The Instigator
CivilianName295
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kyro
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does freewill exist? (Pro) Libertarian Freewill is true, (Con) Hard determinism is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 779 times Debate No: 100601
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

CivilianName295

Pro

(Note: I cancelled the last debate because I had virus issues with the website so I had to reset my computer)
This debate will be about philosophy on weather or not libertarian free will exist.
Rules: No personal attacks, this is only about philosophy so don't bring God or religion into this debate, use evidence to back up arguments.

Round 1: Will be accepting terms, rules and conditions.
Round 2: Will be each side giving its case for and against free will. (Pro) will give its case for free will, (Con) will give its case for hard determinism (the opposite of free will)
Round 3: Will be each side presenting its rebuttle to the opponents case
Round 4: Will be each side giving a counter-rebuttle (Response to rebuttle)
Round 5: Will be final arguments and a closing statement
Kyro

Con

I will be arguing for the side of hard determinism, or against the concept of free will.
Debate Round No. 1
CivilianName295

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate i hope that we can have a rational discussion on this topic. Now before i give the case for free will i want to define what it means. Free will is defined in the basic understanding that people can chose to have moral responsibility it doesn't mean that you can chose your past, gene's, character or place of birth. Another misconception of free will is that it means that nothing is determined by prior causes, this is false what free will is about is this concept of agent causation that the agent can start a new chain of events that are not predetermined before the agent's choice. The agent chooses self-deterministically what the outcome will be so then he is determining himself to make a choice. Self determinism has the same meaning as freewill. So now that ive defined what im speaking about i will begin my case for freewill

Argument 1: To deny freewill requires freewill
In order to make a truth claim you will need freewill in order to think critically and rationally otherwise any argument you make for determinism would be determined and you have no way to verify or falsify if your argument is actually a truth claim or not. when someone says they are completely determined they are making a truth claim and the moment you make a truth claim you are violating determinism. Someone that denies freewill is insuring that they were forced to do it and that you cannot make choices or actions based on logic and reason. when someone says they have made up there mind because of the evidence they are presupposing freewill because one can only make up there mind on evidence if they have freewill. Logic depends on making reason judgements and if everything is caused then you cant know if your judgement is logical or not. So the conclusion is that denying free will requires freewill

Evidence: Quantum mechanics
John H. Conway and Simon Kochen have developed what's known as the free will theorem in quantum physics.
Which states that we can only have free will in an idealist, indeterministic universe. At the quantum level particles behave probabilistically this is shown through the uncertainty principle. What this evidence concludes is that actions of the observer cannot be determined by prior causes as determinism states. Remember determinist claim that we can know the exact position of every particle based on how the laws of nature work. But the evidence shows that we cannot predict the future using these laws. So since the universe is not deterministic and since the conscious agent can callapse wave-function particles to make changes in the wave-function then this would prove that we have freewill since the action was not determined by prior causes

(1) http://www.ams.org...
(2) https://plato.stanford.edu...
(3) http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de...
Kyro

Con

I would like to begin by redefining my terms. I accept my opponent's definition of free will, "which is that "people can choose to have moral responsibility". My opponent said that "determinists claim that we can know the exact position of every particle". However, that is not what determinism is. The Oxford dictionary defines determinism as "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will." Therefore, it is not necessary for us to be able to determine the position of every particle.

I stand in the firm negation of free will. Free will does not exist and determinism is the truth.

My arguments:

1. Everything in the world follows the laws of nature. Every particle in the world follows the law of gravity, the law of conservation of mass, every law of physics. No amount of hypothetical situations will ever change this. Because everything is made of wave-particles with position and velocity, free will is an illusion. Every decision that animals (including humans) make is caused by a series of electrical impulses that caused the brain to arrive at a certain conclusion, followed by a series of electrical impulses to carry out an action based on the decision. The universe exists the way it does because the events at the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics came together to produce the existence that we know. Every thought that we have is a result of the motion of wave-particles.

