Is libertarian free will coherent?

[The Thinker]

Yet I could have done otherwise. I could have went to Mcdonald's. I chose not to. Because of a thought I had that I want to lose weight. That thought was not "caused" by anything. It was generated by my mind considering the various choices I had. Yesterday I ate soup I brought with me from home last week (I have several cans in my desk). I could have skipped lunch then too, but I chose not to. I could have had soup again today if I wanted, but I chose not to. My mind made choices and could have chosen differently. In fact in the same situation a day earlier I did choose differently.

Sorry, you're just asserting your claim here. Show it to be true. You are assuming your mind exists independently of the brain (and is not caused by it) and you are assuming you have control of your thoughts. Those are the 2 things I've already refuted.

So far you have just made a bunch of assertions, saying physical events led up to forcing me to skip lunch. But you have not proven it. Merely asserting it is not proof of anything.

LOL. I've already provided this link a ways before. And we have the laws of physics that completely rule out any mental force on atoms which I've already links to before on this thread. So no, I have shown it.

My will is part of my mind. my mind is caused by my brain, but it is more than just my brain. It is a collection of thoughts, desires, information all working in a self-aware environment capable of making choices. The mind is not just the hardware it runs on. It is self-aware and in control of itself. It can even rewrite itself and change. based on thoughts and actions it decides to take. It can learn.

Sorry, but all you're doing again is asserting your claim. You haven't shown a shred of evidence. Your "thoughts, desires, information" are all in the brain which is a physical system and no free will can enter it.

Memorize this sentence "The Thinker is an idiot" - there you just changed your brain and wrote new neural pathways into your brain. Your mind, reading and memorizing that sentence just changed your brain. Now lift up your left arm. Your mind, reading that instruction, and your free will to follow that instruction causes neurons to fire in your brain, which control muscles and lifted your arm. Or perhaps you freely chose NOT to raise your arm. That is the choice your mind makes. freely.

No, these are all examples of physical systems completely explainable in and governed by the laws of physics - which rule out any free will. The site of those words entered by retina via light waves and photons and that got carried to my visual cortex which changed my brain. All physical processes - all determined. Jeez.

Can you show me an official source that says that Libertarian free will requires those three things? Number 2 doesn't even make sense. I am pretty sure you just made that part up. Sounds like you. But for now let's run with it.

I told you to raise your arm. Let's suppose you did.
1. You controlled your will and decided to raise your arm
2. Your mind caused your brain to fire neurons and raise your arm. It was effective in causing that to happen. It was "causally effective"
3. You could have not raised your arm

Why? If my brain causes my will how does that make it not free? My brain is free to make choices through the mind it generates. Not a problem.

Because your brain is a physical system governed by the laws of physics and there is no way for your mind to cause it.

There's no official source but they all make sense. Take any one of them away and you lose LFW. If your mind is not causally effective it is causally impotent! That means it is nothing more than an epiphenomenon with no causal power and we are determined by purely physical systems and forces. Go ahead and try to claim that is compatible with LFW. Go ahead. You will have to diminish LFW to something it is not.

And for your examples in 1,2,3, these are all examples of physical systems completely explainable in and governed by the laws of physics - which rule out any free will. The sound of those words entered by ears via sound waves and that got carried to my audio cortex which changed my brain. All physical processes - all determined. Jeez.

It's just really complex so we don't know beforehand whether I will or won't raise my hand.

like I said, you have redefined LFW to be nonsense so that you can claim it is nonsense. Your logic is unfalsifiable because you have created a logical loop so that everything anyone gives you as an example of LFW is actually an example of determinism. circular logic and begging the question.

That is absolutely absurd. I'm literally talking to a retard here who has no idea what he's talking about. Take anyone of those 3 conditionals of LFW away, and you don't have LFW! My logic is unfalsifiable because LFW is logically incoherent. I challenge you to show LFW without each of those 3 conditionals.

It would probably feel like you are just along for the ride. You would not be in control. In fact you might not even be self-aware. There would be no need for self-awareness if everything just happened.

But thoughts would arise in your mind and you would attribute them to your "control" and evidence has shown we have the tendency to attribute things to ourselves that actually aren't. Self-awareness would be a by-product of complex brains.

[Joel]

There is definitely an a priori reason to think that an actor necessarily must change itself in the initial act of acting upon something else, otherwise what's the difference in god's state between god doing something vs god not doing something.

Nothing. The difference is in the thing God acted upon. You are confusing action and passion.

[T]he first change in the series can involve, or result in, changes to the person.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

In other words: A person's actions can affect themself. The first change can cause other changes which may very well include changes inside the person. Or the first change could be a change inside the person, e.g. another part of the person's soul/mind/body/whatever.

