencing a life that is different from mine. yet it mirrored what was happening to my body so my mind was telling me to wake up.

that's just ideological dogma. Orwellian thinking like atheism to destroy all other views. you can't allow people to hold views other than your own, atheism is fascism. you fear other view point because you are brain washed.

[metacrock]

that is just clouding the issue about LFW. sure there's no proof of life after death who cares? there are some good reasons to believe nitl the bet one is Jesus said it's true. the thread is about LFW. you are trying to use no LAD to argue against the mind/soul but that doesn't have a bearing on LFW, it doesn't disprove the soul. your doubts are not disproof.


you have no proof, that's nothing more than speculative doubt. your doubt is not disproof.



o yea right, your little crack pot doubt mongering and refusal to read evidenced or think about counter views is not ideological is it? I've buried you under a ton of evidence, when you are you going to answer the six things?

[metacrock]

the positive reasons why mind is not reducible:


*problem of binding* Projective activity in perceptual process* Semantic or intentional content; word meaning and other form of representation.* problem of Intentionality* The Humunculus Problem give me all BS about how I have no data to back it up

[Jim B.]

And how would you say it is that an indeterministic brain state comes about within an otherwise deterministic brain? When you say that in some specific cases "you" are not determined to choose a or b, define what it is that you mean by "you".

If I am torn between two choices and each choice has an equally 'weighted' or compelling set of causes/reasons supporting it, then my brain activity relating to my deliberation over which one to choose would be undetermined. Nothing external to my choice is compelling my choice. "I" am this consciousness, the locus of what I freely choose and am responsible for. (I'm not completely sold on causal indeterminism, so I'm not defending it here. But this is how I understand it.)

[Jim B.]

So do you believe that "you" are a strongly emergent entity, that "you" are caused by, and that "you" at some point emerged from your brain. Is that what you mean when refering to "you"?

Yes, basically, with some caveats. If consciousness is a basic, irreducible thing, then I as a conscious being wouldn't just be an emergent entity. But none of that matters, imo, in terms of free will. If "I" have originating causal power, then I have libertarian free will.

[JimL]

If I am torn between two choices and each choice has an equally 'weighted' or compelling set of causes/reasons supporting it, then my brain activity relating to my deliberation over which one to choose would be undetermined. Nothing external to my choice is compelling my choice. "I" am this consciousness, the locus of what I freely choose and am responsible for. (I'm not completely sold on causal indeterminism, so I'm not defending it here. But this is how I understand it.)

You are assuming that you are something other than your brain. So, in such a case, how does this "brainless you" or "brainless mind," however you wish to define it, decide which choice to make? Btw, I am not copletely sold on determinism either, though I am sold on the notion of there being no such thing as an immaterial spirit or mind separate from the material body.

[JimL]

Yes, basically, with some caveats. If consciousness is a basic, irreducible thing, then I as a conscious being wouldn't just be an emergent entity. But none of that matters, imo, in terms of free will. If "I" have originating causal power, then I have libertarian free will.

Even if you are a spirit or immaterial mind of some sort, how do you explain the mechanism by which you make decisions?

[Tassman]

that is just clouding the issue about LFW.

sure there's no proof of life after death who cares? there are some good reasons to believe nitl the bet one is Jesus said it's true. the thread is about LFW. you are trying to use no LAD to argue against the mind/soul but that doesn't have a bearing on LFW, it doesn't disprove the soul. your doubts are not disproof.

you have no proof, that's nothing more than speculative doubt. your doubt is not disproof.

least probable explanation.

o yea right, your little crack pot doubt mongering and refusal to read evidenced or think about counter views is not ideological is it? I've buried you under a ton of evidence, when you are you going to answer the six things?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy

[Tassman]

the positive reasons why mind is not reducible:


*problem of binding

In short, god-did-it!

* Projective activity in perceptual processthe ultimate source of projective activity may originate outside the brain. A great deal of knowledge is put into action for use in understanding language and in writing. Some researchers have advanced the view that the fundamental form of projective activity is dreaming.[23]

Yea, god-did-it!

* Semantic or intentional content; word meaning and other form of representation.

