Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Joel]

Sorry, that's just calling something you cannot control by definition free will. That negates LFW.

Free will is control. Not something that is or need be controlled. That's the very definition of LFW: control of one's actions.
You are trying to add to it additional requirements denied by LFW. That's a straw man.

(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.

I sure predicted that one!
And, no, it's not at all like debating whether something is true. We are not debating whether it is true, we are debating whether it has an internal contradiction.

it is impossible to control something uncaused, so Alice cannot control herself to cause Y.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Alice does "control herself to cause Y." But that's the single, atomic step I talked about. (i.e. It's not Alice controlling one part of herself which in turn causes Y, as if there were two steps.) There is no control of something uncaused in my position.

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

Now this is an example of someone contradicting themselves. You say "you're uncaused to do X". That implies "You do X". That implies "You caused X". That implies "X is caused". Then you say "X is uncaused." Thus you are affirming and denying "X is caused". There. That's how you demonstrate an internal contradiction.

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.

So I guess you don't have any evidence of any advocate of LFW saying this. As I said, "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."

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?

This question only highlights your misunderstanding of my position. Your question still presupposes that the will is (and can be) controlled by something (e.g. by dice). The will is the control-er (and causer), not the control-ed (or caused).

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.

First of all you are trying to define my position (as something different than my position) rather than pointing out a contradiction in what my position actually is. That's a straw man.

Second, your conclusion doesn't follow. In my position as I have carefully explained it, Alice has LFW because Alice controls what actions/effects Alice causes. (not control of control.). In the "fully deterministic system" you lack free will because you don't control your actions/effects. Lacking control of control is not why Alice has free will. "Control of control" is just meaningless, thus it's not even something that can be said to be lacking. It's not a thing. LFW is control of one's actions/effects, not control of control.

You suggest that my system is compatibilism. It can't be because it is incompatible with determinism. Alice has control (in the system I have described) of her actions. With determinism, you have a prior cause, thus you do not control your actions.

You cut off the rest of my sentence which is what matters. If you claims something illogical, I have to call it out.

Okay, point out what proposition I am both affirming and denying.

[The Thinker]

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.

No. I've explicitly stated that is not the case. The laws of physics are just descriptions of physical patterns. They are not things in and of themselves. If you say nothing causes a choice, then you have to believe something comes from nothing. The choice came from nothing. And by definition you cannot control something uncaused.

"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).

Nothing existing in a contradiction in terms. It doesn't exist or happen. The point is we always have something. The claim that the universe came from nothing is a misguided question.

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).

No it is your claim to LFW as arising out of a fallacy of language. You're just calling something not free as free will. If you cannot choose your thoughts, you have no free will, regardless of whether they are caused or not. The origin of choice is that it is either caused or uncaused. It cannot be both. Caused by free will? That makes no sense. What the hell is the "free will"? Forget about where it comes from. And I'm not confusing the electricity that comprises a thought as the thought's origin -- that's what actually causes thoughts. But I can assume that isn't the case for the sake or argument and my argument still works.

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 confusing no such thing. Desires, choices -- whatever you think they are, they all arise in your consciousness with you being able to control it.

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.

That's like saying a physical object exists for 0 amount of time, yet it still exists. It doesn't. Singularities exist in 1 dimension as far as I can tell, not zero. I didn't say the lack of causation means no existence of the thing being caused. Lack of causation is the same thing as saying "nothing caused it." I'm not saying existence is a predicate. In what way do you think I'm saying that? Be specific.

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).

Ayn Rand believed in free will, I don't, so I cannot see how you think I'm like her at all. I'm simply saying "Thoughts arise in consciousness and we have no control over it." And that is a logical necessity. You cannot have control of your thoughts. You seem to agree:

You're right: you can't have a "thought about a thought."

However it's totally relevant here.

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.

In this case "arose" = caused by. So answer it now. And remember, this is an if/then question. 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, then, would this allow for free will as you understand it?

#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

How is that possibly a coherent answer given what I asked based on my if/then scenario?

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.

I mistake no such thing. My claim is that I can prove LFW is not only false, but impossible. You would have a point if LFW was coherent but just not proved true. But that's not the argument here. So you're totally off base. You have to prove LFW is coherent. And you don't know LFW is true. You simply just attribute a thought arising in your consciousness as being free. And Bell's theorem has nothing to do with LFW - this is an a priori debate. Quantum indeterminacy does not allow for LFW either.

And also, things that are not true will be unprovable.

[Jim B.]

