Instigator / Pro
11
1500
rating
11
debates
72.73%
won
Topic
#5823
Free will exists.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Moozer325
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1584
rating
30
debates
71.67%
won
Description
I will define free will as "the rational appetite" which I will explain in the debate. You can either present your own definition and defend it against mine or try and refute mine simply. Just know that I do not think that science is adequate enough to answer this question since it has limited its research physical observation. I think that free will is not something physical nor is it something that can be quantified by itself. You need reason to understand it. So be ready to address my reasoning.
However, You can bring in science if you wish. I will be using mainly philosophy. And by philosophy, I mean reasoning to my conclusions logically using the principles of philosophy, namely the first principles and any principles associated with this particular topic.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you Moozer325 for accepting the debate. I am very excited to see what you have to say on this topic.
To start off, I will reiterate what I have said above. I do not think science can properly answer the question of free will and its existence because I do not think free will BY ITSELF can be quantified, separated from a body or directly observed. What we see as actions are the effect of free will.
I will be using reason to prove that it exists. So, my main arguments will then be from the science of reason which is philosophy.
Definitions
The definition I am presenting of free will is the following:
Free Will: The Rational appetite.
Rational means we are dealing with humans. It is the ability to reason. This is important because what we know determines the proper sense of "free" that we will be using.
Appetite means it is a tendency towards an end. This means there must be a known end to tend toward. If there is no end to tend toward there is no act of the will.
Other definitions that I think are important:
The necessary: That which cannot not be.
Free: The power to choose means the end being preserved.
This definition is important. It means that we must know there to be multiple means to the same end. Without these "multiple means" there is no free will.
To choose: The power to act upon means to an end or not to act at all.
This "to choose" I will divide into two different aspects:
1. Objective indifference: This is the ability to act on one means rather than another means both of which go to the same end. For example, to go this way to the store rather than that way.
2. Subjective indifference: This is the ability to act or not act toward an end. For example: I choose not to go to the store at all rather than to go.
To start off I will provide a syllogism to show that man has a free will:
M) The will is from the essence of the soul, following upon the intellect, seeking what the intellect apprehends and proposes.
m) Now the intellect proposes universal good as necessary and particular goods as pursuable.
cl) The will seeks necessarily universal good but not necessarily particular good.
To the Major (M) premise: Soul here simply means our principle of life. What makes our life different from the animals is our rationality and volition. It has nothing to do with ghosts, spirits or any other wacko ideas people have come up with. "Following upon the intellect" means it is an appetite that tends toward what the intellect presents. The intellect presents knowledge by the way.
***To the Minor (m) premise: The intellect presents the knowledge good in the universal sense, meaning as an abstraction from the real (Your philosophy- check here to see some of my definitions) which is also necessary. So, we are not free in regard to a universal good i.e. You cannot not want goodness. BUT the intellect also presents to us a particular good (in which this goodness resides to a specific degree but is not goodness itself) which it knows can be reached in several different ways. For example, I can walk this way or that way to go to the same store. Because the intellect presents these multiple means to the same end the will can tend to one or the other. I as a person, by exercising my will, choose which. Said simply: because I know many ways to do something, I have the ability to choose one, because the will by nature is an appetite. This is why the will is defined as rational (what the intellect presents) and appetite (the presentation of the intellect being tended toward.) Now the intellect can also present two ends. To go to the store or not to go to the store.
Thus we come to the distinction of choosing freely:
In order for there to be a true "free" We need both objective and subjective indifference. Proofs:
"free" requires objective indifference
M "free" requires that the will not will of necessity
m but where there is no objective indifference (multiple means presented by the intellect) the will wills of necessity.
cl "free" requires objective indifference
"free" requires subjective indifference
M "free" implies the power to choose
m but such a power is of the person himself and it presupposes on his part a mastery over his act of willing.
cl "free" requires subjective indifference
The first syllogism shows that we need MEANS to an END in order to choose. By the very fact of the existence of multiple means to the same end (which to deny is absurd) means we have a choice to that end. The power of the will is to choose one. This is the objective indifference and it proves we are free in this sense.
The second syllogism shows that two ENDS are always presented. To act or not. "free" implies we must be able to choose action or no action. THIS FORMALLY CONSTITUTES OUR FREEDOM OF WILL. And it is because the intellect always presents the option to act or not. Thus in every court of law, for every convicted criminal that is actually guilty we say that he should have chosen not to do the action that is the crime.
Add on notes:
1) If the intellect cannot present multiple means because of some defect in the brain (drugs, alcohol, etc.) then one acts without free will. Thus, drunkenness will diminish punishment of a crime if one was drunk when he committed the crime unless one can prove he chose to get drunk in order to commit the crime. Thus in this debate, I do not consider abnormal circumstances that show defects in the brain.
2) I understand there are other senses to the word "free", but I am not using those senses of the word. For example, we talk about Physical freedom which is the ability to move around without being forced, being able to do what you want, etc. I am not talking about "free" in that sense even if there is an underlying similarity. I am speaking specifically about an ability to choose one means over another with knowledge of both that go toward the same end and the ability to simply act or not.
What I have presented above is a very very condensed explanation of free will according to the philosophers I know, and which I think are better than others because of their clarity of thought. I understand it is very abstract and difficult to understand. That is why have given 2 weeks for a response. If you would like clarification on a particular point, please PM me or simply ask in the comments. I am happy to answer, and I look forward to Con's response.
Con
#2
Sorry if this response comes a bit late, I’m visiting family for thanksgiving, and I don’t have much time for DART.
I am super excited for this debate though, free will is one of my favorite topics in philosophy, and I look forward to debating it. I’ll start with a beginning argument without consideration to yours, and then I’ll rebut what you’ve wrote.
Why Free Will does not exist
My argument has been said before in many shapes and forms, so I won’t belabor the point too much.
We as humans have brain which are used to move our body and think. Our brains are made of neurons which control the brain by firing electric signals. In turn, those neurons are made of atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, and maybe more.
All of those particles have no free will, they are not alive. They are all deterministic in that they are just bouncing around interacting with other particles. You can see where I’m going with this. How can something have free will if it is made completely of things without free will?
To put it into a syllogism:
Premise 1: All humans are made up of things without free will
Premise 2: Things without free will cannot create something with free will
Conclusion: Humans cannot have free will
There is actually a lot of evidence to support this. There was a very famous study done a while ago (I can cite it if need be), called the hungry judge study. It found that just after a meal break, a parole board was 65% likely to grant parole to someone, but near the end of the session, that number dropped to 0%.
