CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Our disagreement here is because you were asserting strict determinism; I don't believe that the fact that some processes are deterministic precludes the possibility of free will- strict determinism does, but I've already stated that such is not a belief I'm currently willing to adopt.
Ok, but if that will which would set a chain of events in place is determined by prior causes, then it’s not free.
I'm suggesting that 'free will' is not determined by prior causes, by its very nature.
However, modifying a chain of events is not free will.
It doesn't represent free will on the macro-level. I'm talking about the phenomena explored (though still not explained) by Livet's experiments. Remember- 'thought' does not represent an individual event, but an ongoing process. The action potentials of various neurons is suggested by our current understanding to serve as a mechanism for conscious thought, among all of the other actions of the brain. Most of the stimuli involved in this process are internal to the brain. So what is being modified here is not the thought itself, but the individual internal stimuli that shape the thought.
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.
I disagree here. Thought's don't simply 'appear' in consciousness. Thought is a constant, ongoing process. The mental imagery invoked by the word 'pineapple' does not in and of itself constitute 'thought;' that mental imagery is in fact the exact function that language is intended to provide. You aren't inserting 'pineapple' as a standalone thought onto a blank slate- you are providing a stimuli that is interpreted by a part of the brain as corresponding to what 'pineapple' is already understood to mean. This, becomes its own group of stimuli, part or all of which are then either incorporated into the current thought process, or ignored and discarded-as happens all too often.
It's very easy to look at individual points in a process and see how they lead to one another; but this does not, by itself, support strict determinism; this is your interpretation of how reality works, colored by your own beliefs.
Once can, in fact, predict what one is going to think about before thinking it- this is precisely what a significant part of preparation for a speech or debate entails. This is because most of the stimuli our brains rely on are internal, rather than external stimuli. The pineapple example is representative of external stimuli- which can still be ignored, even if they can't always be predicted. Furthermore, doesn't strict determinism dictate that what can be thought can be predicted before it is thought because it is already an inevitable result of a chain of events that is already in progress?
I apologize for how cluttered this post is; I usually rearrange them a bit before posting but I got called away from my desk with only enough time to jot this ending here; I'll revisit it.
“It doesn't represent free will on the macro-level. I'm talking about the phenomena explored (though still not explained) by Livet's experiments.”
Which could support a belief in an indeterministic view. Not free will.
Again, randomness is no more in support of free will then determinism is. If your will is caused by a random event, it is not free, it is not your own, you are not responsible for it.
“Remember- 'thought' does not represent an individual event, but an ongoing process.”
I don’t remember stating otherwise but ok.
I think you might even find this to be the bane of your position for free will rather than in support of it. If thought is ongoing than at which point do we have the capacity to interject a ‘free will thought’ in the mix? If thought is ongoing than isn’t that ‘free will thought’ also a part of that ongoing process and not separate… or free… from it?
“You aren't inserting 'pineapple' as a standalone thought onto a blank slate- you are providing a stimuli that is interpreted by a part of the brain as corresponding to what 'pineapple' is already understood to mean.”
My point exactly. I didn’t say it WAS a standalone thought; I said that “thoughts are a reaction to stimuli” and then provided that as my example.
“It's very easy to look at individual points in a process and see how they lead to one another; but this does not, by itself, support strict determinism”
How does being able to see the process of determinism not support determinism?
“Once can, in fact, predict what one is going to think about before thinking it- this is precisely what a significant part of preparation for a speech or debate entails.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in what I was talking about. Thinking something before you think it is not the same as preparing for a speech or debate; not in the way that I meant it. It could be analogous to preparing for a speech before you prepare for a speech however. A ridiculous notion. To reiterate what I said if I may: “you are not aware of a thought before it is thought;” the very act of thinking of it already prevents any preceding awareness of it.
To put it another way, an electrical signal fires off to create a thought in our brain, and then we become aware of it. It happens too fast to recognize but it does happen in that order. We are not aware of that thought before it becomes an electrical signal; being aware of it would require that the electrical signal already fired off.
Anyway, to the point. What was meant by this was that we don’t initiate our thoughts, yes we can predict how we will react to something or what we will think given certain stimuli, but we don’t initiate it, thoughts occur as a reaction to stimuli; as an electrical signal before we are aware of it. You cannot predict your next thought any more than you can predict what I’m going to say next and where that will take your thought process.
“The pineapple example is representative of external stimuli- which can still be ignored, even if they can't always be predicted”
Do you mean ignored as in “not notice?” I thought ignoring something requires that you are aware of it first. If you were to not notice in the first place then it wouldn’t be counted as a stimulus in your case anyway so I don’t see how this is relevant.