2. Randomness or probability does not prove free will. In quantum physics there is the concept of probability, which is that sometimes particle behavior can be random with different probabilities for different results. However, if "free will" is true because sometimes things happen randomly, then free will isn't "free" at all, it's just determined in a less predictable way. Again, determinism means that all events are determined by CAUSES EXTERNAL OF THE WILL; this does not mean that everything is PREdetermined, but rather that free will takes no part in the process.

3. Free will is logically impossible. For the sake of argument, let's say that the human will is a supernatural entity that can choose to take moral responsibility and doesn't choose based entirely on external factors. If the free will doesn't choose on external factors, how does it choose? If it chooses based on external factors, then it isn't free will. If it chooses based on some moral code, then how does it decide whether to follow it? If the will chooses independent of external factors, then the only other option is that it chooses completely randomly, which as I discussed earlier isn't free at all. There is no way around the fact that decisions are based on external influences, and the human has no real control.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://engineering.mit.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
CivilianName295

Pro

I am going to present my rebuttal to (Con) case for determinism here and i will respond to each argument he put forth in his case for determinism. Before i begin my rebuttal to his main arguments i want to make a short response to his introduction. He says that
"My opponent said that "determinists claim that we can know the exact position of every particle". However, that is not what determinism is. The Oxford dictionary defines determinism as "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to be able to determine the position of every particle."

My response is that yes i agree with your definition of determinism however whats ironic is that your first argument is based on the claim that you can predict the motion of particles because of the laws of nature something that i explicitly refuted in my case for free will. So now that ive made that clear to (Con) and the readers and voters of this debate im going to now Rebuttal my opponents main arguments for determinism.

Rebuttal to (Con) argument 1: (Con) "Everything in the world follows the laws of nature. Every particle in the world follows the law of gravity, the law of conservation of mass, every law of physics. No amount of hypothetical situations will ever change this. Because everything is made of wave-particles with position and velocity, free will is an illusion."

Response: This is false as i would agree that most of the time particles follow the laws of nature the problem with this claim is there is still uncertainty at the quantum level and thus everything wouldn't follow the laws of nature.

(Con) "Every decision that animals (including humans) make is caused by a series of electrical impulses that caused the brain to arrive at a certain conclusion, followed by a series of electrical impulses to carry out an action based on the decision. The universe exists the way it does because the events at the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics came together to produce the existence that we know. Every thought that we have is a result of the motion of wave-particles."

Response: The fundamental problem with this argument is that it assumes physicalism true and that the brain produces consciousness not only is there no evidence for physicalism or that the brain produces consciousness but in quantum physics physicalism falls apart since space and time emerge from the wave-function in fact everything in our universe pops up from the wave-function (quantum vacuum) this means that matter is not fundamental and emerges from something else. In fact matter seems to need mind rather than what physicalism is saying.
(1) https://www.theguardian.com...
(2) https://www.youtube.com...
(3) https://www.youtube.com...-

Rebuttal to (Con) argument 2: (Con) "Randomness or probability does not prove free will. In quantum physics there is the concept of probability, which is that sometimes particle behavior can be random with different probabilities for different results. However, if "free will" is true because sometimes things happen randomly, then free will isn't "free" at all, it's just determined in a less predictable way."

Response: This argument doesnt work since i never said that since quantum mechanics is random then we have free will and neither does my argument. The indeterminacy of quantum mechanics speaks of our ability to not know an outcome until an observer is making a measurement not that random events cause everything. im not saying things are not determined what im really saying that they are determined by the choices of agents which causally affect other things, this is known as agent causation which is how free will works. Outcomes are determined not by prior events or random events but by agents that exist outside of physical reality. And this is what quantum mechanics tells us.
(1) http://www.ams.org...

