Instigator / Pro
Ferbalot's avatar
7
Ferbalot
1514
rating
6
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5792

Every human's choices are all ultimately entirely caused by things outside of their control.

Status
Finished

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

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

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

Ferbalot
Tags
Philosophy
Free Will
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
1,450
Contender / Con
Lemming's avatar
4
Lemming
1439
rating
9
debates
27.78%
won
Description

The resolution's terms are defined such that this is synonymous with the resolution:
- For each human,
- For each choice the human makes,
- For each uncaused cause ultimately contributing to the choice,
- The human has absolutely no control over the uncaused cause.

In other words, the resolution states: when you look at the beginning(s) of (all) causal chain(s) leading up to every choice of every human, it is entirely outside of that human's control.

Round 1
Ferbalot's avatar
Ferbalot
Pro
#1
Definitions:

Probability/random: I will always be using "probability" to mean "actual probability" and "random" to mean "truly random" unless otherwise indicated. For example (not accounting for the possibility of libertarian free will intervention since I think that would be begging the question) a rolling dice has an actual probability close to or at 100% for landing on a particular side once it is thrown, due to the laws of physics. It is just hard for us to predict, so for most purposes it's good enough to be called "random" or to say that the probability of landing on a particular side after being thrown is 1/6. However it isn't truly random, or it is but only barely due to quantum mechanics.

Event: "Something that happens."

Control: "Exercise directing influence."

Choice: "Decision."


Argument:

Premise 1. For any given event, it is logically impossible for it to have a probability greater than 100% or less than 0%.

Premise 2. If the probability of any given event is 0%, it is entirely causally determined not to occur.

Premise 3. If the probability of any given event is 100%, it is entirely causally determined to occur.

Premise 4. For any given event where the probability is greater than 0% and less than 100%, we can break the probability down into a deterministic part and a random part. (By saying that it's entirely determined to have the particular probability that it does, and that it's entirely random what the actual outcome will be within that probability.)

Premise 5. Given premises 1-4, we can infer that every event must be entirely made up of random and/or deterministic part(s).


Premise 6. No one can have control over anything without in some way having some causal influence over it. (Without causal influence you cannot have directing influence.)

Premise 7. It is impossible to have causal influence over anything entirely random. (If you have causal influence over it, it must be partially determined by you. Something partially determined cannot be entirely random.)

Premise 8. Given premises 6 and 7, for any given event's random part(s) (if it has any), we cannot have control over them.


Premise 9. For anything that can fairly be called a human choice, the human must consciously decide it.

Premise 10. All human conscious decisions are largely caused by underlying mental processes.

Premise 11. Given premise 5, All events in human mental processes must be entirely made up of random and/or deterministic components.

Premise 12. Given premise 8, humans cannot have control over the random components of the events in their mental processes.

Premise 13. Given premises 9-12, whatever ultimate control a human has over a choice must be from their control over the deterministic components of the events in their mental processes that contributed to that choice.


Premise 14. Given premises 9 and 10, more than a small group of irreducible mental processes would have to be used for a human to control what the deterministic components of a small group of irreducible mental processes would do. (So multiple choices would have to be used to control a portion of what contributed to a given choice, requiring an infinite regress.)

Premise 15. It is very unlikely that we have an infinite past of somehow controlling infinite choices.

Conclusion. Given premises 13-15, it is very likely that every human's choices are all entirely caused by things ultimately outside of their control.
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
Con
#2
I'm sorry man, if I don't argue the way you were hoping. There's just too many and/ors, and referring back to previous points.
Though it 'might be simple for some, I find my thoughts convoluted in your round 1 arguments.
So I'm going to go with the assumption that many voters will 'also find themselves convoluted within it.
Though on the chance of voters claiming I did not address your arguments, and by that supposedly accepted them as true. . . I argue, what if my opponent had spoken in Greek, before the event of Google translate, not my fault I couldn't respond.