“doesn't strict determinism dictate that what can be thought can be predicted before it is thought because it is already an inevitable result of a chain of events that is already in progress?”
Yes. In theory, if you had complete knowledge of every causal factor to a certain event, then you could predict that event. The reason this does not happen isn’t because determinism is false, but because we don’t have the complete knowledge of every causal factor preceding any particular event. We can guess on certain events to take place based on causal factors but our knowledge of causal factors is never complete because the list is not exhaustive so we cannot predict anything with complete certainty.
This is not to be confused with my statement that we cannot think things before they are thought though. Observing the relationship of cause and effect is different than our awareness of our thoughts before they become thoughts.
Which could support a belief in an indeterministic view. Not free will.
Again, randomness is no more in support of free will then determinism is. If your will is caused by a random event, it is not free, it is not your own, you are not responsible for it.
This would be the case if we were aware that it was random. We aren't aware of the cause of the phenomenon. As such, it does not offer support for either indeterminism or free will- it simply calls pure determinism into serious question.
I think you might even find this to be the bane of your position for free will rather than in support of it. If thought is ongoing than at which point do we have the capacity to interject a ‘free will thought’ in the mix? If thought is ongoing than isn’t that ‘free will thought’ also a part of that ongoing process and not separate… or free… from it?
What I'm saying is that, when talking about thought in general, it's misguided to look at it as having 'points.' The physical mechanism of thought involves many, many neurons firing many times per second. If it works as the studies suggest, the 'point' where free will is applied is at the 'approval' or 'rejection' of any given action potential. I'll concede that 'free will' is unlikely to be truly free, in that anyone can think of anything on demand at any moment- but rather that it represents the ability to direct ones thoughts along an extremely high, though finite, number of possibilities.
My point exactly. I didn’t say it WAS a standalone thought; I said that “thoughts are a reaction to stimuli” and then provided that as my example.
Thoughts are not a reaction to stimuli; reactions to stimuli are a component of thought- thought exists, physically speaking, as an aggregate of these. Any given thought process is the result of numerous stimuli.
How does being able to see the process of determinism not support determinism?
Because just being able to see that a cause leads to an effect does not explore the nature of the cause nor how it led to the effect. Viewing a deterministic process establishes that said process is deterministic within the constraints of what we can observe. Acknowledging this does not support strict determinism.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in what I was talking about. Thinking something before you think it is not the same as preparing for a speech or debate; not in the way that I meant it. It could be analogous to preparing for a speech before you prepare for a speech however. A ridiculous notion. To reiterate what I said if I may: “you are not aware of a thought before it is thought;” the very act of thinking of it already prevents any preceding awareness of it.
No, you're wrong here. This suggests that the process of making a speech does not involve any thought. I assert the opposite- that it's all but impossible to make a speech without thinking, on some level, about what you're saying. I'm not referring to writing a speech on note cards and reading them; I'm talking about preparing for a speech in terms of researching the material you're going to be speaking about and coming up with the general framework for your speech.
It's a similar concept to practicing your baseball swing. While most focus on the muscular aspects of it, a significant portion of this is fine-tuning ones muscular control, and that's entirely a neurological process. It's not generally considered the same as a conscious thought, but it's still a matter of preparing the brain to work in a preplanned sequence. Even if it appears different, the exact same mechanism is at play when preparing for a speech, or something to that effect.
You cannot predict your next thought any more than you can predict what I’m going to say next and where that will take your thought process.
I don't see why this is necessary for free will. Maybe 'truly' free will, in the sense of being able to think anything anytime. But free will, in terms of making a conscious choice between a finite number of choices (even a vast number of said choices) doesn't have any reliance on this.
Do you mean ignored as in “not notice?” I thought ignoring something requires that you are aware of it first. If you were to not notice in the first place then it wouldn’t be counted as a stimulus in your case anyway so I don’t see how this is relevant.
Maybe 'ignore' was a poor choice of words. 'Not notice' is a good one, and illustrates things nicely. When you don't notice something, it is not that you have failed to receive a stimulus. If visible light is reflecting into your eyes within your field of view, you see it. If a mechanical vibration within the audible range reaches your eardrums, you hear it. The stimulus does occur, and the neurons do fire. We simply don't notice it- the stimulus is rejected at some point along the chain.
This would be the case if we were aware that it was random.
Correct. If it were to be a genuine random event it would support an indeterministic view. This would still be the case whether we were aware of it being random or not however. A things randomness is not incumbent upon our awareness of it being random.
We aren't aware of the cause of the phenomenon. As such, it does not offer support for either indeterminism or free will- it simply calls pure determinism into serious question.
