Originally posted by Joel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is libertarian free will coherent?
Collapse
X
-
Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostOriginally posted by JoelI don't know if I'm understanding what you are asking. If you are hungry and eat a sandwich in order to not be hungry, then that (to not be hungry) is your purpose in eating. It is the end toward, and rationale according to, which your action is directed/ordered. That order doesn't cause your action; it is a description of the action's order/rationale. And an action with order/rationale is not random/arbitrary, regardless whether the actor/causer was, in turn, caused to act in that way.
The important point is that randomness/arbitrariness has to do with lack of order/rationale, not with lack of efficient cause.
No!!! I doesn't show any of those things at all.
It causes them to pop into your head again, as all thoughts are judged as unique in their existence.
If on the other hand you want to classify (a) thinking of X at time t and (b) thinking of X at time t+dt (with no gap of not thinking of X in between) as always being distinct thoughts, then your argument still completely collapses, because your argument depends on a supposed contradiction in freely deciding (at time t) whether to think X at time t+dt.
It's not [a counter-example to Thinker's argument]. You can't have the same thought about a thought, before you have the thought. If I think of Pepsi right now, it is not somehow my "free choice" or a demonstration of an ability to choose my thoughts -- just because I've thought about Pepsi before. This is not in anyway an example of my (1).
Neither of those are thoughts you could have chosen beforehand. The decision to continue thinking about X popped into your head without your control. There is no way around this.
You even conceded that a device implanted into your head that controls your thoughts would be indistinguishable from what you claim is "free will" from your subjective experience
Interestingly, on another point, you've already conceded that the initial thought is not something you could've chosen.
And if subsequent thoughts were only possible because of that initial unchosen thought, that itself puts free will in a hamper.
Originally posted by JoelThe buck has to stop somewhere. Why not at the agent?
The choice began to exist in the agent.
You said the selection itself isn't a thought. So then what is it?
Originally posted by JoelBoth have a causal chain. And both chains must have a beginning (uncaused cause, to avoid infinite regress). We just disagree about where is the beginning. Why not at the agent? I see nothing logically impossible about that.
Originally posted by JoelTime t1: Agent is thinking about ideas of possible actions (e.g. possible action X, possible action Y, ...), and is deliberating about them.
Time t2: Agent selects one of those ideas to actualize.
Time t3: Agent is doing action Y (or X, or Z,...)
The selecting (at time t2) is not, itself a thought, but a selection from a set of thoughts (about possible action X, possible action Y, ...).
The action at time t3 is the actualization of one of those ideas. The agent makes the selection, i.e. causes the action.
And as I've said, I'm treating agent/soul/mind as synonymous.
And t2 is a thought. It is a mental process.
Originally posted by JoelThe truth of your (1) is not the question we are discussing (and thus evidence for or against it is not the discussion). We are only discussing whether your (1) is possible. If we can't tell whether (1) is true or false, then (as far as we know) each is possible, and thus (1) is possible.
And again, the relevant point is that you said that in my scenario we can't tell whether your (1) is true or false, so then (as far as we know) each is possible, and thus your (1) is possible.
This all stems from your confusing view.
That's why I was a detailed chronological order of events of your view of a free will decision.
For example, on your view, is the uncaused [COLOR=#333333]agent/soul/mind completely distinct from the physical body or not?
Does the uncaused agent/soul/mind cause the initial thought?
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostOriginally posted by JoelSo one can know that something happens without knowing how it happens.
And thus one can know that something is possible without knowing how it happens.
So it's conceivable that one could know that LFW is possible, without knowing how LFW happens.
Really, your requests for proof are like saying that you doubt that human memory exists or is even possible, and thus you demand that someone must explain how human memory works in order for you to believe that human memory is possible. How would you answer someone who demanded that of you? I'm curious to see an example of the kind of answer you are asking for.
Or you can pick a different example if you like. E.g. suppose the person is claiming that the concept of the brain causing consciousness is internally incoherent and asks you for a positive proof that it is coherent.