Onto my arguments,
Replacing Pro's Title words with their own definitions,
Every human's "decisions" are all ultimately entirely caused by things outside of their "Exercising directing influence"

What about repeating events in life, surely a human uses their mind and body to Exercise Directing Influence over said event and their own responses to such.
If we see that we got fat, from eating too much last Thanksgiving, don't some humans practice restraint next Thanksgiving, when they see the connection?
One might argue that not all humans diet and exercise, only the humans with X experiences or desires, who got those desires from X. Thus the human didn't decide anything.
But I say that doesn't matter.
If the human exercises their influence, to observe fat humans dying of heart disease, then the human decision is partially caused within their Exercising Directing Influence.
It doesn't matter if the human was told by another human that fat humans can die of heart disease, and this caused the human to observe fat humans dying of heart disease.
What matters is that the human exercised their own influence, even if their influence can ultimately be traced back to past events, such as being born with a brain, there are things 'within the humans influence,
That the human can direct their influence upon, that are within the chain of events.

Imagine a line of 100 dominoes, the first domino's falling, turns off a robot by hitting a switch,
The last domino turns on the robot, which then sets up the dominoes and pushes the first one over again,
The robot is part of the cause of it's own events, and exercises directing influence on the continuation of said events.
. . . Besides, if one cannot identify the 'first cause of existence, how can one say whether we effect it?
Some people believe in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return, by such a belief, would we 'not have an infinite past of controlling infinite choices?



Round 2
Ferbalot's avatar
Ferbalot
Pro
#3
Advice on how to understand the argument.

I'm sorry that it is such a convoluted argument, I attempted to simplify it in a couple ways but unfortunately it's just a more complicated argument than I anticipated.

I suggest breaking it down into smaller parts that can be focused on and checked without needing to focus on the rest of the argument. Then you can forget all the details of that part and just remember which premises you've checked so far and whether you thought they were valid and sound or not.

I tried to provide spacing to help with this, but I should have clarified what it was exactly for. Every time there's a two-line gap...


...like this, it indicates a gap between major portions of the arguments. That was me trying to say "the argument is likely best split up like this. You can sort of think of these as their own sub-arguments and focus entirely on them before moving on."

This works relatively well because the last premise of all the sub-arguments is almost the only premise you'll have to worry about for the future (the only exception is premise 10 which is used for both 13 and 14). Aside from this exception, the non-last premises in each sub-argument are only used to justify the last premise.

The spacing is a little hard to see, so I'll also provide a little sub-argument guide here: 

Sub-argument 1: Premises 1-5
Sub-argument 2: Premises 6-8
Sub-argument 3: Premises 9-12
Sub-argument 4: Premises 13-15 (and the conclusion.)

I also tried to provide some helpful clarifying info in (parenthesis statements like these). So you should only have to read these parenthesis statements once or twice to get an intuitive grasp of what I mean by the technical sections when they are relatively complicated.

And here's a step-by-step guide on how to check the argument (but feel free to stop at any point if you believe you have a knock-out counterargument):
  1. Check if premise 1 is sound.
  2. Check if premise 2 is sound.
  3. Check if premise 3 is sound. 
  4. Check if premise 4 is sound. 
  5. Check if premise 5 follows from premises 1-4.
  6. You can now safely forget all the proceeding premises and just remember whether you thought they were sound and valid or not. 
  7. Check if premise 6 is sound.
  8. Check if premise 7 is sound.
  9. Check if premise 8 follows from premises 6 and 7.
  10. Again feel free to forget everything except whether you thought they were sound and valid.
  11. Check if premise 9 is sound. 
  12. Check if premise 10 is sound.
  13. Read premise 5 (the conclusion of the first sub-argument) again to remember if needed.
  14. Check if premise 11 follows from promise 5.
  15. Read premise 8 (the conclusion of the second sub-argument) again to remember if needed.
  16. Check if premise 12 follows from promise 8.
  17. Check if premise 13 follows from promises 9-12. It would make sense if you had to re-read some or all of 9-12 at this point.
  18. Feel free to forget whatever you like now, just like before.
  19. Read premises 9 and 10 again if needed.
  20. Check if premise 14 follows from premises 9 and 10. (It's a complicated one, may take a few re-reads but you can focus entirely on it.)
  21. Forget everything except whatever you think premise 14 is valid and sound or not.
  22. Check if premise 15 is sound.
  23. Re-read premises 13-15 if needed.
  24. Check if the conclusion follows from premises 13-15.
Clarification

For the purposes of the argument, for "control" I did mean "exercise directing influence". I should have been consistent with my definitions but in the resolution I did mean to use a slightly different one: "ability to exercise directing influence".