Do you believe that the world exists apart from our ability to perceive it? If a cause exists, doesn't it exist regardless of our perception of its existence. If this is the case, and a cause does indeed exist for the sake of argument, then it doesn't call into question determinism; it substantiates it.
If it were to be genuinely random it would support indeterminism. If it were to have been caused it would support determinism.
but rather that it represents the ability to direct ones thoughts along an extremely high, though finite, number of possibilities.
Do you believe that your consciousness is a product of your brain functions? Or that it operates apart from your brain functions? Or even precedes the functions of your brain?
Any given thought process is the result of numerous stimuli.
Please explain to me how this is any different than "thoughts are a reaction to stimuli."
Thoughts are caused by stimuli. Stimuli occurs and a thought is the result, correct?
Because just being able to see that a cause leads to an effect does not explore the nature of the cause nor how it led to the effect.
This was never suggested.
Viewing a deterministic process establishes that said process is deterministic within the constraints of what we can observe.
No, this is not what is being posited by proponents of determinism. Cause and effect does not function only within constraints of observation. Cause and effect happens even if there are no conscious beings there to perceive it.
Acknowledging this does not support strict determinism.
Agreed, and I don't know any determinist that would acknowledge it.
No, you're wrong here. This suggests that the process of making a speech does not involve any thought.
Wait what?! Not at all what I'm suggesting. I was pointing out that your analogy was faulty.
Regardless, I restated what I said in order to clarify it: "To reiterate what I said if I may: “you are not aware of a thought before it is thought;” the very act of thinking of it already prevents any preceding awareness of it."
Again, thoughts appear in consciousness. As a result of stimuli both internal and external.
You cannot predict your next thought any more than you can predict what I’m going to say next and where that will take your thought process.
I don't see why this is necessary for free will.
It's not. But it sure as hell would be hard to use free will when you cannot predict your thoughts.
But free will, in terms of making a conscious choice between a finite number of choices (even a vast number of said choices) doesn't have any reliance on this.
Please read the debate description again. Definition 1 of free will is accepted by both view points. The free will vs determinism debate refers to definition 2 of free will and definition 1a of determinism.
That being the case free will in terms of making a choice not determined by prior causes would prove impossible where an unpredicted thought was the cause.
Correct. If it were to be a genuine random event it would support an indeterministic view. This would still be the case whether we were aware of it being random or not however. A things randomness is not incumbent upon our awareness of it being random.
Now you're just dissembling. I could just as easily say that the existence of free will is not incumbent upon our awareness of it existing or our ability to prove it. Perhaps 'aware' was a poor choice of words, yet again. If it were to genuinely be random it would not 'support' an indeterministic view- it would simply be a matter of indeterminism being the case, regardless of whether we're aware of it. We are not aware of the phenomenons nature. As such, we cannot draw conclusions from it, other than the fact that it is highly suggestive that strict determinism is not the case.
Do you believe that the world exists apart from our ability to perceive it? If a cause exists, doesn't it exist regardless of our perception of its existence. If this is the case, and a cause does indeed exist for the sake of argument, then it doesn't call into question determinism; it substantiates it.
If it were to be genuinely random it would support indeterminism. If it were to have been caused it would support determinism.
This is only the case if the effect not only has a cause, but is an inevitable result of said cause. You haven't come anywhere close to proving that in your dissembling.
Do you believe that your consciousness is a product of your brain functions? Or that it operates apart from your brain functions? Or even precedes the functions of your brain?
I'm really not certain. All I know is that there are physical processes in the brain that appear to correlate strongly to what we call consciousness. Consciousness could be a product of brain functions- or possibly, the brain could be the physical interface through which consciousness interacts with the body. I don't believe that it operates entirely separately from our brain functions, at any rate. I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion here, and I don't have any deep seated emotional reason to form a belief in this regard.
Please explain to me how this is any different than "thoughts are a reaction to stimuli."
Thoughts are caused by stimuli. Stimuli occurs and a thought is the result, correct?
Thoughts are ongoing. They are not caused by stimuli, so much as stimuli appear to modify the flow of thought. Saying that 'thoughts are caused by stimuli. stimuli occurs and a thought is the result' is a gross oversimplification, and you know that. I can only assume its an attempt to lend apparent support to ones own position, but it only works if the audience is ignorant. I don't WANT to assume that you'd compromise your integrity, but it's a simpler explanation than just assuming you were ignorant on this topic, given the level of discussion you've displayed.
This was never suggested.
And proving strict determinism requires that it be suggested. Strict determinism requires that any given set of conditions inevitably leads to a given set of results, continuing ad infinum. It requires that there be a single wave function that describes the entire universe. You have a huge amount of ground to cover yet if you want to come close to proving this.