So not only is it irrational to assume that by some magic, particles absent of free will can create it, but the evidence supports that claim, even though it’s not needed to prove it.
I'll give one last example. Free will cannot come from things absent of it. For example, my Lego dragon could not choose anything, because it's Lego blocks can't choose anything. Computers can't choose anything because their code tells them exactly what to do. Our brains can't choose anything because our neurons are going to react in a certain way whenever anything happens.
Rebuttals
M) The will is from the essence of the soul, following upon the intellect, seeking what the intellect apprehends and proposes.m) Now the intellect proposes universal good as necessary and particular goods as pursuable.cl) The will seeks necessarily universal good but not necessarily particular good.
I agree that premise 2 and the conclusion are logically sound, yet I feel that Premise 1 is circular reasoning. If I understand your argument right, you are saying that intellect perceives the world, and will acts on that perception. Intellect perceives what is good and bad, and will follows the good. I agree that if this is true, then free will exists, yet Premise 1 relies on the assumption that free will already exists. To expand it out, Premise 1 is basically saying that "If free will exists, then it is from the essence of the soul...".
I may be misunderstanding your argument, but it seems a lot like circular reasoning to me at first glance.
To the Major (M) premise: Soul here simply means our principle of life. What makes our life different from the animals is our rationality and volition. It has nothing to do with ghosts, spirits or any other wacko ideas people have come up with. "Following upon the intellect" means it is an appetite that tends toward what the intellect presents. The intellect presents knowledge by the way.
Okay, so this makes me think I interpreted correctly about the intellect part. You're also saying that free will comes from our unique ability as humans to reason. I disagree, and once again I think you already make the assumption that free will exists when creating these syllogisms. Like I said before, It is irrational to assume that we as humans magically have free will by some special ability to reason when all the things that make us up are purely deterministic.
You cannot not want goodness. BUT the intellect also presents to us a particular good (in which this goodness resides to a specific degree but is not goodness itself) which it knows can be reached in several different ways. For example, I can walk this way or that way to go to the same store. Because the intellect presents these multiple means to the same end the will can tend to one or the other. I as a person, by exercising my will, choose which. Said simply: because I know many ways to do something, I have the ability to choose one, because the will by nature is an appetite.
Again, this feels a bit like you're just explaining how you think free will works, and not why it must exist. This is a good definition for free will, and if It is real then I would say this is probably how it works, but you still have yet to say why it is real. Or maybe you did and I missed it, sorry if that's what happened.
In order for there to be a true "free" We need both objective and subjective indifference. Proofs:"free" requires objective indifferenceM "free" requires that the will not will of necessitym but where there is no objective indifference (multiple means presented by the intellect) the will wills of necessity.cl "free" requires objective indifference
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of this is that free will is necessary whenever there are multiple means to an end. The will wants the end, and it relies on free will to choose which path. I disagree though, seeing as I had problems with your first syllogism, and so I'm not inclined to believe in a will. Additionally, you could easily be making choices about which means to an end without the existence of free will. The fact that you are making choices doesn’t necessitate that they must be free choices. As I suggested before, your brain could be making predetermined choices without you knowing.
The first syllogism shows that we need MEANS to an END in order to choose. By the very fact of the existence of multiple means to the same end (which to deny is absurd) means we have a choice to that end. The power of the will is to choose one. This is the objective indifference and it proves we are free in this sense.The second syllogism shows that two ENDS are always presented. To act or not. "free" implies we must be able to choose action or no action. THIS FORMALLY CONSTITUTES OUR FREEDOM OF WILL. And it is because the intellect always presents the option to act or not. Thus in every court of law, for every convicted criminal that is actually guilty we say that he should have chosen not to do the action that is the crime.
I’ll accept that we have to make choices in our lives, but again, that doesn’t make it so that those choices must be freely made by ourselves. The option to choose doesn’t come in a package with the ability to choose. For all we know, choices are being made, but not by us, or choices are an illusion, and everything has been determined. Point is, existence of a choice does not equal ability to make that choice.
For example, when hiking there might be two different paths I could take. However, that doesn’t mean that I am making the choice. My argument about our brains being essentially computer trying to pick the best outcome still holds water. If I choose a path, that was just the way the particles hit each other at that time, not me.
Once again, sorry If I misunderstood your argument, I’m still getting better at speaking philosophy talk. I yield the floor.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you Moozer325 for responding. I appreciate your insights into this question. You bring up very good points and I am very excited to address them.
A. Rebuttal of Con's argument.
1Firstly I will address Con's argument for why he thinks free will does not exist as I have heard this argument before. Con's essential argument I think he put perfectly when He said the following:
Premise 1: All humans are made up of things without free willPremise 2: Things without free will cannot create something with free willConclusion: Humans cannot have free will.
First, I will address his syllogism.
Premise 1: All humans are made up of things without free will
Yes, but there is a distinction Con is missing....
In philosophy we speak of what things are made of. We call this the material cause. This is what Con addresses here only in his first premise. All things also have what is called a form. The form is the way the matter is organized. We can take the same matter and make different things. For example ice, steam and water are all made of H2O. But those are three different things that act differently under the same circumstances. Science has a theory right now called the emergence theory( Emergence - Wikipedia). This theory essentially says that basic matter acts very differently when organized a certain way. For example: Hydrogen is flammable. Oxygen is flammable. But try lighting an oxygen and 2 hydrogen combined on fire. In other words, try lighting pure water on fire. I don't think you can.
So also with humans, our matter is made in such a way that the body is the "house" so to speak, of what we call our form. Philosophically we can determine the form of something by comparing, contrasting, and eliminating what we call "nota" (nota is simply something we can say about a specific thing.) A nota of a human for example would be risible, intelligent, reasonable, breathing, living, etc... there are different degrees of abstraction for nota. The nota that separates us from all other things is the fact that we have reason. I.E. an intellect.
So to this premise, I would say that there is more than just matter. Combined, they can make the complex thing known to us as a human. We, as a whole, most certainly act differently than the atoms in our body. This premise leaves out an essential aspect to the whole point. Remember, I said we act as a whole, as a person, not just certain parts independent, by themselves purely. That is rather important to my argument.
Premise 2: Things without free will cannot create something with free will
Yes but once again I think Con is missing an essential aspect.