How do you explain why the agent does X vs Y vs Z if there is no change in the agent?

It seems you think there is some contradiction in that. If there is please point it out. Because I don't see one, and thus I don't see anything in that that needs explaining.

A person having no prior cause would not logically imply that the person didn't control the first change (e.g. control which, if any, first change to cause). Indeed the advocate of LFW is saying that causing the first change is the person using their faculty of LFW control.)

You have to show how a person can have control over something uncaused.

The person doesn't need control over anything uncaused. The person need only control the first change, which is caused: by the person.
Which you already knew because you carefully read what I wrote in the post you are responding to.

What you seem to be saying is that it's uncaused, the agent doesn't change, and yet the agent has control over it.

There is no "it" for which I am saying all of those things. You are equivocating on "it" there.
The only thing the agent need have control over is which first change to cause. The agent does have control over that change and it is caused, by the agent.

You cannot by definition have control over something uncaused.

I didn't say the person has control over anything uncaused. I only said the person has control over what/whether the first change will be. And the first change is caused, by the person.

Please read more carefully, so you can address what I'm actually saying.

No it ["control of control"] is not meaningless, because at no point does the person have control in the LFW sense.

This does not explain what meaning "control of control" could have.

Sorry, but this just asserts your claim. You're literally just claiming the first change is controlled by the person. There's no argument there!

(Then you are going to complain that I haven't proven that any of this is actually the case. But that's not the point. The point is that it is logically self-consistent, and that your arguments don't apply, which is explained above. The thread, according to your own posts, is not about proving the actual truth of the matter but about what is logically consistent.)

I sure predicted that one!

No it is not logically self consistent!

Then point out the internal contradiction. All you have done here is mis-state what I'm saying and then attack your mis-statements.

This is ridiculous! Joel, you're a waste of my time.

Oh, that's right, when you had no more argument it wasn't that you were "bored of the discussion". It was that I'm a waste of your time. On that one my memory was incorrect. But my other predictions were correct.

[Joel]

1. You controlled your will and decided to raise your arm

Thinker's "(1) We are in control of our will" is baloney.
The human's faculty of will is not something the human needs control. It is the human's faculty of control.
By proposing this requirement Thinker is trying to trap you into infinite recursion by insisting that we need some second faculty to control our will. (If you are in control of your will, with what do you control your will? That's why he claims you've only pushed the problem back a step.) And then yet some third faculty to control the second faculty, ad infinitum.

It is sufficient for us to control our actions/effects (by our will). No "control of control" is required or even meaningful.

[Bill the Cat]

YOU don't understand this simple concept. All you're doing is asserting your POV and special pleading to get out of its logical problems.

It's the equivalent of this:

Thinker: I caused myself to exist.

Bill the cat: That's logically impossible.

Thinker: Only to you it is, not to me.

Bill the cat: That makes no sense.

Thinker: If you can't understand that simple concept, there's no reason to go any further.

What I find the funniest is that you've just argued for the illogical nature of the existence of a materialistic universe

[Sparko]

Sorry, you're just asserting your claim here. Show it to be true. You are assuming your mind exists independently of the brain (and is not caused by it) and you are assuming you have control of your thoughts. Those are the 2 things I've already refuted.

1. I already did show it because the day before under the same circumstances I chose differently. And, 2, No, I am not assumiing the mind exists independently from the brain. I am saying the mind is generated by the brain, and is basically the "software" that is running on the hardware of the brain. It is self-aware, and can rewrite itself and parts of the brain as needed and can make free will choices. As demonstrated. You have not refuted anything. You merely claim you have.

LOL. I've already provided this link a ways before. And we have the laws of physics that completely rule out any mental force on atoms which I've already links to before on this thread. So no, I have shown it.

uh, no. a link to your personal blog and someone else's op ed piece is not proof. It is more assertions. Seriously, I am considering changing your user name for you. You really don't deserve the moniker "the Thinker"

Sorry, but all you're doing again is asserting your claim. You haven't shown a shred of evidence. Your "thoughts, desires, information" are all in the brain which is a physical system and no free will can enter it.

You have not even shown why a "physical system" can't have free will if it is self-aware. A brain is more than merely reactions as can be seen by minds coming up with new discoveries and ideas all the time.

No, these are all examples of physical systems completely explainable in and governed by the laws of physics - which rule out any free will. The site of those words entered by retina via light waves and photons and that got carried to my visual cortex which changed my brain. All physical processes - all determined. Jeez.

