Is libertarian free will coherent?

[Jim B.]

Jim, I can tell you're a lot smarter than Sparko, but you're just interrupting an existing debate. This has been explained back in previous posts in the thread. Sorry I don't have time to explain this all with you. Go read past posts.




The argument was already made, and no one refuted it. See my comment above.

Telling me to read through 101 pages I take as non-responsive.

[The Thinker]

I am the cause. rinse. repeat.

And since you weren't yourself caused, you had no control of yourself, ergo you had no LFW.

Case closed.

see? you are just repeating what I said in order to project your own faults onto me. What a moron.

That was actually your words, I just forgot to wrap it in quotes.

Nobody else thinks LFW is incoherent, you are the only one, and that is because you decided to define it that way. Semantics. Circular reasoning. LFW cannot be true because it is incoherent. Why is is incoherent? because it isn't true. derp.

Almost every philosopher does. So here we have you saying you are not in control over yourself, because you're uncaused, yet you have LFW. Makes no sense.

My eating because I WANT to eat is the evidence and the logic that proves LFW. You cannot show any external cause that made me eat.

That's BS because the same thing happens under determinism. And yes I can show an external cause. It's called the laws of physics:

Everyday-Equation.jpg

LFW would have to violate this equation, which has never been proved wrong.

repeating me again.

You actually are.

My will is not caused or uncaused. It is the CAUSER. The AGENT that does the causing. It is ME. We are one and the same. "My will" is the same as "I choose" - my will is not some part separate from me that I control like a computer. It is ME making decisions. That is what we are talking about. You want to divide the will into a separate thing and say "how can YOU control it?" and "how can it be uncaused" - the will is not a cause or something caused. It is merely your decision making, it is you. It is an agent. People keep telling you this but you ignore them and repeat yourself saying "how can you control something uncreated" and "LFW is incoherent"

Something can only be caused or uncaused. You have no other option. I'm not asking how it can be uncaused. I've said over and over I am not assuming it is or isn't. But whether it is or isn't you cannot have LFW. If your decision is uncaused by anything prior to it, you cannot control it since you cannot control anything uncaused. So you are not making any sense.


And mind you, you keep asserting your decisions are not caused by anything, but neuroscience and physics prove you wrong. So technically speaking, the burden of proof is on you to show how you can make a "free will" decision in a way that is compatible with physics.

The only one incoherent here is YOU.

No it is actually you. You are literally saying something is neither caused nor uncaused which is totally absurd.

well you sort of defined it right, but with broken English. Are you sure you have not been drinking? But despite getting the definition right, you have no idea what compatibilism actually IS. That is obvious by what you keep claiming is our "compatibilist views" - it is quite hilarious.

Um, no broken English. I defined it right, and I definitely know way more about this than you. You are not outlining true LFW you are just asserting it is.

Repeating me again? I already defined it for you a long time ago in this thread. As have others.

No you haven't.

give me an example of something uncaused. Or have you defined everything to be caused and uncaused to be "incoherent" so that you don't have to deal with it.

I don't need to because my logical argument against LFW does not assume everything must have a cause, it simply shows you that in neither case will you get LFW off the ground. I can fully grant you for the sake of argument that the first cause is uncaused and you still can't get LFW since you cannot control something uncaused. How many times do I have to repeat this?

so if the first cause is itself uncaused, then you consider everything in the chain as uncaused?

No, I can grant you that everything else is caused, it's still not going to get you LFW. No matter what you will always fall into the dilemma.

And why can't I control something that I am not part of the causal chain at all? Like say I see a skateboard rolling by (it was cause to roll by because a kid kicked it down the street) and I pick it up. I controlled the skate board and broke the causal chain it was in.

This analogy makes no sense given what we're talking about. You're saying the first thing in LFW is "you" are uncaused to do think or something. I'm saying, if you are uncaused, you have no control over it. Therefore if every step after that is following a causal chain, if it was all started by an uncaused event that you had no control over, you have no LFW. At no point does control come into the picture. Whenever you think "you" come into "control" the chain, the "you" is either going to be caused or uncaused in doing that, and neither allows LFW. Case closed.

