CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
4
Determinism Free will
Debate Score:15
Arguments:29
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Determinism (11)
 
 Free will (4)

Debate Creator

Coldfire(1014) pic



This is a private debate. See the FAQ for more info.

Challenge Debate: Determinism vs Free will

According to Merriam-Webster, Free will is defined as -

“1:  voluntary choice or decision

2:  freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention”

 According to the same source, Determinism is defined as -

 “1a :  a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

b :  a belief in predestination

2:  the quality or state of being determined”

 For clarification, Definition 1 of Free will is accepted by both view points; determinism simply states that that choice or decision was determined by causal factors. Definition 1b of Determinism relates to notions of fate or destiny and is incongruent with the definition of determinism as it pertains to this debate. The free will vs determinism debate refers to Free will definition 2 and Determinism definition 1a.

Burden of proof is shared.

I must prove that determinism is rational to affirm and free will is not.

My opponent must prove that free will is rational to affirm and determinism is not.

Coldfire(1014)

Determinism

Side Score: 11
VS.
thousandin1(1931)

Free will

Side Score: 4
1 point

I will first point out that I am a strict or hard determinist. In other words I adhere to the philosophy that determinism and free will cannot both exist and cohabitate in reality. Either we have free will and we are the authors of our own thoughts and actions or we do not have free will and our thoughts and actions are determined by prior causes.

If determinism is the case, and all events are determined by prior causes, then our will is not free.

It is true that all events have several causal factors; therefore free will does not exist.

It is hard to even imagine a world where we do have free will. Our thoughts are not something we can dictate any more than we can predict words that we’re about to read. To say that you can choose what thoughts and decisions to arrive at is to say that you can think them before you think them.

We can think of choosing left over right, but the very fact that you were given those two choices before you came to your decision is a causal factor in determining that decision.

Chocolate or vanilla. No one is saying you don’t HAVE a choice in the matter… you can even rebel and say strawberry! The point is that no matter what choice you arrive at, it was determined by causal factors all the way up to the point where your brain fired off an electrical signal to say the one you decided on. You are no freer from that electrical signal than you are from the genes of your parents and the environment you grew up in along with the un-exhaustive chain of other causal factors.

Side: Determinism
1 point

If determinism is the case, and all events are determined by prior causes, then our will is not free.

I don't believe this necessarily follows. Free will itself would be the cause setting a chain of events in place, or modifying the course of an existing change. The ability to modify a chain of events does not violate causality; it is simply an additional cause being added.

Our thoughts are not something we can dictate any more than we can predict words that we’re about to read.

Have you had any experience with lucid dreaming? It's an interesting phenomenon that you should look into; my experience with it suggests that we can and do dictate the general direction our thoughts can take, even if such control is limited; this is consistent with my views on free will and its hypothetical avenue of action, as explored on the other column.

The point is that no matter what choice you arrive at, it was determined by causal factors all the way up to the point where your brain fired off an electrical signal to say the one you decided on. You are no freer from that electrical signal than you are from the genes of your parents and the environment you grew up in along with the un-exhaustive chain of other causal factors.

Not always necessarily, as was investigated by Benjamin Livet (linked in the other thread).

Side: Free will
Coldfire(1014) Disputed
1 point

If determinism is the case, and all events are determined by prior causes, then our will is not free.

"I don't believe this necessarily follows."

If will is determined then how can it be free?

“Free will itself would be the cause setting a chain of events in place, or modifying the course of an existing change.”

Ok, but if that will which would set a chain of events in place is determined by prior causes, then it’s not free.

“The ability to modify a chain of events does not violate causality; it is simply an additional cause being added.”

This is true. However, modifying a chain of events is not free will. What spurned that modification? I see a girl on her cell phone about to walk out in traffic, the chain of events is set forth which would lead to her death; however, I pull her back just before she gets hit by an oncoming car. Is that free will? Or my feeling of concern for the girl that drives me? Had the girl not been there, I would have not felt concern and would not have reacted in such a way. She being there and taking her actions is a causal factor in my reaction just as much as my reaction is the causal factor to her living a bit longer at the very least. I could have easily just let her walk and not interfered or modified the original chain which would lead to her demise, but is that an exercise of free will? Or my complete lack of compassion for this poor unaware girl? Furthermore, what leads to a person’s having contempt or lacking it? Is it free will? Or is it how they were raised, or the environment they grew up in?

I realize it is hard to describe free will in a way that isn’t reminiscent of a type of “god of the gaps” rationale, but everything has its cause regardless if it isn’t immediately apparent.

”my experience with it suggests that we can and do dictate the general direction our thoughts can take”

This is actually a lot simpler to disprove than one may think.

Thoughts appear in consciousness; they are not initiated by anything we have control of. To say that you have control over your thoughts is to say you can predict what you’re going to think before you think it. In practice, this just doesn’t happen. Thoughts are a reaction to stimuli just as anything else. You thinking of pineapple right now is because you read my word, not because you just decided to think pineapple. Looking back, you had no other choice in the matter, even if you didn’t know what a pineapple was, the word itself would have been dictated by me before your brain allowed your consciousness to become aware of it. Also, any refusal to think of pineapple out of pride or whatever would have come after you already thought of it, otherwise you wouldn’t know what to refuse to think about let alone that you needed to refuse anything at all.