Rebuttle to (Con) argument 3: (Con) "Free will is logically impossible. For the sake of argument, let's say that the human will is a supernatural entity that can choose to take moral responsibility and doesn't choose based entirely on external factors. If the free will doesn't choose on external factors, how does it choose? If it chooses based on external factors, then it isn't free will. If it chooses based on some moral code, then how does it decide whether to follow it? If the will chooses independent of external factors, then the only other option is that it chooses completely randomly, which as I discussed earlier isn't free at all. There is no way around the fact that decisions are based on external influences, and the human has no real control"

Response: I've heard a lot of determinist make this argument before however this argument creates paradoxical conclusions since for example what if i have good reasons to enjoy a piece of pizza and good reasons to reject pizza and favor a healthier choice. The reason is an external factor but which reasons cause the outcome now of course you could say the stronger desire wins but what or who decides which is the stronger desire since these are non-physical desires which one has more power? Their is no physical event that causes this and they are purely mental so we cant study the physical structure of them and figure out which one is stronger and if they are mental then it follow that the mind decides which is the stronger desire and if the mind decides then that's what free will is in the first place so this argument doesn't work as an argument for determinism since the will of self (mind) could choose without being predetermined or predetermined randomly so (Con) argument fails

We have examined (Con) case for determinism and as we have seen none of the arguments he has presented works. They are either based on false premises or are misunderstandings of what libertarians arguments for free will are. (NOTE: A philosophical libertarian is someone that believes in and defends the concept of free will so I'm not talking about political libertarians) anyways I hope that (Con) the readers and voters can see the fundamental problems with my opponents case for determinism.
Kyro

Con

I will now refute Pro's arguments for free will. I will address each point individually and explain why it is fundamentally incorrect. I will not address Pro's rebuttals until next round, as specified in the rules.
__________

"Argument 1: To deny freewill requires freewill
In order to make a truth claim you will need freewill in order to think critically and rationally otherwise any argument you make for determinism would be determined and you have no way to verify or falsify if your argument is actually a truth claim or not. when someone says they are completely determined they are making a truth claim and the moment you make a truth claim you are violating determinism. Someone that denies freewill is insuring that they were forced to do it and that you cannot make choices or actions based on logic and reason. when someone says they have made up there mind because of the evidence they are presupposing freewill because one can only make up there mind on evidence if they have freewill. Logic depends on making reason judgements and if everything is caused then you cant know if your judgement is logical or not. So the conclusion is that denying free will requires freewill"

The argument is essentially saying that logic, reason, and other advanced forms of cognition necessitate free will. According to Pro, without free will nobody would be able to use logic and evidence to reach a conclusion. This argument is fallacious because even in a materialist world, cognition is still possible. In such a world, mental processes are the result of interaction between neurons in the brain and complex patterns of electrical stimulation. Human logic is the result of the highly developed state of our brains. Humans have about 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) neurons in our brains, and about 1,000,000,000,000,000 (1 quadrillion) synapses. This extremely advanced network of connections between neurons is what allows for the level of logic and reason that humans have. Note that none of the preceding points require free will, and remember that the argument is specifically that advanced cognition REQUIRES free will. Because such an advanced system is possible without free will, making truth claims based on evidence does not require free will either, and the argument is invalid.
__________
"Evidence: Quantum mechanics
John H. Conway and Simon Kochen have developed what's known as the free will theorem in quantum physics.
Which states that we can only have free will in an idealist, indeterministic universe. At the quantum level particles behave probabilistically this is shown through the uncertainty principle."

The Free Will theorem states that in an idealist, indeterministic universe, free will must exist. Refer to my argument concerning logic for a rebuttal of this statement. I have carefully examined his source, and it states that "It is precisely the "semi-free" nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here." The assertion that the paper makes is that quantum particles have some degree of free will. My logic argument applies equally to both humans and quantum particles, and it therefore remains valid in this case. Unfortunately I am not allowed to refute my opponent's rebuttals until next round, but take note; should I succeed in my counter-rebuttal, the Free Will Theorem evidence will be invalidated.
__________
"What this evidence concludes is that actions of the observer cannot be determined by prior causes as determinism states. Remember determinist claim that we can know the exact position of every particle based on how the laws of nature work. But the evidence shows that we cannot predict the future using these laws. So since the universe is not deterministic and since the conscious agent can callapse wave-function particles to make changes in the wave-function then this would prove that we have freewill since the action was not determined by prior causes"

