Free Will -- Achilles v McCulloch

[McCulloch]

There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions.

Achilles12604 affirms. McCulloch denies.

[achilles12604]

There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions.

Achilles affirms. McCulloch denies.

Achilles has brought forth a number of examples where people make decisions. In each case, the decision maker believes that he is free to decide which way that he will go and an outside observer cannot always accurately predict what the decision will be based on a knowledge of biology, neurology and the subject's prior life experience. Humans make many decisions. Some of them trivial and seemingly arbitrary; others deliberately made after a great deal of thought. Some of them seemingly following biological urges; others apparently against biological tendancies. Some of them seemingly rational and sensible, given the life experiences and society in which the decision was made; others irrational or deliberately contrarian. And everything in between.

Achilles has caught me in the trap of trying to make me explain how specific decisions can be explained within a deterministic framework.

Well that is after all what we agreed to.

My job is to show that whatever reason he may present is not valid or that whatever demonstration he performs can be adequately explained from a determinist point-of-view.

The answer, after much thought, is quite frankly, I don't know.

I don't know why the red ball went into the corner pocket; I don't know why a storm rose at just the right time to destroy the Spanish armada; I don't know why the long feared big earthquake hit California the day after Obama was sworn in for his second term. However, I have no reason to believe that the physics of pool balls, meteorology or geology is anything but deterministic.

Hmm. Are random events really the same as behavior.

Actually this is a good illustration. What differences are there between say weather patterns and human behavior. I suggest that we have already touched on one and that is that weather obeys similar circumstances exactly the same. Humans on the other hand can behave in irrational manners.

This is a good indicator that human behavior is, at the very least, a different "flavor" of determinism than events without any consciousness behind them. I say that it is a clear indication that human consciousness is indeed not determined but rather influenced. Great comparison McC.

Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way.

And they all have one thing in common. None of these examples include human consciousness. None of them are able to store experiences to help guide in their choices. They are purely biological. And as you pointed out the ONLY time humans are 100% biological is right after they are born.

If the person's choice is really undetermined, that means he could have made a different choice given exactly the same past right up to the moment when he did choose: exactly the same past, different possible outcomes. Imagine, for example, that I had been deliberating about where to spend my vacation, in Europe or Newfoundland, and after much thought and deliberation had decided I preferred Europe and chose it. If the choice was undetermined, then exactly the same deliberation, the same thought processes, the same beliefs, desires and other motives that led up to my favoring and choosing Europe over Newfoundland, might by chance have issued in my choosing Newfoundland instead. That is very strange. If such a thing happened it would seem a fluke, like a quantum jump in the brain, not a rational choice.

Achilles argues that he can make a different choice. Yet he has presented no evidence that our choices are not determined. He asserts without evidence that given exactly the same situation, we can make choices different from what we actually do. Humans only feel that we have free control over our decisions, because we don't know what we will choose to do. But there has been nothing presented yet as a reason why we should believe that free-will is anything but an illusion.

Your example here, as I pointed out before, results in the expected and logical outcome. Now would you say that someone who suddenly stands up in a presentation and does the chicken dance had no other choice and would have reacted the exact same way given a "do over"? In short, when humans behave irrationally, are you convinced that they would continue to behave irrationally no matter how many times they were able to think things over?








If you would be willing let us explore the comparison you inadvertantly made me think of. Weather vs Human nature.

You have stated that in human nature there is the possibility of behaving irrationally. I have stated that this is a good example of human consciousness and free choice. Let's compare this to weather.

Are there ever circumstances when weather behaves irrationally OR, does weather ALWAYS conform to whatever is causing it? Does weather have the ability to behave irrationally?

[McCulloch]

There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions.

Achilles affirms. McCulloch denies.

As I see it, here are the reasons so far presented to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions:

1. A single predominate factor cannot be established to explain many human behaviours.
   
   The growth of yeast for bread or for brewing, is determined by a combination of factors, temperature, humidity, genetics, the presence of various inhibiting chemicals, the presence of sugar. Yet, yeast growth is highly predicable and quite deterministic.
2. We do not understand how certain behaviours are determined.
   
   A person does an action which some other people might not have predicted because of what they know of that person's biology, life experience and genetics. Therefore, according to Achilles, the person must have freely chosen to do that act. I disagree. Our ignorance of all of the factors which determine the person's decision and all of the algorithms used to combine those factors is not sufficient to conclude that the act must have been freely chosen.

You have yet to present any theoretical basis for this alleged ability to freely choose. Physics, chemistry, biology, neurology and anthropology all do not require for there to be human free will. We live in a universe which all of the sciences seem to show is a deterministic universe (on any non-quantum scale) yet you assert that there are reasons to believe that humans are non-deterministic and you provide no convincing reasons for such a belief.

The answer, after much thought, is quite frankly, I don't know.

I don't know why the red ball went into the corner pocket; I don't know why a storm rose at just the right time to destroy the Spanish armada; I don't know why the long feared big earthquake hit California the day after Obama was sworn in for his second term. However, I have no reason to believe that the physics of pool balls, meteorology or geology is anything but deterministic.

Hmm. Are random events really the same as behavior.

No, random events are not the same as behaviour. My point is that I can know that an event was determined without necessarily knowing the details of how it was determined. None of the above events are random.

Actually this is a good illustration. What differences are there between say weather patterns and human behavior.[?] I suggest that we have already touched on one and that is that weather obeys similar circumstances exactly the same. Humans on the other hand can behave in irrational manners.