This will be a useful exercise, because you will be able to give us an example of the kind of answer you are asking for.
And surely you can't just answer that you believe there is nothing internally incoherent about those concepts. And you can't answer that the request is valid only for internally incoherent concepts, because that is begging the question.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostBecause my basic beliefs are not refuted by empirical evidence, the Scientology claim is.
One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking ex cathedra or at any other evidence, but in doing so, the intention to install 'certain' justification is abandoned.
A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
No I'm not. Arbitrary is defined as "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system," and I am not doing that. I have a system of reason. I don't just put ideas on a wall, close my eyes, and throw a dart at it and go with whatever idea the dart landed on. That would be arbitrary.
I did rationally justify my properly basic beliefs a few comments ago ad it is based on a system of reason and is not totally arbitrary, and I explained that you cannot just make any belief be properly basic because of the fact that some beliefs can be empirically shown to be false, or logically incoherent, like Scientology, and therefore a refuted belief cannot be properly basic. Are really this dumb that you cannot get this, or, will you never get it like the B-theory of time, which you utterly failed to grasp?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is nonsense Thinker, it is not about content, some circular arguments can be perfectly true, but not logically valid. That is the whole point of the trilemma, all three options are equally non-starters. Yet you will gladly impale yourself on one irrational horn while pointing a finger at others who are impaled on a different horn. Completely hypocritical. And your choice of which horn to choose is arbitrary, and your horn leads to this:
Are you this dense? Of course it is arbitrary, according to the above just about any belief could be properly basic if we don't have a defeater.
And really Thinker, do you really believe you did well in that debate on B-Theory? Sad...Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostThat in no way refutes the fact that Scientology is empirically false, as are many other religions. They are not all equally non-starters. The circular logic approach is probably the worst of the three because the subject in the belief (e.g. Scientology, Christianity) can be logically incoherent internally, or empirically refuted. The axiomatic approach if you use epistemology economy (assuming the fewest axioms) like I do, prevents all of this. That's why your "Christianity is true, because Christianity is true," doesn't have a leg to stand on. And it thinking this way shows that you really don't have any good reasons to justify your religious beliefs, that's why you have to resort to such absurd logic.
Yes, we have defeaters which wildly eliminate many beliefs as candidates for being properly basic. Something that is arbitrary is done on a whim and without reason, I gave you a logical reason how I choose my basic beliefs, therefore it cannot be arbitrary.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes, and that is your bias Thinker. Your choice of which horn you decided to be impaled on is arbitrary. Content of specific arguments are immaterial at this starting point. Like I said circular arguments can be perfectly true yet logically invalid. And according to the trilemma (which you brought up) your choice is not logically valid.
How do you know you are not being arbitrary? Can you show, without being circular, that your brain is dictating non-arbitrary information?Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostThe trilemma does not allow for all claims to be equally true or valid. That is one of the points. You seem to think that all claims are equally valid, or equally irrational. That is something you need to make a positive argument for. So go ahead.
I already showed you that. But your disabled brain just keeps asserting your point of view over and over, and information doesn't seem to be able to enter your brain. You are a perfect example of a brain on religion: factually void, emotionally driven, and faith based.
I did start a new thread on this in case you missed it, which you didn't: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ism-IrrationalAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostBut for this exercise, suppose that someone says to you that they think the concept of human memory is internally incoherent, and says you must give a positive proof that it is coherent. How would you respond. If you like we can role play: I'll play the part of the person thinking that human memory is incoherent.
Or you can pick a different example if you like. E.g. suppose the person is claiming that the concept of the brain causing consciousness is internally incoherent and asks you for a positive proof that it is coherent.
This will be a useful exercise, because you will be able to give us an example of the kind of answer you are asking for.
And surely you can't just answer that you believe there is nothing internally incoherent about those concepts. And you can't answer that the request is valid only for internally incoherent concepts, because that is begging the question.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOK, so your horn is only a little less irrational? That is your argument?
No you keep appealing to my conscious understanding, with your conscious understanding. But conscious understanding plays no part in your worldview. And the only way you could know that your beliefs are non-arbitrary is by rational introspection - which is meaningless, according to you.
