Is libertarian free will coherent?

[JimL]

We have control over our actions. And we can set our wills. This is a framing problem. It all depends on how these terms are understood.

We may have that ability, or it may be an illusion, but that is not an argument, its an assertion.

It's not coherent if we assume that we are (to some degree) capable of reason. There's no coherent way to consistently believe that that's true, because that belief couldn't be rationally arrived at or defended.

I think that you are assuming in this that "we" are something other than our brains. Reason, the ability of the brain to reason, and determinism, aren't mutually exclusive.

[demi-conservative]

There could be an infinite regress of causes

Oh, then trivial solution. Action caused by [free will exercising part of] agent, then causing of cause is due to the [...] agent, and the causing of this cause is due to agent etc etc

So this breaks dilemma of yours: all causing in chain is caused, all by free agent.

[demi-conservative]

Or since you want diagram so so much, here is one, backwards in sequence!

action <- agent <- agent (because infinite regress) <- agent <-agent <-....

So all causes caused, but all causes are agent, so it's all good with definition of free will

[The Thinker]

Oh, then trivial solution. Action caused by [free will exercising part of] agent, then causing of cause is due to the [...] agent, and the causing of this cause is due to agent etc etc

So this breaks dilemma of yours: all causing in chain is caused, all by free agent.

How is it freely exercised? Does it have to be uncaused to be "free"?

So far it makes no sense.

[The Thinker]

Or since you want diagram so so much, here is one, backwards in sequence!

action <- agent <- agent (because infinite regress) <- agent <-agent <-....

So all causes caused, but all causes are agent, so it's all good with definition of free will

Makes no sense. The agent causes everything you say. 2 things:

1. Define the agent. What the hell is it?
2. Is the agent itself caused to do what it causes when it causes an action?

[demi-conservative]

Makes no sense. The agent causes everything you say. 2 things:

1. Define the agent. What the hell is it?

Agent can do free actions, and definition of free action is that there is only agent in chain of causes leading to action. Now no outside cause beside agent, so we can say agent 'freely caused' free action

2. Is the agent itself caused to do what it causes when it causes an action?

Yes!!! It is caused, and the cause is it itself. And so on etc etc.

Everything in that chain is caused by agent, agent causing agent causing agent causing ............agent causing agent causing action. Beautiful infinite regress!!!

[The Thinker]

Agent can do free actions, and definition of free action is that there is only agent in chain of causes leading to action. Now no outside cause beside agent, so we can say agent 'freely caused' free action

That's not a definition, that's just a description of what it does, not what it is. Is the agent identical to the will? The mind? The soul? What? What is it?

Second of all, to say the agent is the first cause but has no cause itself, negates having any control over itself since you cannot by definition have control over some thing uncaused.

Yes!!! It is caused, and the cause is it itself. And so on etc etc.

Everything in that chain is caused by agent, agent causing agent causing agent causing ............agent causing agent causing action. Beautiful infinite regress!!!

That again makes no sense. Saying it causes itself is like saying a person causes it's own existence.

You've failed to make coherent sense of LFW....and you never will because it's incoherent.

[Joel]

Second of all, to say the agent is the first cause but has no cause itself, negates having any control over itself since you cannot by definition have control over some thing uncaused.

That again makes no sense. Saying it causes itself is like saying a person causes it's own existence.

Surely you are only pretending to be that incapable of understanding what people write?

- In what Demi-conservative is saying, there is no first cause involved. He's clearly repeated that he's talking about an infinite regress.
- In the regress he isn't talking about the agent causing the agent's existence, which would make no sense. He's answering the question posed:

What caused the agent to do X? The agent.
What caused the agent to cause the agent to do X? The agent.
What caused the agent to cause the agent to cause the agent to do X? The agent.
etc. ad infinitum.

No step of that chain is a being causing itself. Rather it is an infinite regress of causes inside the agent. Every one of the causes has a cause logically prior to itself. (none of it is uncaused) And every one of the causes is inside the agent.

[The Thinker]

Surely you are only pretending to be that incapable of understanding what people write?

- In what Demi-conservative is saying, there is no first cause involved. He's clearly repeated that he's talking about an infinite regress.
- In the regress he isn't talking about the agent causing the agent's existence, which would make no sense. He's answering the question posed:

What caused the agent to do X? The agent.
What caused the agent to cause the agent to do X? The agent.
What caused the agent to cause the agent to cause the agent to do X? The agent.
etc. ad infinitum.

No step of that chain is a being causing itself. Rather it is an infinite regress of causes inside the agent. Every one of the causes has a cause logically prior to itself. (none of it is uncaused) And every one of the causes is inside the agent.

That's even more ridiculous.

[Joel]

That's even more ridiculous.

Why?

(Note that this isn't the position I take. I'm just curious what you have against it.)

[The Thinker]

Why?

(Note that this isn't the position I take. I'm just curious what you have against it.)

An infinite regress suddenly appearing as an explanation of agency free will is self evidently ridiculous.

[demi-conservative]

Why?

(Note that this isn't the position I take. I'm just curious what you have against it.)

He has no logical argument against it, that's why

It's okay, he just stunned by disproof of bizarre argument in OP suddenly appearing. No problem, I can wait for him to accept it!

No step of that chain is a being causing itself. Rather it is an infinite regress of causes inside the agent. Every one of the causes has a cause logically prior to itself. (none of it is uncaused) And every one of the causes is inside the agent.

Yes!

[demi-conservative]

An infinite regress suddenly appearing as an explanation of agency free will is self evidently ridiculous.

"self-evidently ridiculous" = I can't prove it's wrong! So I say it's "self-evidently" wrong and try to weasel through!!!

[The Thinker]

He has no logical argument against it, that's why

It's okay, he just stunned by disproof of bizarre argument in OP suddenly appearing. No problem, I can wait for him to accept it!



Yes!

Retarded minds think alike.

[The Thinker]

"self-evidently ridiculous" = I can't prove it's wrong! So I say it's "self-evidently" wrong and try to weasel through!!!

Can't prove it's wrong? I was unaware it was proved right. Go ahead and show me the proof that it's right.

An infinite regress would have no author, and wouldn't be "free." It also presumes an infinite number of things begin to exist with no ultimate cause. In other words, the infinite chain itself would be uncaused and you'd face the same problem as before. See there's no way out of the dilemma. Nice try Jr.

If you believe that an infinite number of universes can begin to exist with no cause and you just made god obsolete.