Weather does not behave exactly the same way in similar circumstances. Weather behaves exactly the same way in exactly the same circumstances. When the circumstances vary, the result may vary, in sometimes difficult to predict ways.

No doubt, humans can behave in irrational ways, but irrational is not necessarily non-deterministic. For example, ask a statistically significant random sample of humans whether they are average, above average or below average in intelligence, and you will get the irrational result that there are more people who believe that they are above average than below average.

This is a good indicator that human behavior is, at the very least, a different "flavor" of determinism than events without any consciousness behind them.

I would agree that human behavior is significantly more complex and hard to predict than the weather. This is largely due to the human ability to think, reason, imagine, project etc.

I say that it is a clear indication that human consciousness is indeed not determined but rather influenced.

I say that you are begging the question. I think that as far as you can legitimately go is to say that human behaviour is not determined primarily by one factor but almost always by the complex interaction of many factors in a non-linear way.

Now would you say that someone who suddenly stands up in a presentation and does the chicken dance had no other choice and would have reacted the exact same way given a "do over"? In short, when humans behave irrationally, are you convinced that they would continue to behave irrationally no matter how many times they were able to think things over?

If someone stands up in a presentation and does the chicken dance, I would assert that he had some reason to do so, (barring Tourette's Syndrome or something like that). If that person were to have the same situation present itself to him again, he might not do the same thing. That would be because, the situation is not identically the same. One very significant difference is that the person would have the memory of the reaction of the other participants and the memory of how he felt about his performance. I think that we could all agree that those factors would, in all likelihood affect his decision. Those people with short term memory difficulties, do tend to repeat the same irrational behaviors.

If you would be willing let us explore the comparison you inadvertently made me think of. Weather vs Human nature.

You have stated that in human nature there is the possibility of behaving irrationally. I have stated that this is a good example of human consciousness and free choice. Let's compare this to weather.

Are there ever circumstances when weather behaves irrationally OR, does weather ALWAYS conform to whatever is causing it? Does weather have the ability to behave irrationally?

I believe that weather has no free will. Weather does not have the capacity to decide for itself what to do. Humans did not always believe this, many primitive animist religions attribute will to what we now regard as natural forces.

[achilles12604]

YEA!! McCulloch is back.

There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions.

Achilles affirms. McCulloch denies.

As I see it, here are the reasons so far presented to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions:

1. A single predominate factor cannot be established to explain many human behaviours.
   
   The growth of yeast for bread or for brewing, is determined by a combination of factors, temperature, humidity, genetics, the presence of various inhibiting chemicals, the presence of sugar. Yet, yeast growth is highly predicable and quite deterministic.
2. We do not understand how certain behaviours are determined.
   
   A person does an action which some other people might not have predicted because of what they know of that person's biology, life experience and genetics. Therefore, according to Achilles, the person must have freely chosen to do that act. I disagree. Our ignorance of all of the factors which determine the person's decision and all of the algorithms used to combine those factors is not sufficient to conclude that the act must have been freely chosen.

You have yet to present any theoretical basis for this alleged ability to freely choose. Physics, chemistry, biology, neurology and anthropology all do not require for there to be human free will. We live in a universe which all of the sciences seem to show is a deterministic universe (on any non-quantum scale) yet you assert that there are reasons to believe that humans are non-deterministic and you provide no convincing reasons for such a belief.

Are you suggesting that I must be able to both define and fully explain the causes of free will for it to exist?

And you left out one crucial part when you cropped the quote. . .

My job is to show that whatever reason he may present is not valid or that whatever demonstration he performs can be adequately explained from a determinist point-of-view.

I have taken you up on this position and supplied examples which I feel can not be explained by a detereministic point of view. If I provided examples which defied gravity, the theory of gravity would require alteration.

This is what I ask of you. Either an explaination as promised, or an alteration to your theory.

The answer, after much thought, is quite frankly, I don't know.

I don't know why the red ball went into the corner pocket; I don't know why a storm rose at just the right time to destroy the Spanish armada; I don't know why the long feared big earthquake hit California the day after Obama was sworn in for his second term. However, I have no reason to believe that the physics of pool balls, meteorology or geology is anything but deterministic.

Hmm. Are random events really the same as behavior.

No, random events are not the same as behaviour. My point is that I can know that an event was determined without necessarily knowing the details of how it was determined. None of the above events are random.

Actually this is a good illustration. What differences are there between say weather patterns and human behavior.[?] I suggest that we have already touched on one and that is that weather obeys similar circumstances exactly the same. Humans on the other hand can behave in irrational manners.

Weather does not behave exactly the same way in similar circumstances. Weather behaves exactly the same way in exactly the same circumstances. When the circumstances vary, the result may vary, in sometimes difficult to predict ways.

No doubt, humans can behave in irrational ways, but irrational is not necessarily non-deterministic. For example, ask a statistically significant random sample of humans whether they are average, above average or below average in intelligence, and you will get the irrational result that there are more people who believe that they are above average than below average.

I don't agree that this response is irrational. It maybe incorrect but as each person only has their own point of view to rely on, it is not irrational.

Each person understands where they are coming from without any miscommunication. However, they may not understand someone else's position due to lack of intelligence, misunderstandings, incomplete information, etc. So they rationally believe that they are right and the other person is wrong. They may be wrong, but they may not be irrational.

This is a good indicator that human behavior is, at the very least, a different "flavor" of determinism than events without any consciousness behind them.

I would agree that human behavior is significantly more complex and hard to predict than the weather. This is largely due to the human ability to think, reason, imagine, project etc.

I say that it is a clear indication that human consciousness is indeed not determined but rather influenced.