Dork. No. It wasn't merely a physical process. Your mind read the words, translated them into language and gave the words meaning, which you then committed to neural pathways in your brain both as visual and verbal information. Then your mind decides when to recall that information and where it is stored, then plays it back and considers it consciously.

Just like a computer program, which is pure information running on hardware is dependent on that hardware to run, it is not a purely physical thing. And it can rewrite its own code and store information in hardware. Of course with a computer program, it can only do what the software was programmed to do, at this point in technological prowess. But who knows if one day we could not create a software mind that is self aware and able to make free will decisions? We would need a lot better hardware and software but it is possible. So yes a mind can affect a brain. And a mind is more than just a brain. Just like software is more than just a CPU.

Because your brain is a physical system governed by the laws of physics and there is no way for your mind to cause it.

There's no official source but they all make sense. Take any one of them away and you lose LFW. If your mind is not causally effective it is causally impotent! That means it is nothing more than an epiphenomenon with no causal power and we are determined by purely physical systems and forces. Go ahead and try to claim that is compatible with LFW. Go ahead. You will have to diminish LFW to something it is not.

And for your examples in 1,2,3, these are all examples of physical systems completely explainable in and governed by the laws of physics - which rule out any free will. The sound of those words entered by ears via sound waves and that got carried to my audio cortex which changed my brain. All physical processes - all determined. Jeez.

It's just really complex so we don't know beforehand whether I will or won't raise my hand.

Sorry but your mind caused you to raise your hand or not raise it. You had to decide to move it and your motor cortex had to inform your muscles to move. It is not just random. You did it in response to me suggesting you do it (or not do it) Your MIND read the words, your will chose to do it or not do it, and then your physical brain either did it or did not do it purely based on your mind's wishes. Your mind caused you to move your arm. You can do it as many times as you want. Even your arguing against it is a free will choice of yours. A stupid choice, but a free one nonetheless.

That is absolutely absurd. I'm literally talking to a retard here who has no idea what he's talking about. Take anyone of those 3 conditionals of LFW away, and you don't have LFW! My logic is unfalsifiable because LFW is logically incoherent. I challenge you to show LFW without each of those 3 conditionals.

Like I said, you have created a situation where nothing anyone can say or show can be LFW in your mind. Your idea is unfalsifiable because you have defined LFW as "incoherent" - very convenient. And idiotic. There is no point in even debating this with you because you are like an insane person who claims he is dead and nothing anyone can say can convince him otherwise.

But thoughts would arise in your mind and you would attribute them to your "control" and evidence has shown we have the tendency to attribute things to ourselves that actually aren't. Self-awareness would be a by-product of complex brains.

self awareness requires your mind to think independently to consider itself. If thoughts were merely generated out of nothing, there would be no way to be self-aware. Not only that but you have yet to explain that if thoughts just occur due to physical conditions why we have coherent and logical thoughts in the first place?

How old are you anyway? 15? because your "logic" sounds like something a 15 year old would come up with and he would think himself a brilliant thinker. Or you could just be insane.

[Sparko]

Thinker's "(1) We are in control of our will" is baloney.
The human's faculty of will is not something the human needs control. It is the human's faculty of control.
By proposing this requirement Thinker is trying to trap you into infinite recursion by insisting that we need some second faculty to control our will. (If you are in control of your will, with what do you control your will? That's why he claims you've only pushed the problem back a step.) And then yet some third faculty to control the second faculty, ad infinitum.

It is sufficient for us to control our actions/effects (by our will). No "control of control" is required or even meaningful.

yeah I totally missed that. Thanks. His "logic" is set up so that nothing can prove him wrong because he has redefined LFW to be something that can't exist.

Our will is part of our mind. It is the part that makes decisions. It is not some add-on box. It is a function of our mind.

At this point, it is useless to even argue with him because he has locked himself into his own little room and everything "proves" him right. Even evidence to the contrary. He is as bad as Darfius and his "Great Delusion"

[The Thinker]

Nothing. The difference is in the thing God acted upon. You are confusing action and passion.


In other words: A person's actions can affect themself. The first change can cause other changes which may very well include changes inside the person. Or the first change could be a change inside the person, e.g. another part of the person's soul/mind/body/whatever.

Something acts on god? An external force?

Sorry but we've been down this road before. If some spontaneous change happens to a person with no prior cause or explanation, that is not free will. We'll just be going around in circles again and again.

It seems you think there is some contradiction in that. If there is please point it out. Because I don't see one, and thus I don't see anything in that that needs explaining.

Answer: How do you explain why the agent does X vs Y vs Z if there is no change in the agent?