I do not posit that the matter by itself produces free will. It must be organized in such a way that an intellect can exist. So, as above, there is more than matter involved. This is why I said that I do not think science can answer this question because they have limited themselves to the study of matter and its principles. As shown above, there is more than matter. Something immaterial called the form. You cannot separate the form from the matter. Neither can a thing exist without a form.
Conclusion: Humans cannot have free will
In light of what I said above, I deny this conclusion.
B. Rebuttal of Con's rebuttals.
2.Secondly, I will address Con's rebuttal of my arguments.
I feel that Premise 1 is circular reasoning. If I understand your argument right, you are saying that intellect perceives the world, and will acts on that perception. Intellect perceives what is good and bad, and will follows the good. I agree that if this is true, then free will exists, yet Premise 1 relies on the assumption that free will already exists. To expand it out, Premise 1 is basically saying that "If free will exists, then it is from the essence of the soul...". I may be misunderstanding your argument, but it seems a lot like circular reasoning to me at first glance.
The first premise is actually the conclusion of a previous argument given by Aristotle to show that something exists that makes us move. I did not add it here for the sake of brevity. But he essentially says that movement is an essential aspect to life. Even if it is unnoticeable. He gives the argument that because we move, in whatever various ways we can use that word, there must be something moving us, coming from his principles of causality. He will say that the thing that moves us as a person is the will. Aristotle, and I with him, hold it absurd to deny the existence of movement/change. There are different causes that move us, some from without, some from within depending on what you want to look at. Internal movement comes from our form. Meaning the way our matter is organized lends itself to self-movement. He later shows what causes this internal movement is a process where we sense something, it goes into our brain, we abstract to understand and know it, leading to movement from within. My argument simply shows that this internal movement is free. Even determinists think we have a will, just not a free one.
I am sorry if I wrongly assumed you held that position as a determinist. I presented this first argument with that assumption already in mind. It does not assume a free will, it simply assumes a will and the syllogism demonstrates how it is free.
Okay, so this makes me think I interpreted correctly about the intellect part. You're also saying that free will comes from our unique ability as humans to reason. I disagree, and once again I think you already make the assumption that free will exists when creating these syllogisms. Like I said before, It is irrational to assume that we as humans magically have free will by some special ability to reason when all the things that make us up are purely deterministic.
Not quite, I said the will is an appetite that follows upon the reason/intellect. Free will does not come from it; it follows upon it. Following my explanation of it as an appetite. I do not remember writing it is from the reason. i am sorry if I confused you there.
Again, this feels a bit like you're just explaining how you think free will works, and not why it must exist. This is a good definition for free will, and if It is real then I would say this is probably how it works, but you still have yet to say why it is real. Or maybe you did and I missed it, sorry if that's what happened.
To answer this it will be as I said above. There is a will because there is internal movement. Movement here does not necessarily mean physical movement. In philosophy it can also mean immaterial movement, such as a movement of thoughts or a movement from not-understanding to understanding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of this is that free will is necessary whenever there are multiple means to an end. The will wants the end, and it relies on free will to choose which path. I disagree though, seeing as I had problems with your first syllogism, and so I'm not inclined to believe in a will. Additionally, you could easily be making choices about which means to an end without the existence of free will. The fact that you are making choices doesn’t necessitate that they must be free choices. As I suggested before, your brain could be making predetermined choices without you knowing.
I will disagree with your idea of what "choice" means. By definition choice means there are other options. If there is no way to obtain any of the choices except one, then there is no choice and then you break the definition of the word you are trying to use. I am actually surprised you used this argument as it defies basic significatio rules of logic.
You break the definition by denying an essential part to the word. I don't know how else to answer that.
I’ll accept that we have to make choices in our lives, but again, that doesn’t make it so that those choices must be freely made by ourselves. The option to choose doesn’t come in a package with the ability to choose. For all we know, choices are being made, but not by us, or choices are an illusion, and everything has been determined. Point is, existence of a choice does not equal ability to make that choice.
An ability is determined and specified by its object. If there is an ability to choose then there must be several choices. If there exists choice, then there is an ability to choose. How do you say "choice exists" if there are no other choices?
I do hate getting bogged down in semantics, but this is kind of critical to the argument. If we posit that "choice" means simply multiple ways for something to be accomplished and then posit there is no "to be accomplished" we are missing the entire point. If we simply posit "choice" to mean "multiple ways" then we deny the very definition of the word we are trying to use.
To choose by definition means there must be a choice.
Choice by definition means there must be a way to choose.
This is how we define things. Without them we end in contradiction and absurdity. At best we would end in incomplete ideas making argument stupid.
I yield the floor to my worthy opponent.
Con
#4
In philosophy we speak of what things are made of. We call this the material cause. This is what Con addresses here only in his first premise. All things also have what is called a form. The form is the way the matter is organized. We can take the same matter and make different things. For example ice, steam and water are all made of H2O. But those are three different things that act differently under the same circumstances. Science has a theory right now called the emergence theory( Emergence - Wikipedia). This theory essentially says that basic matter acts very differently when organized a certain way. For example: Hydrogen is flammable. Oxygen is flammable. But try lighting an oxygen and 2 hydrogen combined on fire. In other words, try lighting pure water on fire. I don't think you can.
I'd say this is a false comparison. You make the analogy of water, which obviously is not flammable being made of things that are flammable. While at first glance, there does seem to be a connection, I disagree. With free will, you can't possibly having a being with it made of things that don't have it. The particles absent of free will are following specific "if-then" instructions when interacting with other particles, thus causing things in the wider world to happen. If I have free will and I'm controlling the particles I'm made out of, then they have free will by extension, because they are following instructions coming from me, not from how they are made. They either do what they are destined to do, or they do what I tell them, there isn't really a possibility where both happen.
With H2O, the oxygen and hydrogen become resistant to fire when they are put in that order, and even though separately they are flammable, those individual particles are actually flammable when constructed as water. Your argument states that thought he particles that make up my brain are absent of free will, they must gain free will when constructed specifically to form my brain. However, that's not really how that works, those particles are deterministic no matter what order you put them in. Take this for example. When you have two hydrogen and one oxygen separately, the particles all have the quality "flammable". When you put them together, not only does the whole combination gain "non flammable" but the individual particles must gain it too. However you've conceded the point that the particles that make me up are devoid of free will regardless the order they are in. In order for their specific combination to gain "free will", they must gain it too by coming together, but that's not how it works. Sorry if that makes no sense.
