Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Jim B.]

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.

Causal indeterminism is a form of LFW. It meets all the criteria of LFW and it is coherent, although it may be false. Did you mean to say that the incoherency of LFW would be supported by causal indeterminism necessarily being false?

Why do you think that agent causation is totally illogical?

[The Thinker]

Causal indeterminism is a form of LFW. It meets all the criteria of LFW and it is coherent, although it may be false. Did you mean to say that the incoherency of LFW would be supported by causal indeterminism necessarily being false?

Why do you think that agent causation is totally illogical?

Causal indeterminacy does not allow you LFW. If causal indeterminacy is quantum indeterminacy, then it does not allow for LFW. Furthermore, if our thoughts do not have causes, then you are saying that they begin to exist without a cause. Without a cause they would be totally random fluctuations and it would be a mere coincidence that they had any connection or relationship to the physical world or reality. Since you can't have any control over something that is uncaused by definition, you cannot be in control of your will if your will or thoughts are uncaused.

[The Thinker]

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

Of course I stand by my words, because I reported a fact (you know, those things you are allergic to).

But the context of my quote was relevant for the discussion it was in, and to take it out of context and then claim it makes no sense is what I have a problem with.

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.

Of course there is. There being no free will does not negate the legitimacy of calling stupid things stupid. It's just a descriptor of what is.

[Sparko]

Of course I stand by my words, because I reported a fact (you know, those things you are allergic to).

But the context of my quote was relevant for the discussion it was in, and to take it out of context and then claim it makes no sense is what I have a problem with.



Of course there is. There being no free will does not negate the legitimacy of calling stupid things stupid. It's just a descriptor of what is.

how can something be done smartly or stupidly? It is all just physical causal chains. There is no moral judgements on mechanical operations. You don't say a saw mill is stupid because it didn't saw a log correctly or smart because it did. It just did what it did because of various parameters, such as the sharpness of the blade, the hardness of the wood, the causal chain that led from the forest to the mill.

So there is no "smart" or "stupid" You have no control over your actions or behavior, it is all mechanical. Your brain is just more or less efficient at processing data than someone elses or making connections. You are just a more or less efficient robot.

[The Thinker]

how can something be done smartly or stupidly? It is all just physical causal chains. There is no moral judgements on mechanical operations. You don't say a saw mill is stupid because it didn't saw a log correctly or smart because it did. It just did what it did because of various parameters, such as the sharpness of the blade, the hardness of the wood, the causal chain that led from the forest to the mill.

So there is no "smart" or "stupid" You have no control over your actions or behavior, it is all mechanical. Your brain is just more or less efficient at processing data than someone elses or making connections. You are just a more or less efficient robot.

You are making the assumption that "smart" or "stupid" descriptions of human behavior depend on LFW. In other words, you are assuming your POV. I see nothing in the definitions of either words that require that assumption:

smart: having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.

stupid: lacking intelligence or common sense.

[Sparko]

You are making the assumption that "smart" or "stupid" descriptions of human behavior depend on LFW. In other words, you are assuming your POV. I see nothing in the definitions of either words that require that assumption:

smart: having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.

stupid: lacking intelligence or common sense.

No, actually YOU are the one assuming LFW while denying it (you have done that from the very start).

IF LFW=true then people can be smart or dumb. If LFW=False, then it is all mechanical and they can only be more or less efficient at carrying out causal chains. They can't make decisions remember? It's all mechanical chains of events.

[The Thinker]

No, actually YOU are the one assuming LFW while denying it (you have done that from the very start).

I've never assumed LFW at all. You just don't understand anything you're talking about, and you take your ignorance as an actual argument.

IF LFW=true then people can be smart or dumb. If LFW=False, then it is all mechanical and they can only be more or less efficient at carrying out causal chains. They can't make decisions remember? It's all mechanical chains of events.

Show me where in the definitions of smart or stupid is LFW necessary and then you'll have an actual argument. All I see if your assumption that they do.

[Sparko]

I've never assumed LFW at all. You just don't understand anything you're talking about, and you take your ignorance as an actual argument.

of course you are not assuming LFW on purpose. You don't even realize it. That's what makes it so funny and ironic.

