Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Joel]

"the will is the control" What the hell does that mean?

The "will" is just a name for the person's controlling an effect they cause. Or the person's faculty of doing so. The term "will" is defined as the control. Thus to say that Alice has a will just means that Alice has control.

I suspect you are thinking of the will as a passive device in Alice's brain such that Alice needs to push levers or buttons to make the will do stuff. And thus you argue that the problem is just pushed back a step. But there is no such step back. Alice's will is not something that Alice manipulates/affects. Alice's will is Alice's controlling & effecting something. There's no further step. No control of control (whatever that could possibly mean).

As far as prominent LFW advocates, they just assert you have control of your will usually with no details. If pressed they might like you say some word salad that makes no sense. This is why barely 15% of professional philosophers accept LFW.

In other words you have no evidence for your claim that LFW advocates agree to what you mean by your (1). And you are essentially saying that if pressed (i.e., if it is explained to them what you mean) they would say that your (1) is false. This is why I'm saying you are attacking a straw man.

How? So you're uncaused to do X, how could you have not done X with any meaningful sense of control?

The same way you can do X with control.
I'm really not seeing any kind of contradiction in this. What do you think I am both affirming and denying?

That makes no sense since X is uncaused...

You are clearly mistaken here. By definition, X is the thing you did/caused, thus it is caused.

But there is no control since X is uncaused to cause Y.

You already know that I see no reason to think a prior cause is required for control. This is not a premise that LFW advocates accept. To show an internal contradiction in what LFW advocates believe, you have to argue from the propositions they accept. Not from propositions that they deny. You have to show that the propositions they accept lead them to both affirm and deny some proposition. What proposition do you think I am both affirming and denying?

Is that simultaneous act caused by something, or is it uncaused?

It is the control (of the effect caused), thus does not require any prior control or cause. It has no prior control or cause because it is the control. Alice does not need to control it because it is Alice's control.

[The Thinker]

Why not?

Why not? That is answered all due to physical processes going on in my brain which I am not consciously aware of.

So basically since you are your brain, as you keep saying, you are really saying that you didn't make you raise your arm. because otherwise you are not your brain if your brain made you not raise your arm. That would be dualism.

This is all semantics. If I said "I didn't want to" you would try to accuse me of assuming free will - which would be nonsense. Yes I am my brain, and there is no substance dualism. Saying "my brain made me do X" is not to say my brain isn't me, it is. I say this because if I say "I made me do X" you would confuse that with LFW - which I've logically proven is impossible and you have not refuted.

[The Thinker]

The "will" is just a name for the person's controlling an effect they cause. Or the person's faculty of doing so. The term "will" is defined as the control. Thus to say that Alice has a will just means that Alice has control.

No, you don't just get to define the will as the control. Alice cannot control her will, hence she has no LFW.

I suspect you are thinking of the will as a passive device in Alice's brain such that Alice needs to push levers or buttons to make the will do stuff. And thus you argue that the problem is just pushed back a step. But there is no such step back. Alice's will is not something that Alice manipulates/affects. Alice's will is Alice's controlling & effecting something. There's no further step. No control of control (whatever that could possibly mean).

Time for you to outline a chronological order of events in the format of X-->Y-->Z because you make no sense. You are clearly admitting here the will is not in our control: "Alice's will is not something that Alice manipulates/affects"

In other words you have no evidence for your claim that LFW advocates agree to what you mean by your (1). And you are essentially saying that if pressed (i.e., if it is explained to them what you mean) they would say that your (1) is false. This is why I'm saying you are attacking a straw man.

Every LFW advocate says we have control of our will, but when pressed they will not be able to justify such a claim, as you clearly can't. I have never heard an LFW advocate say "We have no control of our will, and we have free will." There is no strawman on my part. If the will/soul/mind is what causes actions, and we have no control over our will/soul/mind, we have no LFW. Our actions are something we have no control over. If something else causes our actions, the same logic will apply.

You are clearly mistaken here. By definition, X is the thing you did/caused, thus it is caused.