The behavior of genes is described at the chemical level, not the physics level, so this equation would not be used to derive that. But, all chemical reactions are explained by the standard model.

And the behavior of humans, at least their conscious, intentional behavior, isn't explained at the chemical or the physics level. It's explainable at the level of reasons. To find out why I took my keys, you can't expect an answer at the level of physics, chemistry, biology. To find out, as Fodor says, just ask me.

I'm saying that 77% of philosophers of physics are atheists.

How is that relevant?
















Strawman again. I'm not trying to "prove" materialism. I clearly said in my comment, "This equation describes everything in our everyday experience, including our bodies, brains, and everything that goes on in it. This leaves no possible room for a soul or immaterial mind to have a causal effect on any of the atoms in your brain or body. To claim otherwise would require you take up the burden of proof and disprove this equation."

Everything that goes on in your body is ultimately reducible to atoms that behave according to this equation.




Because if it didn't you'd be able to point to something that violates it.



That's ridiculous. Every experiment confirms this equation. The whole point of me showing it is that if you claim that there are forces that interact with atoms like an immaterial soul, or an intellect or formal cause -- anything that is not in the Standard Model and gravity, that would violate this equation and therefore the burden of proof would be on you to empirically demonstrate that.


ion.

No one's trying to do that.[/QUOTE]

[Joel]

I clearly said in my comment, "This equation describes everything in our everyday experience, including our bodies, brains, and everything that goes on in it. This leaves no possible room for a soul or immaterial mind to have a causal effect on any of the atoms in your brain or body. To claim otherwise would require you take up the burden of proof and disprove this equation."

Everything that goes on in your body is ultimately reducible to atoms that behave according to this equation.

"Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry;"
--Francis Bacon ("father of empiricism"), Novum Organum (http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm)

[The Thinker]

And the behavior of humans, at least their conscious, intentional behavior, isn't explained at the chemical or the physics level. It's explainable at the level of reasons. To find out why I took my keys, you can't expect an answer at the level of physics, chemistry, biology. To find out, as Fodor says, just ask me.

I'm saying that 77% of philosophers of physics are atheists.

How is that relevant?

That is not my quote. I have no idea where that came from.

[Jim B.]

The very concept of LFW itself is self-refuting.

It depends on how LFW is understood. Causal indeterminism isn't self-refuting, imo, although some would argue that it doesn't meet all the criteria of LFW. I'm not convinced agent causation is illogical either.

[Sparko]

I'm saying that 77% of philosophers of physics are atheists.

Right there.

[seer]

Right there.

Right and 98% of Dentists recommend Crest Toothpaste!

[Sparko]

Right and 98% of Dentists recommend Crest Toothpaste!

he posted that he didn't say that, so I posted it with a link to the post where he did say that. I guess his brain made him type that and then made him forget about it. It was all programming.

[seer]

he posted that he didn't say that, so I posted it with a link to the post where he did say that. I guess his brain made him type that and then made him forget about it. It was all programming.

You just can't trust robots - all those glitches and such.

[Sparko]

You just can't trust robots - all those glitches and such.

I think he is last year's model. Haven't worked all the bugs out.

[The Thinker]

Right there.

Oh right. He took a quote from me from nearly 1 year ago that was a direct response to someone else's claim that:

"I know many within the field of Philosophy of Science who would object [to materialism], even scientists themselves such as chemists and biologists, who take a different approach."

And so I just gave him the facts about how many in the Philosophy of Physical Science are atheists.

So he took a quote of mine out of context, and then tried to claim it's not relevant. Slimy.

[The Thinker]

It depends on how LFW is understood. Causal indeterminism isn't self-refuting, imo, although some would argue that it doesn't meet all the criteria of LFW. I'm not convinced agent causation is illogical either.

The incoherency of LFW isn't dependent on causal indeterminism necessarily being true. Determinism, indeterminism, each are incompatible with LFW. Agent causation is totally illogical.

[The Thinker]

You just can't trust robots - all those glitches and such.

Especially the ones whose worldview is self-refuting, like yours.

[Sparko]

Oh right. He took a quote from me from nearly 1 year ago that was a direct response to someone else's claim that:



And so I just gave him the facts about how many in the Philosophy of Physical Science are atheists.

So he took a quote of mine out of context, and then tried to claim it's not relevant. Slimy.

awww. was that not fair? Don't you stand by your words a year ago?

And besides, no matter what he did, he had no free will in the matter, so there is no use is calling him "slimy" or being mad at him.