Instigator / Pro
7
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2614

Resolved: On balance, Human "Free Will" Likely Exists

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Description

full resolution: It is more likely that free will does exist for humans, rather than it does not exist.

Free will: Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. The doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

No kritiks allowed, burden of proof is shared.

I often notice there is no consideration to models of time in free will debates. There is more to consider than simply biology and one's outer circumstances. The way time flows can drastically change the odds of free will existing or not, depending on which model of time we follow/argue for.

Welp, I've defeated one loss, this will be the second one.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Happy to do it. If you have other debates you'd like me to vote on, I'm usually willing.

-->
@whiteflame

That's fair I suppose, I had fun with the debate, and if I were to do it again, I'd probably elaborate more on that point, but it is what it is. I'm glad you got the vote out and the level of effort is considerable so thanks again.

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Undefeatable

Well, at least this debate has one vote. Not entirely sure of myself on this one - like I said, philosophy isn't exactly my thing. And yeah, it's fine if you disagree. I'm still not sure of my decision, though it's the one I've come to most often after considering all the given arguments. It's difficult because I wasn't sure what established the threshold of "likely exists" beyond having greater likelihood, and that doesn't necessarily require definitive proof. I'm tempted to agree that it SHOULD, but I need more of a reason to believe it DOES.

-->
@whiteflame

hey, thanks for the vote. I see now that I didn't 100% make the differentiation of mind and brain clear. If I knew that could improve my argument, I definitely would've mentioned more limits to neuroscience rather than rambling on about the different worldlines and imposition on physical vs mental. (Ex: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/30/brain-mind-behaviour-neuroscience-neuroimaging)

-->
@whiteflame

I can't say I agree, but I do thank you for your vote.

RFD Pt. 1:

I was considering doing a longer RFD to examine a lot of what happened in this debate and get through each individual point, but I don’t think that would accomplish much because, at the end of the day, this debate comes down to a single question:

Does the metaphysical possibility of engaging in separate decisions equate to a real-world probability of individuals being able to change their minds?

If I could, I would have italicized the “possibility” and “probability” points in there because I think that makes a big difference in assessing this debate. However, before I examine that, I’d just like to clarify the obvious. In the physical sense, both sides agree that there is functionally no free will. I could go through those arguments, but the result is basically clear from R2. In a physical, neurobiological sense, free will doesn’t exist. Also, in the sense that we don’t choose what we want, there is no free will to select what would be our preferences.

So, the debate comes down to points made by Pro in this debate and how well they stood up. On its face, the argument wasn’t super convincing to me. If the point had stopped at “we have possible choices, so we could have made them,” I probably wouldn’t be considering this argument. It’s essentially a theory-based point for free will, and it doesn’t demonstrate anything above possibility, so it can’t demonstrate probability. That being said, this argument doesn’t stop at “the possibility exists.” Pro makes two arguments to support this:

First, he argues that neuroscience simply can’t explain everything. Essentially, this is a “mind of the gaps” argument. I’m aware that doesn’t exist, but I’m repurposing “God of the gaps” to explain this. The point goes that, since neuroscience still can’t explain decision-making in full, there must be some other means to determine how one makes a decision. Pro argues that free will is that other means, and it cannot be determined by science.

Pt. 2

Second, he argues that our ability to act in ways that don’t fit what would be “expected” based on our wants and the resultant likelihoods suggests that there is more to a decision than just some deterministic view of what we want or would be most likely to pursue.

Con’s responses to these points addresses some of the pieces. He argues that our inability to predict with current neuroscience doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of free will, but rather just suggests that we don’t have the necessary means to make those assessments. Essentially, Pro’s point is that there’s simply too much complexity and too few controls to manage an actual determination of what someone is going to do in any given situation, but Con’s response is that that lack of understanding doesn’t equate to a greater probability of free will. The problem may be with the methods used, the tools available, or any variety of factors that could affect accuracy.

This is the general problem with the “_____ of the gaps”-type arguments – you don’t actually make your position more likely to be right, you just reduce the number of possible options. That being said, I also don’t buy the argument that Pro had to prove a metaphysical world is likely to make this point, though that probably would have made his job easier. Essentially, I think the statement that there are elements of the mind we will never fully understand just needed more support. Distinguishing the mind from the brain was part of that, and Pro did a bit of it, but he needed to provide more detail on why we will always find ourselves unable to fully explain how the mind works. Essentially, I needed a clear challenge to the notion that neurobiology will eventually find a way to explain it all. It’s a big claim to say that neurobiology can eventually figure it out, but the only response I get to it is that it will forever be too complicated by too many factors, which isn’t really enough to defeat the point. The reality that studies are hampered by too many variables now doesn’t mean they forever will be. I needed to hear why the mind is distinct enough that our understanding of the brain will always leave something to be desired, but I’m not getting enough on that point.

