Is libertarian free will coherent?

[The Thinker]

OK. Let me ask something different. Can the equation explain consciousness? Or, how does the equation explain the unique perception that every sentient human has of being conscious?

Why is a person more attractive than another person? Can the equation explain? That is a pertinent question because life would be different if on the other hand the first person is no more attractive than the second one in the eyes of the observer.

This equation is not intended to explain everything in the universe. The equation explains all particles and force interactions in the Standard Model + gravity, which is everything that governs our lives. It shows that there can be no soul or spirit or intellect or formal cause that interacts with your body's atoms, or any of the atoms in your daily experiences --- if you happen to believe in any of those things.

[seer]

This equation is not intended to explain everything in the universe. The equation explains all particles and force interactions in the Standard Model + gravity, which is everything that governs our lives.

Why wouldn't it explain consciousness if it explains everything that governs our lives?

[The Thinker]

Why wouldn't it explain consciousness if it explains everything that governs our lives?

It explains all the particles and forces that govern our lives, and it leaves no room for the soul, which is why we know substance dualism is false.

[seer]

It explains all the particles and forces that govern our lives, and it leaves no room for the soul, which is why we know substance dualism is false.

It doesn't seem to leave room for consciousness either, or if it does, how does it?

[The Thinker]

It doesn't seem to leave room for consciousness either, or if it does, how does it?

Of course it leaves room for consciousness. Epiphenominalism would be compatible with this. Property dualism and monism would be compatible with it too. Substance dualism and any kind of dualistic interactionism wouldn't.

[seer]

Of course it leaves room for consciousness. Epiphenominalism would be compatible with this. Property dualism and monism would be compatible with it too. Substance dualism and any kind of dualistic interactionism wouldn't.

How exactly does it leave room for consciousness, where in you equation does self-awareness actually fit in? Since your equation "describes everything in our everyday experience" what part of your equation describes self-awareness?

[The Thinker]

How exactly does it leave room for consciousness, where in you equation does self-awareness actually fit in? Since your equation "describes everything in our everyday experience" what part of your equation describes self-awareness?

You're begging the question by assuming that consciousness cannot be explained by interacting atoms. This equation describes all the atomic interactions in everyday experience which give rise to consciousness. But consciousness itself is not explained by this equation.

[seer]

You're begging the question by assuming that consciousness cannot be explained by interacting atoms. This equation describes all the atomic interactions in everyday experience which give rise to consciousness. But consciousness itself is not explained by this equation.

OK, explain how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms. And you are saying that your formula does not explain self-awareness? But you said it describes everything in our everyday experience.So it doesn't actually describe everything - correct?

[The Thinker]

OK, explain how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms. And you are saying that your formula does not explain self-awareness? But you said it describes everything in our everyday experience.So it doesn't actually describe everything - correct?

It explains all the particles and forces that effect our everyday experience, which means there is no soul. I don't have to know how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms to know that it is caused by interacting atoms. I know it's not caused by a soul due to this equation since souls are ruled out.

[seer]

It explains all the particles and forces that effect our everyday experience, which means there is no soul. I don't have to know how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms to know that it is caused by interacting atoms. I know it's not caused by a soul due to this equation since souls are ruled out.

So you have no idea how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms, but you assert that it is. And your formula doesn't actually explain everything about our experience, but your equation must rule out anything non-material. OK, if you say so...

[The Thinker]

So you have no idea how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms, but you assert that it is. And your formula doesn't actually explain everything about our experience, but your equation must rule out anything non-material. OK, if you say so...

Nope. That's not a proper assessment. This equation rules out a soul and dualistic interactionism. It is not necessary for me to know how consciousness works in order to rule out certain attempts at explaining it, like a soul. The equation is the result of 200 years of experiment and knowledge built up on physics, which it so happens to be, it rules out anything not in the Standard Model or gravity to have any effect on your atoms. That's why I can confidently say dualistic souls are rubbish.

And second, you assert libertarian free will is true while not being able to explain it, or even explain how it is coherent -- which this whole post is about, and that apparently is fine when you do it. OK, if you say so...

[Tassman]

So you have no idea how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms, but you assert that it is. And your formula doesn't actually explain everything about our experience, but your equation must rule out anything non-material. OK, if you say so...

The point is that there's no good reason to rule anything non-material in.

[seer]

Nope. That's not a proper assessment. This equation rules out a soul and dualistic interactionism. It is not necessary for me to know how consciousness works in order to rule out certain attempts at explaining it, like a soul. The equation is the result of 200 years of experiment and knowledge built up on physics, which it so happens to be, it rules out anything not in the Standard Model or gravity to have any effect on your atoms. That's why I can confidently say dualistic souls are rubbish.

Well since your formula does not explain "everything" as you claimed and since you have no idea how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms, forgive me if I don't accept your grand conclusion.

And second, you assert libertarian free will is true while not being able to explain it, or even explain how it is coherent -- which this whole post is about, and that apparently is fine when you do it. OK, if you say so...

No Thinker, in our last discussion I was merely pointing out your double standard. Demanding a logical response from me, while failing to make a deductive argument for your position via epiphenomenalism. That you can not know, in any particular instance, if your brain is causing you to believe (consciously) a truism or not.