No, Y is the thing you caused. Not X. But if you claim X is the thing caused, then whatever caused it was itself caused or uncaused and the same dilemma applies. There is no escaping.

You already know that I see no reason to think a prior cause is required for control. This is not a premise that LFW advocates accept. To show an internal contradiction in what LFW advocates believe, you have to argue from the propositions they accept. Not from propositions that they deny. You have to show that the propositions they accept lead them to both affirm and deny some proposition. What proposition do you think I am both affirming and denying?

I don't care what you think, I care what is logical. And if LFW advocates affirm we can't control our will, they negate LFW. Plain and simple. So the only way they can get out of the dilemma is by denying what is required for LFW which is my whole point.

It is the control (of the effect caused), thus does not require any prior control or cause. It has no prior control or cause because it is the control. Alice does not need to control it because it is Alice's control.

Alice cannot control it because you admit it's uncaused. Therefore you've negated LFW and you're trying to define an uncaused caused that Alice has no control over as LFW merely because it happens in her. I already mentioned this isn't LFW.

[Sparko]

Why not? That is answered all due to physical processes going on in my brain which I am not consciously aware of.



This is all semantics. If I said "I didn't want to" you would try to accuse me of assuming free will - which would be nonsense. Yes I am my brain, and there is no substance dualism. Saying "my brain made me do X" is not to say my brain isn't me, it is. I say this because if I say "I made me do X" you would confuse that with LFW - which I've logically proven is impossible and you have not refuted.

and yet you did in effect say, "I made me not raise my arm" which is free will. Despite me trying to create a cause to make you raise your arm, your free will kicked in and made the choice not to raise it. You can say "uh because my brain!" but since you are your brain, YOU are the one who chose not to raise your arm despite external forces attempting to cause you do do so. That is free will by definition. Choosing without coercion.

Congratulations! You are not a mindless robot after all.

[Sparko]

Every LFW who says "I have control of my will" means "I have control of my choices" That nothing else is making them make the choices. Choosing is using your will. The will is controlling choice. It is not something "you" control external from "you". It is not a box in your brain that "you" flip switches on. It is YOU making choices. Like Joel has said, over and over.

[The Thinker]

and yet you did in effect say, "I made me not raise my arm" which is free will. Despite me trying to create a cause to make you raise your arm, your free will kicked in and made the choice not to raise it. You can say "uh because my brain!" but since you are your brain, YOU are the one who chose not to raise your arm despite external forces attempting to cause you do do so.

That's not free will, since everything we do no matter what is caused/explained by physical processes you are not consciously aware of. There is no free will here. You telling me to do X simple didn't make my brain make my arm raise. But it's all due to physical deterministic processes. LFW never enters the picture.

That is free will by definition. Choosing without coercion.

What you're talking about is compatibilistic free will, not libertarian free will. YOU clearly don't understand the subject matter.

Congratulations! You are not a mindless robot after all.

I never was, even on determinism since I have a mind, by definition I cannot be a mindless robot. You have have a mind without having LFW, but you cannot have LFW without having a mind. I've already explained this to you weeks ago but your stupid brain can't process the data properly.

[The Thinker]

Every LFW who says "I have control of my will" means "I have control of my choices" That nothing else is making them make the choices. Choosing is using your will. The will is controlling choice. It is not something "you" control external from "you". It is not a box in your brain that "you" flip switches on. It is YOU making choices. Like Joel has said, over and over.

Your brain is making you make choices, and yes, while "you" are your brain in a sense, your brain is caused by physical processes outside of your conscious control. Hence there is no LFW from a scientific perspective.

On top of that you cannot control your will, it's logically impossible, as my argument showed. It is either caused by something or it is not. If it is caused by something, you have no LFW, if it is not caused you cannot control something by definition, and you have no LFW. You're just labeling thoughts that arise in your consciousness your "free will" but that's wordplay. It isn't really free since you cannot control it. This is confusing compatibilistic free will with libertarian free will, something only someone who doesn't understand the subject matter will make, like you. So LFW is ruled out from a logical perspective. The "will" is also not controlling your choice, your physical brain is, which is determined by the laws of physics, which you of course cannot control.