No, this is not what is being posited by proponents of determinism. Cause and effect does not function only within constraints of observation. Cause and effect happens even if there are no conscious beings there to perceive it.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. If a process is strictly deterministic or partially deterministic, indeterministic, or a result of free choice, that is the way it is- regardless of our ability to observe or understand it. When I said 'Viewing a deterministic process establishes that said process is deterministic within the constraints of what we can observe.' I was referring to drawing conclusions from available data. Observing a deterministic process only establishes that there is a correlation between the two events. Proving a cause-effect relationship requires more than that. If there are portions of the process that we are unable to observe or explain, we don't just 'fill in the blank' with strict determinism. It is totally fine for you to believe in strict determinism, but don't present it as proven fact- it is quite far from it.
Regardless, I restated what I said in order to clarify it: "To reiterate what I said if I may: “you are not aware of a thought before it is thought;” the very act of thinking of it already prevents any preceding awareness of it."
Again, thoughts appear in consciousness. As a result of stimuli both internal and external.
And again, you're wrong. If I'm doing an oral debate on the topic of, say, abortion, I will prepare for said debate. Among other things, I will prepare to explain my stance on the status of personhood, level of development of the fetus at any given stage, and whom has what rights at what level of development. My arguments and several possible curve balls that my opponent would throw me will be considered.
When I begin the debate, my line of thought generally follows what I've prepared- taking different courses as needed due to tactics my opponent uses that I may not expect, but generally following the lines of thought I've already established.
While we don't have perception of our individual nerve impulses, we can certainly predict how our thought processes are going to go based on internal stimuli- it's the external stimuli that we can't account for.
Or by 'predict your thoughts' do you mean predict the exact series and rate at which the entire web of neurons fire? That seems a bit excessive, and it isn't what we're talking about with thought. Thought is a constant, ongoing, subjective process. If I'm to say that I've 'predicted' my thoughts on several occasions in this manner, and you disagree- prove it.
It's not. But it sure as hell would be hard to use free will when you cannot predict your thoughts.
We don't need to be aware of a phenomenon, or how it works, in order to make use of it. You move your arm. This involves an extremely complex series of nerve impulses to the relevant muscles, causing them to contract in just the precise way to generate the movement. This also involves further an extremely complex series of nerve impulses to other, apparently unrelated skeletal muscles in order to maintain your balance as the arm is moved.
We aren't aware of this process; we just move our arm. We don't need to be able to predict our thoughts in order to use free will- but we CAN predict our thoughts to a certain extent in some circumstances anyway, so...
Please read the debate description again. Definition 1 of free will is accepted by both view points. The free will vs determinism debate refers to definition 2 of free will and definition 1a of determinism.
That being the case free will in terms of making a choice not determined by prior causes would prove impossible where an unpredicted thought was the cause.
Have you edited the description since we started, or did I just not read it correctly? I don't agree with the way you've established free will. Furthermore, those criteria do not establish them as a binary choice, but allow for a significant amount of middle ground. My stance would lie on the free end side, but not nearly as strict as you've illustrated it.
I should have noted that from the get go, but either the description read differently then or I didn't read it thoroughly; not sure which and not willing to make an overt accusation because of it.
And proving strict determinism requires that it be suggested. Strict determinism requires that any given set of conditions inevitably leads to a given set of results, continuing ad infinum. It requires that there be a single wave function that describes the entire universe. You have a huge amount of ground to cover yet if you want to come close to proving this.
Therein lies the rub. It seems you don't have a clear understanding of what determinism is.
I may not be the best person to describe it since I've had trouble articulating it so far.
You keep saying strict determinism I notice. I take it you don't realize that there's no real difference between it and determinism do you? The only reason I mentioned that I was a strict determinist was so that it may be known that I'm a proponent of determinism that believes there is no room for free will at all (the other side would be called compatiblist). You don't have to keep specifying 'strict' determinism.
Proving determinism is a lot easier than demonstrating that there's a single wave function that describes the entire universe (even if that is what determinism entailed).
Besides, 'proving' determinism was not the task in this debate. As the debate description says "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."
Sorry if I didn't bother reading past this point, this has just gotten way off subject it seems.
I don't mind discussing these side bars with you though; if you want me to respond to all of your retorts, I would be glad to.
That article is incorrect in the implications of determinism. Determinism, by necessity, encompasses pre-determinism. If any set of conditions leads to one inevitable outcome, which itself represents a portion of the conditions for further events, the process exends ad infinum in both directions.
How, exactly, does determinism work without the assumption of pre-determinism? I'd love to see that.
