The Instigator
EchoboostX4
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Free Will Is Quite Illusory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
EchoboostX4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 59642
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

EchoboostX4

Pro

This is a no-holds-barred debate on the contention that "Free Will Is Quite Illusory".



The public shall vote accordingly. If voters are biased/not voting seriously, please do not go through with the vote. Only the most impartial of judgments are accepted. Please cast your votes with utmost fairness.



The opposing side may cuss/curse all he/she wants in any manner. He/she may use such terms in either a derogatory or colloquial way. I will not take insults personally. This however MUST reflect on people's votes. Again, impartial/unbiased votes only. Please vote with sincerity.



Round 1 is essentially introduction. Rounds 2-4 will mostly comprise of refutation and new points. New arguments are highly discouraged in round 5. The last round must summarize all points made.



Now, on with the debate.


_______________________




I will begin by deconstructing the topic sentence.

"Free Will Is Quite Illusory".



"Free Will" is defined as the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]



"Quite" is defined as 'to a very noticeable degree or extent' [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]



"Illusory" is defined as something that is not true or real [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] and is synonymous to words such as 'misleading' and 'imaginary' [http://thesaurus.com...]



The freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention is something that is not true or real to a very noticeable degree or extent simply because of the mere existence of causality.



Causality is the relationship between cause and effect. For every cause, there is an effect. Already, free will contradicts reality. We live in a world that's full of consequence. Big or small, we are bound to affect the world around us and definitely the lives of others. This goes both ways. We affect others as much as we affect them. With that being said, free will is quite illusory because prior causes exist even before we are born. Our lives; our decisions and choices are already predetermined. This predetermination is a result of biology and society. Biology locks us into a certain selection of choices our psychology is limited to. Our DNA is essentially our body's schematics. Our physical and mental properties are determined by it. With this in mind, we are indeed locked into a very small pool of "directions"; choices we think are best for us. Society locks us into a certain selction of choices other people limit us with. The people who are more powerful than us can force us to make choices similar to theirs. This circular causality is further proof that free will is indeed imaginary; non-existent.



Before I bring up another point, I would like to hear my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.
Aerogant

Con

You must realize that "free will" is easily argued with semantics rather than sense, so let me break it down for you so anyone, including you, can handle this touchy topic: "Free will is privileged will."

That said, you must also realize that no matter what, we will be influenced and governed - but on top of that influence and governing, we still make our own choices based on those influences and governing. We manage information that we absorb throughout the world. Ideas come to us - we do not come to them, however we take these ideas and apply them in a way the idea itself cannot apply itself. We are cosmic architects in a sea of cosmos - it would be naive and foolish to assume we do not have a sense of will, when we clearly do.
Debate Round No. 1
EchoboostX4

Pro

"Free will is privileged will." You have decided to redefine free will. In it's core though, privileged will is a limited type of will that allows the interception of governance and influence, therefore it can never truly amount to free will; but I will not play the semantics game.

"but on top of that influence and governing, we still make our own choices based on those influences and governing." That's the problem. This will we are all "privileged" with is based on SOMETHING. We require the information that surrounds us to move forward. We cannot separate our societal and biological inheritance and decide independently.
Since you contested that "Free will is privileged will", then you cannot deny the fact that we are still limited in choice; ironically, we do not have a choice in making a choice. We are bound by what we are born with. So much for being privileged.

"Ideas come to us - we do not come to them, however we take these ideas and apply them in a way the idea itself cannot apply itself." Ideas only exist because we exist to create the idea of an "idea". We come to such conclusions. We come to these ideas because our biology and psychology pushes us to do so.

"We are cosmic architects in a sea of cosmos - it would be naive and foolish to assume we do not have a sense of will, when we clearly do." No. We are cosmic infrastructures allowed by the cosmos - it would be arrogant and wasteful to think we are even "privileged" with such power. In the end, this privileged will is still quite illusory. And we do have a sense of will, just neither free nor privileged.
Aerogant

Con

We are omni-directional, therefore we are free - whence we choose a direction, we are on a path, thus we are influenced and defined. A child is willed by privilege, where in they can choose where ever they want to go through the influences and governing - if there wasn't anything to choose from there wouldn't be any kind of will, which means that anyone that argues there isn't a will are arguing against it at the same time, because it requires influences to be a will, as a will is merely a cosmic flow that which we follow - nothing more.

Why do you guys on this site have no idea what context means? It appears that none of you actually know how to reason, just rationalize all these logical fallacies through what is blatantly hyperbole.
Debate Round No. 2
EchoboostX4

Pro

Review Your Argument
Your argument will be judged by many factors including spelling, grammar, cited sources, and civility.