An ability is determined and specified by its object. If there is an ability to choose then there must be several choices. If there exists choice, then there is an ability to choose. How do you say "choice exists" if there are no other choices?I do hate getting bogged down in semantics, but this is kind of critical to the argument. If we posit that "choice" means simply multiple ways for something to be accomplished and then posit there is no "to be accomplished" we are missing the entire point. If we simply posit "choice" to mean "multiple ways" then we deny the very definition of the word we are trying to use.To choose by definition means there must be a choice.Choice by definition means there must be a way to choose.This is how we define things. Without them we end in contradiction and absurdity. At best we would end in incomplete ideas making argument stupid.
I think I'd agree with this. I'm sorry that I didn't clarify my position too well, but I'll elaborate here. To me, choice is really an illusion. There may be two paths on a trail that lead to the same place, but even though we theoretically could go either way, we will always choose whichever one our brain determine is the best one. For whatever reason it decides, our computer brains will pick a way to get to the end.
A good analogy would be one of those robots trained to walk. It uses sensors to perceive its terrain and surrounding, and from there is figures out the best way to get through them and to the other side. This may change with AI technology, but that Robot still doesn't have free will. It can't decide not to walk, or to walk somewhere else, it's only choice is how to achieve its goal, and based on it's coding, it will only ever pick one way to achieve that goal. So it is with our brains, they are just computers of neurons, not binary.
I will disagree with your idea of what "choice" means. By definition choice means there are other options. If there is no way to obtain any of the choices except one, then there is no choice and then you break the definition of the word you are trying to use. I am actually surprised you used this argument as it defies basic significatio rules of logic.You break the definition by denying an essential part to the word. I don't know how else to answer that.
There is no real choice, because the universe has been predetermined since the beginning. While it is possible to conceive of other outcomes and paths to those outcomes, this is just an illusion. We are hardwired to "choose" whichever path we deem best suited to our cause, and though choices can appear, they are just an illusion. There may be multiple conceivable paths, but we are ultimately just going to choose one, and that's the one that has been determined for us since the beginning of the universe. I hope that clarifies what I mean.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you Moozer325 for your argument.
In this round I will firstly address Con's arguments against mine and then secondly address his understanding of free will.
Firstly, regarding Con's argument against mine.
I'd say this is a false comparison. You make the analogy of water, which obviously is not flammable being made of things that are flammable. While at first glance, there does seem to be a connection, I disagree. With free will, you can't possibly having a being with it made of things that don't have it. The particles absent of free will are following specific "if-then" instructions when interacting with other particles, thus causing things in the wider world to happen. If I have free will and I'm controlling the particles I'm made out of, then they have free will by extension, because they are following instructions coming from me, not from how they are made. They either do what they are destined to do, or they do what I tell them, there isn't really a possibility where both happen.
Forgive me for not explaining this in the last round. When I spoke of form, I continued with a conclusion drawn from the existence of form and what would in this argument become a principle. I am not making a comparison to water. I used the example of water to show the principle in philosophy that matter organized a certain way gives rise to properties that the whole contains, but not the parts individually. I brought in the Emergence Theory to show that even science demonstrates this principle of philosophy. I am applying this principle to the concept of free will because I am positing that free will is of the whole, not of the parts. We must look at the whole to demonstrate what is of the whole.
Free will is not in the individual particles by themselves. Free will is in the whole person. This is a conclusion we draw from the application of the principle that matter organized a certain way gives rise to properties that that are of the whole, and not of the parts. To say that because the whole does it, so also, by extension must the parts is a composition fallacy.
While self-movement may be a characteristic of particles, I do not know, it is irrelevant to the point since we are here talking about the action of a whole thing. Based on the principle above, we can see that parts do not need, of themselves, the characteristics of the whole. This is a principle easily demonstrated in many realms. I, by myself cannot make any laws. But with other Representatives, we can collectively make laws. The action of the whole is not necessarily the action of every part. This comes from the axiom: The whole is greater than the part. That does not mean just physically. It also means in actions, in abilities and in potencies.
So, I conclude that Con's argument of "particles do not have free will, therefore the person cannot have free will" is actually in essence a composition fallacy that disregards the principle I stated above in bold and the aforementioned axiom in italics.
However, you've conceded the point that the particles that make me up are devoid of free will regardless the order they are in.
As individual particles yes. As part of the whole, the will arises from their organization. We can see this in all life forms. What I am arguing here is that it is free for humans.
...those particles are deterministic no matter what order you put them in
As individual particles, yes. As a part of the whole, no. Refer to the principle above. Remember, the whole has greater power than the parts. That is kind of the point here.
Secondly, I will refute Con's idea of free will as an illusion.
To me, choice is really an illusion. There may be two paths on a trail that lead to the same place, but even though we theoretically could go either way, we will always choose whichever one our brain determine is the best one. For whatever reason it decides, our computer brains will pick a way to get to the end.
definition of illusion: a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
If Con disagrees with this definition, that is fine but in that case I would like a definition.
Logically speaking, we must be able to show that something is illusory by showing the opposite or a contrary to be real or there is no way to actually determine if what is perceived is actually an illusion. So, in light of the above principle in bold which disproves Con's argument against free will, and which I assume would be the real thing he would point to demonstrate free will as an illusion, what does Con say is the real thing which proves the illusion? The above principle demonstrates that particles taken together as a whole carry greater characteristics than the particles themselves. So what is it that is real, that demonstrates free will to be the illusion?
There may be multiple conceivable paths, but we are ultimately just going to choose one, and that's the one that has been determined for us since the beginning of the universe.
Yes, we will just choose one. That is part of the definition of to choose. But once again you are attributing to the whole what can only be said of the parts. That is a composition fallacy.
I yield the floor to my opponent and eagerly await his response.
Con
#6
Sorry about all my late replies in this debate. Since the deadline is 2 weeks, my brain procrastinates much more than I usually do, and that's my bad.
Forgive me for not explaining this in the last round. When I spoke of form, I continued with a conclusion drawn from the existence of form and what would in this argument become a principle. I am not making a comparison to water. I used the example of water to show the principle in philosophy that matter organized a certain way gives rise to properties that the whole contains, but not the parts individually. I brought in the Emergence Theory to show that even science demonstrates this principle of philosophy. I am applying this principle to the concept of free will because I am positing that free will is of the whole, not of the parts. We must look at the whole to demonstrate what is of the whole.