I say that you are begging the question. I think that as far as you can legitimately go is to say that human behaviour is not determined primarily by one factor but almost always by the complex interaction of many factors in a non-linear way.

I am not begging the question. I have provided several examples which indicate that there is at least SOMETHING else which factors in. You stated biology was deterministic, I showed that experiences were a factor. You stated that experiences were deterministic, I provided examples which indicated that biology was the overriding factor. Now you say both biology and experiences somehow combine to be deterministic in a manner we don't understand . . .

Sounds like what some people say is evidence for God . . . "We don't know so God did it."

Begging the question? Not really, unless you are as well.

Now would you say that someone who suddenly stands up in a presentation and does the chicken dance had no other choice and would have reacted the exact same way given a "do over"? In short, when humans behave irrationally, are you convinced that they would continue to behave irrationally no matter how many times they were able to think things over?

If someone stands up in a presentation and does the chicken dance, I would assert that he had some reason to do so, (barring Tourette's Syndrome or something like that). If that person were to have the same situation present itself to him again, he might not do the same thing. That would be because, the situation is not identically the same. One very significant difference is that the person would have the memory of the reaction of the other participants and the memory of how he felt about his performance. I think that we could all agree that those factors would, in all likelihood affect his decision. Those people with short term memory difficulties, do tend to repeat the same irrational behaviors.

So it must be SOMETHING because we know determinism to be true. . . Begging the question.

If you would be willing let us explore the comparison you inadvertently made me think of. Weather vs Human nature.

You have stated that in human nature there is the possibility of behaving irrationally. I have stated that this is a good example of human consciousness and free choice. Let's compare this to weather.

Are there ever circumstances when weather behaves irrationally OR, does weather ALWAYS conform to whatever is causing it? Does weather have the ability to behave irrationally?

I believe that weather has no free will. Weather does not have the capacity to decide for itself what to do.

But you have said the same thing about humans as well. So human's according to you do not have the capacity to decide for themselves what to do.








BTW - Here are some key points I put forth which you did not address. Some of them are quite key for me so I would like some sort of reply.

Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way.

And they all have one thing in common. None of these examples include human consciousness. None of them are able to store experiences to help guide in their choices. They are purely biological. And as you pointed out the ONLY time humans are 100% biological is right after they are born.

Your examples here marry up with your previous comments about everything in the universe is deterministic. But we have yet to experience anything in the universe remotely close to the human brain. We also have yet to experience anything in the universe remotely close to human consciousness. So comparing cells and atoms to human thought and decision making is a poor analogy in my opinion.

Are there ever circumstances when weather behaves irrationally OR, does weather ALWAYS conform to whatever is causing it? Does weather have the ability to behave irrationally?

You have stated that humans behave irrationally at times. Does weather ever duplicate this trait?

[McCulloch]

Are you suggesting that I must be able to both define and fully explain the causes of free will for it to exist?

That would be helpful to your case. However, outlining good solid reasons to believe in it would suffice.

And you left out one crucial part when you cropped the quote. . .

My job is to show that whatever reason he may present is not valid or that whatever demonstration he performs can be adequately explained from a determinist point-of-view.

And I thought you would not notice.

I believe that I may have been in error. It is my job to show that whatever reason you present it not valid. It would be great if I could demonstrate that your examples can be explained from a determinist point-of-view, however it would be sufficient to show that your examples do not necessarily rule out determinism.

I have taken you up on this position and supplied examples which I feel can not be explained by a deterministic point of view. If I provided examples which defied gravity, the theory of gravity would require alteration.

This is what I ask of you. Either an explanation as promised, or an alteration to your theory.

I am not begging the question. I have provided several examples which indicate that there is at least SOMETHING else which factors in. You stated biology was deterministic, I showed that experiences were a factor. You stated that experiences were deterministic, I provided examples which indicated that biology was the overriding factor. Now you say both biology and experiences somehow combine to be deterministic in a manner we don't understand . . .

I do not believe that I have ever stated that biology determines human behaviour. Human behaviour is influenced in a complex way by many factors, including biology. My position is that there is nothing other than the many factors external to the human mind that determines human behaviour. Human behaviour is determined by a complex interaction of biology, experience, chemistry, neurology etc.

So it must be SOMETHING because we know determinism to be true. . . Begging the question.

Not begging the question. Just stating that the example is not sufficient reason to believe that there is some unknown factor other than the ones that can be identified by the sciences that makes humans decisions.

Weather does not have the capacity to decide for itself what to do. I believe that weather has no free will.

But you have said the same thing about humans as well. So humans according to you do not have the capacity to decide for themselves what to do.

Yes, humans do decide for themselves what to do. Yet, each decision even though we feel we have made freely, is the end product of a complex inter reaction of factors. Were time's arrow drawn backwards, and we were put in exactly the same situation, we could do nothing else than what we had done. There is no reason to believe that given the exact same influences and the exact same memories, thoughts and neural stimulations that we could do otherwise. The OP asks that you provide such a reason.

Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way.

And they all have one thing in common. None of these examples include human consciousness. None of them are able to store experiences to help guide in their choices. They are purely biological. And as you pointed out the ONLY time humans are 100% biological is right after they are born.

What is consciousness? You have brought that concept into the discussion, you get to define it. Certainly we have our memories, our thoughts, the stimulation of the nine¹ senses. These are contained within our brain, a biological organ which processes these things.

