Instigator / Pro
4
1546
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Topic
#3230

THBT Free will, not determinism, is, on balance, the best explanation for man’s active interaction with the universe

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

Note: this is a duplicate subject to debate #3211, which I proposed, and was accepted by Duel, but then my opponent forfeited the first two rounds, violating two rules: one forfeited round yields a loss, and no new argument in the last round. This debate is still active, but, by rule, cannot have the opponents third round include new argument, so, in effect, that debate is over by default. I wish to re-engage it with a willing opponent, if any.

The question of our free will, also referred to as the dilemma of determinism, is a combative idea that some claim cannot be solved, though philosophy has attempted to do so over millennia. This is the thrust of this challenge. My BoP will champion free will as humanity’s guiding principle in all social interactions in particular, if not also by inter-personal reflection.
“Also called the dilemma of determinism, we do not know if our actions are controlled by a causal chain of preceding events (or by some other external influence), or if we're truly free agents making decisions of our own volition.”
By declaring the dilemma to be addressed to the “universe,” I mean by that to demonstrate that free will is the process by which we interact with all other persons and things about us. If it has affect or influence on us, individually or collectively, we are not compelled to respond by external force, but ultimately by our personal, collective will. This is true whether free or enslaved. If the latter, we may cave to our oppression, or, we may combat it, even at the risk of life. That is the ultimate expression of free will; to risk life and limb.
BoP is shared.
A forfeit of any round is a loss.
No new arguments in final round
Definitions:
Free will – or free agency: Each person’s decision to think and act by response to external, universal stimuli by freedom of choice, regardless of potential reaction by external forces.
Determinism: Each person is controlled by an external, causal force of preceding events.
On balance best explanation: free will is the more probable, or greater than 50%, means by which we respond to external forces upon us.
Interaction: mutual reaction to stimuli; we and the universe.
Universe: All external forces/stimuli acting upon us, individually or collectively.

-->
@FLRW

Which of the debate participants brought up Wegner & Wheatley? Uhhh.. didn't see you as a participant in the debate, but you brought them up.
Which if the debate participants brought up Bear & Bloom? Uhhh... didn't see you as a participant in the debate, but you brought them up.
Care to review the voting policy on bringing up outside content to justify a vote?

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for voting.

-->
@949havoc

You’re right - there are a couple of places I mixed the two up in the first: but in context it should be clear which side of the argument I am referring to - didn’t spot much in the subsequent two posts.

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for voting, but I'm not sure you're sure which participate you're voting for. You seem to confuse Pro and Con on a continual basis.

Explanations: in this section con broadly describes some of the issues with pros description, this goes back and forth a little: but really revolves around the same type of issues I described above. Pros responses are similarly themes as the above; and frankly having established the physical/causal point - con has already met the burden without this

Conclusion: pro makes hay of trying to explain coin tosses, but much of these are restatements of the central arguments above phrased in a different way. Add to this that it was merely a summary of a point that con won, the rebuttal of it didn’t help prove free will, or disprove determinism so I haven’t covered it in detail.

As a result: arguments to con.

Sources: IMO con won this debate with two great uses of sources. Pros sources on MRI was used to establish the core point that decisions are physical and occur prior to conscious awareness - which supports hi position; there was the nature article about being able to view and manipulate consciousness on a physical level - both of these satisfy cons central burden of showing our brains - and even the most abstract part of us - appear to operate under physical rules. This was central to con affirming burden.

Add on to this critically novel studies about psychopaths, and pedophillia induced by head trauma helps to produce a factual underpinning for the brain and our personality being inherently physical contrary to pros position.

Given that the facts cited by con basically won this debate - as opposed to most debates which are kinda part fact part logic - the excellent use of these sources here clearly need to be recognized.

Sources to con.

As always feel free to ask any questions you may have

Con constructive:

Con builds up a decent case, he lays the groundwork with causality - that things occur because they have physical causes.

He lays the groundwork by explaining the brain is physical - the nature source was amazing here: this source helped pro establish the case that even something as abstract as consciousness has a physical background.

These two aspects together show that physical things follow physical laws, the brain is a physical thing; thus follows physical laws - and does a good job of explaining that it is simply the vast complexity of the brain that produces an illusion of indeterminism.

This culminates in the essence of cons argument that free will violates the laws of physics - by inherently violating causality of physics. Pro concedes this point in his reply; which digs a hole for himself, as in conceding this point; it allows con to press him on his burden of proof:

As pro concedes causality/physical laws must be violated for free will - con points out that claim must be supported - that pro must show that humans can create violations of causality. I agree that pro has the burden of proof to show this - and he does not.

Indeed a big part of pros response is to suggest the brain is in someway non physical : but if I match up the responses on either side : pro is claiming that will is not physical, and violates physical laws - but offers no proof: whilst con claims the brain is physical and does not violate physical laws - and offers proof (with the nature article).

On this broad basis - this debate is over at this point - I have a single point of contention for which can swing on single points of proof for which pro has offered none, and con has offered a great source. That clearly shows con has established their position.