I did start a new thread on this in case you missed it, which you didn't: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ism-Irrational
Your view is incoherent because libertarian free will is incoherent, nor is it compatible with science. Feel free to show how it is coherent anytime you want. Good luck!Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostNo. I'm saying your claim that all claims are equally valid or invalid is false. I need you to demonstrate as best you can that this is the case.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
I need to cut this down to only the relevant points. So I will shorten my response.
Originally posted by Joel View PostA person can choose to delay or refrain from eating. People sometimes intentionally go on fasts. So no, hunger does not necessarily cause you to eat. (But of course this was just an example, and not the main point of my comment. People have a wide variety of purposes for actions beyond bodily pains and pleasures. I'm sure you can think of some.)
The important point is that randomness/arbitrariness has to do with lack of order/rationale, not with lack of efficient cause.
That's not the question. The scenario only needs to be compatible with those things, not to show those things. (We are talking about logical possibility, not actuality.)
It can't pop into your head again if it never left your head. You were thinking about it continuously.
If on the other hand you want to classify (a) thinking of X at time t and (b) thinking of X at time t+dt (with no gap of not thinking of X in between) as always being distinct thoughts, then your argument still completely collapses, because your argument depends on a supposed contradiction in freely deciding (at time t) whether to think X at time t+dt.
You still aren't understanding what I'm saying. You were thinking all the thoughts involved prior to making the choice. Selecting which idea to actualize is not, itself a thought. No new thought arises in the selecting/acting, because the thought about the idea of the action was already in your mind prior to the selecting.
No I didn't. I said that if it is indistinguishable, then as far as we know either is possible, and so LFW is possible.
Not at all. I argued that: even if the initial ideas were in your head involuntarily, that doesn't preclude freely choosing from among them.
The fact that it stops somewhere does not violate kalam. It must stop somewhere. Kalam says nothing about where that stopping point is. Making use of only kalam, the stopping point could be anywhere, including in an agent.
Sure, the actualization of the potential action began in the agent, because it was caused by the agent.
The actualizing of one of the potential actions.
I never proposed that thoughts were uncaused. I only proposed that they could possibly be caused by the agent. The beginning of the chain is the agent, not the thought.
No. All the thoughts involved were in your mind already at t1. No new thoughts arise in t2 and t3. The selecting at t2 involves only the ideas already being thought at t1. And the idea of the action at t3 was already being thought at t1. Neither the selecting or the acting is, itself, a thought. The ideas of selecting and acting were already being contemplated at t1.
Not all mental processes are thoughts. Thinking thoughts (i.e. ideas) is only one of our mental faculties. We also have other faculties like memory, passions, sensation, moral sense, communication, and of course, will. Clearly the thought of an action is different than the action itself, because one can think the thought of an action without doing the action. Thus acting is different from thinking. At t1 you were thinking about selecting, without yet doing the selecting. Thus the selecting at t2 is different from thinking, and is not a thought.
Then why were you complaining that what I said "cannot be used as evidence for my (1)", when you know that that is not the question we are discussing? You realize that demonstrating control is not the question we are discussing.
And again, the relevant point is that you said that in my scenario we can't tell whether your (1) is true or false, so then (as far as we know) each is possible, and thus your (1) is possible.
What are you still confused about, regarding my view?
I gave one (t1, t2, t3).
For my view, it doesn't matter. If you like you can picture the whole soul/mind/body as a single unit, a single entity: the agent. It doesn't matter to my view whether those three things are identical to each other or are distinct parts of the agent.
What initial thought? In my t1, t2, t3 chronology, all the relevant thoughts are being thought already at t1, and it is irrelevant what caused those thoughts to be in your mind. The only thing that is relevant is that the action at t3 is freely chosen.
