The Instigator
BradK
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
nerosmoke
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Free Will is a Cop-out Explanation; The Brain Is Just To Complicated To Explain

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: 5/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 54078
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

BradK

Pro

First round is for acceptance, and laying out your definitions, facts and what have you.

My argument elaborated: Free will has been debated for as long as anyone can remember. Asking if a bacteria has free will is a confusing question, because we aren't sure how do define free will. But asking if a human has free will somehow makes more sense, even though we are still asking about the presence of the same thing: free will. Suppose you say free will came along somewhere in the evolution of man... well at what point did we gain free will? Suppose you say life has always had free will, well how do you define life; at what point after a universe made of nothing but hydrogen did life come into existence?

I argue that we never had free will at any point in time in the known universe. Since the brain is too complicated to predict, we use "free will" as a cop out explanation as to why humans do the things that they do.
nerosmoke

Con

First round is for acceptance and laying out your definitions, facts and what have you.

ok debate on

now there is something to point out about you frist post

what does bacteria have to do with anything all bacteria is eat and grow that all anyone wants to do any way (think do trees want to grow or do they not) it point less

human has free will somehow makes more sense yes it does even in the support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will

so we had free will with the constitution and with worship 2 points

free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions.

the gray spot is could some people be too stuped to under stand freedom like people in china tiwon ect

Determinism is All events are caused. All our actions are therefore pre-determined. There is no free will or moral responsibility.

this debate is Free will vs Determinism

also check out my other debate
http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
BradK

Pro

I am impressed by your debauchery of improper grammar. Unfortunately the end result is not enigmatic, it is just low quality, so I will make sense of what I can and humbly ignore the rest.

---

So what you are trying to say in your first point seems to be that since growing itself is an undeniably desirable action, to say that free will has any impact on growing is nonsensical. Of course, when the cells themselves grow it is a chemical reaction, and since a chemical reaction follows the laws of nature there is no choice in the matter. It is just as senseless to say that objects fall when dropped because of free will and not gravity, as it is to say an organism grows because of free will. I agree with that, but that's not what I was getting at.

The reason I brought up bacteria is because bacteria have much less intelligence than humans (it's just an obvious fact). The bacteria, certainly with this lesser intelligence, does not have the ability to make choices with the depth a human has. And it is this depth of the power of choice that is called "human free will". So, it necessarily follows that at some point in history the life on planet earth gained this power of choice, as the free will lobbyists are so happy to point out. As I explain through this graphic:



It is unclear at what point in history we reached these stages. When did matter stop being predictable? When did life stop being predictable. I argue that it never has, but to be able to predict what life will do is curently beyond human capacity. That's why saying "humans have free will" is a cop-out.

---

The second intelligable point you made was that free will is the ability of a human to control their actions. You then postulated that a corrupt dictatorship may take away this free will by making people "too stuped" to think for themselves. Free will DOES NOT require that people act on their choices. Free will is merely the ability to foresee that it is possible to turn a vision into an action. A dictatorship would thus not remove free will.

---

Your third intelligable point (congrats for making it to three) is actually in favour of the resolution. It appears that you have conceded defeat already in your first argument.

---

The other debate you had has nothing to do with this debate, nor has your other debate even finished yet.

I am generally offended by your lack of interest in this debate, your poor communications skills, and your inadequately explained points.
nerosmoke

Con

I am impressed by your debauchery of improper grammar. Unfortunately the end result is not enigmatic, it is just low quality, so I will make sense of what I can and humbly ignore the rest.

well fu** you too buddy

now why did I type that is it because of my free will or that you made me? this was gona be a good debate but now srecw it niga

ok

It is unclear at what point in history we reached these stages. When did matter stop being predictable? When did life stop being predictable. I argue that it never has, but to be able to predict what life will do is curently beyond human capacity. That's why saying "humans have free will" is a cop-out.

well I clear cant understand you from you missing one r when currently you are typing who can understand it?

curently

currently

ok you be a butt musher now to the debate

well bacteria why not I think that is what you pic is trying to show i don't quite understand it but ok when god made the earth man and sext lady that would the first point this comes and the only time this would be answered (note just because i used god it could be some aliens space tacos what ever that made people gave them free will )

then this

The second intelligable point you made was that free will is the ability of a human to control their actions. You then postulated that a corrupt dictatorship may take away this free will by making people "too stuped" to think for themselves.

intelligable able to be understood so if you could understand me thats great

unintelligible is what you are saying naga

now again i don't know what you means i am right thank you very much

intelligable

intelligible

unintelligible

i cant tell :)


bacteria has free will is a confusing question, because we aren't sure how do define free will

if so whay keep asking it? google is a good way to find out

bacteria have much less intelligence than humans (it's just an obvious fact).

you have not posted any proof of this so this is a statement and there is no fact only opinion


A dictatorship would thus not remove free will.