What exactly do you mean when you say that free will is of the whole, not the parts? The whole is made of the parts. There is no actual whole, the object is the parts in a specific order. Take my computer for example. We call it a "computer" to represent that it is certain particles in a certain configuration which is recognizable to us as a computer. There is no other object brought into existence when those particles move in that way, they are still just particles. If you accept that the particles have no free will, then you accept that the computer doesn't, because the computer is the particles.
Free will is not in the individual particles by themselves. Free will is in the whole person. This is a conclusion we draw from the application of the principle that matter organized a certain way gives rise to properties that are of the whole, and not of the parts. To say that because the whole does it, so also, by extension must the parts is a composition fallacy.
See, that's the problem. I am not some special particle called a "human", I am lots of non-special particles that have no free will. There is no "whole", the whole is just the parts by another word. When building things with LEGOs, the bricks are always just LEGO bricks. They can look like other things, but they are still just LEGOs.
While self-movement may be a characteristic of particles, I do not know, it is irrelevant to the point since we are here talking about the action of a whole thing. Based on the principle above, we can see that parts do not need, of themselves, the characteristics of the whole. This is a principle easily demonstrated in many realms. I, by myself cannot make any laws. But with other Representatives, we can collectively make laws. The action of the whole is not necessarily the action of every part. This comes from the axiom: The whole is greater than the part. That does not mean just physically. It also means in actions, in abilities and in potencies.
I'd like to continue with your analogy of the lawmaker, I liked that one. Sure you didn't make any laws, but you voted for a representative who then voted to pass a law, so while you didn't do it single-handedly, you still helped do it. The key thing I think you're missing is that in your analogy, you still contain part of the property possessed by the whole while with free will that is not the case. You hold a small amount of power in the legislative system, but it's still some, and it creates a whole when brought together with the small bit of power everyone else has. However with particles, none of them contain a little bit of free will, so they can't create free will by coming together.
definition of illusion: a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.If Con disagrees with this definition, that is fine but in that case I would like a definition.Logically speaking, we must be able to show that something is illusory by showing the opposite or a contrary to be real or there is no way to actually determine if what is perceived is actually an illusion. So, in light of the above principle in bold which disproves Con's argument against free will, and which I assume would be the real thing he would point to demonstrate free will as an illusion, what does Con say is the real thing which proves the illusion? The above principle demonstrates that particles taken together as a whole carry greater characteristics than the particles themselves. So what is it that is real, that demonstrates free will to be the illusion?
That definition seems good enough. I didn't mean much by that word, only that it seems as though we have free will and we truly don't. I obviously disagree that the use of this word nullifies my argument as I don't accept the arguments you used to refute me. See above for my reasoning to that.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Thank you Moozer325 for your insights. I greatly appreciate them. It is not a problem at all. I understand it is a holiday season, and certain things ought to take preference over some random debate on the internet.
I will address Con's questions and then his understanding as he explained it.
Firstly his question:
What exactly do you mean when you say that free will is of the whole, not the parts?
In philosophy there is an axiom: The Whole is greater than the parts.
What this means is that there are things we can say of the whole but not of the parts. For example: atoms do not sing. But a person does sing. This is a question of predication. i.e. what we can say of something.
A person is what we would call a whole. composed of parts. So when we say a person sings, we mean that the whole is involved. Now obviously we are speaking philosophically. I am not saying your foot sings. We are using the word "whole" here analogically meaning there are multiple ways to use the different senses of the word.
For free will, I am saying it is an act of the person. Meaning no individual part has the power of free will, only the whole taken together.
There is no actual whole
Firstly, I totally disagree with this part of your statement. Do we not call the combination of wood and stone and metal in a certain order a "house"? The very word itself implies a whole. And I do live in an actual house.
The word "whole" is analogical, meaning there are different senses to the word that all have a primary idea underlying it. It is not a univocal term.
Secondly, To address your computer analogy, there is a difference between an artificial whole and a natural whole. A tree is naturally a whole thing. A person is naturally a whole thing. But a computer is artificially a whole. In philosophical terms, those are the substantial whole (natural whole) and the accidental whole (artificial whole) Substance and Accident – Thomistic Philosophy Page. This link can shed light on that idea.
So regarding free will, only a person has it and can use it and it arises from the way the matter is organized. "Free will is of the whole" means the whole person is the source of the free will. Not one part individually. Only when taken all together.
If you accept that the particles have no free will, then you accept that the computer doesn't, because the computer is the particles.
Couple things here.
Firstly, computers are accidental wholes. When I speak of free will, I am speaking of it in relation to a natural whole. So, you make a bad analogy because we are talking about different types of being.
Secondly, while we both agree a computer has no free will, we disagree as to why. You say as above because the particles that make it up have no free will. But logically speaking, even though the conclusion is correct, your process to get there is flawed because you make a division fallacy.
I say it is because it is an artificial whole which is a type of being that cannot have free will.
To put it simply:
you come from the viewpoint of the parts to say what can only be said of the whole. That is a fallacy.
I say it is because the type of being that this whole is composed of cannot have free will by its very nature.
Now onto Con's understanding:
There is no "whole", the whole is just the parts by another word.
Firstly, the "whole" is the parts taken together. Without the notion of "taken together" when referring to the whole, you can only logically refer to one part. Which would mean that we would be arguing whether or not an atom has free will. I already made it clear that is not my point, nor what I am arguing. Nor do I think it is the answer to this question. If that is what you are trying to argue than I would say again you are making a fallacy because we are talking about a whole. We are talking about parts taken together. Not individual parts by themselves.
Secondly, to accept your quote above is to deny the axiom: The whole is greater than the parts. Which would be absurd.
The key thing I think you're missing is that in your analogy, you still contain part of the property possessed by the whole while with free will that is not the case. You hold a small amount of power in the legislative system, but it's still some, and it creates a whole when brought together with the small bit of power everyone else has. However with particles, none of them contain a little bit of free will, so they can't create free will by coming together.
I only contain power by virtue of the whole, meaning it is from the whole, not the parts. I by myself have no legislative power so it cannot come from me. What you are missing is that it is the whole that gives, not the parts. So it is with free will. it is from the whole, not the parts. Different source of the potency. Or in philosophical terms: different principle, ergo different potency. That logically follows from the Axiom I stated above in Italics.