Your examples here marry up with your previous comments about everything in the universe is deterministic. But we have yet to experience anything in the universe remotely close to the human brain. We also have yet to experience anything in the universe remotely close to human consciousness. So comparing cells and atoms to human thought and decision making is a poor analogy in my opinion.

Not an analogy. Just a challenge to you to come up with a reason to believe that the human brain, which is made up of neurons, cells, molecules and atoms, obeys some yet undiscovered natural laws which do not apply individually to the parts.

You have stated that humans behave irrationally at times. Does weather ever duplicate this trait?

Weather behaves unpredictably. My point is that unpredictability does not equate to free will. I do not mean to make any more of a point than that by the reference to weather.

The examples

1. Trial and error
   
   We come to a situation where our past experience is of little or no value. We perceive that there are a finite number of alternatives to try and rather than concede that we do not know which one to try, we try one then the other until we find the first one that works. How do we choose the first one to try? Is it necessarily a free will choice? I say that it does not have to be. Perhaps we allow some pseudo-random event make the choice for us (dice) or we use an analogy with something that we do know (my mother liked the colour of that one). Perhaps we test them in some particular order (alphabetical, or by size or weight). There has been presented no reason to believe that we must have made the choice freely and independently.
2. Imagination and intuition.
   
   One of the benefits of having a big brain is that we can play out scenarios in our mind's eye. We can imagine that we are in the situation of the other and think what we might do in their situation. This natural ability has given us a great advantage in being able to anticipate the actions of others. We can extend, in our mind, all of what we have seen, and experienced and alter the experiences in so many different ways. I see no reason to believe that this facility is free from the laws of the universe.
3. The first time someone chooses a course of action relating to a new task is hard to account for with a deterministic viewpoint. Without prior experiences, determinism make no sense.
   
   The first time that we face an unfamiliar new task, we draw upon whatever experiences we can that we can associate with the new task. Unless you have just come out of the womb, you have a wealth of experience that with imagination, can be brought to bear.
4. Random choices
   
   We don't make random choices. We sometimes have to make arbitrary ones, but we cannot make truly random ones.
5. Responsibility for actions
   
   This is the bogey man for the believer in free will. If you believe that the bad acts of the criminals in our midst are determined, then how can you justify punishment? To me it matters not whether the child rapist is responsible for his acts. It matters that the public be protected from any further bad acts.
6. Persons overcoming addiction
   
   People an develop a biological compulsion to consume certain substances. This compulsion, can be quite powerful over a long period of substance abuse. Yet, humans can decide to quit, to go against their natural desire for that substance. Why do they make those difficult decisions? Why do they struggle against their desires? Do they do so arbitrarily, just cuz? No, they come to the realization that there is some reason, some benefit that will make the struggle worth the effort.
7. Acting contrary to one's best interests
   
   Evolutionary group selection.
8. Non-avoidance of danger
   
   Sexual selection.

_________________
¹ sight, hearing, balance, smell, taste, pressure, temperature, pain, and proprioception.

[achilles12604]

Are you suggesting that I must be able to both define and fully explain the causes of free will for it to exist?

That would be helpful to your case. However, outlining good solid reasons to believe in it would suffice.

And you left out one crucial part when you cropped the quote. . .

My job is to show that whatever reason he may present is not valid or that whatever demonstration he performs can be adequately explained from a determinist point-of-view.

And I thought you would not notice.

I believe that I may have been in error. It is my job to show that whatever reason you present it not valid. It would be great if I could demonstrate that your examples can be explained from a determinist point-of-view, however it would be sufficient to show that your examples do not necessarily rule out determinism.

I have taken you up on this position and supplied examples which I feel can not be explained by a deterministic point of view. If I provided examples which defied gravity, the theory of gravity would require alteration.

This is what I ask of you. Either an explanation as promised, or an alteration to your theory.

I am not begging the question. I have provided several examples which indicate that there is at least SOMETHING else which factors in. You stated biology was deterministic, I showed that experiences were a factor. You stated that experiences were deterministic, I provided examples which indicated that biology was the overriding factor. Now you say both biology and experiences somehow combine to be deterministic in a manner we don't understand . . .

I do not believe that I have ever stated that biology determines human behaviour. Human behaviour is influenced in a complex way by many factors, including biology. My position is that there is nothing other than the many factors external to the human mind that determines human behaviour. Human behaviour is determined by a complex interaction of biology, experience, chemistry, neurology etc.

So it must be SOMETHING because we know determinism to be true. . . Begging the question.

Not begging the question. Just stating that the example is not sufficient reason to believe that there is some unknown factor other than the ones that can be identified by the sciences that makes humans decisions.

Weather does not have the capacity to decide for itself what to do. I believe that weather has no free will.

But you have said the same thing about humans as well. So humans according to you do not have the capacity to decide for themselves what to do.

Yes, humans do decide for themselves what to do. Yet, each decision even though we feel we have made freely, is the end product of a complex inter reaction of factors. Were time's arrow drawn backwards, and we were put in exactly the same situation, we could do nothing else than what we had done. There is no reason to believe that given the exact same influences and the exact same memories, thoughts and neural stimulations that we could do otherwise. The OP asks that you provide such a reason.

Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way.

And they all have one thing in common. None of these examples include human consciousness. None of them are able to store experiences to help guide in their choices. They are purely biological. And as you pointed out the ONLY time humans are 100% biological is right after they are born.

What is consciousness? You have brought that concept into the discussion, you get to define it. Certainly we have our memories, our thoughts, the stimulation of the nine¹ senses. These are contained within our brain, a biological organ which processes these things.