I state 'strict determinism' specifically to differentiate between it and determinism. Perhaps my terminology is poor here, but I'm using determinism in the sense of observing a deterministic process- not making any assumptions about other processes based on said observation. When I use 'strict determinism' I'm referring to the assertion that everything that occurs is an inevitable result of pre-existing conditions, and serve as conditions themselves for inevitable outcomes, extending ad infinum. I do have to keep specifying strict determinism because there is a difference. Perhaps it would be better if I simply used 'cause-effect relationship' where I use 'determinism' and 'determinism' where I use 'strict determinism?'
Proving determinism is a lot easier than demonstrating that there's a single wave function that describes the entire universe (even if that is what determinism entailed).
I don't see what you mean here. Proving either proves the other. If you can prove determinism, then the proof for such proves the single wave function. If you can prove the single wave function, the proof for such proves determinism.
Besides, 'proving' determinism was not the task in this debate. As the debate description says "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."
In that case, I suppose we must call this a draw then. You've done a fair job of proving that free will is not rational to affirm, but you haven't established a case for determinism's rationality. I've done a fair job of establishing that determinism is not rational to affirm, but I haven't established a case for free will's rationality.
As I said, I believe the current level of knowledge only allows us to have a belief here, one way or the other. I don't believe we have sufficient information to demonstrate either viewpoint as being rational. It has been interesting seeing your perspectives on the matter.
That article is incorrect in the implications of determinism.
I have listed a few more credible sources that describe determinism below. I'm sorry if you disagree with them as well, but I don't find it very likely that online references and determinists themselves are wrong in their implications of what determinism is.
Determinism, by necessity, encompasses pre-determinism. If any set of conditions leads to one inevitable outcome, which itself represents a portion of the conditions for further events, the process exends ad infinum in both directions.
That is not what pre-determinism is, but regardless, assuming you believe there is no beginning or end in time what exactly is it that you have a problem with regarding “if any set of conditions leads to one inevitable outcome, which itself represents a portion of the conditions for further events, the process exends ad infinum in both directions?”
How, exactly, does determinism work without the assumption of pre-determinism? I'd love to see that.
Pre-determinism is a theological concept that denotes a type of omniscience to the causal factors of the universe. It supports certain supernatural claims such as fate, destiny, the 'first cause' or an omniscient being. Where determinism implies that there is a chain or web of causal events, pre-determinism implies that this chain was known in advance (by god or something) and possibly even initiated by the supernatural force. This is virtually impossible (for a human to do) and entirely unnecessary in order to observe that determinism is demonstrable.
Perhaps it would be better if I simply used 'cause-effect relationship' where I use 'determinism' and 'determinism' where I use 'strict determinism?'
Yes, I think that would make more sense. Determinism is the idea that all events are the result of previous events and conditions. The relationship of cause and effect, along with other things like Newtonian physics, is the framework being used to validate this claim.
I'm using determinism in the sense of observing a deterministic process- not making any assumptions about other processes based on said observation.
Ok. So observing the deterministic process (cause and effect relationship) but not applying it academically. I guess that’s your prerogative.
When I use 'strict determinism' I'm referring to the assertion that everything that occurs is an inevitable result of pre-existing conditions, and serve as conditions themselves for inevitable outcomes, extending ad infinum.
That is actually what determinism entails minus the "ad infinitum" part (determinism in itself makes no claims for or against an infinite or finite universe), so you dont have to differentiate between it and strict determinism. In other words, that is what both determinists and strict determinists believe, A strict, or hard determinist refers specifically to a determinist who believes that there is no place for a free will decision in the natural world.
‘Strict’ determinism as I stated in my first post “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,” specifically deals with the relationship between determinism and free will.
I don't see what you mean here. Proving either proves the other. If you can prove determinism, then the proof for such proves the single wave function. If you can prove the single wave function, the proof for such proves determinism.
Proving that there is a single wave function that describes the universe is not only an over simplification but it is impossible and unnecessary in demonstrating determinism.
In that case, I suppose we must call this a draw then. You've done a fair job of proving that free will is not rational to affirm, but you haven't established a case for determinism's rationality.
Maybe not in the sense of proving grandiose claims that are irrelevant to its proposed rationality…
I've done a fair job of establishing that determinism is not rational to affirm, but I haven't established a case for free will's rationality.
This is debatable; you don’t really seem to have a clear understanding of what determinism even is. But regardless, given that you referred to the notion of indeterminism, and that I am bound by my own principles to suspend judgment of the existence of a thing until sufficient evidence is provided (in this case the existence of a 'cause' to the perceived random occurrence at the quantum level) I can only assume the position of indeterminism or maybe Adequate Determinism at this point, which states that random events do occur at the quantum level but are negligible to the deterministic effects at the macro level.