[The Thinker]

and yet you did in effect say, "I made me not raise my arm" which is free will.

Also:

Don't confuse language with reality. Human language is far better at capturing human experience than at expressing deep physical laws.

In other words, you're making the lay-person's mistake of taking human language for the reality it describes and thinking the former is more real than the latter. I deal with this all the time with idiots like you who don't study science and philosophy.

[Sparko]

That's not free will, since everything we do no matter what is caused/explained by physical processes you are not consciously aware of. There is no free will here. You telling me to do X simple didn't make my brain make my arm raise. But it's all due to physical deterministic processes. LFW never enters the picture.

So basically you are now saying determinism is real but you can't actually explain how it works even in a simple example like raising your arm, but we should just take your word on it. ha.

What you're talking about is compatibilistic free will, not libertarian free will. YOU clearly don't understand the subject matter.

uh what? Compatibilism is the idea that free will and determinism are compatible. whether I believe that or not, that is not what I argued.

I never was, even on determinism since I have a mind, by definition I cannot be a mindless robot.

no you just have the illusion of having a mind. You are actually just a deterministic machine that has no control over its actions or thoughts, so you are mindless. If your idea is correct, that is.

You have have a mind without having LFW, but you cannot have LFW without having a mind. I've already explained this to you weeks ago but your stupid brain can't process the data properly.

derp. Yep. I guess my programming is subpar. beep. that does not compute. illogical. self destruct initiated.

[The Thinker]

So basically you are now saying determinism is real but you can't actually explain how it works even in a simple example like raising your arm, but we should just take your word on it. ha.

Can't explain? I already did.

uh what? Compatibilism is the idea that free will and determinism are compatible. whether I believe that or not, that is not what I argued.

That's what you're trying to argue, since at no point does actual LFW come into play in your description of how you think things work.

no you just have the illusion of having a mind. You are actually just a deterministic machine that has no control over its actions or thoughts, so you are mindless. If your idea is correct, that is.

That isn't the definition of mindless. Being mindless is having no mind, and I have a mind. But we are all deterministic machines whether you like it or not. It is scientifically impossible to not be.

derp. Yep. I guess my programming is subpar. beep. that does not compute. illogical. self destruct initiated.

Yes. Do yourself a favor and actually try to learn the subject matter before making an idiot of yourself in the future.

[Sparko]

Can't explain? I already did.

"derrr stuff happens in my brain so I didn't raise my arm. derr...."

That's what you're trying to argue, since at no point does actual LFW come into play in your description of how you think things work.

explain.

That isn't the definition of mindless. Being mindless is having no mind, and I have a mind. But we are all deterministic machines whether you like it or not. It is scientifically impossible to not be.

Were you made to type that? by stuff happening in your brain?

Yes. Do yourself a favor and actually try to learn the subject matter before making an idiot of yourself in the future.

It is so ironic. Everyone reading this thread thinks YOU are the idiot. And yet you think everyone else is. The Dunning-Kruger is strong with you, grasshopper.

[Joel]

I suspect you are thinking of the will as a passive device in Alice's brain such that Alice needs to push levers or buttons to make the will do stuff. And thus you argue that the problem is just pushed back a step. But there is no such step back. Alice's will is not something that Alice manipulates/affects. Alice's will is Alice's controlling & effecting something. There's no further step. No control of control (whatever that could possibly mean).

Time for you to outline a chronological order of events in the format of X-->Y-->Z because you make no sense. You are clearly admitting here the will is not in our control: "Alice's will is not something that Alice manipulates/affects"

Yes, the will is our LFW control (of our actions/effects); there is no further need of control of it (which would be meaningless).

As for chronological order, I have already given that. There is only one step:

1) Alice controls and causes Y.