Your examples here marry up with your previous comments about everything in the universe is deterministic. But we have yet to experience anything in the universe remotely close to the human brain. We also have yet to experience anything in the universe remotely close to human consciousness. So comparing cells and atoms to human thought and decision making is a poor analogy in my opinion.

Not an analogy. Just a challenge to you to come up with a reason to believe that the human brain, which is made up of neurons, cells, molecules and atoms, obeys some yet undiscovered natural laws which do not apply individually to the parts.

You have stated that humans behave irrationally at times. Does weather ever duplicate this trait?

Weather behaves unpredictably. My point is that unpredictability does not equate to free will. I do not mean to make any more of a point than that by the reference to weather.

The examples

1. Trial and error
   
   We come to a situation where our past experience is of little or no value. We perceive that there are a finite number of alternatives to try and rather than concede that we do not know which one to try, we try one then the other until we find the first one that works. How do we choose the first one to try? Is it necessarily a free will choice? I say that it does not have to be. Perhaps we allow some pseudo-random event make the choice for us (dice) or we use an analogy with something that we do know (my mother liked the colour of that one). Perhaps we test them in some particular order (alphabetical, or by size or weight). There has been presented no reason to believe that we must have made the choice freely and independently.
2. Imagination and intuition.
   
   One of the benefits of having a big brain is that we can play out scenarios in our mind's eye. We can imagine that we are in the situation of the other and think what we might do in their situation. This natural ability has given us a great advantage in being able to anticipate the actions of others. We can extend, in our mind, all of what we have seen, and experienced and alter the experiences in so many different ways. I see no reason to believe that this facility is free from the laws of the universe.
3. The first time someone chooses a course of action relating to a new task is hard to account for with a deterministic viewpoint. Without prior experiences, determinism make no sense.
   
   The first time that we face an unfamiliar new task, we draw upon whatever experiences we can that we can associate with the new task. Unless you have just come out of the womb, you have a wealth of experience that with imagination, can be brought to bear.
4. Random choices
   
   We don't make random choices. We sometimes have to make arbitrary ones, but we cannot make truly random ones.
5. Responsibility for actions
   
   This is the bogey man for the believer in free will. If you believe that the bad acts of the criminals in our midst are determined, then how can you justify punishment? To me it matters not whether the child rapist is responsible for his acts. It matters that the public be protected from any further bad acts.
6. Persons overcoming addiction
   
   People an develop a biological compulsion to consume certain substances. This compulsion, can be quite powerful over a long period of substance abuse. Yet, humans can decide to quit, to go against their natural desire for that substance. Why do they make those difficult decisions? Why do they struggle against their desires? Do they do so arbitrarily, just cuz? No, they come to the realization that there is some reason, some benefit that will make the struggle worth the effort.
7. Acting contrary to one's best interests
   
   Evolutionary group selection.
8. Non-avoidance of danger
   
   Sexual selection.

_________________
¹ sight, hearing, balance, smell, taste, pressure, temperature, pain, and proprioception.

After reading this post, I can help but feel that you have slipped back into your non-falsifiable position.

I am of the opinion that a particular person in exactly the same set of circumstances would always make the same choice. However, the exact same set of circumstances cannot ever arise since part of the set of circumstances would be the memory of the first time the decision was made in the second instance. However, if you were to go back in time, to live your life over again, without any memories of how you did it the first time, you would make the same choices.

If this is the case, then you have a side which is non-falsifiable don't you? Much like the YEC claiming that anything that seems old is that way because God made it to look that way.

My opinion, as stated has been correctly identified as a non-falsifiable conclusion derived from my point-of-view, and thus an inappropriate subject for debate.

The question I would think is suitable would be, "There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions." You would affirm, I would deny.

You have fallen back on a non-flasifiable position McCulloch. When you removed my ability to present situations which defy determinism, you removed one viable avenue by which I can present reason to believe in free will.

After all, most of science is observation of events and then analysis of why. If you remove my ability to provide observations which fly in the face of determinism, you have effectively muted the scientific method, no?

And you left out one crucial part when you cropped the quote. . .

My job is to show that whatever reason he may present is not valid or that whatever demonstration he performs can be adequately explained from a determinist point-of-view.

And I thought you would not notice.

I believe that I may have been in error. It is my job to show that whatever reason you present it not valid. It would be great if I could demonstrate that your examples can be explained from a determinist point-of-view, however it would be sufficient to show that your examples do not necessarily rule out determinism.

[/quote]

So can you show that these examples do not rule out determinism without the use of logical fallacies? After all I have seen you write repeatedly phrases much like "Determinism in these circumstances is plausible because we know that determinism rules most of the universe. Therefore determinism is also true here as well."

You would be the first to point out that this is a logical fallacy. I provided many examples and each time you changed the rules about determinism to make it fit.

If your fall back position is "Determinism is true because we can not know all the intricate details which influence a choice." then you are begging the question, and you have fallen back into your opinion, a non-falsifiable position.


Now once you feel you have addressed this post, I am willing, depending upon the non-falsifiability of your position, to begin examining the conscious mind, and compare it to animal behavior, as well as autistic mentalities.

http://www.grandin.com/references/anima ... sness.html

[McCulloch]

There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions.

Achilles12604 affirms. McCulloch denies.

I am not going to be able to prove determinism nor am I required by the OP to do so. Please present the reasons why it is reasonable to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions and that determinism can be shown to be false.

[achilles12604]

There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions.

Achilles12604 affirms. McCulloch denies.

I am not going to be able to prove determinism nor am I required by the OP to do so. Please present the reasons why it is reasonable to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions and that determinism can be shown to be false.