"We are omni-directional, therefore we are free" Already, this is a fallacy on your part. If we were truly omni-directional, we should be able to will ourselves through all dimensions of space-time. Clearly, we cannot.

"A child is willed by privilege, where in they can choose where ever they want to go through the influences and governing" And this is the very reason free will is indeed illusory! A child is willed by privilege? Please do not play the semantics game with me. A child knows little to nothing at all about himself and his environment. His choices are limited by his lack of knowledge. This forces anyone the conclusion that future influences and governance experienced by the child will ultimately lock him into a set of choices; like I said, "no choice in making a choice". You are completely ignoring the biological and sociocultural aspect of causality and overall will.

"if there wasn't anything to choose from there wouldn't be any kind of will, which means that anyone that argues there isn't a will are arguing against it at the same time, because it requires influences to be a will, as a will is merely a cosmic flow that which we follow - nothing more." You really did not understand the contention of the topic. "Free will is quite illusory". No one is denying that will exists, only that there is an illusion of having this vast amount of choice. You either did not understand my biological-social contention or you simply dimissed it altogether. A foolish move on your part I might say. You have completely missed the point. And this "cosmic flow" you speak of is still limited by the laws of this universe. This will we have is in no way free or privileged. In short, we are all biological machines fooled into thinking we are free, hence an illusion, but a very convincing illusion at that.

"Why do you guys on this site have no idea what context means? It appears that none of you actually know how to reason, just rationalize all these logical fallacies through what is blatantly hyperbole." You have admirably demonstrated twice that you are no exception.
Aerogant

Con

Why are people so naive and clueless on how to understand context within the realms of reality? It's like them reading, "life is never fulfilling", then they start crying for no reason that the sky is falling because now life has no meaning because nothing can fulfill it, even though wise men have constantly proven that being content and without expectation does not mean you're a serial killer that breaks all laws and rules because "nothing satisfies you", while realizing that it's more dangerous for people to pretend they can be fulfilled than a person that knows they can't be fulfilled. I am baffled that Pro doesn't even have a single brain cell realizing that he's fooling himself this time around.

Here, let me hold your brain stem - omni-directional means that we can become everything through space, as it is possible by universal law. It's like you couldn't take that and apply it to the second statement where I explain how a child that is still making their choice is infinite, while a child that's made a choice is finite, but I'm not surprised, you people live in a society that microwaved your brain and threw away your identity.

A child dreams - you really cannot be that dense. Dreaming is omni-directional. A child does not need knowledge to dream - are you that far behind from humanity and the Universe? That saddens me, because I am far beyond your primitive state.

What illusion is there, when we have the Universe living inside of us through the neurons in our brain, which are merely the stars of the cosmic space in another form processing information and storing information inside of our very brain? If you look closely, the neurons are the same design as space matter. Please get your priorities straight - your regurgitating myopia is not the same as a stimulating phantasmagoria.

We are truly made out of stars; for you to not know that proves how far behind you are in understanding human life. The photo receptors in our eyes which capture our experiences were formed billions of years ago, before stars were born. This simple statement is profound enough to shut down your entire debate.

Oh, then try to argue my grand arguments, as they are not based on my tiny feelings and heart, but the face of the Universe and the truth behind all experiences that appear separate from it.
Debate Round No. 3
EchoboostX4

Pro

This debate has taken a very interesting toll. Even though we're straying too far from the topic, I will humour Con's mentality whilst proving my point.

Your first paragraph is very strange and has nothing to do with this debate. If you want to specify and stress context, then what context do you want the playing fields on? Reality? Prove to me that YOUR reality exists then maybe I'll understand. Your analogies are straw-manning the topic and confusing everyone. As far as the wise men example, that one apparently proves my point. "Even though wise men have constantly proven that being content and without expectation does not mean you're a serial killer that breaks all laws and rules because "nothing satisfies you", while realizing that it's more dangerous for people to pretend they can be fulfilled than a person that knows they can't be fulfilled." Exactly. Your arrogance is astounding.

Here's my brain stem. It's as tangible and infallible as your entire second paragraph. And the society I live in is as screwed up as it can ever be.

Everyone dreams. Some dreams make sense, others do not. You're now pulling philosophical bull**** out of your a**. Everyone requires knowledge in order to dream. Otherwise, what would the dream be made out of? Where would such information come from? I'm pretty sure you'll throw in the "cosmological consciousness of humanity" thing again. Indeed you are far beyond my primitive state. Your conceitedness inspires me.

Like I've stated in my second paragraph. Prove to me your reality exists then maybe I'll understand. "Free will is quite illusory." That is our debate topic. You and I have biological and sociocultural inclinations. These are the very factors that limit us from truly having free will! I am amused you still haven't picked up this most important piece of information. My regurgitation is only as nearsighted as your daft sophism. Please stop that.

Wow. You got me there. I never knew we were made of star stuff. I never knew that we were made of the same things the universe is made out of. Damn, your statement is profound. Debate over!

Ok. Your last statement made me smile. It's kinda cute. But let me remind you of these two things: we're straying too far from the debate topic and your philosophical view points are getting the best of you. Please focus on why you are against the contention that free will is quite illusory. I appreciate your input but please don't stretch this.
Aerogant

Con

My analogies are not straw-manning the topic, it's really just my my ability to break down everything - I became a god that now knows all there is to know about consciousness, ignorance, "I", arrogance, psychopathy, how to fix this society, how to save humanity and the three stages of it: humanity, insanity and self-humility. - causing your bottle-necked version of context to open its throat for me, so I can shove my cosmic rod down its unsuspecting diametric base for the complete irony of having a bottle neck and a base with space. Don't mind me, I'm built to open this world up - I will always do it better than any surgeon; unlike a surgeon, I can figure things out from outside in and still not be a lazy fool that worries about lawsuits more than people's lives in the end.

Want me to prove to you that my reality exists? That's fine, let me go hang myself in a second, since I have no reality, but can choose to end it based entirely on my actions; or I could just decide against that because I do have a reality that can be realized or unrealized by me - anyways, right now I am watching the last season of House; thinking about how strange people don't have realities, but can create perfect simulations of behavior patterns to create personalities via entertainment systems, as if people had access to a cosmic wardrobe!

Dreams are a subconscious vessel of information within the conscious realm where in the Universe is symbolically healing itself and dealing with itself from a metaphysical form in turn consisting of a pattern of communications which fit the saying "not everything is as it appears". It would be silly to disregard dreams, when everyone has nightmares because the subconscious is the best doctor - the center of the our inner Universe, based on the outer Universe. So essentially the "I", is a collective system of the "Universe" creating an experience that is based on our secular body and mind, while acknowledging that every human body has a unique pattern thus demonstrating individuality. This is coming from someone who use to be the greatest skeptic on dreams, as they used to be extremely complex for me to understand; but now, I have it all in my hands to analyze freely.

Well, let me ask you a question. Are you foolish enough to argue that there has to be an actual "personal identity that is ungoverned and uninfluenced by the Universe's data", even though there is a "simulated personal identity based on how the Universe creates secular states of experience where information is stored and managed"? Why are you even crying about "you can't be personal, without being governed by this Universe", when you're the one that is worrying about a completely pointless paradigm called "I", "me" or "personal - that which cannot be influenced by this Universe; based entirely on the person themselves", as if you are clearly demonstrating that everyone has their own reality, hence stupidity would not exist if there was a single reality.

I'm not like a porn star - I don't open myself up for people. I open myself up for this Universe. I will never close off the horizon I managed to build by making thousands of sacrifices and thousands of challenges, simply because people are blinded by it. Maybe when they realize that it's not their eyes that are burning, but the flammable wool on their eyes that cannot stand the flames and the sheer fat they never turned into muscle, maybe they will start understanding that I am the sun with a magnifying glass.
Debate Round No. 4
EchoboostX4

Pro

Indeed you have broken your own arguements. You're a god who seems to know all these things; you have the power to renew everything yet you do nothing to better this world. Or YOUR world at least, but I'll get to that later. Why haven't you reached the third stage yet? That's my question to you. Why bother shoving your cosmic rod down a quantum throat? It's not that you can't prove anything; it's that you have nothing to prove. Any true god would have already convinced this simple-minded mortal of their entire being by now. And it's mortals like us who always destroy gods like you.

You really took the sophist's approach to the debate topic at hand. That's fine. But it really demonstrates your inability to provide any evidence or logic to the discussion or to why we have free will in the first place. You STILL haven't proven your reality to me. Why would you have your own? Because I'm not you. If we were truly a "universe", we would be one. Obviously we are not. If we were truly the universe trying to discover itself, then it's doing a horrible job with all the stupidity you haven't done anything about. Go ahead and hang yourself. Then come back to me when you're done with it because you clearly have no reality.

Like I said, everyone dreams. Of course it would be silly to disregard dreams, but you really did not understand that, did you? Dreams are dreams. Nothing more. But none of us really know what dreams are. And I'm sure you'll sophistically dismiss that too. In addendum, nightmares can never amount to night terrors. Nightmares may psychologically prepare us for the suffering to come but a lot of people are already suffering too much due to lifelong night terrors. The subconscious is also the best murderer. You're aware of that, are you not? Are "you"? The "I" is a very complex entity. That's all we know. That's all "you" know. That's all "I" know. Like I've stated before, we are all biological machines with a very limited set of responses to stimuli. We live with the worlds we are born in. We live with the biological and sociocultural biases we cannot seperate ourselves from. We are all undeniably linked to the universe but these fissions of perspectives cannot prove that you nor I are beyond humanity. And this all adds up to the fact that individuality is only a small part of the will we have. But this will is not as free as anyone thinks. "We do not have a choice in making a choice." It's all an illusion.