The end. It is a single, atomic, simultaneous act of Alice. There are no sub-steps within that. Thus the buck stops there. No need for further cause or control, because sufficient cause and control is already there.

(You are likely going to object that I haven't proven that to be true. I don't have to prove it to be true. I only have to say that it is my position, as advocate of LFW. It is up to you to demonstrate an internal contradiction in my position. You have to show that I am both affirming and denying some proposition.)

How? So you're uncaused to do X, how could you have not done X with any meaningful sense of control?

The same way you can do X with control.
I'm really not seeing any kind of contradiction in this. What do you think I am both affirming and denying?

That makes no sense since X is uncaused...

You are clearly mistaken here. By definition, X is the thing you did/caused, thus it is caused.

No, Y is the thing you caused. Not X.

I'm sorry, no. Read the quote above again. See what you wrote. Your question presupposes that X is something you "do" (thus cause).

In other words you have no evidence for your claim that LFW advocates agree to what you mean by your (1).

Every LFW advocate says we have control of our will

Evidence please. (And not only actual quotes saying those words, but evidence that they mean it in the same way you mean it.)
(Also I note that you use "Every" again after you admitted that you lack the evidence to show "every".)

Your only argument for this claim of yours (about what advocates of LFW think) is that you "just know" that it has to be required for LFW. Even though it's something that LFW advocates deny, and do not say that it is part of LFW. That's a straw man.

No, you don't just get to define the will as the control.

Of course I do get to. Because that's the position of advocates of LFW. Your claim is that there is an internal contradiction in the LFW position. To show that you have to use only their position--their definitions and the propositions that they affirm.

Otherwise, you are attacking a straw man.

You already know that I see no reason to think a prior cause is required for control. This is not a premise that LFW advocates accept. To show an internal contradiction in what LFW advocates believe, you have to argue from the propositions they accept. Not from propositions that they deny. You have to show that the propositions they accept lead them to both affirm and deny some proposition. What proposition do you think I am both affirming and denying?

I don't care what you think

Then you aren't showing an internal contradiction in what I, as advocate of LFW, think. If you aren't talking about what I think, then you are attacking a straw man.

[Cornelius89]

Completely wrong. Nothing has to generate the laws. Why does something have to "dictate the power" of an infinite regress? Either there is an infinite regress of explanations, a logically necessary one, or a brute fact. No matter what you do however, a brute fact is unavoidable. Even if you posit that there is a god.

So something came out of nothing? Then what is the whole point of asking "what causes a thought" (which is actually your way of asking "what causes a choice") - my answer is the same as yours: nothing.

Well, I'm glad at least you recognize those fallacies. But no, you're dichotomy is actually wrong. It is not the case that there either has to be an infinite regress or something comes out of nothing, because again, nothing never existed. There could be a finite amount of events and no "nothing."

"Nothing never existed." - it is superfluous to say this, unless you're considering existence to be a predicate again. That's like saying "boiled eggs are synthetic division." There is simply no connection. To ask or state that nothing "exists" or "doesn't exist" is a vacuous truth: it both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, much like the concept of "0." Consider the following thought experiment: "If a room is empty, then all cats in it are sleeping." If there are 0 cats, and "0" exists, then you should be able to tell me whether the cats are sleeping or not. But you obviously cannot do this (this is why the cats are BOTH sleeping and not sleeping - vacuous truth, which you can easily prove with formal logic).

So your last sentence misunderstands the point that something must have arisen out of "nothing," (which either has the power to allow it to exist or not (just like my point with the Gravitational constant)), or else be an infinite regress, which came out of...where? Nowhere clearly: a concept that has no significance in and of itself (because, again, existence is not a predicate).

My point is that all your infinite regress talk is irrelevant. Free will is a priori rules out because it entails a self-contradiction.

Not really. Your supposed contradiction arises out of the fallacy of language. You're right: you can't have a "thought about a thought." Irrelevant. The question is the origin of choice and how it can be "uncaused" and yet "caused" (by the chooser). Well you are insufficiently defining "caused" and "uncaused". Caused by natural laws? No. Caused by free will? Yes. Where does the free will come from? Not relevant to define just as my whole point about infinite regress shows: ultimately it came from "nowhere." You simply confuse the electricity that comprises a thought as the thought's origin and then from this you "prove" it's materialistic (begging the question).