Show me where in the definitions of smart or stupid is LFW necessary and then you'll have an actual argument. All I see if your assumption that they do.

It is common sense and logic. Something that has been shown to be beyond your grasp.

[The Thinker]

of course you are not assuming LFW on purpose. You don't even realize it. That's what makes it so funny and ironic.

I'm not assuming LFW at all. You just assume terms like 'stupid' and 'smart' require LFW because you don't understand the subject matter enough.

It is common sense and logic. Something that has been shown to be beyond your grasp.

No it isn't. What you fail to understand is that common sense often doesn't work when talking about highly complex esoteric subjects like free will. And it certainly isn't logic. Make a logical argument showing it must be the case that terms like 'stupid' and 'smart' require LFW without making a ton of assumptions for which you have no justification for.

You of all people shouldn't be lecturing others on "logic" - something you barely have a grasp on.

[Jim B.]

Causal indeterminacy does not allow you LFW. If causal indeterminacy is quantum indeterminacy, then it does not allow for LFW. Furthermore, if our thoughts do not have causes, then you are saying that they begin to exist without a cause. Without a cause they would be totally random fluctuations and it would be a mere coincidence that they had any connection or relationship to the physical world or reality. Since you can't have any control over something that is uncaused by definition, you cannot be in control of your will if your will or thoughts are uncaused.

Purpose and indeterminism are not mutually exclusive. What LFW requires is that same past does not equal same future regarding actions I do in accordance with my purposes and intentions. If I'm faced with a dilemma, then I have more than one option open to me and for each option I would have a set of reasons for that option in line with my purposes and intentions. If indeterminism enters the process late, just prior to my choice, then whatever of my options I choose will lead to an action I perform that's done because of my intentions. Causal indeterminism does not give a contrastiveexplanation, of why I chose A as opposed to B, but it does explain why I chose A (for the reasons supporting A). I am not defending causal indeterminism, but I do believe that it is coherent under a plausible definition of LFW. Your point has been that all accounts of LFW are incoherent.

Why do you think that agency causation is illogical?

[Sparko]

I'm not assuming LFW at all. You just assume terms like 'stupid' and 'smart' require LFW because you don't understand the subject matter enough.



No it isn't. What you fail to understand is that common sense often doesn't work when talking about highly complex esoteric subjects like free will. And it certainly isn't logic. Make a logical argument showing it must be the case that terms like 'stupid' and 'smart' require LFW without making a ton of assumptions for which you have no justification for.

You of all people shouldn't be lecturing others on "logic" - something you barely have a grasp on.

I would but my causal chain won't let me.

[The Thinker]

Purpose and indeterminism are not mutually exclusive. What LFW requires is that same past does not equal same future regarding actions I do in accordance with my purposes and intentions. If I'm faced with a dilemma, then I have more than one option open to me and for each option I would have a set of reasons for that option in line with my purposes and intentions. If indeterminism enters the process late, just prior to my choice, then whatever of my options I choose will lead to an action I perform that's done because of my intentions. Causal indeterminism does not give a contrastiveexplanation, of why I chose A as opposed to B, but it does explain why I chose A (for the reasons supporting A). I am not defending causal indeterminism, but I do believe that it is coherent under a plausible definition of LFW. Your point has been that all accounts of LFW are incoherent.

Why do you think that agency causation is illogical?

Sorry, but you seem to have not heard anything I wrote. Indeterminacy does not allow you to have control of your thoughts, will, or actions. It simply makes them random. Regardless of that, you cannot choice your own thoughts or will. They arise in conscious and you couldn't have chosen it before hand. The mere fact that it arises in your consciousness doesn't entail you freely willed it.

I never said agency causation is illogical - but you need to define the "agent" first.

[The Thinker]

I would but my causal chain won't let me.

I know. It's because you don't really have an argument. That's one of the causes in the causal chain.

I'm glad to know you think that things can begin to exist without a cause however.

[Sparko]

I know. It's because you don't really have an argument. That's one of the causes in the causal chain.

I'm glad to know you think that things can begin to exist without a cause however.

What if the cause is you?

[The Thinker]

What if the cause is you?

That only pushes the problem back one step. Either you're going to have a chain of causes going back before you or you're going to have something that begins to exist without a cause -- on your worldview.