Yes. I am foolish enough to argue in the first place. You are no exception. Why should a god bother responding to a mere mortal such as I? To teach me a lesson? To stretch my naivety further? To humiliate me? You jest, dear boy. Your words fumble all over the place. You have either misread everything I have brought forth so far or you purposely twisted everything I meant such as "you can't be personal, without being governed by this Universe". One, I implied nothing of the sort. Two, I never said the word 'personal' in the entire debate. Discount this round. The "I" or "me" is not completely pointless, otherwise you wouldn't have even talked about your "grand" qualities. Remember: stage three hasn't been completed yet. And as for YOUR reality, I don't know who you are, where you're from, or what you did. I'm baffled by the fact that you still haven't gotten the message. You CANNOT prove YOUR reality to me. The only reality I live in is mine because that's the only world I know; the only observable universe I think I'm in. I am stuck in MY perspective. Quick lesson: an assumption is an assertion you have no proof for. Everyone must assume these three things at all times: 1.) The observable universe is real 2.) We can interact with said universe 3.) There are certain mechanisms this universe reveals to us that have predictable outcomes. Everyday, these predictable outcomes are utilized to our advantage. THAT alone proves our will is not free. We are all imprisoned by these expectations. We cannot go beyond them and will them to do something unexpected. An obvious logical conclusion. You on the other hand explicitly state the opposite. You see, I live in only one reality: MY reality. If you can somehow prove with your omnipotence that you are not a figment of my imagination, then, again, maybe I'll understand.

I like universal porn; staring into the skies at night and wondering what our place really is in the cosmos. But that's as far as we can reach. No one yet knows what the future holds for us humans. Maybe one day we'll all become true gods, but that's all relative. We are already gods to the ants at our feet whilst slaves to the life provided by this unfathomable universe. I am but a simple man. I admit; my mind is small compared to many others. But unlike most, I not only accept my disabilities; I embrace them. I pretend not. And I definitely know not of the kinds of will this universe allows us to have. But never will I ever arrogantly claim that I am free.

_____________________________________

That ends my part of the debate. I'd like to thank Con for being my opponent. In all sincerity, it was fun and fruitful. I really learned a lot. The entire exchange reinvigorated me. Con, I hope you had fun too.

Remember to place your votes honestly and impartially.

I await Con's final response.
Aerogant

Con

Are you expecting a big bang? Nah, here have a whimper.

I already climaxed enough throughout this debate, I'll just give you one simple thing to think about, to explain why there is a "reality" for our "self".

Dreams - evidence is here. Nothing can be argued. Dreams are evidence that we have an inner reality based on ourselves which is shaped through a conglomeration of information, like cosmic clay, but with water and images. Our dreams are there to "reflect" on our daily matters and daily concerns. There's nothing you can do to argue this except deflect it as per usual. Dreams are all the evidence you need, since you want to piss on everything else that is just as true and profound towards an inter-reality. We emotionally bond with ourselves and can feel ourselves separate from the rest of the world. There was no such thing as only oneness - and no such thing as only individuality. It's all about perception, like a movie. I can see everything at once - or, I could see that sexy girl bending over in the background, to completely miss the entire point of the movie's message later on. Therefore we do have our own reality - just like computers have their own matrix. Information is what makes them different - how we manage them is what makes them original or unoriginal.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
No offense taken. I liked what you said, to be honest. I'll think about it.
Posted by Phoenix007 2 years ago
Phoenix007
Con, you speak of interesting philosophies, however, you do stray off-topic a bit. At the same time, however, it seems these ideas form the base of your arguments. The problem is, in this debate, those ideas appear to be assumed and not explained by evidence or logic, thus you and Pro are not on the same page, disorienting the debate.

But then again, who am I to criticize Your Holiness, the Prophet of the Cosmic Sands (this is meant to be a light joke, don't take it seriously)?
Posted by EchoboostX4 2 years ago
EchoboostX4
Are you adding this to round 1 or something?
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
I agree. Libertarian free will is non-sense.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
No, we do not have "free" will. It's "privileged" will.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
EchoboostX4AerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was on-topic and showed choice to be illusory.
Vote Placed by leonitus2464 2 years ago
leonitus2464
EchoboostX4AerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: pro made much better and more well reasoned arguments and provided many sources.