The issue with this section of the argument is that it is all about determinists thinking that the properties of wave-function particles cannot be exactly determined. This is a straw-man argument because, as I stated in my opening, determinism does not necessitate that the properties of particles can be determined. The only requirement for determinism is that everything is determined by actions external to the will. The segment at the end about the conscious agent collapsing wave-function particles, once again, is disproved by my logic argument. If I successfully counter-refute, this evidence is invalid as well.
__________

Pro's first argument is fallacious because it is based on the assumption that free will is required for logic and reasoning. As I pointed out, that assumption is incorrect. The high levels of thinking that humans are capable of are a result of the vast number of neurons in the brain, as well as the connections between them.
Pro's only remaining argument is about quantum mechanics and the Free Will Theorem. As I stated above, my logic argument clearly refutes free will regardless of whether it applies to humans or quantum particles.

Now that I have made it clear that Pro's first argument is incorrect and my own argument refutes his second, we can see that his case is fundamentally unsound and should be discarded.

https://faculty.washington.edu...
http://www.ams.org...
Debate Round No. 3
CivilianName295

Pro

I will now present a counter-rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal. For those that dont understand a counter-rebuttal is when someone responds to their opponents rebuttal so that they can get a chance to defend their main case only some debates have a round of counter-rebuttals and its not common but it does take place in debating. So i wanted to make that clear to my readers and voters so they dont misunderstand what the term "counter-rebuttal" means. Anyways here im going to present a counter-rebuttal to respond to (Con) rebuttal.

(Con) "The argument is essentially saying that logic, reason, and other advanced forms of cognition necessitate free will. According to Pro, without free will nobody would be able to use logic and evidence to reach a conclusion. This argument is fallacious because even in a materialist world, cognition is still possible. In such a world, mental processes are the result of interaction between neurons in the brain and complex patterns of electrical stimulation. Human logic is the result of the highly developed state of our brains. Humans have about 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) neurons in our brains, and about 1,000,000,000,000,000 (1 quadrillion) synapses. This extremely advanced network of connections between neurons is what allows for the level of logic and reason that humans have. Note that none of the preceding points require free will, and remember that the argument is specifically that advanced cognition REQUIRES free will. Because such an advanced system is possible without free will, making truth claims based on evidence does not require free will either, and the argument is invalid."

Response: (Con) basic rebuttal to my first argument is that essentially logic is dependent on neurons firing in our head and that this is what makes logic possible in a deterministic universe however the main issue with (Con) rebuttal is that then logic would be determined by neurons and in a deterministic universe you cant provide any justification for logic since logic would be determined and not justified. The definition of reason "is a statement offered in explanation or justification gave reasons that were quite satisfactory" This would be impossible in a deterministic universe since logic itself would be deterministic and so by (Con) own standards since everything is determined then you cant justify anything and if you cant justify anything then you cant justify determinism being true. Now a soft-determinist could justify soft_determinism since there is freewill mixed into that but on a hard-determinist position the hard-determinist cannot justify there position since logic is subjective to deterministic neurons in the brain and not objective. So my main argument in my original case still stands as valid and (Con) rebuttal is invalid.

(Con) "The Free Will theorem states that in an idealist, indeterministic universe, free will must exist. Refer to my argument concerning logic for a rebuttal of this statement. I have carefully examined his source, and it states that "It is precisely the "semi-free" nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here." The assertion that the paper makes is that quantum particles have some degree of free will. My logic argument applies equally to both humans and quantum particles, and it therefore remains valid in this case. Unfortunately I am not allowed to refute my opponent's rebuttals until next round, but take note; should I succeed in my counter-rebuttal, the Free Will Theorem evidence will be invalidated."

Response: Well im not sure what (con) "logic argument" is if its the third argument in his case for determinism ive already rebutted the argument since it makes paradoxical conclusions about the will and choices. Now i dont know what (Con) counter-rebuttal will be so i might have to address it in round 5 as part of my final arguments and closing statement but i will have to see.