I also still don't see how t3 is a freely chosen thought. How does the agent select at t2 if it is not a mental event or thought? How can you ensure that the agent is even involved? If nothing causes the agent to cause the thought, why should I believe that we are in control of our thoughts? If the agent = the body, bodies have physical causes. Basically your explanation and view is a mess.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
No. Not if they employ ontological/epistemological economy, as I do. It's the most rational view there.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostI never said [hunger] necessarily causes you to eat.
Something truly random I would think wouldn't even have an efficient cause.
E.g.,
agent has cause & has purpose => not random/arbitrary
agent has cause & lacks purpose => not random/arbitrary
agent lacks cause & has purpose => not random/arbitrary
agent lacks cause & lacks purpose => random/arbitrary
Originally posted by JoelThat's not the question. The scenario only needs to be compatible with those things, not to show those things. (We are talking about logical possibility, not actuality.)
If it never left your head then it is still that thought that popped into your head that you admit you couldn't have chosen,
Even if we suppose that the popping into your head at t-dt was involuntary, that doesn't imply that your continuing to think it at t+dt is involuntary. They are different events. Your thinking it at t-dt doesn't imply that you must think it at t+dt. At t+dt you might keep thinking it, or you might go make a sandwich instead. So there's no contradiction with the thought at t+dt being freely chosen.
If "Selecting which idea to actualize is not, itself a thought" then I don't see how you can have any mental control over it.
How would you distinguish it from a random process, or something determined by physical process that you could've had no mental control over?
It does violate it because it proposes something that begins to exist without a cause. On your view, the thought is caused by the agent. What causes the agent to cause the thought? On your view nothing does. The agent's decision to cause the thought begins to exist without a cause.
I'm not buying this idea that t2 when the "Agent selects one of those ideas to actualize" is not itself a thought.
You have to choose the option mentally before you take the action. So the selection is a thought.
Second, even if there were some time delay between the first new step in the causal chain (caused to come to be by the agent) and the rest of the new chain that follows deterministically from that first step, that would not imply that the causing of that first step is a thought. Indeed, the faculty of doing such a thing (if we have it) seems very different from thinking a thought. Like the difference between thinking really hard about moving your hand, vs actually moving your hand. They are different faculties.
Furthermore, in your example, there are no actions taking place. Your whole example is of thinking about X and then thinking about whether to keep thinking about X or not.
For your convenience I repeat it here:
Time t1: Agent is thinking about ideas of possible actions (e.g. possible action X, possible action Y, ...), and is deliberating about them.
Time t2: Agent selects one of those ideas to actualize.
Time t3: Agent is doing action Y (or X, or Z,...)
You keep on getting this confused. I when I said "cannot be used as evidence for my (1)", I meant it cannot be used as evidence for my (1) to show it is possible.
A chronological order of events showing what starts and causes what when a "free" decision is made.
Originally posted by JoelI gave one (t1, t2, t3).
I suppose for our discussion, an agent means a human being, since the discussion is about the possibility of human LFW.
What caused the thoughts at t1 is irrelevant. The LFW choice the sequence is describing is the action at t3.
I don't think I need to even talk about theories of soul/body, because the chronology doesn't refer to them. You can think of the human being in question as a single unit--and individual being. Theories of soul/body unity or duality or whatever are discussion for a different time.
(As I side note, your claim that no soul can affect the body would be seriously begging the question. But it's irrelevant to the model I'm presenting.)
Originally posted by JoelFor my view, it doesn't matter. If you like you can picture the whole soul/mind/body as a single unit, a single entity: the agent. It doesn't matter to my view whether those three things are identical to each other or are distinct parts of the agent.
Originally posted by JoelWhat initial thought? In my t1, t2, t3 chronology, all the relevant thoughts are being thought already at t1, and it is irrelevant what caused those thoughts to be in your mind. The only thing that is relevant is that the action at t3 is freely chosen.
I also still don't see how t3 is a freely chosen thought. How does the agent select at t2 if it is not a mental event or thought?
How can you ensure that the agent is even involved?
If nothing causes the agent to cause the thought, why should I believe that we are in control of our thoughts?
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostNo. Not if they employ ontological/epistemological economy, as I do. It's the most rational view there.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment