Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Sparko]

Sparky, I believe it is Thinker's thread and his responsibility to determine who can post and when.

Feel free to respond to his posts all you want, just don't respond or comment on my posts or butt into my conversation with him. That is rude.

[The Thinker]

Ooooh. So you are an expert then! So show me where it predicted I ate an apple for breakfast yesterday, or nothing for breakfast today. And what am I going to eat for lunch tomorrow?

Anyone who asks these sorts of questions is clearly not learned in the subject matter. The equation covers the fundamental levels, for predicting what you will choose we use higher levels of science, like neuroscience, where we can currently predict with a greater than 80% accuracy what a person will choose beforehand. And not being able to predict all decisions is merely a limit of technology, it is not indicative of your decisions not being determined.

It is just a formula that combines various portions of physics, like gravity, quantum mechanics, spacetime, etc and sticks them together. It describes the parts of the physical universe. It does not predict anything, or prove anything about determinism or free will. If you believe it does, you are a moron.

LOL. It does. It shows that there are no forces working on your body that are not already covered in the Standard Model and gravity, which empirically rules out a mind or soul having a causal influence on the body - which of course would negate LFW, since the mind being causally effective is one of the requirements of LFW.

You really are a moron who obviously hasn't read anything about science since high school.

[Sparko]

Anyone who asks these sorts of questions is clearly not learned in the subject matter. The equation covers the fundamental levels, for predicting what you will choose we use higher levels of science, like neuroscience, where we can currently predict with a greater than 80% accuracy what a person will choose beforehand. And not being able to predict all decisions is merely a limit of technology, it is not indicative of your decisions not being determined.



LOL. It does. It shows that there are no forces working on your body that are not already covered in the Standard Model and gravity, which empirically rules out a mind or soul having a causal influence on the body - which of course would negate LFW, since the mind being causally effective is one of the requirements of LFW.

You really are a moron who obviously hasn't read anything about science since high school.

sigh, basically your only argument is to repeat your assertions and attack anyone who disagrees with you by calling them names and trying to shame them. The problem is, Thinker, that you are the one who is actually showing himself to be ignorant in this area. Everyone sees it. Like I said, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, in spades.

But I digress.

Can you give me an example of anything uncaused that cannot be controlled? You made the claim, not me.

Also is the universe itself caused or uncaused in your theory?

Can something uncaused be the cause of something else?

[Joel]

This is your same old argument.
You say the relevant cause (X) is either caused or uncaused, and you also argue that in either case, the effect of X can't be controlled. But the argument assumes that there needs to exist a control prior to X, which ignores the possibility that X itself could be the exercising of control, thus requiring no prior control (nor prior cause for that matter)--no need for X to be controlled. It is sufficient for LFW if X controls which effect it causes.

You are admitting X has no control over what it causes

Still wrong (see bolded part). Read it again. It's astounding your inability to comprehend what's written right there!

[The Thinker]

Sparky, I believe it is Thinker's thread and his responsibility to determine who can post and when.

Anyone can post to anyone on anything, and the receiver may respond or not if they wish.

[The Thinker]

sigh, basically your only argument is to repeat your assertions and attack anyone who disagrees with you by calling them names and trying to shame them. The problem is, Thinker, that you are the one who is actually showing himself to be ignorant in this area. Everyone sees it. Like I said, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, in spades.

Repeat my assertions? No. If I repeat anything it is scientific evidence that supports my views (you know, like the kind of evidence you never have), or logical rules that I've repeatedly backed up.

Can you give me an example of anything uncaused that cannot be controlled? You made the claim, not me.

Everything uncaused cannot be controlled. But nothing in the universe is uncaused. So no, I cannot give you an example of something uncaused and uncontrollable, unless it's the universe itself.

Also is the universe itself caused or uncaused in your theory?

Uncaused. This is because causality is a concept that only applies to things in spacetime, which is to say, things in the universe. Without space or time, causality makes no sense.