(Con) "The issue with this section of the argument is that it is all about determinists thinking that the properties of wave-function particles cannot be exactly determined. This is a straw-man argument because, as I stated in my opening, determinism does not necessitate that the properties of particles can be determined. The only requirement for determinism is that everything is determined by actions external to the will. The segment at the end about the conscious agent collapsing wave-function particles, once again, is disproved by my logic argument. If I successfully counter-refute, this evidence is invalid as well."

Response: Again i will have to see what (Con) counter-Rebuttal will be before i address this point. My final argument will be dealing with the definition of determinism which (Con) defines as "Actions external to the will" and showing why this definition of determinism is false and why agent causation is a more logical position to hold to.

So that is all that i feel i need to respond and his last paragraph is just a summary of what his rebuttal is so i dont feel the need to quote and respond to that since the points ive already addressed in this counter-rebuttal. So we have seen why my opponents rebuttal is invalid.

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://introductiontophilosophy.com...
(3) http://www.dictionary.com...
Kyro

Con

Note: To clarify, the logic argument referred to in my rebuttal is my third argument. I invite Pro to address my counter-rebuttal in his closing statement. Also, I am unsure as to why Pro is planning on bringing up a new "final argument" in his closing statement, but if he does then I will refute it in my own closing statement.

I will now vindicate my own points by showing the error in my opponent's rebuttals.
__________
Argument 1:

"My response is that yes i agree with your definition of determinism however whats ironic is that your first argument is based on the claim that you can predict the motion of particles because of the laws of nature something that i explicitly refuted in my case for free will."
"Response: This is false as i would agree that most of the time particles follow the laws of nature the problem with this claim is there is still uncertainty at the quantum level and thus everything wouldn't follow the laws of nature."

The goal of my first argument was not to assert that it is possible to predict the position and motion of every particle in existence. My point was simply that there are laws in the universe, and every particle follows those laws. Quantum physics is part of the order of the universe, and every quantum particle follows the laws of quantum physics; "semi-free" particles are part of this order. Therefore, it is possible for everything to follow the laws of nature without being completely predictable.

"The fundamental problem with this argument is that it assumes physicalism true and that the brain produces consciousness not only is there no evidence for physicalism or that the brain produces consciousness but in quantum physics physicalism falls apart since space and time emerge from the wave-function in fact everything in our universe pops up from the wave-function (quantum vacuum) this means that matter is not fundamental and emerges from something else. In fact matter seems to need mind rather than what physicalism is saying."

My response to this argument is similar to my response to Pro's first main argument. Pro's rebuttal, combined with his statements about the Free Will Theorem, imply that there is some existence apart from our own that controls matter in this existence. If that is true, then the separate existence must also have its own physical laws that it adheres to, and my argument therefore still applies on a meta-level. The argument that physicalism is not true because "there [is] no evidence for physicalism or that the brain produces consciousness" is, by itself, an argument from ignorance. However, I assume that it was meant as an addition to Pro's other statement, which I refuted above.
__________
Argument 2:

"This argument doesnt work since i never said that since quantum mechanics is random then we have free will and neither does my argument. The indeterminacy of quantum mechanics speaks of our ability to not know an outcome until an observer is making a measurement not that random events cause everything. im not saying things are not determined what im really saying that they are determined by the choices of agents which causally affect other things, this is known as agent causation which is how free will works. Outcomes are determined not by prior events or random events but by agents that exist outside of physical reality. And this is what quantum mechanics tells us."

Concerning my original argument, I concede that because Pro never cited to randomness in his argument, my own argument is irrelevant. However, I will also address what Pro says about "agent causation". Pro says that "agents...causally affect other things", and "Outcomes are determined...by agents that exist outside of physical reality." The crux of Pro's arguments appears to be that there is some existence outside of our own that determines our own actions. For a rebuttal of this, refer to my Argument 1 counter-rebuttal and my original Argument 3. Once again, these so-called "agents that exist outside of physical reality" are also governed by laws: laws unknown to us, but laws all the same. Therefore, all of my arguments still apply to any agent that causes things to occur. If Pro is asserting that our mind is one of these agents, then it too must be governed by the rules of some system, and its decisions are ultimately determined by factors that are entirely out of its control.
__________
Argument 3:

"I've heard a lot of determinist make this argument before however this argument creates paradoxical conclusions since for example what if i have good reasons to enjoy a piece of pizza and good reasons to reject pizza and favor a healthier choice. The reason is an external factor but which reasons cause the outcome now of course you could say the stronger desire wins but what or who decides which is the stronger desire since these are non-physical desires which one has more power? Their is no physical event that causes this and they are purely mental so we cant study the physical structure of them and figure out which one is stronger and if they are mental then it follow that the mind decides which is the stronger desire and if the mind decides then that's what free will is in the first place so this argument doesn't work as an argument for determinism since the will of self (mind) could choose without being predetermined or predetermined randomly so (Con) argument fails"

In his rebuttal, Pro presents us with a situation that attempts to disprove the argument that decisions must necessarily be based on some combination of external factors. Pro's situation is that a person has both reasons to do something and reasons not to do something. Pro reasons, as I would, that the better reason will determine the ultimate action of the person. Here, Pro attempts to create a paradox by asking "what or who decides which is the stronger desire...which one has more power?" After some deliberation, Pro concludes that "the mind decides which is the stronger desire and if the mind decides then that's what free will is in the first place". Pro's ultimate chain of reasoning is the following:

1. Something must decide what decision a person makes when presented with multiple options.
2. Whatever process makes said decision is located in the mind.
3. Therefore, the mind makes the decision.
5. If the mind makes the decision, then the person decided with their own free will.

Notice that I left out 4. The reason for that is free will is not defined as the mind making decisions. Free will is defined as the mind making decisions based on processes that are, in some way, independent of external factors. Because that is what free will is, the missing logical step is:

4. Free will is the mind making decisions based on processes that are, in some way, independent of external factors.

Now that I have pointed this out, the flaw in Pro's logic is obvious. Pro forgets that free will is not just the mind deciding, but the mind deciding free of external factors controlling its decisions. My original argument is that the mind making decisions does not necessitate free will. Therefore, Pro's argument is invalid because it draws conclusions from insufficient premises; Pro never proved that the mind's decisions are not based on external factors.
__________

Because Pro's rebuttals for my first and third arguments are either irrelevant or incorrect, those arguments are still valid. While I do concede my second argument as irrelevant, this does not diminish the accuracy of my other points. Pro's other rebuttals either miss the point of the argument, or utilize erroneous logic, and therefore my case that free will is impossible remains sound.

http://philosophy.lander.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
CivilianName295

Pro

In this final round i will present a final argument then a closing statement for why libertarian free will is true. Now before i begin to present my final argument i want to concede that my argument called "denying freewill requires freewill" only applies to some forms of determinism and not all forms of determinism. Thats because forms like soft-determinism have freewill in their philosophy so my argument doesn't apply to them. So now that ive made that clear to my readers and voters im now going to give my final argument.

FINAL ARGUMENT FOR FREEWILL
Throughout this debate me and my opponent have been discussing freewill and determinism and we have both given our case,rebuttals and counter-rebuttals now in (Con) counter-rebuttal he suggested that when i was speaking about agent causation that on a meta-physical level the agent can still be determined by meta-physical laws. Now i dont know if (Con) knows this or not but there is actually a form of determinism thats the same as hard-determinism except that it would also apply on a meta-physical level this is called "super-determinism" now super-determinism means that the world is super-deterministic that not only is the physical world deterministic but we the experimenters who imagine we can choose to do one experiment rather than another are also determined so this means that super-determinism means every decision you have ever made even tho they happen outside of physical reality are still somehow determined. However the fundamental problem with super-determinism is that it is impossible to verify or falsify it since we cannot get outside our experience to look and see if mental events were actually predetermined. Since this is the case then i cant prove super-determinism false and (con) cant prove it true. Now we can see which one is far more likely when we apply Occams razor to this something that i will now argue. Occams razor is a principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected what this means is that when two or more theories have the same evidence and predictions the one with the fewest unnecessary assumptions is logically true.
1. Agent causation is true and nothing outside physical reality is predetermining the agents choices so free will is true
2. Agent causation is true but the agents choices are predetermined by things that are outside physical reality so hard determinism is true.