Thank you for your responses. I will take many things with me thanks to this debate, namely the importance in structuring my remarks more definitively to accurately convey my point and to avoid a longwinded discussion. I hope at the very least this dialog has helped call into question your own belief in free will on some level and left you with the motivation to explore it more deeply.
I know free will is something were just taught to accept as kids without any clear definition but in the free will vs determinism debate there are pretty distinct definitions of the words.
I'm interested in how you would describe it though
I feel like this has gotten way out of left field.
I know that you are trying to raise suspicion in determinism as if that will lead credence to the idea of free will but even if one were to disregard determinism as a philosophy. There still is no rational or coherent way to describe this free will as it relates to reality.
We live in a cause and effect reality. If will is caused, then it is not uncaused or free.
The very fact that your will depends on something to exist makes it caused. Your will depends on there being a planet that you live on, it depends on you having been born, it depends on there being a brain in between your ears, to suggest otherwise is to suggest that our will exists apart from you, but even then it wouldn't be your own, it would come from elsewhere and you still wouldnt be free.
I know that you are trying to raise suspicion in determinism as if that will lead credence to the idea of free will but even if one were to disregard determinism as a philosophy. There still is no rational or coherent way to describe this free will as it relates to reality.
No, you misunderstand. I'm not attempting to lend credence to the idea of free will by attacking determinism. I'm demonstrating that there is insufficient information to prove either conclusively, and asserting that this is simply a matter of belief at this point.
We live in a cause and effect reality. If will is caused, then it is not uncaused or free.
That's not always necessarily the case. Causality violations, and even reversed causality have been observed in quantum physics. You should do some reading in that regard; if you like I can serve up a few links to get you started.
The very fact that your will depends on something to exist makes it caused. Your will depends on there being a planet that you live on, it depends on you having been born, it depends on there being a brain in between your ears, to suggest otherwise is to suggest that our will exists apart from you, but even then it wouldn't be your own, it would come from elsewhere and you still wouldnt be free.
The fact that there was a cause behind an effect does not imply that said cause would always result in said effect. Further, the effects that said effect later becomes a cause for are not necessarily an inevitable result of this effect or prior causes. You're asserting that every single event is an inevitable result of prior causes, but I haven't seen anything that actually supports this claim.
I was primarily interested in this debate because I took your statement in that other debate as an assertion that you not only believe in determinism, but felt that you could prove it. 'Proving' free will was never my intent, and I don't believe it to be possible at current.
That's not always necessarily the case. Causality violations, and even reversed causality have been observed in quantum physics. You should do some reading in that regard; if you like I can serve up a few links to get you started.
I would love for you to show me peer reviewed observations of causality violations and reversed causality within quantum physics.
At any rate they still deal with a relationship of cause and effect so I don't see how this disproves that we live in a cause and effect reality.
The fact that there was a cause behind an effect does not imply that said cause would always result in said effect.
This is demonstrated time and again.
This is the nature of causality. If a different result occurs then it was because there were other causal factors involved to alter the result.
Not knowing what the causal factors are does not disprove cause and effect.
You're asserting that every single event is an inevitable result of prior causes, but I haven't seen anything that actually supports this claim.
It's called causality. If I push a vase off a pedestal it will inevitably be drawn by gravity to the floor beneath it. I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding this very basic principle of the natural world.
I really don't know how I can explain determinism to you if you can't even grasp basic physics.
I was primarily interested in this debate because I took your statement in that other debate as an assertion that you not only believe in determinism, but felt that you could prove it.
It's proven harder to do than I originally thought. However based on my statement in the other debate it should've led to the assumption that I was confident in my ability to disprove free will if anything, not so much in supporting determinism.
My inability to prove determinism or your inability to understand cause and effect lends no credence to the idea of free will.
Free will doesn't exist within your gaps of understanding in determinism or within my difficulty in articulating it to you.
I would love for you to show me peer reviewed observations of causality violations and reversed causality within quantum physics.
At any rate they still deal with a relationship of cause and effect so I don't see how this disproves that we live in a cause and effect reality.
I don't generally carry subscriptions to medical journals, so the entirety of the peer-review process is not always readily present. I'm going to show you some sources, and you can vet them if you so choose.
I have some others, but they didn't cite all of their sources and as such I didn't feel it appropriate to put them forward.
Violating or reversing causality disproves that we live in a 'cause and effect' reality because it upsets the basic premise that a given cause (or set of causes) inevitably leads to a specific effect. If causality is reversed, a wrench is thrown in the idea of cause and effect. If causality is violated altogether, it demonstrates that cause and effect is not a universal phenomenon. That's sufficient to disprove that we live in a cause and effect reality, while still allowing for the fact that at most levels cause and effect can be observed normally.