I already stated in my last post that I intend to do so and even provided a link. You however have failed to address my assertion that you have indeed slipped back into exactly the same non-falsifiable argument which you decried before this debate began.

In fact, you blatently ignored my entire last post. Why? This isn't your style at all.

[McCulloch]

I already stated in my last post that I intend to do so [present the reasons why it is reasonable to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions] and even provided a link.

You have made 24 posts in this debate, it would be good if you could state the reasons for your position real soon now.

You however have failed to address my assertion that you have indeed slipped back into exactly the same non-falsifiable argument which you decried before this debate began.

If I were to show that both determinism and free will were non-falsifiable, then I will have made my point that there is insufficient reason to conclude that free will is true. I chose not to debate that determinism is true, because, as you correctly pointed out, it is non-falsifiable. Therefore, I suggested that we debate the question at hand, that is that there is reason to believe in free will.

In fact, you blatantly ignored my entire last post. Why? This isn't your style at all.

Perhaps not, but it is a whole lot quicker.

You have fallen back on a non-falsifiable position McCulloch. When you removed my ability to present situations which defy determinism, you removed one viable avenue by which I can present reason to believe in free will.

After all, most of science is observation of events and then analysis of why. If you remove my ability to provide observations which fly in the face of determinism, you have effectively muted the scientific method, no?

Go ahead and present observations which are incompatible with determinism. None of the examples you have presented so are are incompatible.

So can you show that these examples do not rule out determinism without the use of logical fallacies? After all I have seen you write repeatedly phrases much like "Determinism in these circumstances is plausible because we know that determinism rules most of the universe. Therefore determinism is also true here as well."

Which logical fallacies did I commit? I have been trying to argue that determinism is a possible, but not necessary, explanation for the examples that you assert prove free-will.

You would be the first to point out that this is a logical fallacy. I provided many examples and each time you changed the rules about determinism to make it fit.

I have not changed the rules. I have corrected your misunderstanding of what is determinism. Determinism is not that a single factor determines an event but that an event is not self-determined.

If your fall back position is "Determinism is true because we can not know all the intricate details which influence a choice." then you are begging the question, and you have fallen back into your opinion, a non-falsifiable position.

No, I am arguing against the implication that free will is true because we cannot determine a specific decision with the information available to us. You seem to be saying that free-will is true because you can present a situation that I cannot predict the decision from the collection of factors given. That is like saying that the wind gods direct the weather because the scientific weather forecasters don't always get it right.

Ah, Temple Grandin. My wife has met her. She is a fascinating person. I agree with her that there is only a difference in degree between human and other animals' consciousness. So, what is it in her writings that you use to argue free will?

None of the electronic components are conscious. They are based on physical principles. Although the animal brain is not the same as an electronic computer, I agree with writers such as Roger Penrose, and Daniel Dennett, that if improvements in computing continue at the present rate for a few for decades, it will possible to build a machine that simulates the way a human brain works.

So if a machine, which is based on physical principles, passes the Turing test, in what way do you think that it is different from a human brain which is based on physical principles? If consciousness can be demonstrated in a neurochemical biological component, why could it not be in an electronic device of sufficient complexity?

You have raised the idea of consciousness, yet you have not defined the term nor have you shown how it relates to the question at hand.

Animals with more complex brains have a higher form of consciousness than animals with a simpler brain.

My point exactly. More complex mechanisms are much more difficult to predict. If the determinism hypothesis were true, then we would expect that animals with simpler brains would have actions that were easier to predict than animals with complex brains. If the free will hypothesis were correct, then that might not be the case, unless you were to argue that there was a co-relation between the degree of free-will and the level of intelligence.

Conscious behavior is flexible. Conscious behavior allows animals to make choices between different options.

Highly conscious behaviour is flexible, we make choices and the choices we make are influenced by the memory of past events. This feedback loop, like many non-linear systems, make human decision making highly complex, unpredictable and chaotic, but not necessarily non-deterministic.

[achilles12604]

You have fallen back on a non-falsifiable position McCulloch. When you removed my ability to present situations which defy determinism, you removed one viable avenue by which I can present reason to believe in free will.

After all, most of science is observation of events and then analysis of why. If you remove my ability to provide observations which fly in the face of determinism, you have effectively muted the scientific method, no?

Go ahead and present observations which are incompatible with determinism. None of the examples you have presented so are are incompatible.

I disagree. I will go over each of them and explain why I feel them to be incompatable below.

So can you show that these examples do not rule out determinism without the use of logical fallacies? After all I have seen you write repeatedly phrases much like "Determinism in these circumstances is plausible because we know that determinism rules most of the universe. Therefore determinism is also true here as well."

Which logical fallacies did I commit? I have been trying to argue that determinism is a possible, but not necessary, explanation for the examples that you assert prove free-will.

The primary logical fallacy you are committing is appeal to tradition. When provided with a scenerio, you have stated on several occasions that even though you can't personally explain how this is still controlled by determinism (which BTW is an example of you changing the rules) it still must be because we see determinism control many much lower level things (like cells). This is textbook Appeal to Tradition.

This position also flirts with Begging the Question as you assume determinism to be true in the face of examples which are not deterministic.

If we were debating the theory of Gravity, an example which could not be accounted for by the theory, would indeed be proof that the theory was not all together sound and needed to be revised.

Again I shall list out my examples below.

You would be the first to point out that this is a logical fallacy. I provided many examples and each time you changed the rules about determinism to make it fit.