Side: Determinism
1 point

The evidence overwhelmingly points to a cause and effect reality and yet people fervently cling to this idea of free will like a dying god.

But I do understand why that is. Without free will, where’s our sense of morality? Or responsibility? If we were to say that free will doesn’t exist then we have to assume that everything we have done or will do is a result of the world we were brought up in and we are more like spectators then conscious articulators of our future. A very disturbing thought indeed. I don’t like the idea that I am not free just as any other person, but if we are staring right at the evidence, and it suggests that we live in a cause and effect world and that humans are not excluded from that reality, it doesn’t benefit us to deny it and cling to our fantasies.

When a person goes their whole life believing in god, they live, breathe and would die for the fantasy, it’s no surprise they fight so hard to cling on to it when evidence tells them otherwise. Same goes for free will. We have built our whole civilization around the notion that we are the conscious authors of our own thoughts and actions. Our legal system is evident of this. Someone kills another person and goes to jail, we think that the person had a choice and they chose wrong, and they did it of their own volition. Nothing is said of that person’s abusive upbringing, the bad day they had the day before, the incessant barking of the neighbors dog that kept them up all night, the sudden realization that their wife was cheating on them with that same neighbor… none of that matters apparently. It’s only when we find out that the person had a brain tumor as well, and that it just so happened to be in the right spot to lead him to have a violent disposition. Only then do we think of him as a victim of biology, however that brain tumor is but one factor in a continuous chain of prior causes that led up to that moment when he pulled that trigger; had he not had a brain tumor, there would still be reason to believe that the outcome of this chain of cause and effect would follow.

There is no extra essence in you and me; there isn’t something extra that we have which would allow me to make a different choice had I been that person in that same situation. Experience for experience, atom for atom, I would BE that person. If I lived their life, and WAS that person, I would have inevitably done the same thing in that moment.

Side: Determinism

I suppose I'll start with simple exploration of the nervous system.

As most of us should know, the individual neurons that make up our nervous system tend to act in a binary, apparently deterministic manner; A neurons functions are described as an 'action potential,' that starts with receiving a stimulus. The neuron 'fires,' sending an electrical signal along the axon, causing the release of neurotransmitters at the synapse.

These neurotransmitters bind to active sites on the dendrites of the next neuron(s) in the web. Various hormones and other chemicals may also bind to these active sites, in some cases increasing the likelihood of an action potential, and in other cases decreasing it. In either case, when sufficient stimulation of the next neurons active sites is attained, the neuron 'fires,' triggering the next neuron(s) in the web. On the surface, it appears entirely deterministic in nature.

In practice, however, this is not necessarily the case. EEG imagery can trace a stimulus, and for the most part any given stimulus will have a predictable result in the brain, up to and including preparing skeletal muscles for the expected physical response to the stimuli. However, these reactions can and are (edit: apparently consciously, was originally just consciously) apparently consciously held back in a number of cases- it is believed that our nervous systems function in a deterministic way, with a conscious ability to 'veto' a given reaction in favor of another. These same responses occur in an entirely deterministic fashion when the individual is in an unconscious state.

From what we are able to observe, currently, about how the mind works, these conclusions are entirely consistent; I believe that free will exists in the context of an ability to interrupt and modify what would ordinarily be an entirely deterministic process- and isn't that exactly what free will is supposed to be, anyway?

In the interest of full disclosure, this is not the only accepted explanation for the phenomena; What is under dispute is whether the ability to 'veto' an action potential is a conscious action or the result of a chaotic quantum process is under no small amount of debate. In either case, however, the process would not be entirely deterministic, though it doesn't necessarily mean that free will exists either. It's entirely possible that our actions are neither deterministic or willed.

Side: Free will
Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

"with a conscious ability to 'veto' a given reaction in favor of another"

can you please elaborate on this?

maybe an example? im not sure if i understand correctly.

Side: Determinism
Coldfire(1014) Disputed
1 point

I believe that free will exists in the context of an ability to interrupt and modify what would ordinarily be an entirely deterministic process.

What, if anything, would cause or drive that ability to interrupt and modify what would ordinarily be a deterministic process?

Side: Determinism
1 point

I apologize for the lengthy delay in my response.

I've read numerous discussions/treatises regarding this particular phenomena, but I think a good starting point is the explanation of Benjamin Livet's experiments.

This, along with some other relevant studies represent what we can observe empirically about the phenomenon; but what is actually causing or driving the ability is currently unclear; the best fitting theory we have for it is that it is a chaotic process at the subatomic level, but that itself is an imperfect explanation as what we can observe doesn't appear to be purely chaotic in nature; however due to the very nature of chaotic systems this could simply just be a matter of random chance as well.

As I stated, I realize that this phenomena does not 'prove' free will, but it does call determinism into serious question. 'Free Will' at least in some form could be a possible explanation- it's also possible that our processes are mostly deterministic but are affected by a random chaotic factor (as theorized). That would certainly seem to cement the illusion of free will, if nothing else.

Side: Free will