Con
#8
In philosophy there is an axiom: The Whole is greater than the parts.What this means is that there are things we can say of the whole but not of the parts. For example: atoms do not sing. But a person does sing. This is a question of predication. i.e. what we can say of something. A person is what we would call a whole. composed of parts. So when we say a person sings, we mean that the whole is involved. Now obviously we are speaking philosophically. I am not saying your foot sings. We are using the word "whole" here analogically meaning there are multiple ways to use the different senses of the word. For free will, I am saying it is an act of the person. Meaning no individual part has the power of free will, only the whole taken together.
There's one big difference between singing and free will that makes this analogy fail. With free will it's a binary option, you either have free will or you don't. It seems like it's the same thing with singing or anything else, but it isn't really. When you are a human sing, or walk, or do anything, each of the atoms in your body are a part of that, and they all do a little bit to contribute to the action of singing. The atoms that make your throat muscles engage, and the atoms that make your vocal cords vibrate. While you're correct that the atoms don't sing, they each do a tiny bit of the singing. They don't contain the action of singing themselves, but they do have a small part of it. However they don't have a small part of free will. While the analogy of singing seems a lot like it's the same thing as free will, it's not actually the same. Each atom has a little bit of the power to sing in itself and when brought together, they can sing, yet no atoms contain free will, and thus cannot create it.
Firstly, I totally disagree with this part of your statement. Do we not call the combination of wood and stone and metal in a certain order a "house"? The very word itself implies a whole. And I do live in an actual house. The word "whole" is analogical, meaning there are different senses to the word that all have a primary idea underlying it. It is not a univocal term.
There is a "whole" in the sense that we give names to certain collections of atoms, but that doesn't mean it magically becomes something. If I took one atom out of my house, it wouldn't be my house anymore, it would be a different one. It would be a verys similar, and indistinguishable house, yet still a different one. The "whole" doesn't gain an special properties just because it is a collection of thing, it retains the properties of the thing it's made of. It sometimes appears like it has more properties, but that's only because of what I said before. Each part has a small piece of a property, and when brought together they create that property. No characteristics were added or removed in the joining of those objects even though it seems that way.
Firstly, the "whole" is the parts taken together. Without the notion of "taken together" when referring to the whole, you can only logically refer to one part. Which would mean that we would be arguing whether or not an atom has free will. I already made it clear that is not my point, nor what I am arguing. Nor do I think it is the answer to this question. If that is what you are trying to argue than I would say again you are making a fallacy because we are talking about a whole. We are talking about parts taken together. Not individual parts by themselves. Secondly, to accept your quote above is to deny the axiom: The whole is greater than the parts. Which would be absurd.
Okay, I've been a little confusing up to this point, so I'll clear it up now. I do agree that there is a "whole", but only in the sense that it's a word used to describe a specific set of parts in a specific order. However, the "whole" cannot have any properties that its parts cannot. Sometimes it seems like the whole has qualities the parts do not, but that is always an illusion. Parts sometimes have small bits of properties that when combined together create the property possessed by whole.
I only contain power by virtue of the whole, meaning it is from the whole, not the parts. I by myself have no legislative power so it cannot come from me. What you are missing is that it is the whole that gives, not the parts. So it is with free will. it is from the whole, not the parts. Different source of the potency. Or in philosophical terms: different principle, ergo different potency. That logically follows from the Axiom I stated above in Italics.
Well you do have a little bit of legislative power in that you elected lawmakers. It looks a lot like you don't, but with all examples like this, the parts really do contain at least a little of the quality which the whole does.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Thank you Moozer325 for your response.
I will address Con's points in this final round.
Firstly:
There's one big difference between singing and free will that makes this analogy fail.
I would say it was a fail, because I did not make an analogy between free will and singing. I used the example of singing to demonstrate the principle derived from the axiom that I have stated several times. This principle also applies to free will. I was not comparing or making an analogy between free will and singing. I was demonstrating the application of a principle of reasoning. The principle applies to the two. That does not mean I am comparing them or making an analogy.
Secondly:
They don't contain the action of singing themselves, but they do have a small part of it.
Atoms cannot sing by themselves as Con has said. This means they do not have the ability to sing. Yet a cluster of atoms does have the ability to sing. Con's statement contradicts itself at face value and even if Con could clarify exactly what he means by "have a small part" he would still have to demonstrate that part, either with a scientific experiment or from reason, which he has not done yet, nor has he given anything to back it up. I don't really see exactly what he means by that "have a small part". It seems at best ambiguous, and also a division fallacy. Also, I don't see how you can say that a simple action is dividable. Perhaps singing is not the best example. Atoms do not see, but eyes, which is made up atoms do. Atoms do not smell, but a nose, which is made up of atoms, does. Simple abilities are not dividable. So, you can't really say that atoms each "have a small part".
There is a "whole" in the sense that we give names to certain collections of atoms, but that doesn't mean it magically becomes something.
I did not imply that it magically became something. I reasoned from the axiom: The whole is greater than the parts to a principle that follows from it: The whole has abilities that the parts do not which I then applied to free will.
If I took one atom out of my house, it wouldn't be my house anymore, it would be a different one. It would be a very similar, and indistinguishable house, yet still a different one.
There are different senses to the word "different". Something can become materially different while still being the same thing formally. Are you still Moozer325 after all your atoms have been replaced? Yes. You are still you. You are different materially but not formally. In the example above the house is different materially but not formally. If Con remembers I stated in one of my previous rounds:
As shown above, there is more than matter. Something immaterial called the form. You cannot separate the form from the matter. Neither can a thing exist without a form.
Showing that there is more to what makes a thing what it is than just what it is made of.
The "whole" doesn't gain any special properties just because it is a collection of things, it retains the properties of the things it's made of.
I deny this because of the axiom: The whole is greater than the parts. That implies also in powers, abilities, etc. Atoms cannot see, yet my eye does.
Also, atoms cannot sing, as we established, and I do not think there is any reason to think that atoms "have a small part", whatever that means, when we are referring to an ability that we can clearly see is something that a whole does.
However, the "whole" cannot have any properties that its parts cannot.
Why? Atoms cannot sing. Also, this denies the axiom I stated. And it is a division fallacy. definition of a division fallacy - Search
Sometimes it seems like the whole has qualities the parts do not, but that is always an illusion.
So, a person singing is an illusion?