I have not changed the rules. I have corrected your misunderstanding of what is determinism. Determinism is not that a single factor determines an event but that an event is not self-determined.

You have too. I even reminded you of the rule change in the last couple posts. Remember that little snippet you failed to copy (deliberately I might add)? You set the stage for me to present examples, and then when I sucessfully presented ones you could not answer, you changed the rules so you didn't have to answer them.

If your determinism theory is sound, (like oh say the theory of gravity) shouldn't it stand up better to scrutiny without resorting to changing the rules?

I will re-present my examples below along with explainations as to why they are valid.

If your fall back position is "Determinism is true because we can not know all the intricate details which influence a choice." then you are begging the question, and you have fallen back into your opinion, a non-falsifiable position.

No, I am arguing against the implication that free will is true because we cannot determine a specific decision with the information available to us. You seem to be saying that free-will is true because you can present a situation that I cannot predict the decision from the collection of factors given. That is like saying that the wind gods direct the weather because the scientific weather forecasters don't always get it right.

Not quite. I shall present examples which directly contradict the theory of determinism. My examples do not skirt the issue, they address it fully.

I already stated in my last post that I intend to do so [present the reasons why it is reasonable to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions] and even provided a link.

You have made 24 posts in this debate, it would be good if you could state the reasons for your position real soon now.

You however have failed to address my assertion that you have indeed slipped back into exactly the same non-falsifiable argument which you decried before this debate began.

If I were to show that both determinism and free will were non-falsifiable, then I will have made my point that there is insufficient reason to conclude that free will is true. I chose not to debate that determinism is true, because, as you correctly pointed out, it is non-falsifiable. Therefore, I suggested that we debate the question at hand, that is that there is reason to believe in free will.

In fact, you blatantly ignored my entire last post. Why? This isn't your style at all.

Perhaps not, but it is a whole lot quicker.

Example 1) The speeding driver.

You have shown that there are cases where biology overrides knowledge and the person behaves in a fashion which goes against his experiences due to the totallity of the influences. Likewise, you have suggested that someone's experiences can override biology resulting in a similar situation. The cornerstone of your entire argument is "The totallity of the influencers".

However, the speeding driver has biology working against him. Human's (despite your attempt to show the reverse) were not built by nature with speed. We were not built to travel more than 10 miles an hour and then only when you are a trained olympic athelete. So traveling at 40 MPH is enough, but to push it to 80 or 90, our biology is certainly not causing the speeder to go faster. So we turn to experiences to see if they can override our biology.

But there too, our experiences tell us not to speed. We know from watching TV that speed causes crashes which cause untold pain and suffering. We know that speeding results in tickets. We know that speeding is bad for our cars, and makes them fall apart sooner. We know that speeding costs us more money because we burn so much more fuel.

No help to determinism there either. Our biology is dead set against it. Our experiences are dead set against it. And yet you maintain that there is some other mysterious factor which we don't know about which causes us to overcome BOTH of these major influencers, and speed. I agree. It is called FREE WILL. We want to speed. Therefore, we do.


Example 2) The drunk driver.

This one is much like the speeder but has one additional factor which points to the ability to decide for oneself.

Like the speeder, we know that drinking (especially when combined with driving) is against our biology. Certainly you agree that putting poison into your body to slow it and make it more vulnerable is against our natural instincts (hmm . . . maybe drinking in itself defies determinism). But then combine that with our experiences, and we know for sure that we will either be killed, or go to prison.

And yet, people do this. Not only do they do this once, but twice, three times. I have seen repeat offenders get caught 9 times. Usually they are sent to prison for a good term after the 9th time.

But on the other hand, I have seen some people get caught 2, 3 or 4 times, and then suddenly stop.

Now you will say that their experience resulted in them stopping. But if this were true, why didn't they stop after one time? After 2? The experience of jail is the same. Same gaurds. Same inmates. What was the X factor which caused the cessation in the pattern of behavior? My answer? The person decided to stop. Free will. They decided to quit the behavior.

The experiences were identical. The resulting punishments were identical. So the difference was not part of the environment. It was not an influencer. It came from within. Free Will to stop.


Now we touched on the subject of weather before. You and I agree that weather does not possess free will. Given the same circumstances, the same result will occur. Despite your objection earlier, I say that given SIMILAR circumstances, the same result will occur. The updraft, and down draft do not need to be identical to result in a tornado. They can be similar. In fact if they are within a certain range of power, they will result in a tornado of some sort.

Now compare this to the speeder or drunk driver. Both situations have VERY similar circumstances. The influencers are the same (if not exactly, at least extremely close). But the result was the polar opposite. This would be the equavalent to a very similar up and down draft one time creating a tornado, and the next time resulting in sunny weather.

If we had converging fronts, and every weatherman in the country was expecting a storm, and suddenly nothing happened and the sun came out and birds chirped, people may very well freak out.

However, the drunk driver, under identical circumstances, and with identical punishments, (not even similar which is enough for a tornado) suddenly DECIDES to change and alters his behavior accordingly.

On one side we see true determinism. A tornado is pure determinism. XX + YY = destruction. We can predict this behavior even if it isn't exact because we see such a wide range of variables resulting in identical storms. XXY+XYY = Destruction

On the other side, we see identical influencers having a totally unexpected and strange result. This is the polar opposite to pure determinism.

Now given the concept of determinism, I don't see how you can account for the differences between the results of pure determinism (the tornado) and the sudden and unexpected change (the drunk driver or speeder). Irrational behavior DOES NOT OCCUR in nature.