Dictatorship is a form of government where political authority is often monopolized by a single person or a political party, and exercised through various oppressive mechanisms.[1][2]

A dictatorship is similar to authoritarianism, and differs from totalitarianism where a state that regulates nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of its people. Dictatorships are defined by the source of the governing power and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power. Dictatorship is opposed to democracy. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, opposes pluralism.

Dictatorships can be legitimate or not depending on the circumstances, objectives and methods employed.

  1. 1 Authoritarianism is a form of government. It is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.
  2. 2 Democracy is a form of government. No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics since ancient times.[6][7] These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.[8][9]
  3. 3 democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution
  4. 4 Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds totalauthority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.[1]

    The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920s by the Weimar German jurist, and later Nazi academic, Carl Schmitt and Italian fascists. Schmitt used the term, Totalstaat in his influential work on the legal basis of an all-powerful state.[2] The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era, in order to highlight perceived similarities betweenNazi Germany and other Fascist states on the one hand, and Soviet Communist Party states on the other


in the usa we have this thing call the constitution and the declaration

if all men are born free and equal ( born free from what? space tacos that control us?)

if you are not from the USA and don't know about America you should Google it or something



Debate Round No. 2
BradK

Pro

I'm ok with making a couple of digs at each other. You can take a few digs at me as well, I don't mind, but please refrain from using unoriginal profanity.

The Adam & Eve creation story is fictional, you can't use that in this debate. We are going to have to side with modern science or there is no point in having this debate. If you want to debate Adam and Eve, please do that somewhere else. And you are right, it doesn't matter whether it was a God, or a Space Taco in the fictional story, the effect is the same either way.

---

If everything we could ever know about free will could be found on google, then there wouldn't be so many debates about it. Free will is one of those things that isn't understood. That's why the resolution I'm arguing in favour of is "free will is a cop-out explanation for a grander process than humans can currently model/understand scientifically".

---

Above all, please stay on topic. I will respect what you say for the duration of this debate, but only because I agree with the idea behind the website and wish to follow the rules. I ask that you do the same.
nerosmoke

Con

I'm ok with making a couple of digs at each other. You can take a few digs at me as well, I don't mind, but please refrain from using unoriginal profanity.

yea I fine too we are men and no big deal and did you make me to say it or because of my free will?

The Adam & Eve creation story is fictional is debate able but too answer you question is when did mam kind frist have free will that is when it would be or when ever the space taco made man

If everything we could ever know about free will could be found on google i think it is at least when i google it

"Free Will" is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware"or failing that, being culpably unaware"of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship. (See Kane 1996, 81ff. and Clarke 2003, Ch.1; but see also Pereboom 2001, Ch.7.) 4

Free will is one of those things that isn't understood.

ok so some kidnapps 200 something girls and no free will comes to what?

That's why the resolution I'm arguing in favour of is "free will is a cop-out explanation for a grander process than humans can currently model/understand scientifically"

ok i thought this debate is Free will vs Determinism

but it not it is about the brain

"The area of the brain responsible for self-control"where the decision not to do something occurs after thinking about doing it"is separate from the area associated with taking action, scientists say in the August 22 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience"

Free will, or at least the place where we decide to act, is sited in a part of the brain called the parietal cortex, new research suggests.

"What it tells us is there are specific brain regions that are involved in the consciousness of your movement,"

so this part of the brain would control free will

so how would this be a cop out

Read more at: http://phys.org...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...
Debate Round No. 3
BradK

Pro

If you agree that the Adam and Eve creation story, then you agree you have no reason to use it as the historical milestone where mankind gained free will.