The person doesn't need control over anything uncaused. The person need only control the first change, which is caused: by the person.
Which you already knew because you carefully read what I wrote in the post you are responding to.

So you have an uncaused change, and then a chain of subsequent causes. Still don't see where free will comes in.

There is no "it" for which I am saying all of those things. You are equivocating on "it" there.
The only thing the agent need have control over is which first change to cause. The agent does have control over that change and it is caused, by the agent.

What causes the agent to change the first change?

I didn't say the person has control over anything uncaused. I only said the person has control over what/whether the first change will be. And the first change is caused, by the person



Please read more carefully, so you can address what I'm actually saying..

I am, you're just equivocating here just like you've done over and over. Is the first change uncaused or caused? Why don't you just outline a full chronological order of evens when you think a "free" decision takes place.

This does not explain what meaning "control of control" could have.


I sure predicted that one!

Because you're arguments are all the same: they make no sense and they are just vain attempts to avoid the unavaoidable which is your dilemma. Now stop wasting my time and outline a full chronological order of evens when you think a "free" decision takes place.

Then point out the internal contradiction. All you have done here is mis-state what I'm saying and then attack your mis-statements.

Where does the free will part come in? And for where ever you think it does, is that step caused or uncaused?

Oh, that's right, when you had no more argument it wasn't that you were "bored of the discussion". It was that I'm a waste of your time. On that one my memory was incorrect. But my other predictions were correct.

Yes, Joel you will never win this argument because you're arguing for a square circle. You are just wasting my time.

[The Thinker]

What I find the funniest is that you've just argued for the illogical nature of the existence of a materialistic universe

Um no. Nothing about what I said requires materialism. This is what stupid people who don't know any better assume.

[Bill the Cat]

Um no. Nothing about what I said requires materialism. This is what stupid people who don't know any better assume.

You're just FULL of yourself, aren't you?

[Sparko]

You're just FULL of yourself, aren't you?

The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.

[Sparko]

kinda reminds me of Magellan2004 in a way.

[rogue06]

kinda reminds me of Magellan2004 in a way.

m2004 was full on stupid in nearly every subject that he discussed whereas Thinker is... well... Okay, he reminds me of m2004 as well.

[The Thinker]

1. I already did show it because the day before under the same circumstances I chose differently. And, 2, No, I am not assumiing the mind exists independently from the brain. I am saying the mind is generated by the brain, and is basically the "software" that is running on the hardware of the brain. It is self-aware, and can rewrite itself and parts of the brain as needed and can make free will choices. As demonstrated. You have not refuted anything. You merely claim you have.

That doesn't show anything because the day before there were different physical circumstances leading up until you chose the different thing. You'd have to show the exact same physical state of the universe and you making a different decision.

And 2, if you agree that the mind does not exist independent from the physical brain, then how do you get free will? The brain is a physical system, all physical systems follow the laws of physics. Nothing there allows for LFW. So explain.

uh, no. a link to your personal blog and someone else's op ed piece is not proof. It is more assertions. Seriously, I am considering changing your user name for you. You really don't deserve the moniker "the Thinker"

Um, I like to 4 different scientific papers showing brain causing mind. And I link to a physicists explanation that the laws of physics on the everyday realm, which includes your brain are fully known, and it leaves no room for mind causing brain. You really are stupid aren't you.

If this isn't proof, what is?

You have not even shown why a "physical system" can't have free will if it is self-aware. A brain is more than merely reactions as can be seen by minds coming up with new discoveries and ideas all the time.

It's very easy. The brain is a physical system, all physical systems follow the laws of physics. Nothing there allows for LFW.

LFW would require (among other things) that the mind is causally effective. Physics rules that out unambiguously.

The thing you may not be realizing is that the human brain is an extremely complex physical system - in fact its the most complex in the known universe. Because of that the level of complexity is so high that we can never know fully how someone will react in a given situation, and that makes it seem as if there's free will. There isn't. There's just a physically determined system that's so complex it gives the illusion of free will. And I think you're mistaking that for there actually being free will.

Dork. No. It wasn't merely a physical process. Your mind read the words, translated them into language and gave the words meaning, which you then committed to neural pathways in your brain both as visual and verbal information. Then your mind decides when to recall that information and where it is stored, then plays it back and considers it consciously.


Just like a computer program, which is pure information running on hardware is dependent on that hardware to run, it is not a purely physical thing. And it can rewrite its own code and store information in hardware. Of course with a computer program, it can only do what the software was programmed to do, at this point in technological prowess. But who knows if one day we could not create a software mind that is self aware and able to make free will decisions? We would need a lot better hardware and software but it is possible. So yes a mind can affect a brain. And a mind is more than just a brain. Just like software is more than just a CPU.