You have taken the position that everything in the universe is determined. But if you compare nature to human behavior, you clearly see a rift. In nature similar circumstances always result in the same action. In chemistry if you mix Magnesium, and heat in an oxygen rich environment, you get Magnesium Oxide. In weather if you put together two similar fronts, (not necessarily IDENTICAL) you get a tornado.

But with humans, the result COULD follow the expected course, or it COULD result in a totally weird and strange action.

These are our observations. These are the facts. And frankly, it flies in the face of human deterministic behavior.



Once you address these and show us why nature always follows a pattern given similar circumstances while humans can totally change based on free will, we can certainly continue into animal behavior. There we will see a stark contrast between instinct reaction and thoughtful reaction. Again, I feel that this is the result of the ability to choose freely.

[McCulloch]

I think you misinterpret the position that I am arguing. I am not trying to prove determinism, although if I could it would win the debate for me. I am simply trying to show that free will cannot be proven and that each of your examples can be looked at, in a way consistent with determinism.

Example 1) The speeding driver.

You have shown that there are cases where biology overrides knowledge and the person behaves in a fashion which goes against his experiences due to the totallity of the influences. Likewise, you have suggested that someone's experiences can override biology resulting in a similar situation. The cornerstone of your entire argument is "The totallity of the influencers".

However, the speeding driver has biology working against him. Human's (despite your attempt to show the reverse) were not built by nature with speed. We were not built to travel more than 10 miles an hour and then only when you are a trained olympic athelete. So traveling at 40 MPH is enough, but to push it to 80 or 90, our biology is certainly not causing the speeder to go faster. So we turn to experiences to see if they can override our biology.

But there too, our experiences tell us not to speed. We know from watching TV that speed causes crashes which cause untold pain and suffering. We know that speeding results in tickets. We know that speeding is bad for our cars, and makes them fall apart sooner. We know that speeding costs us more money because we burn so much more fuel.

No help to determinism there either. Our biology is dead set against it. Our experiences are dead set against it. And yet you maintain that there is some other mysterious factor which we don't know about which causes us to overcome BOTH of these major influencers, and speed. I agree. It is called FREE WILL. We want to speed. Therefore, we do.

The operative question is why do we want to go fast? Is it necessarily free will? My cousin Larry wants to go fast because he choose to want to go fast? I will agree that it is not rational to want to go fast. It is dangerous, bad for the environment and possibly expensive. We are not naturally capable of going as fast as Larry wants to go. In fact, free will does not adequately explain the widespread desire to go fast. If we are free to choose, then wouldn't almost all people choose to be safe, save money and be better for the environment? Larry says that he goes fast because it is fun and that it gives him a thrill. I believe him. Perhaps the lack of the level of danger in our environment compared to the environment that we evolved in, leads us to seek that adrenalin rush.

Example 2) The drunk driver.

This one is much like the speeder but has one additional factor which points to the ability to decide for oneself.

Like the speeder, we know that drinking (especially when combined with driving) is against our biology. Certainly you agree that putting poison into your body to slow it and make it more vulnerable is against our natural instincts (hmm . . . maybe drinking in itself defies determinism). But then combine that with our experiences, and we know for sure that we will either be killed, or go to prison.

And yet, people do this. Not only do they do this once, but twice, three times. I have seen repeat offenders get caught 9 times. Usually they are sent to prison for a good term after the 9th time.

But on the other hand, I have seen some people get caught 2, 3 or 4 times, and then suddenly stop.

Now you will say that their experience resulted in them stopping. But if this were true, why didn't they stop after one time? After 2? The experience of jail is the same. Same gaurds. Same inmates. What was the X factor which caused the cessation in the pattern of behavior? My answer? The person decided to stop. Free will. They decided to quit the behavior.

The experiences were identical. The resulting punishments were identical. So the difference was not part of the environment. It was not an influencer. It came from within. Free Will to stop.

We both agree that the person, for whatever reason, has decided to stop or to continue the dangerous criminal and antisocial behaviour. You have failed to show that the decision must have been made free from the combined influences of genes, environment, experiences and nature. The combination of these groups of factors is so complex that it is naïve to believe that they will ever be identical and that they, in combination, are insufficient to explain the behaviour in question. The sum total of the experiences of the drunk drivers are never identical. The physiological difficulty faced by the drunk trying to quit is never identical. So why should the determinist expect that the behaviours should be as easy to predict as you seem to say that we should?

Now we touched on the subject of weather before. You and I agree that weather does not possess free will. Given the same circumstances, the same result will occur. Despite your objection earlier, I say that given SIMILAR circumstances, the same result will occur. The updraft, and down draft do not need to be identical to result in a tornado. They can be similar. In fact if they are within a certain range of power, they will result in a tornado of some sort.

But the simple fact of the matter is that the scientists who try to predict weather, often still don't get it right. Certain human behaviour is quite predicable. Ask an election pollster or an economist. Other human behaviour is not. But like the weather, unpredictability does not necessarily imply free will.

You have taken the position that everything in the universe is determined. But if you compare nature to human behavior, you clearly see a rift. In nature similar circumstances always result in the same action. In chemistry if you mix Magnesium, and heat in an oxygen rich environment, you get Magnesium Oxide. In weather if you put together two similar fronts, (not necessarily IDENTICAL) you get a tornado.

But with humans, the result COULD follow the expected course, or it COULD result in a totally weird and strange action.

Some systems are known to be chaotic. This is a technical term which means that very small changes in the initial factors of a deterministic system may have a large impact on the outcome. There are good reasons to believe that human behaviour is, at many times, such a chaotic system. A small noise can set off an avalanche.