This is demonstrated time and again.
This is the nature of causality. If a different result occurs then it was because there were other causal factors involved to alter the result.
Not knowing what the causal factors are does not disprove cause and effect.
This is circular reasoning, can't you see that? "Causes lead inevitably to effects" "But what if the effect is different?" "Then there was another cause that we just don't know, because causes lead inevitably to effects." It only works until someone questions the idea of causality to begin with. You work under the assumption that your worldview is correct, but you're unable to prove it without using your worldview itself as a basic premise. Do you not see the problem here?
It's called causality. If I push a vase off a pedestal it will inevitably be drawn by gravity to the floor beneath it. I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding this very basic principle of the natural world.
I really don't know how I can explain determinism to you if you can't even grasp basic physics.
It really doesn't seem like your knowledge is limited to basic physics, so why do you keep going back to it? Demonstrating on one level that a given, or even many processes are deterministic, does not prove that all of reality is deterministic. Much of the activity in our brain occurs at the molecular level, and even the particle level. While the molecular level is typically in the realm of classical physics, particle physics, quantum theory, and their ilk shake things up big time. Are you unfamiliar with these?
It's proven harder to do than I originally thought. However based on my statement in the other debate it should've led to the assumption that I was confident in my ability to disprove free will if anything, not so much in supporting determinism.
My inability to prove determinism or your inability to understand cause and effect lends no credence to the idea of free will.
Free will doesn't exist within your gaps of understanding in determinism or within my difficulty in articulating it to you.
Whether you were confident in your ability to prove determinism or disprove free will is largely immaterial; you haven't really accomplished either here. I think I'm about done with this debate as long as you're going to be throwing insults around.
Your inability to prove determinism and your incomplete understanding of cause and effect as they apply to all levels of physics may not lend credence to the idea of free will, but they also do not lend credence to strict determinism.
And you're right- free will doesn't exist within my gaps of understanding in determinism and any ease or difficulty either of us has in articulating our position is largely irrelevant. If free will exists, it exists as a process outside of what we, as a people, are currently able to observe and measure. If strict determinism is the case, then there is still an important component that also exists outside of what we are currently able to observe and measure.
I believe that we will be able to have a conclusive answer to this one day, but today is not that day. Neither Free Will nor Strict Determinism is conclusively provable. The difference is, I've been approaching my view on free will as a belief from the get-go. You've been presenting your belief in strict determinism as fact. My position may not be provable, but at least I'm not holding it sacrosanct and not allowing for any alternate possibilities. I'd love to visit your determinism church one day though- when are services held?
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.
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.
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.
"As I stated, I realize that this phenomena does not 'prove' free will"
Indeed. Disproves it even further if anything. We have no more control over randomness then we do over prior causes.
"it's also possible that our processes are mostly deterministic but are affected by a random chaotic factor"
Mostly deterministic but... deterministic.
I don’t see any reason why a factor, which is chaotic or random, should be excluded as a deterministic factor for our processes. And who’s to say that that chaotic or random factor is actually that? Perhaps a cause hasn’t been discovered yet or is at a level that we cannot measure currently with our technology.
At any rate, I cannot honestly debate such a thing, but it appears neither can you.
I still remain unconvinced for any rational reason to believe in the existence of free will though, whereas you have at least nodded at the deterministic viewpoint.
I don't believe it goes anywhere to disprove it even further; insufficient information is available to draw either such conclusion- a random chaotic factor is simply one offered explanation for the phenomenon- to my knowledge, a further test to verify this has not yet been conducted, though I'll certainly investigate it a bit more.
A random chaotic factor does in fact preclude pure determinism. You've noted that I've nodded to the deterministic viewpoint; that is to say that there is determinism at play at some point, which is a certainty; our nervous systems functions are highly predicated on that. But one can't really claim determinism when a random factor is at play; if one can do that, one might as well say free will itself is simply a factor that sets deterministic events in motion. Don't we really need to stick to a fairly strict definition of determinism if we're presenting it as a dichotomy?
I do have a bit of a problem presenting it as a dichotomy anyway, mind you, as my prior statements should suggest.
“I don't believe it goes anywhere to disprove it even further; insufficient information is available to draw either such conclusion”
Right, but if true randomness were the case, then both determinism and free will would not be the case.
If you’re adopting the view of indeterminism, or randomness; which is to say neither deterministic nor free will exist, then I’m afraid I’ll have to bow out of this one.
“A random chaotic factor does in fact preclude pure determinism.”
If a random chaotic factor precludes determinism, yet determinism remains, how then can it be precluded?
I would venture a guess and say that there is something at work underlying that supposed randomness, something we have yet to discover. Before we discovered germs, we attributed illness to all sorts of fairy tales.