As for the deterministic argument, this is a bit trickier. I actually thought initially that it was the weaker of the two, largely because the simple response is to throw Pro’s argument back at him – there are sufficiently complex factors at play in any decision that the resulting approaches would never be 100% or 50-50. Sometimes people just want some spice in their life and try new things even if they would otherwise just want more of the same. Sometimes they base their decisions on coin flips because it’s fun. The reality that decisions don’t go in either direction doesn’t mean free will exists, it just means that different “wants” can outweigh others at specific points in time based on any number of possible variables.

Pt. 3

Anyway, that’s the response I wanted to see from Con. However, Con’s rebuttals don’t really engage with this argument. He just says that the point is unfalsifiable, which isn’t a particularly compelling reason to dismiss it, and that the existence of randomness doesn’t prove free will, which really wasn’t his point. Con’s contention on determinism is a kind of sort of response, where he argues that if we control for all the variables we will act precisely the same in the same situation. That kind of gets to my point, but it falls just short of a direct rebuttal since Pro had already addressed this point in his initial argument: if this was true, we would expect 100% adherence to this behavior if all variables could be controlled, but people simply don’t behave the same ways every time, which calls this into question. If Con had gone on to address that by arguing that any variable can change that 100% adherence, then I probably would have bought it, but I don’t see that in his responses. Merely saying that your point survives the debate doesn’t mean it does anything for you here.

Conclusion:

I’ve struggled with this one. I thought I’d be pulling the trigger for Con before I wrote this, but Pro has an argument that survives the debate, albeit I am unclear whether it reaches the threshold of probability. However, that’s not for me to decide. If Con wanted to argue that this doesn’t make free will more probable (there are reasonable points to be made that, even if Pro is winning this, he only shows that it’s more likely than absolute determinism rather than more likely than all other options), he should have done so. In the absence of that, I see a point on the table that elevates Pro’s case to slightly more likely. In general, a debate like this rides on Pro’s being able to prove something, and Con’s ability to prevent it. Free will either exists or it doesn’t, and the latter would only get my vote if the former is dismissed entirely. With one point on the board for free will, I can’t dismiss it, so I vote Pro.

Bump

-->
@whiteflame

Thaaanks, I was just checking in here

Promise I'll be voting this weekend.

Bump?

-->
@Undefeatable

It’s pretty rare for me to vote on debates like this, but it’s not a first. In this case, impacts tend to be less of an issue than logical analysis. Most of it comes down to what burdens each side had to meet in this, so while I’ve already read the debate, I’m going back through with the aim of figuring out who is providing the best argument in the context of the debate. As per usual with debates like this, you’re both winning certain points, so it’s a matter of determining which points matter most. That would usually be based on impacts, but in philosophical debates, it’s about hitting or failing to hit an established bar.

-->
@whiteflame

I am indeed curious what you think of each argument. You’re famous for weighing impacts, but philosophy makes direct impacts difficult to judge in my opinion (even if edge’s argument is partially backed by science).

-->
@whiteflame

I appreciate it! Thank you

-->
@Theweakeredge

There's enough time left to make the vote that I'm taking my time with this one. I will vote.

We got voters? Voters?

Bump

-->
@Undefeatable

Well that, *and the fact that the possibilities were never demonstrated likely true", but let's not get into debates in comment sections lol

-->
@Theweakeredge

oh, I think I finally understand your logic, after scratching my noggin.

You are trying to say that because our wants and needs are controlled by outside our own forces, despite the wants being able to endorse the choice, this is not of our own free will. So even if my expert was correct in that the external possibilities allows you to perform two different actions with two different justifications, this was decided ahead of time. Man, that's a tough idea to get my head around. We'll see if whiteflame thinks it defeats my expert's argument.

-->
@whiteflame

Will do! Thank you

-->
@Theweakeredge

Should be able to manage. Remind me in a couple of days.

-->
@whiteflame

Would you consider voting?

-->
@Theweakeredge

Sure. But it'll have to be after this upcoming week.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I'd love to vote, but my RFD's always get rejected (there is no such thing as "unbiased").