I know a heck of a lot more about physics and logic than you do. That is obvious.

Clearly you don't.

[The Thinker]

Telling me to read through 101 pages I take as non-responsive.

Read this argument here.

[The Thinker]

I asked first. And you didn't even ask if I can control something uncaused. You merely declared it to be impossible.

Besides my answer depends on yours. Is the Universe caused or uncaused.

No, I asked first. And no, I showed you why it is impossible. You are literally declaring it possible. Answer me and I will answer you.

[Sparko]

And since you weren't yourself caused, you had no control of yourself, ergo you had no LFW.

I was caused. By my parents. But that doesn't mean I don't have control of myself. That is such an idiotic statement. ergo you are an idiot.

That was actually your words, I just forgot to wrap it in quotes.

because you are a moron?

Almost every philosopher does. So here we have you saying you are not in control over yourself, because you're uncaused, yet you have LFW. Makes no sense.

something tells me you are "self-taught" in philosophy and logic, right?

That's BS because the same thing happens under determinism. And yes I can show an external cause. It's called the laws of physics:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19584[/ATTACH]

Now I am really starting to suspect "trolling" going on. LOL. posting a universal physics formula proves what? nothing. it has nothing to do with free will)

LFW would have to violate this equation, which has never been proved wrong.

It is a completely condensed and simplified formula that encompasses everything. It has nothing to do with LFW. Or much of anything. I read the blog which you didn't bother to link to. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...omment-page-2/

nice try but bzzzt.

Something can only be caused or uncaused. You have no other option. I'm not asking how it can be uncaused. I've said over and over I am not assuming it is or isn't. But whether it is or isn't you cannot have LFW. If your decision is uncaused by anything prior to it, you cannot control it since you cannot control anything uncaused. So you are not making any sense.

Your problem is you define both ways as proving LFW doesn't exist. If it is uncaused then you claim that LFW can't exist, and if it is caused then LFW can't exist. You simply define LFW as not existing and incomprehensible and then claim any argument is wrong because LFW can't exist.


OK I will do the same: Determinism can't exist because it is incoherent. Therefore if something is uncaused then that proves that determinism doesn't exist. and if something is caused well then since determinism isn't coherent, it can't exist.

Ta-da!!!! The Thinker II is born.

[Sparko]

Back to my question: Universe... caused or uncaused?

You seem reluctant to answer this.

[The Thinker]

I was caused. By my parents. But that doesn't mean I don't have control of myself. That is such an idiotic statement. ergo you are an idiot.

I'm talking about your will at that moment. Are you really that dumb?

because you are a moron?

No, the only moron here is you.

something tells me you are "self-taught" in philosophy and logic, right?

Haha, lol. No.

Now I am really starting to suspect "trolling" going on. LOL. posting a universal physics formula proves what? nothing. it has nothing to do with free will)

You clearly don't understand it or science. This equation covers everything in everyday life, including your behavior and mine.

It is a completely condensed and simplified formula that encompasses everything. It has nothing to do with LFW. Or much of anything. I read the blog which you didn't bother to link to. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...omment-page-2/
nice try but bzzzt.

It has everything to do with LFW. First it negates the possibility of a soul or mind having any kind of causal influence on physical matter. I guess since you know nothing of science, it is pointless for me to use science since it will obviously fly right over your head.

Your problem is you define both ways as proving LFW doesn't exist. If it is uncaused then you claim that LFW can't exist, and if it is caused then LFW can't exist. You simply define LFW as not existing and incomprehensible and then claim any argument is wrong because LFW can't exist.

Not at all, I simply take the common understanding of LFW that almost all people understand it to be: (1) We are in control of our will; (2) Our mind is causally effective; (3) In the same situation we could have done otherwise.

There is no trick with my argument; almost every philosopher knows LFW is incoherent. Libertarian free-will is blatantly self-refuting and I'll add that it is so for any thinkable model of how causality works because it would always boil down to choices that are simultaneously caused (else they wouldn't be volitional - due to the agent's will) and uncaused (else they wouldn't be "free" in a libertarian sense) - and something being "caused" while simultaneously being "uncaused" is a contradiction for any model of what "causality" is.