Well you do have a little bit of legislative power in that you elected lawmakers.
I am not talking about who I elect, I am talking about me in a position to pass laws. It is only in virtue of a whole. Together, we pass laws, not by myself.
Con is talking about something different here. That power still only comes when I am with the whole. Not separate from it.
Thank you Moozer325 for this debate. I greatly appreciated your insights and responses.
Con
#10
I would say it was a fail, because I did not make an analogy between free will and singing. I used the example of singing to demonstrate the principle derived from the axiom that I have stated several times. This principle also applies to free will. I was not comparing or making an analogy between free will and singing. I was demonstrating the application of a principle of reasoning. The principle applies to the two. That does not mean I am comparing them or making an analogy.
Okay, I get the distinction now. Either way, I'm showing how the principle of emergence can apply to some things, but not free will. You brought up several instances where this principle does work, and I demonstrated how those instances differ from free will.
Atoms cannot sing by themselves as Con has said. This means they do not have the ability to sing. Yet a cluster of atoms does have the ability to sing. Con's statement contradicts itself at face value and even if Con could clarify exactly what he means by "have a small part" he would still have to demonstrate that part, either with a scientific experiment or from reason, which he has not done yet, nor has he given anything to back it up. I don't really see exactly what he means by that "have a small part". It seems at best ambiguous, and also a division fallacy. Also, I don't see how you can say that a simple action is dividable. Perhaps singing is not the best example. Atoms do not see, but eyes, which is made up atoms do. Atoms do not smell, but a nose, which is made up of atoms, does. Simple abilities are not dividable. So, you can't really say that atoms each "have a small part".
I thought I explained it well enough last round, but I can say it again. Each of the atoms that make up your vocal cords does a little bit of the vibrating and a little bit of the producing of sound. Each of the atoms that make up your muscles do a little bit of the work to move your vocal cords. Each of your neurons (that are involved in singing) does a little bit of telling your muscles how to act. The principle doesn't "emerge" it is just "built". Each of my LEGOs does a little bit of creating the whole set, each plank of wood does a little bit of keeping my house up, and each line of code does a little bit to run a computer program. As you can see, all of the parts are necessary, and so if none of the parts contain even a little bit of free will, then the whole cannot.
The key distinction I think you're missing is that the part of the quality contained by the part of the whole does not need to manifest itself. One line of code may not create Mario Kart, but it still does what it needs to to make the game, and without it the game wouldn't be the same.
There are different senses to the word "different". Something can become materially different while still being the same thing formally. Are you still Moozer325 after all your atoms have been replaced? Yes. You are still you. You are different materially but not formally. In the example above the house is different materially but not formally. If Con remembers I stated in one of my previous rounds:
Again, I'm going to have to say that's a false analogy. By removing one of my atoms, I would say that my body automatically does become a different body. My body is constantly in flux. Of course though, the body is not the self, the self is derived from memories. If I were to remove one memory from my brain, I would be a different person too, maybe not noticeably, but still different.
So, a person singing is an illusion?
No, the whole having qualities that the parts do not is an illusion.
Conclusion
First, I'm going to restate my argument then I'll make an appeal to the voters.
To recap, my first premise is that the parts that make up humans are devoid of free will. Con has not disputed this obviously. My second premise was that the whole cannot have properties that the parts do not. I backed this up with lots of analogies such as the Mario Kart one. I reject Con's rebuttal with my point about hidden properties. I do not believe that there can ever be an example of a whole having properties the parts do not, because even if the whole can do things the parts cannot, the parts actively work together to create that whole thing. Each part does a little something, and without all those little things, the whole thing would not happen. The property doesn't have to totally manifest itself to exist, it just has to have part of it in the parts.
My Opponents conduct and legibility have been good this whole debate, I don't believe either should be awarded. Since this is a philosophical debate, obviously sources shouldn't be awarded either. I think I deserve the argument point for the above reasons. Con has repeated used only the same rebuttal, and though I provided counter arguments, they haven't switched their strategy at all, still making the same claim that the whole can have properties the parts cannot.
Thank you for voting, and thanks for participating Con, I hope to debate you again sometime.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
This debate was largely centered around the idea of emergence - the idea that a whole can have properties not possessed by any of its parts. This is relevant, as Con argues that we as humans do not possess the ability to make choices because none of our components have free will. Pro points out that Con is using the fallacy of composition/division, and states that a whole can be greater than its parts. I think Pro makes a good point here, but Con points out that in all of Pro's examples of wholes having properties not possessed by the parts, the parts still clearly contribute to what the whole actually does. Essentially, Con argues that emergence is theoretically possible, but Pro has to show how free will actually emerges through deterministic processes.
This brings me to Pro's fundamental argument: that we as humans have a "rational appetite" that allows us to make choices, and because we are capable of reaching an end through multiple means, and capable of reaching multiple ends through our choices, we have free will. Con, however, points out the circular nature of assuming that a rational mind has free will due to being able to reason on their choices, and also points out that our subjective experience of reasoning could all be an illusion, with our brains being like very advanced computers.
I think Pro was unnecessarily pedantic about Con's use of "illusion" and "choice" , as I found his usage of it pretty clear in context - how do we know that we actually are making our own reasoned choices rather than just having an experience that subjectively feels like it, especially when the processes that go on in our bodies are all apparently deterministic? Pro tries to draw a line between artificial and natural wholes, but I have a rule: sources are not arguments. Pro has to explain for himself what the actual difference is, and he fails to clearly do so - I am left wondering how one determines whether a whole is natural or artificial, and what the impacts are. Given that Pro is unable to explain how we can know that our rational processes are real and not predetermined, he fails to meet his burden of proof. Con wins.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFV
Arguments. Tie, I think the debate moved a bit away from Definitions and Proofs of Free Will, to a debate on the details on each side.
(I'm not sure if I am right or explain my view well, but it's my take)
Neither side cited sources, both sides used examples of objects and actions, to argue their reasonings.
Both Legible.
Conduct, both polite.
Further RFV can be read in comments 14 and 15 of this debate.
Thanks from me too!
Con's arguments are terrible here
Thanks for the vote!
I see your point about my reference to the natural and artificial whole. But honestly, it is not a very simple concept and it would take a lot more space to have to explain that and I was worried the debate would topple into that which was not what the debate was about. I simply gave the reference to give the reader a chance to see what I was saying in the arguments that followed.
