Is libertarian free will coherent?

[The Thinker]

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?

There is no control in the LFW way - because it is a concept that makes no sense. On top of that, it is impossible given physics. If something is uncaused you can't control it, so on your view of free will, you have no control over your will, which negates it from being LFW. If something is caused, you can have control over it but only in the sense that you are part of the causal chain that leads to it or effects it, but because you are part of a causal chain, there is no LFW because it's all determined.

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

Um no. You cannot have control of your uncaused will, therefore it is not self-caused, it is uncaused. There is no such thing as something self-caused. And the other things that happen are part of a deterministic causal chain. Hence there is no LFW anywhere here.

[The Thinker]

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.

No, because it's all determined on my view. So you're just a part of the causal chains that exist in the universe, there's no LFW anywhere in the picture and there's no manipulating the universe beyond what it was already determined to do.

[Sparko]

There is no control in the LFW way - because it is a concept that makes no sense. On top of that, it is impossible given physics. If something is uncaused you can't control it, so on your view of free will, you have no control over your will, which negates it from being LFW. If something is caused, you can have control over it but only in the sense that you are part of the causal chain that leads to it or effects it, but because you are part of a causal chain, there is no LFW because it's all determined.




Um no. You cannot have control of your uncaused will, therefore it is not self-caused, it is uncaused. There is no such thing as something self-caused. And the other things that happen are part of a deterministic causal chain. Hence there is no LFW anywhere here.

Yep. as I and others have pointed out, you merely claim everything you don't believe in as "impossible" and hand wave it away. Any actual examples showing you wrong, you either purposefully misunderstand like you do Joel's, or you merely dismiss as impossible.

Completely impervious to falsification because anything that can falsify your theory, you claim is impossible.

I guess I will use my free will and leave you to your delusion at this point instead of wasting more of my time. have fun.

[The Thinker]

Yep. as I and others have pointed out, you merely claim everything you don't believe in as "impossible" and hand wave it away. Any actual examples showing you wrong, you either purposefully misunderstand like you do Joel's, or you merely dismiss as impossible.

Um, total BS, because I have been making logical arguments all along in this thread. And I've never dismissed everything I don't believe in as impossible, not once. So you're just making crap up because you know you don't have an actual argument here, so you make up lies about your opponent. And no, I've never pretended to know understand Joel. I've refuted every aspect of his claims. He just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, like you.

Completely impervious to falsification because anything that can falsify your theory, you claim is impossible.

It's because LFW is impossible, as you know. So you are literally claiming you can have LFW without being able to control your will or actions. This is retarded.

I guess I will use my free will and leave you to your delusion at this point instead of wasting more of my time. have fun.

You can't because you admitted your will is uncaused and you cannot control something uncaused. You are just in denial and prefer to just believe whatever you want - which is sad.

[Sparko]

Um, total BS, because I have been making logical arguments all along in this thread. And I've never dismissed everything I don't believe in as impossible, not once.

My Goodness! You did it right in the post I was replying to!

LFW. Impossible. Control. Impossible. Being an initial cause. Impossible.



buh-bye. I might stick around a bit to watch Joel slap you around some more, but I am bored arguing with a mindless robot who can only repeat himself and deny any counter arguments by categorizing them as "impossible!"

[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.

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.

The very point of the paragraph is that LFW does not require control of X. (See bolded parts.) Your statement that "if there's no control of X, there's no LFW" is simply false and a mere question-begging. You are still demonstrating that you do not understand what I wrote.

[The Thinker]

The very point of the paragraph is that LFW does not require control of X. (See bolded parts.) Your statement that "if there's no control of X, there's no LFW" is simply false and a mere question-begging. You are still demonstrating that you do not understand what I wrote.

I've been arguing for weeks that you need control of X to have LFW. You are literally trying to convince me that you can have no control of your will and still have LFW.

Oxymoron.

[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.

I've been arguing for weeks that you need control of X to have LFW. You are literally trying to convince me that you can have no control of your will and still have LFW.

Oxymoron.

Yes, you've been arguing that for weeks; that's why the paragraph begins with "This is your same old argument."

As the paragraph indicates, your definition of LFW declares, by definition, that in LFW there needs to exist a control prior to X (and that's the only reason you conclude "oxymoron"). But no advocate of LFW would agree with that definition. Rather, "It is sufficient for LFW if X controls which effect it causes."

Note my paragraph intentionally doesn't mention "will", but only "the relevant cause (X)". Don't worry too much about what we will call X or what part of this we call the "will", and just take the paragraph for what it says.