I suppose if something were to be shown to actually be a random chaotic factor then that would indeed show determinism to be false or at least compatible considering how demonstrable determinism remains on the grand scale.
“But one can't really claim determinism when a random factor is at play; if one can do that, one might as well say free will itself is simply a factor that sets deterministic events in motion.”
The most I would be able to do is claim a compatibilistic viewpoint on determinism. However I am still unconvinced that random factors are really at play.
To throw free will in this mix would be self-defeating. Free will is a factor that sets determinism in motion? This notion contains the elements which would lead to its eventual collapse I’m afraid.
Besides, randomness leaves no more room for free will than determinism does. If things are caused, then will is not free and if things are random, then will is not free. I have yet to hear a rational arguement to prove free will.
“Don't we really need to stick to a fairly strict definition of determinism if we're presenting it as a dichotomy?”
I still stand by the definition I presented of determinism and have added in my argument that I am specifically a strict determinist.
If at any time I were to see irrefutable evidence of random chaotic factors then the most I would do is assume a more combatibalistic view of determinism.
“I do have a bit of a problem presenting it as a dichotomy anyway, mind you, as my prior statements should suggest.”
Yes, I can tell. Like I said, if you would rather assume the position of indeterminism, then maybe we should end this debate.
I am not surprised at all that I still haven’t seen any support for free will at this point.
What I've noted this far is simply a portion of the process that does not yet have a proper explanation. The overall rates are not consistent from what would expect were it random, but that which is random is by its very nature not predictable either; there is insufficient data regarding the nature of this phenomenon.
It is entirely possible that this process itself could prove to be non-chaotic in nature; it may be entirely deterministic in nature, it may prove to be the avenue through which free will (should it exist) functions, or it could be simple chaos. I don't offer this in support of free will, as we don't currently have sufficient evidence to prove free will or determinism; further study is needed.
When I say 'pure determinism' as in 'strict determinism,' I am referring to the idea that every event is caused by pre-existing conditions that could cause no other event. I do not believe that this is necessarily the case. Nevertheless, we are able to observe reliable cause-effect mechanisms in numerous fields; as such, determinism does work on some level. That's what I was getting at with "A random chaotic factor does in fact preclude pure determinism" This is where we disagree- you assert that all human activity is the result of an entirely deterministic process- I am asserting that evidence suggests that this is not the case. This evidence does not support my case in and of itself.
Free will is a belief I hold; it is a working explanation for that which we do not yet have an answer for, and that I do not feel pure determinism is consistent with. I hold this belief because I personally prefer it to one of indeterminism, though I acknowledge that that stance is just as consistent as the idea of free will, and simpler.
This is something we can and will eventually have a fundamental answer to- but I'm not willing to accept determinism in the absence of evidence, anymore than I can expect you to accept my views on free will. It has been interesting seeing your input on the matter, though.
“What I've noted this far is simply a portion of the process that does not yet have a proper explanation.”
“I don't offer this in support of free will”
Noted. My issue is that you appear to be using this in opposition to determinism. (“This is where we disagree- you assert that all human activity is the result of an entirely deterministic process- I am asserting that evidence suggests that this is not the case.”)
Since “there is insufficient data regarding the nature of this phenomenon,” and “It is entirely possible that this process itself could prove to be non-chaotic in nature; it may be entirely deterministic in nature,” and also because I will admit, for the sake of argument, that if there were irrefutable proof that chaotic random factors exist, then I would have to rethink my view of strict determinism… would you agree that this is not something worth debating anymore?
The Livet experiment is hardly a sustainable piece of evidence anyway considering how incomplete it is, wouldn’t you agree?
Besides lending credence to an indeterministic view and possibly precluding a strict deterministic view, you have still not offered any rational support for free will.
I would agree that it is not something worth debating at this point, as there is insufficient information available to conclusively prove either side. I was mainly curious about why you were so confident in your belief in determinism, really.
If you were to assume that there is a reason for my confidence, you would be correct.
Either I know or understand something that you don't or I misunderstand something and have yet to see the flaw in my rationale. Perhaps you will be the one to point it out to me, who knows.
If my view were to change, would it be due to free will? or due to having an engaging discussion with a challenging opponent?
Your parents giving birth to you allowed you to eventually perceive the world as you do now. It was not in your control, it just happened. How then can you say that your will was not caused by something that was not in your control? Everything that happened to you, everything that you thought, decided, and then acted upon was predicated on that very thing which you had no control over.
Why am I so confident? Perhaps unlike most people, it’s a topic that I took extreme interest to, and instead of accepting what I’ve been taught, I pondered it, and the more I pondered it the more clear it was to me.