I believe the example you gave regarding repeating events in life would fail, but not because of a direct problem. I should have provided this in my definitions, but the description indirectly means that "ultimately" means something like "when accounting for all the relevant causes".

In the case of repeating events, it is not actually the exact same "something that happens", but two events that share similarities. And for each, my argument states that when accounting for all the relevant causes, we will find that our choices were entirely caused by things outside of our control.

While it's true that we influence our choices in the immediate sense, according to my argument, we don't at all in the ultimate sense. Think of it like X causing Y causing Z, each completely determining the next (this is a very simplified (and inaccurate) version of my argument). Our choice is Z, we are Y, but we are entirely controlled by X. So, ultimately, X entirely controls Z, we are just a middle step that can't do anything outside of what Z precisely dictates.

I'm willing to concede:
  • Whether or not we have ultimate control doesn't matter. (This debate is just about whether we have ultimate control or not.)
  • Z is caused by Y. (In other words, we have at least non-ultimate causal influence over our choices.)
My R1 argument (premise 15 in particular) accounted for eternal return. It's unlikely because it's such a specific hypothesis with no evidence.
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
Con
#4
I'm not sure your argument 'is convoluted,
For smart people.
I've glanced/heard of such a method before.

Arguments for God, for example, often have a long line of if argument number X was correct, then my argument in step Y is correct.
I assume such is a common line in Professional Philosophy.
Like a long math equation of a proof.

Philosophy seems more 'vague than math though. Lots of definition problems and exceptions when situation changes slightly.
And even math when 'applied can mess up, when an unknown variable pops up.
. . .

But to the argument,
"Premise 1. For any given event, it is logically impossible for it to have a probability greater than 100% or less than 0%."
Why can't an event have Probability greater than 100% or less than 0%?
If you are arguing for Causality, wouldn't 1 and 0 be better?
It will happen or it won't?
Though one may determine a shove to have a force between 0 and 100, 0 for not at all, 100 for maximum effort push, and one may determine that a force of 44 is required to shove a chair enough that it falls.
But if one shoves with a force of 43, the probability is still 0 or one, in that case 0.
Probability is then something will happen or it won't?
But then we don't usually 'use probability that way, because we are using probability to 'predict and guess what we 'think will happen without knowing. As we do not know all the variables in various in events we are observing, or outside variables that might suddenly occur.

Probability in some games.
I have 150% bleed chance against enemies, enemy has 40% bleed resistance, so against them I have 110% bleed chance.

Or in how sure we are in definition,
One 'could lower the % at which one identifies something as human,
But it seems odd to treat as human something that we are say we are 5% sure is human.

I know that the odds of flipping a coin on heads within two flips, is not 50% + 50% = 100%, 50% +50%
It's 75% I hear, though each individual flip is 50%.

And yet, I can hear of
That doesn't 'sound right to me, but it's on a Wikipedia page, maybe Quantum Mechanics is complicated, I see some people mention the Slit Experiment and Negative Probability on other Googled page.


"Premise 6. No one can have control over anything without in some way having some causal influence over it. (Without causal influence you cannot have directing influence.)
Premise 7. It is impossible to have causal influence over anything entirely random. (If you have causal influence over it, it must be partially determined by you. Something partially determined cannot be entirely random.)
Premise 8. Given premises 6 and 7, for any given event's random part(s) (if it has any), we cannot have control over them."

"a rolling dice has an actual probability close to or at 100% for landing on a particular side once it is thrown, due to the laws of physics. It is just hard for us to predict, so for most purposes it's good enough to be called "random" or to say that the probability of landing on a particular side after being thrown is 1/6."

You use dice as an example of random, but people can control how they throw the dice,
Or mess with the die's makeup (shaving or weighting) so that it is more likely to land on one side,
Does that mean then that the dice are not random? If so, then what is an example of 'Truly Random?