SAMPLE BIAS IS UNIVERSAL.

-->
@3RU7AL

I'll look into indeterminism further then, thank you for your criticism, I'll try to be more exact in my wording, a big problem was lack of space for most of the debate, but I'll still look to expounding it. Seeing you are fairly informed up on the debate, would you consider voting, though I would have to remind you (Not because I feel you would, but to be nonbiased) that you regard Undefeatable's arguments through what is brought up here.

-->
@Theweakeredge

> To continue on, my argument of determinism could be summed up as thus:
> P1: The only two reasons to do anything is because you are forced or because you want to

I'd restate P1 as,

Every action is (EITHER) the result of a previous event (or combination of events) (OR) NOT the result of a previous event (or combination of events) in other words, the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (OR) some combination of BOTH caused and uncaused events (some percentage that is caused and some percentage that is uncaused (indistinguishable from random noise), the exact ratios are immaterial because any combination results in the same logical outcome, some part determined and some part indistinguishable from random, resulting in ZERO "freewill").

> P2: You do not choose what you want and don't want

I'd restate P2 as,

(IFF) you choose to NOT act according to a particular desire (THEN) you are STILL acting on a DESIRE to NOT act on a particular desire. You are (EITHER) automatically deferring to a hierarchy of personal desires (OR) acting as the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (indistinguishable from random noise, completely outside of your ability to control).

> C: Therefore you do not choose your actions, [your actions are the result of an automatic desire hierarchy and or some combination of desire hierarchy and uncaused, uncontrollable random noise] Free Will doesn't exist.

I'd restate C as,

Any action you take that is "WILLFUL" (intentional) is the direct result of some DESIRE which is the result of the causal chain (NOT isolated from "external-causes"). A "WILLFUL" action is a caused action. A "WILLFUL" action cannot ever be considered "FREE".

Any action you take that is "FREE" cannot ever be intentional. In order for it to be "FREE" it must be free from all previous events. Any action you take that is "FREE" from all previous events is, by definition, indistinguishable from random noise.

NO COMBINATION OF "FREE" AND "WILLFUL" CAUSES CAN EVER GENERATE A "MORAL" "CHOICE".

> My argument for science could be summed up as follows:
> P1: Scientists are capable of predicting behavior before a decision is made
> P2: Scientists make this prediction solely on the basis of subconscious brain activity
> Con: Therefore the person does not choose their actions, Free will doesn't exist

This is a very seductive argument that I avoid like the plague.

The "freewillers" always take refuge in an "appeal to ignorance".

They love to claim that since humans are "unpredictable", that means they have "freewill" (quantum mechanics).

You can never "win" this battle because there are (probably) always going to be "unpredictable" human actions.

It's a lot like the familiar "gods in the gaps" argument (you don't know what happened "before" the "big-bang"???? therefore god$).

Of course they DON'T argue that since dogs and spiders (and automobiles and tornados for that matter) are not "perfectly predictable" that they must ALSO possess the magic-fairy-dust of "freewill".

Anyway, arguing that humans ARE predictable simply plays to their (perceived) "strengths".

Your best argument isn't for DETERMINISM, it's for INDETERMINISM.

DETERMINISM precludes the existence of "freewill".

INDETERMINISM ALSO precludes the existence of "freewill".

And if they say they know for certain that they have "freewill" because they FEEL like they have a "real" "choice", then try and gently point out to them that what they call "freewill" is simply an emotion.

If you can FEEL something, but can't logically justify it, then what you are experiencing is an EMOTION.

If you can FEEL god($) love, that in-and-of-itself is NOT evidence for the existence of god($).

-->
@3RU7AL

Well stated, not to copy you, but yeah his positions do suffer from a lack of demonstration. What did you think of my performance? Subpar, just right? Etc etc, curious of your opinion.

-->
@Undefeatable

> In conclusion: Despite the idea of people only making one decision in one timeline, the explanation is that the moral agent endorses this action.

There is only one demonstrable timeline. Therefore there is only one possible action. This precludes "free will". There is no "could have acted otherwise".

And even IFF there was some sort of hyperdimensionalmultiverse, that hypothesis supposes that all conceivable variations on the proposed action are manifest. This also precludes "free will". Making all possible choices at each decision branch is not an "act of will".

> As such, there is a possibility of the other opposing decision being made. As the person "can" exercise the different choice, while still being themselves, this proves that free will exists.