[themuzicman]

Most participants on this site are religious to some extent and most seem to be Christians. Most Christians believe in libertarian free will. That is, they reject determinism, are incompatibilists, and believe that our will, mind, and consciousness is not determined by anything and are free to choose any number of possible courses of action. Libertarian free will requires at least 3 things:

(1) We are in control of our will
(2) our mind is causally effective
(3) in the same situation we could have done otherwise

I prefer:

An agent P has free will if, given a circumstance A with contingent option B, P is able to choose B, AND P is able to choose ~B, although not both.

This view is popular among lay people but not among scientists and philosophers. Why is this? It's because libertarian free will is incoherent.

One simple question to ask the libertarian is: do our thoughts have causes? Yes or no?

The question isn't cause, but rather what causes them.

If our thoughts have causes, what ever caused that can't be our will or our mind, because our thoughts are our will and mind. Saying that the soul causes the thoughts just pushes the issue back one step further, because the question now becomes, does the soul have a cause? If it does, then what ever caused it can't be the soul or the mind or the will, it has to be something other. And once you have that, you are essentially admitting that your will is not truly free, since it has a cause that is not us and that we cannot control.

The faculty of the human being to make choices is uncaused. You can call it the "mind" or the "soul" or the "will" or whatever you want, but our free will is not caused to act by external force.

This does not eliminate "influence." But influence does not cause.

If our thoughts do not have causes, then you are saying that it begins to exist without a cause.

False. Free will can cause thoughts.

This could violate the kalam cosmological argument's first premise (everything that begins to exist has a cause) and would essentially falsify it. If our thoughts had no cause they would be totally random fluctuations and it would be a mere coincidence that they had any connection to the physical world or reality.

1) You've made the assumption that the faculty of free will is a part of the physical world. Christianity embraces the idea of a spiritual realm, which is not necessarily subject to all the laws of the physical universe.

2) The Kalam argument is not affected, because your argument is conflating between "caused to exist" and "caused to occur." Just because my free will comes about because of my parent's choices doesn't mean that everything my free will does is caused by how it came about.

Some of my thoughts have a cause, which is my free will. Consider:

I arrive at McDonalds, and look at the menu. This is circumstance B, as it defines my options. I choose (freely) to look at the menu. Did anything CAUSE me to choose to look at the menu? No. I decided I want to order food, so I looked at it. I see the Big Mac and the QPC. These are input to my next thought about which to choose. I (freely) choose to recall the taste of the Big Mac special sauce. I (freely) choose to recall the taste of pickles on a QPC. I then (freely) choose to weigh those options, and I (freely) make a choice.

My will has made several uncaused choices, which, in turn, caused thoughts and ultimately actions.

On top of that, the ability to choose your thoughts is logically impossible. You can't have a thought, about a thought, before you have a thought. You can't choose what your next thought, desire, or idea will be. In order to do that, you'd have to think about it, before you think about it. That's incoherent. If you can't choose your next thought, or any of your thoughts, how is your will or mind controlled by you, and in what sense is it free? It isn't. Thoughts arise in consciousness and we have no control over it.

You error is assuming that only thoughts can cause other thoughts. You've ignored the faculty of free will.

Right now I'm only asking for a justification of (1) above.

Done.

(2) and (3) is a whole other argument that only adds to the difficulty the libertarian has.

So what's a libertarian free will believer to do?

Reject bad logic.

Here are some typical nonstarter responses:

1. If we don't have free will moral responsibility goes out the window!

This is an informal fallacy known as an appeal to consequences. The undesirable consequences of a thing say nothing about whether it is false. For example, creationists will often say, "If we evolved then we're just animals. I don't like that, so evolution is false." This is a fallacious way of reasoning. The undesirability of being related to monkeys says nothing about whether evolution is true.

2. If we don't have free will rationality goes out the window!

This is similar to an appeal to consequences but not quite. If libertarian free will itself is not coherent and its coherency cannot be established, then you cannot claim that without it there is no rationality. You'd be arguing from a square-circle.

Basically, I want to challenge all believers in libertarian free will to make a positive argument for the coherency of libertarian free will. I don't need every single detail explained, I just need you to show how it is even logically coherent and not self-refuting. Or, admit that you can't. So who is up to the challenge? I want respondents to focus on the positive argument for LFW, not fallacious appeals to consequences.

Let's deal with your non-starter logic before dealing with conjured emotional responses.

[The Thinker]

Well since your formula does not explain "everything" as you claimed and since you have no idea how consciousness is explained by interacting atoms, forgive me if I don't accept your grand conclusion.

It explains every interaction in your life - all the particles and forces that affect you. And you know what? The soul isn't there. In fact it's impossible, because any soul that acted like a "ghost in the machine" would violate this equation, and nothing has ever done that. So you face a dilemma here. If you want to continue believing in substance dualism you need to show me how the soul interacts with the body in a way that is compatible with this equation, or you need to show me empirical evidence of a violation of this equation. If you can't do that, your claim is completely faith based, which wouldn't be a surprise.

No Thinker, in our last discussion I was merely pointing out your double standard. Demanding a logical response from me, while failing to make a deductive argument for your position via epiphenomenalism. That you can not know, in any particular instance, if your brain is causing you to believe (consciously) a truism or not.

Two points.

1) I made that argument. I showed how in principle it would work. You have not logically shown LFW is coherent, even in principle. No comparison.

2) Even if I didn't show that argument, since you believe LFW without being able to show how it is coherent, you could not accuse me of being self-refuting or illogical without being a hypocrite, since you do the same thing.