"Premise 9. For anything that can fairly be called a human choice, the human must consciously decide it."
What is meant by "consciously" or "fairly"
A human can make  Living Will, to decide for situations they are unconscious of, even if while they are in a coma, there might be a medical procedure that could save them, it's considered too late, their conscious past decision, is now being made while unconscious.

XYS,
Rabies may cause the dog to bite,
But one holds the dog as a prime agent responsible for the bite, so they put down the dog,
Though it would be nice if they could get at the rabies.
And yet rabies didn't bite anyone.
. . . Old Britain might say hunger isn't responsible for that man stealing a loaf of bread,
It was his lack of morals.
Some people 'do choose to starve rather than steal bread. (Not that I think it is necessarily right or wrong to steal bead when starving)
Yet a well fed person with a lack of morals, might not steal bread, but they might steal gold.

Is hunger or morality that a person holds, something that is 'separated from them?
Only a third party 'push?
Why cannot it 'be them? Why need a middleman?

Eternal Recurrence
Your arguments might not convince people who believe in Reincarnation.
Also might not answer the unknowable, what 'is existence? When did it start? Does it 'have a beginning?
Are we many or a single fractured being?
What is consciousness, where will it go?
Can other forms of life and material be conscious?
Can plants? AI? If AI, then why not rocks?

If we 'lack answers, cannot people only rely on hypothesis, even if unlikely?

Though personally I still go with believing I did n-
Round 3
Ferbalot's avatar
Ferbalot
Pro
#5
Binary causality
If you are arguing for Causality, wouldn't 1 and 0 be better?
It will happen or it won't?
This seems to overlook the possibility of truly random events. While I'm fully willing to concede that no such events exist for the purposes of this debate, I wanted to account for the possibility anyway, especially because of quantum mechanics. An event that has a genuine chance of happening and not happening seems at least logically possible.

Probability definitions
I provided the definition of probability that I'm using in this debate at the beginning of R1. It's fine to use a different definition elsewhere, but at least for the purposes of my R1 argument, that is the definition that should be used to correctly interpret it.

Negative probabilities
The physics example given on the Wikipedia page explains the concept well, it is like negative resources. It's a useful concept to recognize how much less you have than what you need, but in reality there's no such thing as negative resources. Likewise, there's no such thing as negative probabilities, it's just a useful concept. So I don't believe this is a sufficient counterargument to premise 1.

Randomness
You use dice as an example of random, but people can control how they throw the dice,
Or mess with the die's makeup (shaving or weighting) so that it is more likely to land on one side,
Does that mean then that the dice are not random? If so, then what is an example of 'Truly Random?
I meant to use dice as an example of what I'm not considering truly random. We don't have any verified examples of something being truly random, but we currently don't have any remotely deterministic explanations for a part of how quantum fluctuations work. So as far as we know, that seems to be truly random. I'm fine with conceding that nothing is truly random, but that's the best example I can think of at the moment.

More definitions
"Premise 9. For anything that can fairly be called a human choice, the human must consciously decide it."
What is meant by "consciously" or "fairly"
By "consciously" I just mean to exclude things like rolling over in their sleep, completely involuntary reactions like their leg lifting up when their knee is hit, etc.

By "fairly" in this context I mean "justifiably". Like, I think calling something like a literal knee-jerk reaction a "choice" is too much of a stretch in this context. I do concede that we can make choices, I just don't think those kinds of things would count. 

Coma
I think the coma example you gave would be a case of the person having made a choice in the past which is acted on later when they can no longer make a choice. I concede everything else you said about it, but I'm not sure how this gets you closer to a counterargument.

Rabies
Rabies may cause the dog to bite,
But one holds the dog as a prime agent responsible for the bite, so they put down the dog,
Though it would be nice if they could get at the rabies.
And yet rabies didn't bite anyone.
I concede all of this, but I think most people don't know enough about metaphysics and the argument I presented here to correctly evaluate if the dog is the prime agent responsible for the bite.

But even if they do or if they're accidentally correct, it could be due to compatibilism, or a kind of libertarianism that wouldn't contradict my argument. I'm fine with conceding that we/the dog still have free will and/or moral responsibility despite our choices being ultimately entirely outside of our control.