Just to add to that: with evolution, each offspring looks similar to its parent. I use that fact to support what I was getting at in the diagram above. Since the child of a rat looks almost identical to its parent, and the child of a human looks almost identical to its parent, and a tree or plant looks almost identical to its immediately preceding generation, it's impossible to draw a line between a parent who had volition, and a child who didn't. By analogy it's just as ridiculous to try and draw the line between black and white on this picture:



(anywhere you draw a line, the colour in front of and behind it will be indistinguishable)

But I didn't even need to go into detail, you already admitted that you don't think the Adam and Eve story is historically valid. So you have yet to provide me with a point in time where free will would have arisen. It's impossible to do this anyway, any attempt you make will fail as I have explained.

---

I'm sorry I don't know what you mean by "ok so some kidnapps 200 something girls and no free will comes to what?". Please perform a spelling and grammar check before submitting, thank you.

---

Yes, free will, determinism, and the brain are all the same "can of worms". If you have anything to say about either of them it will be relevant. I'm saying the brain is deterministic, to state the resolution with brevity, if you like to think about it that way.

Even though there is an area of the brain that makes decisions, that doesn't mean that the decisions were made through free will. A computer also has a place in its microcontroller where it chooses whether to add numbers or subtract them based on whether an input is high or low respectively, for example. Would you say that the computer has free will? I would say that it does not because the computer is entirely predictable. The computer can't decide to override the decision to add numbers even though the control input was low, so it's obvious that the computer has no free will.

The brain is more complicated. But who is to say that this control area in the front of the brain that you mentioned is not just a bigger, fractal design of the same kind of logic elements found in computers? In other words, why must there be a spooky, unpredictable source of volition in the human brain?
nerosmoke

Con

nerosmoke forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BradK

Pro

I'll just state concisely what my point is for this since the last round was forfeited.

Computers are made of logic elements, both analog and digital. However the computer is easy enough to understand. If you were a lesser intelligent mammal like a rat however, you might confuse a computer for a sentient being since you are not intelligent enough to understand how the computer works. Since you the rat, cannot explain why the computer does what it does, you decide the computermust have free will.

The we are analogous to rats trying to understanding computers, when it comes to us trying to understand our own brains. We can't explain why humans do what they do, but that does not prove that it can never be fully explained. Just because there is no way to predict exactly how humans will behave, doesn't mean that it will always be impossible to do so. That's why free-will is as much of a cop out explanation for human behaviour, as it would be for a dumb rat to explain the behaviour of a computer as "the result of free will.

Free will is a cop out explanation for human behaviour.
nerosmoke

Con

I had some error with my last post so I could not post what I had

computer are made by man so there goes evolution

the Brian is more complex than any computer we have or ever will be one

http://curiosity.discovery.com...

We can't explain why humans do what they do

yes we can there are people who are looking into every day mapping the brain what each part does

Just because there is no way to predict exactly how humans will behave

the part of the brain that controls free will could be cut out or some could be born with brain damage that could prevent free will and there is drugs that can change someone mind but most people like this would be in a hospital

That's why free-will is as much of a cop out explanation for human behaviour, as it would be for a dumb rat to explain the behaviour of a computer as "the result of free will.

this makes no sense

I work with computers what does rats have to do with any thing and the Brian is more complex than a computer

as pro burden of proof was needed and my post did not go through I feel could not reach the conclusion warranted

I would like to debate this again so I could have a through conclusion
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Mhykiel
If you restarted the debate should voters leave this one a tie?
Posted by nerosmoke 3 years ago
nerosmoke
note I am still having issues with posting that is why this duplicated
Posted by nerosmoke 3 years ago
nerosmoke
I restarted the debate

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by nerosmoke 3 years ago
nerosmoke
I restarted the debate

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by nerosmoke 3 years ago
nerosmoke
animals that can think for them selfs take care of others bulid stuff cars planes spaceships life saveing medical stuff people do two much stuff

and people and a little smarter than animals and i think some animals can i know my dog could i dont know about cat mabey thay could?
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
But humans are animals
Posted by BradK 3 years ago
BradK
Well if there is something wrong with what I just said I would love for you to point out one of the things that is wrong with it :)
Posted by Boesball 3 years ago
Boesball
There is so much wrong with what you said.
No votes have been placed for this debate.