[Tassman]

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

Who or what is the "self" that's doing this causing of yours? Does it exist in isolated splendour or does it in fact comprise a life-time of subconscious memories and experiences of which you are largely unaware? I suggest the latter. This can't be described as 'LFW' because it directs nothing, itself being shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs, memory function, etc, to thought and action.

[seer]

Who or what is the "self" that's doing this causing of yours? Does it exist in isolated splendour or does it in fact comprise a life-time of subconscious memories and experiences of which you are largely unaware? I suggest the latter. This can't be described as 'LFW' because it directs nothing, itself being shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs, memory function, etc, to thought and action.

Another drone spitting out what he was pre-determined to spit out.

[The Thinker]

Yes, you've been arguing that for weeks; that's why the paragraph begins with "This is your same old argument."

And you've never refuted my "same old argument." Not even close.

As the paragraph indicates, your definition of LFW declares, by definition, that in LFW there needs to exist a control prior to X (and that's the only reason you conclude "oxymoron"). But no advocate of LFW would agree with that definition. Rather, "It is sufficient for LFW if X controls which effect it causes."

That makes no sense!! X doesn't control which effects if causes because X has no control over what X does!! If there is no prior control to X, then X cannot control what it does. Your claim is absolutely absurd. It's a word salad. It's literally trying to define LFW into existence by declaring X controls its effects when you already admitted that X is uncaused to do what it does and you cannot have control over something uncaused.

This is why debating you is an utter waste of time.

[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.

That makes no sense!! X doesn't control which effects if causes because X has no control over what X does!!

According to my paragraph, "X controls which effect it causes," which is the same thing as saying "X has control over what X does". ("what effect X causes" == "what X does") The part of your text that I bolded is simply contrary to (and not supported by) my position and this paragraph.

If there is no prior control to X, then X cannot control what it does.

That is exactly the assumption of yours that my paragraph is denying. (And no advocate of LFW would agree to.) Your restating it is question-begging.

It's literally trying to define LFW into existence by declaring X controls its effects when you already admitted that X is uncaused to do what it does and you cannot have control over something uncaused.

There is nothing inconsistent in my doing so. X is not caused or controlled. It is the causer and controller. Nothing uncaused is being controlled (in the sense of a prior cause/control. X doing what it does is caused in the sense that X causes it). But you already knew all this because you've read my paragraph lots of times.

[The Thinker]

According to my paragraph, "X controls which effect it causes," which is the same thing as saying "X has control over what X does". ("what effect X causes" == "what X does") The part of your text that I bolded is simply contrary to (and not supported by) my position and this paragraph.

Of course it is contrary, that's trivial, the point is that you are wrong in your claim that X controls what it does since it is impossible. You are merely claiming something not LFW is LFW.

That is exactly the assumption of yours that my paragraph is denying. (And no advocate of LFW would agree to.) Your restating it is question-begging.

There is no question begging here at all, why you cannot control something uncaused and why this negates LFW has been explained numerous times.

There is nothing inconsistent in my doing so. X is not caused or controlled. It is the causer and controller. Nothing uncaused is being controlled (in the sense of a prior cause/control. X doing what it does is caused in the sense that X causes it). But you already knew all this because you've read my paragraph lots of times.

But X has no control over what it causes since it is uncaused to do it and you cannot have control over something uncaused, hence no LFW. We've been down this road a million times. You've lost this debate. Game over.

[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.

X doing what it does is caused, in the sense that X causes it.

But X has no control over what it causes since it is uncaused to do it

That is literally the opposite of what I said. See the bolded parts.

Assuming further explanation is necessary (which it shouldn't be), take this as a supplement to my paragraph:
X does Y.
Thus, Y is caused, by X.
Whether X does Y is controlled, by X.
Whether X does Y is caused, by X.
Thus, X causes itself to do Y. (Thus X doing Y is caused.)
The above statements of causes are not multiple causes, not a sequence of causes. There is only one, atomic, cause-and-control: X.
X is not in turn caused or controlled by any prior cause or controller. X is the relevant (and sufficient) causer and controller.
X is not the thing needing to be caused/controlled. Rather, the only thing needing to be controlled is "whether X does Y", which is not identical to X.

[Tassman]

Another drone spitting out what he was pre-determined to spit out.

Is this gratuitous comment an act of libertarian free-will, or is it the end result of an underlying unconscious process?