That's not a free choice, that's the desire of coming back to this site arising in your consciousness through a physical brain process that you were consciously unaware of. You're confusing the thought arising in your consciousness with you being able to choose it. If I had a device implanted in your brain that could control your thoughts and you were unaware of it, from your subjective position you would receive those thoughts or desires in exactly the same way if that device was not implanted in your brain: you would just suddenly get the conscious desire to do X. Even if you rationally evaluated whether or not to do X, if all those rational thoughts were created by me, you would think this is of your own "free" will. You would have no way to tell whether it was or not based purely on how those thoughts arise in your consciousness. Therefore, you cannot use the argument that because thoughts arise in your consciousness you, that this proves they are free.

It is actually you who confuses desires with choices. To say that your mind-control invalidates free will is like saying a broken telephone that conveys incorrectly the caller's voice means the caller isn't speaking anything but the broken reception. This is why mentally handicapped/insane people aren't considered responsible for their resulting (negative) actions.

I'm doing no such thing. My argument does not assume we have or don't have souls, nor that thoughts have to have causes or not have causes. But it insists that they either do, or don't, and that neither possibility allows for LFW. See above for my explanation showing just having a thought is not free will.

The problem is that your assumption that choices not having a cause does not in any way invalidate LFW. The reason you don't see this is because you treat existence as a predicate. If the singularity of a black hole exists in 0 dimensions, yet it physically exists in the universe, according to you it doesn't exist at all. Some basic knowledge of Set Theory would eradicate your belief that the lack of causation means no existence (after all, particles and anti-particles come in and out of existence all the time): this is the very reason why an infinite number of natural numbers is countable, whereas all real numbers (R) aren't. For example, you can easily prove that 0.999...=1 exactly (and not approximately or like a limit). If you take 1/3=0.333..., multiply it by 3, you get 3/3=0.99999...; 1=0.999... According to your theory of "no causation=no existence," this is not true and 0.00...01 (which doesn't and can't exist) =/= 0: because you assume existence is a predicate. Your mistake comes from not understanding these concepts, and my example of "where does any existence come from: infinite regress (which comes from nothing as space-time is countable), or nothing" shows why your supposed contradiction can be used to prove that nothing exists at all.

Nope. This is a logical necessity. You've failed above to show how you "control" your thoughts.

If it's a logical necessity, then you're not talking about the causes/choices behind these thoughts per se. Make sure you don't confuse yourself over this subtle (and unstated) definition which is the mistake Ayn Rand made with her "Moral Relativist proof" (with which you can prove that black is white actually).

Let me ask you this. If all your thoughts, every single one of them, arose from a physical brain process governed by deterministic or indeterministic laws of physics that you were not consciously aware of, 2 questions:

(1) Would this allow for free will as you understand it?
(2) What do you think this would feel like from the subjective perspective of a person that's any different from what we experience now?

You haven't defined what you mean by "arose." Are all my thoughts able to be materialistically represented by natural laws? Obviously, or how would I relate to reality. Does this mean their ultimate origin is from materialism? No - just as the sound from a phone doesn't mean there's no caller some distance away.

#2 - quite a few individuals in history wouldn't make the choices they'd made. You can't prove this, esp with our current technology, one way or the other even if there was no LFW.

Finally, you mistake truth with provability - this was shown by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems and Tarski's Undefinability Theorem as false: there are some things you can know are true without being able to prove them, and one doesn't have to be able to prove one has free will in order for it to be non-contradictory. That would be like saying "An unknown object in Box A is a square, therefore it's a rectangle" - if it's square, it's indeed a rectangle, otherwise it's not. You can't prove LFW with these criteria that I'm aware of, nor disprove it (esp seeing Bell's Theorem). I'm merely refuting your objections.