Given how repetitive this debate got towards the end, I think it's a good example of why I believe that the vast majority of debates don't need to be longer then three rounds, or four if you're doing the whole "I waive the first round, my opponent waives the last round" thing. If you're a competent debater who is knowledgeable about the topic at hand, then three rounds should be sufficient to make your entire case.
>Vote: McMieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments), 2 to Con (Legibility, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
i really liked both sides of this argument
>Reason for Removal:
The voter does not explain their decision. An RFD must include reasoning for awarding points and this just expresses the voter's appreciation for the debate. That is not sufficient to award points.
**************************************************
Probably won't have time to get to this.
It's great that you liked both side's arguments.
But they'd probably also like the know what in 'particular you liked,
To vote as you did.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10oWHhN-eI0eX6TEpW2kgPv1iRCUNTrIHblqn8BRRXL8/edit?tab=t.0
RFV Part 1
I 'really think Moozer325 argument that if a component of a whole lacks an ability, this means the whole will lack the ability, to be flawed.
But as I read it, I can maybe take it to mean for example there is no gun, no bullet being fired, each component is just doing what it does, the trigger does not explode.
Still feels awkward though, and I find MAV99's arguments on it easier to understand. Makes more sense to me.
It comes off to me as though Moozer325 is trying to argue water or wetness do not exist, that only individual particles exist, that wetness is not wetness it is just particles in some arrangement.
I don't see why the particles we are made of would need free will if we had free will.
The components of a computer individually are not able to create for themselves the end result of the computer.
I think the Moozer325 argument that we will only ever choose the one path is better,
Though I am not so sure about the robot argument,
We have 'something more than a robot or a falling domino.
I'm not 'wild about MAV99 argument about having multiple methods to solve a problem.
But I found MAV99's first Round 'Really difficult to follow, not because I think it was explained badly, but because there's a lot of 'specific meanings in their argument.
But I'm not wild about their multiple options argument, because it 'does play a bit towards Moozer325's argument that we will choose X every time.
. . . But then MAV99 'is of 'course aware of causation and specifically speak of it and Aristotle.
Possible problem for Moozer325 might be the starting debate description,
Where both sides are able to use their 'own definitions for Free Will, "the rational appetite" in the case of MAV99.
Though I'm not sure I agree with their arguments such as if the brain cannot suggest multiple means because of a defect.
Unless one is 'incredibly out of it or overpowered by this or that, people, even drunk people I think, are going to have at least two methods occur to them for action.
. . . But perhaps MAV99 would argue they 'have free will, but incredibly depressed free will.
There's still the problem of causation though, I think.
“Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills” - Arthur Schopenhauer
Moozer325 Lego argument doesn't work for me,
A sword and a hammer are made of particles, but the end shapes are different,
The particles only 'gain the ability to chop or hammer 'together, not individually.
Though 'maybe Moozer325 would argue there is no sword or hammer, only particles.
In a 'sense I suppose, but such an argument comes across as for example, Zeno's Paradox of movement, halfway there, therefore never there. Yet clearly objects reach theres.
Though. . . Probably there are logics against Zenos paradox, I'm shallow in my reading.
I see Moozer325 'does make argument in law example,
Of the smaller parts having 'tiny bit of end result power,
So presumably he'd argue particles individually do have cutting and hammering power, force/mass.
. . . I'm not sure that's not a reach though, then one can claim the trigger has the same power as the gunpowder, because it is made of matter and has energy, and all the explosion is is energy released.
. . . There 'are arguments that 'everything has consciousness and will of sorts, even if weird or tiny to us. Or some 'principle of such.
Not that I believe or believe not such.
But there 'is the problem of the description and MAV99 definition of Free Will.
RFV Part 2
MAV99 sing argument,
Arguably there are events that only occur when there is 'enough of something,
Frequencies of sound for example,
A cricket chirp is not a bullhorn, something 'new occurs in wholes. Small sounds don't break glass. Something 'new is there in that whole/size.
MAV99 argument that a computer is not a human, goes over well with me.
Moozer325 binary argument 'also isn't strong I think,
While one 'does have something or not,
Fire for example, 'But there 'is an in between, where the temperature rises,
There is 'much fire and little fire,
There is enough fire to accomplish X, and fire not enough to accomplish X.
I think Moozer325 does well by sticking with his particles lack free will argument,
Though I think MAV99 'does address it with emergent properties,
MAV99 arguments feel yet incomplete due to many of Moozer325 arguments.
What I am expecting this to end with is a tie,
As I think while both sides presented good arguments, they both sides seem 'initial arguments, they both have their Theories,
But as their Theories are different, they focus on different parts of the debate,
Much of the later debate occurs in minor rebuttals to each others views, and minor patching up of said theories without 'deep explanation of said theories, due to each side's rebuttals being a bit light, as each side has maybe more focused out their own views.
. . . Possibly I missed it, but did Moozer325 ever define Free Will?
They stated people do not have it, but I'm not sure they were explicit in stating what Free Will 'is that humans do not have.
I recall arguments for 'why they would not have it.
Singing isn't 'just vibration to humans though,
It's also the concept,
But maybe this falls under illusion for Moozer325 arguments?
. . . But then they say "the whole having qualities that the parts do not is an illusion."
Which I think MAV99 'did address with emergent properties, but again, I'm not sure MAV99 reply went as deep as it might of, the (to me) light cuts (Not bad cuts) of both sides leads towards a tie.
I won't have time to vote on this debate. Could you guys vote?
If the will is free, then who pays for it
I reckon will has to come from somewhere
And if not god himself, you say you’re free and I say I’m free
Well one of these days you’re gonna see
The will ain’t free
If it was I wouldn’t feel compelled to type this
Every letter
Less free than the last
I'll try and get my vote up before the voting period expires.
Also, just helpful suggestion, there's a vote request thread in the forums where you can request a vote on your debate. I'd recommend posting there if you have a debate no one has voted on.
Votes
I will vote on this one if I have time.
votes plz
Well, someone else accepted anyway, so you dont need me to accept. Its just that definition of free will in description, as well as saying science cant explain it... I dont feel like jumping into a debate without at least some idea what the debate will be about.
What is unclear?
The debate seems too unclear for me to accept.
Feel free to accept...
Good luck proving that it exists. So far no one managed to prove it.
There are some on here that don't think so. There are also scientists who think that it does not exist.
Why would free will not exist?