Can something uncaused be the cause of something else?

Sure. But I'm curious as to your definition of "cause". I don't think you can really define it.

[The Thinker]

Still wrong (see bolded part). Read it again. It's astounding your inability to comprehend what's written right there!

Joel, I've refuted every point in this paragraph. Case closed. I don't need to debate someone like you who just asserts LFW is coherent on zero logic and evidence. X doesn't control what it effects because for the millionth time X is uncaused to do what it effects and you cannot control something uncaused.

[The Thinker]

Show me something that is uncaused so I can show you how to control it.

There is nothing in the universe uncaused; everything in the universe has a cause. So I cannot show you it. The universe itself doesn't need a cause, so there you go. Tell me how you can control an uncaused universe.

[Joel]

This is your same old argument.
You say the relevant cause (X) is either caused or uncaused, and you also argue that in either case, the effect of X can't be controlled. But your argument assumes that there needs to exist a control prior to X, which ignores the possibility that X itself could be the exercising of control, thus requiring no prior control (nor prior cause for that matter)--no need for X to be controlled. It is sufficient for LFW if X controls which effect it causes.

Joel, I've refuted every point in this paragraph. Case closed.

No, every response you've made to it has simply been you thinking the paragraph says something that is the exact opposite of what it says. The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have an incorrigible problem with reading comprehension. Not once have you addressed what the paragraph actually says. Read it again.

X doesn't control what it effects because for the millionth time X is uncaused to do what it effects and you cannot control something uncaused.

This again is yet another example of you failing to understand what is written there. Read it again. The bolded parts in particular.

[shunyadragon]

Anyone can post to anyone on anything, and the receiver may respond or not if they wish.

True, though it's your thread, and you have the discretion as to who may or may not post, not Sparky.

[shunyadragon]

Feel free to respond to his posts all you want, just don't respond or comment on my posts or butt into my conversation with him. That is rude.

Sparky, not rude by Tweb standards. It is Thinker's thread, and you have right to ignore.

[seer]

Sparky, not rude by Tweb standards. It is Thinker's thread, and you have right to ignore.

You are such a brat that you will not graciously bow out when asked. Typical leftist...

[Sparko]

Everything uncaused cannot be controlled. But nothing in the universe is uncaused. So no, I cannot give you an example of something uncaused and uncontrollable, unless it's the universe itself.



Uncaused. This is because causality is a concept that only applies to things in spacetime, which is to say, things in the universe. Without space or time, causality makes no sense.

So are you saying that there is no such thing as "control?" or that you CAN control things that are caused, but NOT control things that are uncaused?

If I write a program that controls the lights in my house, causing them to turn on at specific times, is that program controlling an action or not?

Can something uncaused be the cause of something else?

Sure. But I'm curious as to your definition of "cause". I don't think you can really define it.

So something uncaused can cause something else. Then my uncaused will (well self-caused) can cause other things to happen. Thus LFW.

[Sparko]

There is nothing in the universe uncaused; everything in the universe has a cause. So I cannot show you it. The universe itself doesn't need a cause, so there you go. Tell me how you can control an uncaused universe.

Every time I do something, according to you, it is merely manipulating the physical universe, which is uncaused. So every time I make a decision I am controlling the uncaused universe.

[The Thinker]

No, every response you've made to it has simply been you thinking the paragraph says something that is the exact opposite of what it says. The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have an incorrigible problem with reading comprehension. Not once have you addressed what the paragraph actually says. Read it again.

I've read it multiple times buddy. I don't think you even know what you wrote.

This again is yet another example of you failing to understand what is written there. Read it again. The bolded parts in particular.

I've already addressed every section that you've bolded many times over. There is no assumption in my argument that you need to control X, if there's no control of X, there's no LFW, since LFW must require controlling of your will and actions. To say you can have LFW without having the ability to control your will or actions is an oxymoron.