Moving onto other points for completeness. Pro does make a series of rebuttals about the laws of physics and causality. Pros points seem caught up on questioning whether the current laws of physics are superlative (will never be disproven) whilst also accepting cons central premise. The issue pro has here is that he appears to concede the universal follows physical laws and is predictable; his argument appear mainly that because the predictable model doesn’t apply to all things that determinism can’t be true; and pins everything to this point

The issue with this, is that the aspect of the laws of physics con is hanging their argument is causality. The existence of predictive rules shows that physical things follow physical laws. In this respect pros objection on the ground of science utterly misses the mark - by suggesting the lack of ability of the standard model implies particles have free will. Even without cons counter that argument appears absurd on its face. Nonetheless con points out the issue with this claim: specifically that the failure of our models of the small to explain gravity does not imply that particles follow gravity.

Further, con points out obtuse it is to suggest that the failure of the standard model to explain gravity means that the brain can break the laws of physics: I agree, this objection appears absurd on its face.

But with this, and pros general objections about how the laws of physics may not be accurate or maybe incomplete do not address the core issue of causality and the brain being physical - indeed it appears in the remaining rounds pro offers mostly assertions that the brain is non physical, or has non physical attributes. Pro has to offer a justification of how the brain can be considered non-physical, or to not follow physical laws in order to win arguments. He does not do that; thus arguments must go to con.

Philosophical arguments are offered by con - suggesting that it is a truism that our behaviour is informed and controlled by past events and our personality. That our behaviour and decisions are derived from this and change as a result, is indicative of causality. Pro backs this up with another excellent source on mris of the brain structure of criminals - indicating decisions and differences can be attribute to physical impacts.

Pros response is a pretty crazy quote mine; suggesting that con not needing to break down all brain functions to functional blocks to show determinism was indicating that determinism didn’t apply. He goes onto link back to the issue with physics that I have covered. His main reply to this broad argument, though, is that some dependence on past events is okay for free will. This sort of makes sense, but does not undermine what con is arguing - that determinism explains these aspects.

So there are a large number of individual points raised here; I haven’t listed each and every one. But have covered the broad themes, the following are threads I didn’t cover:

B theory time. There’s a little back and forth on this: but it doesn’t prove free will, only potentially prove determinism - con already did that so does not need to be addressed.

Pro constructive: Newton.

Pro argues that Newton’s third law supports free will, and contradicts determinism. He describes his concept of free will (a) explicitly defining it as independent of external forces , defines the third law (b) describing how bodies interact with regards to force, defines free will again in (c) as independent of external forces. Pro then seems to just state the third law applies in (d) because actions will be opposed by others. Then goes onto list how there are reactions to choices.

The argument has two issues. Firstly, it’s not clear how the law applies to what pro is describing; pro simply says it does. His description of Newton is about forces, his description of will is about reactions to choices. Con points this out that con fails to describe a link between the two - which pro doesn’t really address (other than to talk about intelligence, not about the invisible link to sliding scales of reactions). I side with con on this; they don’t appear linked, and other than some similar terminology, con does not give me any reason to believe that both reactions to individuals and Newton’s third law is talking about the same thing.

Even were this not to be an issue, the main problem I have with pros argument here is the resolution: that there is no implicit explanation of why the choices leading to the reactions he’s talking about are free. If I accept that making choices agrees with Newton’s 3rd law, nothing about that means the choice is inherently free. Pros argument here just seems nebulous and muddled at best; it leaps right into its conclusion with first establishing a particular thesis.

Pro argues that mris shows free choice. Reading this, pros own argument appears self refuting - that decisions are formed outside of conscious understanding. Pro goes onto make a set of claims that he doesn’t seem support; saying that coming to conclusions is not possible with determinism. There appears no reasoning presented here, simply pro telling me - effectively - that coming to choices is not possible in determinism.

Con neatly outlines this; con specifies what determinism is, that choices are possible, and brains can make decisions - it’s just those decisions are governed by physical rules - not our free choices. Con also points out that pros own source justifies free will - I agree - and this flip of a source is absolutely devastating to pros position.

Pro doesn’t seem to contest any of this in his reply; he primarily tells me that decision making is non physical. In response.

Given that again, cons point is nebulous at best; and appears more to simply be concluding free will exists without a justification, and telling me all the things that can’t happen if determinism is true without offering a good justification of why - cons rebuttal here stands and I have to reject this one too.

For the third point, pro offers the idea that courage and backlash against oppression is evidence of free will; or at least that free will is the best explanation. While there are a lot of sub points here, they seem to boil down to the same issues above. Nothing about this argument gives me a) an argument about why x is more likely if free will exists vs determinism or b.). That free will better explains a given event than determinism.

Con gives a basic summary outlining this objection; though I would have liked to have seen him present a more robust challenge. I think con should have spent less time on the specifics of pros claims here, and condensed a response that highlighted that pro was assuming his own conclusion and misrepresenting determinism a little - there was some of this, but not enough for me to fully reject pros constructive (only to consider it incredibly weak)

-->
@FLRW

Thank you for voting.

vote bump

Pro round 3 references:

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/special_relativity.html

2 https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/special_relativity.html

3 https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-14.htm

4 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-astrology-real-heres-what-science-says/

5 https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/11-3-is-personality-more-nature-or-more-nurture-behavioral-and-molecular-genetics/

6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0263-6

7 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/george_santayana_101521

8 https://biblehub.com/matthew/14-25.htm

-->
@949havoc

I promise I will give you a run for your money.

-->
@Benjamin

Thank you for accepting this debate. I trust this will be a more pleasant experience than my other opponent.