When we look at Libertarian freewill and Super-determinism (Metaphysical hard-determinism) then we can see which one makes the fewest unnecessary assumptions its libertarian freewill since super-determinism has to add in unnecessary assumptions in order for it to be valid. Libertarian freewill only assumes that the agent makes a choice that is not predetermined and thats not an unnecessary assumption since it doesn't have to add that metaphysical laws to predetermine the agents choice because in libertarian freewill the agent makes the choice without being predetermined. This means that super-determinism violates occams razor and that it would be impossible to verify or falsify super-determinism since we cant get outside our experience. So when we apply occams razor to these two theories about our choices we can understand that Libertarian freewill is most likely true.

CLOSING STATEMENT
One thing that i have not addressed in this debate is what i call the "External factors objection" my opponents third argument in his case for determinism makes this objection to freewill it says that since we we dont control external factors and that since we dont choose our circumstances then we have no free will. This argument for determinism is popular from Sam Harris and that in order to have free will we must have super powers and control every factor that is in our lives and our decision making processes. However this type of freedom no one holds to and its not how freewill works and it doesn't mean that we have control over all external factors. No madder how small our decision space has become our freewill would still be intact as long as we can retain the ability to be aware of all possible choices what im saying is that external factors and decision space is not the same as freewill. The concept of freewill is about our ability to be aware of a branching of possibilities that are ahead of us given what circumstance or external factors we find ourselves in. It can be broken down like this
1. Being aware of all possibilities
2. Take action and make choice according to your will

Think of your life as a game of cards you may not control what hand you got but you chose the way you play it. Think of freewill as the cards you play with. You could be a prisoner locked up in a small cell tied up and deprived of all human rights. You would still have your freewill since you have the freedom to chose what you wanted to chose given your external factors and circumstances and your awareness of possible future timelines. The choices available to someone in prison and someone out of prison are different just like how the choices available to me are different than to you. We just find ourselves in different circumstances. but our circumstances dont diminish our freewill. Now if someone only has one option its because they are unaware of other possibilities but if you widen your decision space then you are actively using your freewill. And to a certain extent it is up to you how wide your decision space becomes. People can chose to widen there decision space and use their freewill or people can chose to narrow there decision space and make themselves into a puppet it will just all depend on what the (Self) wants. And it will ultimately be up to you weather you want to practice your free will or not so either way your still using your freewill. Just think about it and i hope you understand that external factors neither diminish nor improve our freewill so it cant be used as an argument against freewill. i hope that you enjoyed this debate and i hope that you all can come to a rational conclusion about all of this thanks for watching and have fun voting :)

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.informationphilosopher.com...
(3) http://www.booksandculture.com...
(4) https://youtu.be...
Kyro

Con

I will now review this debate and explain why determinism must be true. Since Pro brought up new arguments in his closing statement, I will address them here.
__________
Pro's first new argument against determinism is that the situation that I proposed in my counter-rebuttal to Argument 1 is unprovable. Based on the premise that it is unprovable, Pro reasons that this proposal can be discarded, since it unnecessarily complicates things. Pro states that "we can see which one makes the fewest unnecessary assumptions its libertarian freewill...This means that super-determinism violates occams razor [so] we can understand that Libertarian freewill is most likely true". However, in making this argument Pro assumes that both hypotheses have equal amounts of supporting evidence, as he says: "when two or more theories have the same evidence". The purpose of Occam's razor is to stop the use of ad hoc hypotheses to prevent the falsifiability of theories. If a hypothesis has the preponderance of evidence, the complexity of said hypothesis does not matter. Therefore, because I have proven free will to be logically impossible, no amount of complexity in my hypothesis changes its truth. Special relativity is one example of a very complicated theory (far more complicated than Newtonian physics) that has nonetheless been proven true.
__________
Pro also addressed my third argument, in which I stated that the decisions of humans are necessarily determined by external factors. To quote my previous argument: "If the will chooses independent of external factors, then the only other option is that it chooses completely randomly". Pro interprets this argument as meaning that "in order to have free will we must have super powers and control every factor that is in our lives and our decision making processes". Pro is essentially saying that, if our decisions are determined by external factors, then the only way to have free will is to "have control over all external factors". However, this argument is not about whether humans can control every single decision that they make. This argument is about whether the human mind ever chooses independent of external factors. Whether humans can determine external factors doesn't matter if we can simply make our own decisions anyway. However, as I have shown, making decisions in this way is completely impossible. Therefore, because humans cannot control external factors, independent decision-making is impossible as well.