I think a lot of people put the dog down for consequentialist rather than punitive reasons, not blaming the dog but assessing the risk of them living to be too great.

Theft
I believe almost all of the above objections also apply to the theft examples you gave. I'm up to concede that hunger and morality are their responsibility. But because of my argument, I believe they were still ultimately caused by things that were not under their control, if you go back far enough along all the contributing causal chains.

Answering the unknowable
Also might not answer the unknowable, what 'is existence? When did it start? Does it 'have a beginning?
[...]
I completely agree that my arguments might not answer questions like these, as far as I'm aware that is not the purpose of this debate and isn't required to demonstrate the resolution. I'm only relying on common knowledge and basic axioms that by default apply to virtually every debate.

Unintuitively, my R1 argument doesn't rely on causal chains having a beginning. It uses a different approach to support the resolution.

Hypothesis reliance
If we 'lack answers, cannot people only rely on hypothesis, even if unlikely?
I agree we can only rely on hypotheses, sometimes even unlikely ones. I only meant to demonstrate that the resolution is probably true. I.e. that the inverse hypothesis is much more likely than the unlikely one in this case.

Conclusion 
I don't believe my R1 argument has been properly addressed. The counterarguments given so far seem insufficient.
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
Con
#6
Well, final round.
Pro may mean their definition of probability in round 1 to apply to their argument,
But as their definition of probability wasn't in the debate description,
I am free to disagree with their claims

I argue that with the dog and the domino arguments,
I directly argue against the main title of the debate, and the idea that Pro suggests of some far away unreachable event in the casual chain being responsible.

"In 1942, Paul Dirac wrote a paper "The Physical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics"[1] where he introduced the concept of negative energies and negative probabilities:"
"Gravitational energy, or gravitational potential energy, is the potential energy a massive object has because it is within a gravitational field. In classical mechanics, two or more masses always have a gravitational potential. Conservation of energy requires that this gravitational field energy is always negative, so that it is zero when the objects are infinitely far apart. As two objects move apart and the distance between them approaches infinity, the gravitational force between them approaches zero from the positive side of the real number line and the gravitational potential approaches zero from the negative side. Conversely, as two massive objects move towards each other, the motion accelerates under gravity causing an increase in the (positive) kinetic energy of the system and, in order to conserve the total sum of energy, the increase of the same amount in the gravitational potential energy of the object is treated as negative.[1]"

Planets, Gravity, and Energy are real enough.
The Negative Energy was mentioned in the Negative Probability.
And so I continue my argument that Pro's definition and use of Probability may be in error, and that they did not conclusively prove their claim of Probability not dropping below 0% or going above 100%.

The coma is a counter argument,
As all of Pros examples of unconscious actions,
'Can be made consciously before they can occur.
One can create a Living Will, one can tie one's feet to the bedposts to not roll over, one can put one's leg in a cast to not kick ones leg when bumped.

Rabies and Theft,
The 'immediate/closest causer is the one 'causing in the moment, and are often within one's control,
If I light a fuse with a candle, the dynamite explodes,
But one doesn't say the candle explodes.

Pro claims in round 1,
"Premise 15. It is very unlikely that we have an infinite past of somehow controlling infinite choices."

But does not give evidence for why we should think it unlikely.
Plenty of people believe in past lives

"33% of Americans believe in reincarnation."

Admittedly 100% of Americans could believe in dowsing, and that wouldn't make it true or false.
But the fact that so many believe in past lives, implies a need to at least 'address it as an option, and 'why it would be unlikely, rather than claiming only that it is unlikely.

Well, BoP on Pro,
And I remind voters of
Control: "Exercise directing influence."
Of which definition I 'did argue a person having influence over what they ate, and even a mechanical robot having influence over turning itself on and off.

Though Pro 'may have meant a different definition for control in the title, it throws his arguments into inconsistency to vary in definitions.
. . . Also said human and robot would still have the ability to exert directing influence, even if they were directed to exert directing influence.
They would be self monitoring once turned on, even once the earlier director in the chain had left.