OK I will do the same: Determinism can't exist because it is incoherent. Therefore if something is uncaused then that proves that determinism doesn't exist. and if something is caused well then since determinism isn't coherent, it can't exist.

Ta-da!!!! The Thinker II is born.

That's retarded and completely uncomparable to my argument.

So answer me this: can you control something uncaused? If yes, prove it.

[Sparko]

I'm talking about your will at that moment. Are you really that dumb?




No, the only moron here is you.



Haha, lol. No.

dunning kruger again I see. sigh.

You clearly don't understand it or science. This equation covers everything in everyday life, including your behavior and mine.

oh really, show me where in there was me being determined by the universe to eat an apple for breakfast this morning. Go ahead, I will wait

What? can't do it? Amazing! Try again...

Oh. so you basically googled "everyday life formula" or similar and just posted it to try to bamboozle us. Got it.

So answer me this: can you control something uncaused? If yes, prove it.

I already did. since you disagree give me an example of something uncaused.

[Tassman]

Is the universe caused or uncaused?

We don't have sufficient physics to answer that question at this stage. Science is moving towards the idea that the universe was not caused as such, but arose out of some previous condition...that there is probably an explanation of it in terms of pre-existing dynamics. You must remember that much behaviour in quantum mechanics is at odds with our intuitive notions of cause and effect.

[shunyadragon]

Back to my question: Universe... caused or uncaused?

You seem reluctant to answer this.

Tassman gave a reasonable answer. You appear to appeal to the Metaphysical question of the chain of causes. By the present objective evidence our universe, or all of physical existence, is the product of the cause and effect relationship between Natural Law and the inherent underlying nature (Quantum Physics) of our physical existence. It is unlikely that the objective scientific evidence can ever go beyond this as with the claim of the problem of ultimate chain of causes. The problem of human will, free or otherwise, does have scientific basis in the objective evidence, but of course, claims of a 'Source' beyond the objective evidence beyond our physical existence requires a metaphysical assumption that an 'Ultimate Will' exists as the necessary 'Source.'

The fallacies of an 'Appeal to Ignorance,' and 'Begging the Question' come into play if one appeals to a logical argument that the argument for a chain of causes necessarily leads to an 'uncaused cause' beyond our physical existence. There is also the problem of the misuse of math in terms of the claim that 'actual infinities' applies to the question of the possibility of an infinite 'chain of causes.' By the objective evidence the problem of an infinite chain of causes is not relevant.

[Sparko]

I wasn't asking you or tassy, shuny. I ask you both to stay out of my discussion with Thinker. Your input is not wanted.

[The Thinker]

dunning kruger again I see. sigh.

Nope. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

oh really, show me where in there was me being determined by the universe to eat an apple for breakfast this morning. Go ahead, I will wait

What? can't do it? Amazing! Try again...

Oh. so you basically googled "everyday life formula" or similar and just posted it to try to bamboozle us. Got it.

Um no. I read a whole book that goes into detail of this equation. It's called The Big Picture, and it explains in part why you cannot have a mind or soul that exists separately from the universe and that has a causal effect on physical matter - full stop. In the quantum mechanics section there are only 3 fundamental forces: strong and weak nuclear, and electromagnetism. Those forces cover all matter in the everyday world at the quantum level and there is no room for souls or mind to have influence. And quantum mechanics is not indeterministic as many people think, it's a completely deterministic theory. It's second order differential equations with boundary conditions and they're completely determined. Once you give the initial conditions the wave function of a particle after some time is completely determined, so there's no indeterminacy. Now what happens when you measure the properties of that particle based on its wave function that's probabilistic.

I already did. since you disagree give me an example of something uncaused.

No you didn't. I see no example or even explanation that you can control something uncaused. I just see assertions.

[shunyadragon]

I wasn't asking you or tassy, shuny. I ask you both to stay out of my discussion with Thinker. Your input is not wanted.

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

[Sparko]

Um no. I read a whole book that goes into detail of this equation. It's called The Big Picture,

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?

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.

[Sparko]

No you didn't. I see no example or even explanation that you can control something uncaused. I just see assertions.

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