Sorry, but I need you to define free will for me please. I don't think you know what it is, and I don't think you have a working definition that describes real deal free will, or libertarian free will as it's known philosophically. I fear that you're really just using a compromised version all this time that isn't really free will.

I know the software/hardware analogy is popular, but technically a computer is a physical system in totality. Software is physical stuff written to the hardware. And in reality, my brain reads the words and processes the information and my mind makes me aware of it. But the mind is at most an emergent epiphenomenon.

Sorry but your mind caused you to raise your hand or not raise it. You had to decide to move it and your motor cortex had to inform your muscles to move. It is not just random. You did it in response to me suggesting you do it (or not do it) Your MIND read the words, your will chose to do it or not do it, and then your physical brain either did it or did not do it purely based on your mind's wishes. Your mind caused you to move your arm. You can do it as many times as you want. Even your arguing against it is a free will choice of yours. A stupid choice, but a free one nonetheless.

Um no, the brain caused me to raise my hand. This has been shown over and over again in tests. You can't just dismiss them. I linked you to a page that shows a consistent pattern in neuroscience -- brain comes first, then mind, and that's because the mind is caused by the brain. If the mind had a causal impact on the brain, we would have discovered that long ago, and we'd be able to incorporate that into the laws of physics - which rules that out.

The whole point is that you aren't consciously aware of what the brain causes you to do and think, and you're confusing that will thinking that your mind is actually in control as most people do.

Like I said, you have created a situation where nothing anyone can say or show can be LFW in your mind. Your idea is unfalsifiable because you have defined LFW as "incoherent" - very convenient. And idiotic. There is no point in even debating this with you because you are like an insane person who claims he is dead and nothing anyone can say can convince him otherwise.

I haven't defined LFW as incoherent. LFW is incoherent in itself. If you want to dilute the definition of LFW to something compromised, go ahead, but you will not have LFW as a result of that. My definition fully encapsulates all the common understandings of what LFW is. take any one of those 3 factors away, and you don't have LFW. You really just haven't thought about this as much as I have.

self awareness requires your mind to think independently to consider itself. If thoughts were merely generated out of nothing, there would be no way to be self-aware. Not only that but you have yet to explain that if thoughts just occur due to physical conditions why we have coherent and logical thoughts in the first place?

Independently of what? You've already admitted the mind doesn't exist independently of the brain. You seem to want to have it both ways: the is not independent of the brain, yet it does things independent of the brain. You clearly do not have a coherent philosophy of mind here, probably because you've never thought about this enough. I never said thoughts are generated out of nothing. That seems to be your view (which is inconsistent with your admission that the mind doesn't exist independently of the brain). On my view the brain causes the mind, so thoughts come out of brain states. We have coherent and logical thoughts because our brains evolved to create them. It helps our survival. Literally every single good experiment has shown that when you think of logical thoughts it is due to brain activity. The brain is nature's ultimate computer.

How old are you anyway? 15? because your "logic" sounds like something a 15 year old would come up with and he would think himself a brilliant thinker. Or you could just be insane.

No, you just understand the subject matter and because of that you think you're making logical analysis but you just don't know what you're talking about. I've researched this topic and debated it extensively and believe me, you will never ever win this debate because it is logically impossible. What will eventually happen most likely is that you will try to promote a compromised definition of LFW that isn't really LFW and settle on that.

When dealing with science you have to be skeptical of your intuition of how the world world because science shows us that it often doesn't behave how we think it is. And you need to suspend your emotional attachment to LFW. I had the same problem when I was learning LFW was false. I held on to it for years because I was so emotionally invested in it being true, and I see you're clearly doing the same thing.

As far as being incoherent, it seems you are doing just that: on the one hand you admit brain causes mind, yet you still wanna have your cake and eat it too by saying mind does things independently of the brain. Makes no sense.

[The Thinker]

You're just FULL of yourself, aren't you?

No, I'm just shooting down baseless absurd claims that I suspect are made in lieu of you having an actual argument.

[The Thinker]

Thinker's "(1) We are in control of our will" is baloney.
The human's faculty of will is not something the human needs control. It is the human's faculty of control.
By proposing this requirement Thinker is trying to trap you into infinite recursion by insisting that we need some second faculty to control our will. (If you are in control of your will, with what do you control your will? That's why he claims you've only pushed the problem back a step.) And then yet some third faculty to control the second faculty, ad infinitum.

It is sufficient for us to control our actions/effects (by our will). No "control of control" is required or even meaningful.

Now you're just admitted we have no control of our will, yet we have free will. Great.