[The Thinker]

Yes, the will is our LFW control (of our actions/effects); there is no further need of control of it (which would be meaningless).

Sorry, that's just calling something you cannot control by definition free will. That negates LFW. Tell me how Alice can control her will.

As for chronological order, I have already given that. There is only one step:

1) Alice controls and causes Y.

The end. It is a single, atomic, simultaneous act of Alice. There are no sub-steps within that. Thus the buck stops there. No need for further cause or control, because sufficient cause and control is already there.

(You are likely going to object that I haven't proven that to be true. I don't have to prove it to be true. I only have to say that it is my position, as advocate of LFW. It is up to you to demonstrate an internal contradiction in my position. You have to show that I am both affirming and denying some proposition.)

You do have to prove that Alice controls herself or whatever it is you think that causes Y. All you did was merely assert your conclusion. It's like debating whether god created the universe and offering only one line as an argument: God created and caused the universe.

There is a contradiction, because it is impossible to control something uncaused, so Alice cannot control herself to cause Y. Hence no LFW.

I'm sorry, no. Read the quote above again. See what you wrote. Your question presupposes that X is something you "do" (thus cause).

Me: So you're uncaused to do X, how could you have not done X with any meaningful sense of control?
You: The same way you can do X with control.

X is uncaused, and you admitted that. It is the first thing in the chain of causes. Now if you're saying it is caused, what caused it? What caused that? And what caused that, etc?

Evidence please. (And not only actual quotes saying those words, but evidence that they mean it in the same way you mean it.)
(Also I note that you use "Every" again after you admitted that you lack the evidence to show "every".)

Your only argument for this claim of yours (about what advocates of LFW think) is that you "just know" that it has to be required for LFW. Even though it's something that LFW advocates deny, and do not say that it is part of LFW. That's a straw man.

It's simple, if you cannot control your will you have no LFW. If you cannot control whether you believe in god, you cannot be said to have free will of the mind. This is so obvious to anyone who understands LFW. If you admit you have no control of your will, you negate any meaningful usage of the term LFW.

Let me ask you this, if your will was the result of a totally random roll of the dice, would you consider that free will?

Of course I do get to. Because that's the position of advocates of LFW. Your claim is that there is an internal contradiction in the LFW position. To show that you have to use only their position--their definitions and the propositions that they affirm.

Otherwise, you are attacking a straw man.

No, you don't. You don't get to define the will that no one can control by definition, as free will. Because then a fully deterministic system where you also cannot control your will could be called LFW. On your view LFW becomes meaningless.

Then you aren't showing an internal contradiction in what I, as advocate of LFW, think. If you aren't talking about what I think, then you are attacking a straw man.

You cut off the rest of my sentence which is what matters. If you claims something illogical, I have to call it out. To get out of the LFW dilemma you've simply had to claim LFW is something that in no sense is LFW. You admit we cannot control our will (because you accept that uncaused things cannot be controlled, and our will is uncaused) and yet you still assert LFW. That makes no sense. So once again you're wasting my time and you have no refuted that LFW is impossible. You've only called something more akin to CFW as LFW - which is what I knew you were going to have to do.

[The Thinker]

"derrr stuff happens in my brain so I didn't raise my arm. derr...."

Yeah. Do you really think you can do things without your brain?

explain.

You are simply trying to say that because something happens in your brain, that's free will. That's CFW not LFW. Your brain is causally determined outside of your will.

Were you made to type that? by stuff happening in your brain?

Of course. Do you really think you can do things without your brain? If so, ask someone to smash your brain to a pulp and let's see if you can still do things.

It is so ironic. Everyone reading this thread thinks YOU are the idiot. And yet you think everyone else is. The Dunning-Kruger is strong with you, grasshopper.

No, it is really the case that I know more about the subject matter than anyone else here. You can't just throw the DK effect out and expect it to work. And consensus doesn't mean crap here. This is a majority religious website.

Demonstrate that you actually know what you're talking about and we can have an adult discussion.