So who triggered it one wonders? Oh I know; god-did-it.

* problem of Intentionality


Intentionality is the ability of representational forms to be about things, to reflect meaning and to be about events and states of affairs in the world. [26] The problem of intentionality has plagued both psychologists and philosophers. Intentionality is inherently three ways, involving the user, symbols, and things symbolized. Searl tells us that intentionality of langue is secondary and derives from the intrinsic [27]

* The Humunculus Problem

"supernatural" mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science... The "miracles" of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? Daniel C. Dennett, "Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds,"

ALL

[metacrock]

Tass you are just gain saying the evidence, you have nothing.

[metacrock]

"supernatural" mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science... The "miracles" of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? Daniel C. Dennett, "Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds,"

ALL

Yes it is his argument against dualism. you are looking at a different argument. the idea of free will is not supernatural it's not a mircle.

the quote itself is BS. The whole naturalistic thing absent miracles going back to Hume is circular reasoning. free will, irreducibility of mind are positions held by many materialists and atheists. those are not inherently religious nr are they based upon SN.

[Tassman]

Tass you are just gain saying the evidence, you have nothing.

[metacrock]

why don't you try learning what go0f of gaps is, It's just anytime you say we don't know something, you8r pretense of knowing logic is so funny. let's see you actually to disprove the six things?



Because it's the one that connects us to consciousness. .why is it this way and not some other say? you really think that's an argument? why don't you give me a reason why it should be some other way, Then show what that proves? it doesn't change the argument, it doesn't make mind reducible to brain does it?

This is in reference to the demonstrable fact that, over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially "supernatural" mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the field of physical science. Why would our understanding of the "mind" be any different?

No. That is BS.
here's why

(1) you are misusing the germ supernatural it is not synonym for "para normal" it pertains to mystical experience and that's all. Mystical experience has been proved and made more valid with the 200 studies I've been talking about.

(2) Hume's arguments against miracles were circular. Lourdes has good scientific rules for determining miracles and the documentation for them is strong. Other scholars have studied the records and find they are unexplained. If anything miracles of healing are stronger
better validated than ever before

(3) Atheist sociologist Abraham Maslow argued that ordinary psychology can be understood and SN he argued that studies allover the social sciences confirm it and anyone who can't see it is blind. YOU have been brain washed by propaganda.

Peak Experience by Maslow

Now that may be taken as a frank admission of a naturalistic psychological origin, except that it invovles a universal symbology which is not explicable through merely naturalistic means. How is it that all humans come to hold these same archetypical symbols? (For more on archetypes see Jesus Chrsit and Mythology page II) The "prematives" viewed and understood a sense of transformation which gave them an integration into the universe. This is crucial for human development. They sensed a power in the numenous, that is the origin of religion."

"In Appendix I and elsewhere in this essay, I have spoken of unitive perception, i.e., fusion of the B-realm with the D-realm, fusion of the eternal with the temporal, the sacred with the profane, etc. Someone has called this "the measureless gap between the poetic perception of reality and prosaic, unreal commonsense." Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred, the eternal, the symbolic, is simply blind to an aspect of reality, as I think I have amply demonstrated elsewhere (54), and in Appendix I, fromPeak Experience

--Abrham Maslow

(4) God on the Brain: thye evidence from nuero sicence is not anti- god rather according to Andrew Newberg it's good reasom to believe in God.

[metacrock]

The "miracles" of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?

because it's not the same thing. you are actually arguing from analogy. It's a probabilistic argument but its a fallacy based upon analogy. It could also be a black is white slide.

[metacrock]

Tassman:

(1) classic fallacy confusing determinism with cause and effect,. All C/e is not deterministic.,

(2) you don't know that there is no original desire in the agent, if mind is irreducible them desire could be original.


*3) YOU ARE BEGGING THE FREAKING QUESTION AGAIN,DON'T YOU KINOW THAT'S A FALLACY IS LOGIC JUST MEAINGLES TO YOU?????

the issue we are debating is weather or not LFW is incoherent so you can't use that assertion to prove that case. LEARN SOME LOGIC