Each "choice" is (EITHER) an act of will and therefore goal oriented and therefore determined by desire which is not consciously "chosen" (OR) each "choice" is wholly or partially disconnected from the causal chain of determinism (indeterminism) and wholly or partially influenced by un-willed forces that are indistinguishable from random noise.

> My burden was here to prove that either determinism didn't exist, or that free will is compatible with determinism. Because the former is extremely difficult to accomplish, I left it con to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and still displayed the fact that he only said you merely act in a pre-determined manner with no reasoning.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that indeterminism (determinism + some non-deterministic noise) is ALSO incompatible with the concept of logically-coherent "free will".

> Even if you do not choose your reasoning, the fact is that you had the other choice possible to you. Each individual human being is able to select both choices in a crucial circumstance where you are to select either a choice A or a choice B. They are able to back this up with their motivations and ideals.

Motives and ideals are arguments supporting a concrete chain of cause-and-effect (determinism) NOT "freedom".

> If free will did not exist, it seems plainly illogical that the decisions are not 100% in one set of way (showing motivators overpowering consciousness), or 50-50 (showing randomness).

It is impossible to demonstrate whether or not "decisions are not 100% in one set of way".

There is no way to go back in time and "decide" to "choose" a different path.

> And the person would feel coerced in some manner, or have severe cognitive dissonance against the big decision.

The emotion, or feeling of coercion itself is no indication of determinism or indeterminism.

> By the fact that outside motivators can make people feel in control or out of control (especially concerning addiction), it's definitive that the person would have to have free will in the first place, to feel violation of the action.

The emotion, or feeling of "control" itself is no indication of determinism or indeterminism.

> Clearly, I have shown already that free will exists.

You seem to be arguing that "free will" is primarily evidenced by your feelings, not by logical-necessity.

-->
@Barney
@Athias
@MisterChris
@Trent0405

Would you consider voting?

-->
@Theweakeredge

I think Undefeatable in his rebuttal with inability to type reduce physical down to psychological he wanted to make an argument like this article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-free-will-exists/. It's just a bit more complicated and deduced from negation rather than positive. Too complex for me lol

Uuh, the very last does is supposed to be doesn't, three characters my bad.

-->
@Theweakeredge

my brain is mush. I can't tell who's winning and losing. But nicely argued.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I see what you mean. I think my expert just jumps completely over the hurdle by saying the separation of free action result and endorsement, (“I do not have free action to play tennis since I have no racket, yet I can CHOOSE to play tennis”) while saying intentional action separates itself into “rational for you” vs “possible for you” (“because I am Brutus, I killed Caesar, and I will do it again. That doesn’t negate the possibility that I would not kill Caesar if I didn’t want to”)

-->
@3RU7AL

Yeah, that's essentially what I wrote.

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Undefeatable

The Standard Argument Against Free Will (TSAAFW)

An intentional (willed, goal oriented) action cannot be "free" (AND) a free action (indistinguishable from random) cannot be intentional (willed, goal oriented).

We "feel free" when we can fulfil our desires, but we do not intentionally choose our desires (we are slaves to our impulses).

"Free Will" is merely an emotion, not a logically coherent FACT.

-->
@Theweakeredge

sadly, I only have 50% understanding of your argument and how it actually defeats my expert (probably because I'm not skilled in philosophy) so I just clarified my argument for the most part, lol. Please do try to make your argument and impacts clearer, it would help.

(I hope it makes sense that you can't choose to *actually* play tennis without a racket, but you can choose to want to play tennis)

-->
@Undefeatable

Oh no, I'll use both, maybe, I'm used to more character space.

eh, its fine

-->
@Theweakeredge

It's fine, my major is comp sci, I think I can take on a bunch of science arguments better than philosophy.

-->
@Undefeatable

The funny thing was, I was actually only planning on using the philosophical argument for free will, but hey if you wanna give me more impacts: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-->
@Theweakeredge

I probably should've made the limit 12,500. I was a bit tired so I got too lazy to read it over. Hopefully, it's enough.

-->
@Undefeatable

Well okay then, let's clash!

-->
@Theweakeredge

here you go. I switched sides

-->
@Theweakeredge

actually, I suppose you're right. I do believe in free will but tearing down the scientific standard with more scientific innovation is incredibly difficult lol

-->
@Undefeatable

I'm on pro side, Con's strongest points are just intuitive. Oof.

-->
@Theweakeredge

you wanna take this one? Or are you ironically pro side?