The remainder of Pro's argument is talking about decision spaces. Pro says that external factors can change the size of a person's decision space, but because the person will always be able to make a decision, "external factors neither diminish nor improve our freewill". However, Pro assumes in this argument that humans have the ability to make decisions that are not caused by external factors. As I have proven in my third argument, this premise is false. Therefore, external factors can be used as an argument against free will because not only do external factors choose the "hand you got", they also choose "the way you play it", simply in a more subtle way.
__________
A lot of this debate has been centered around what free will is defined as, and it is important to note that Pro is arguing for libertarianism. Libertarianism is the philosophy that the world cannot possibly be deterministic because free will is real. Such a deduction requires a definition of free will that includes some independence of the mind. I have already shown that both of Pro's arguments are invalid, and Pro has failed to provide a sound rebuttal to my argument that free will is logically impossible. Therefore, I have proven free will to be false.
__________
I thank Pro for participating in this debate with me, and I thank any voters for reading it. I urge you to vote without bias, purely on the substance of our arguments.

http://math.ucr.edu...
http://rationalwiki.org...
https://philosophy.tamucc.edu...
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CivilianName295 10 months ago
CivilianName295
i understand. Now it's up to voters to see who won this debate
Posted by Kyro 10 months ago
Kyro
I will not respond because I would prefer not to start a debate in the comments. I would appreciate if you refrained from making any further arguments in this way.
Posted by CivilianName295 10 months ago
CivilianName295
(Con) "However, this argument is not about whether humans can control every single decision that they make. This argument is about whether the human mind ever chooses independent of external factors. Whether humans can determine external factors doesn't matter if we can simply make our own decisions anyway. However, as I have shown, making decisions in this way is completely impossible. Therefore, because humans cannot control external factors, independent decision-making is impossible as well."

I think you misunderstood my original point I agree that we can't control what circumstances we are put in since we don't determine what our external factors are however that in no way diminishes our freewill.
External factor are circumstances or situations outside the agent that a agent cannot control. I addressed this point since I agree that we can't control our circumstances however every circumstance we are put in we have a decision space where we can have multiple possibilities. Your confusing free will and maximal autonomy. The libertarian philosopher ALVIN PLANTINGA makes these distinctions clear in response to Sam Harris book on free will
http://www.booksandculture.com...

I I know that the debate is over and I know voters won't be judgeing there section based on this comment but I wanted to make that point clear.
Posted by canis 10 months ago
canis
From something comes something. Determinism.
Posted by CivilianName295 10 months ago
CivilianName295
If the (Con) brings up libet expiraments I know how to rebutt him because I've already dealt with that argument before
Posted by canis 10 months ago
canis
From nothing comes nothing..Free will...
Posted by Furyan5 10 months ago
Furyan5
Libet's experiment proves we don't have free will. M8 you lack high circular reasoning. If free will exists, you can choose to believe it doesn't. If free will doesn't exist, I can't choose to believe it does. Which of these statements is true?
Posted by canis 10 months ago
canis
No. I do not have free will. From nothing comes nothing..
Posted by CivilianName295 10 months ago
CivilianName295
"High quality circular reasoning works" ya did you freely chose to post that comment? If not then you have no objective standard of judging what's circular reasoning and what's not.
Posted by m8 10 months ago
m8
>To deny freewill requires freewill
High quality circular reasoning works
No votes have been placed for this debate.