I am the only individual in existence with free will.
Resolved: One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in exsistence with free will.
Thesis: In this debate I will assert logically that out of all people who roam the earth, I am the sole individual who has free will; does this mean that I believe I am objectively the only one? Well not exactly, but in essence yes. Truth can be based off of persepctive, take for example the theory of relativity and its conclusions on the speed of an object. Furthermore I have a different definition of free will than most people which holds free will to be more of an experience than anything else, and thus one could imagine that I might argue using the connections between that fact and the perspectives.
I would like everyone to know that I have formulated this theory on my own, I will respond as best as I can to all arguments and try to respond so that anyone could understand my point. My goal of instigation is the furthering of the argument not winning neccesarily, so the more logical arguments con makes the happier I am. For this reason, I don't Really care about winning the debate, just improving my stance, which I think is in the best interest of both parties to be honest. You don't have to understand this debate to accept it, you must simply know what you Do Not understand so that you may point it out and I may thus expand my argument but please also be willing lister as well. Thanks, look forward to the debate. Apply in comments.
1st person perspective- Your personal perspective, taking into account only what you perceive.(just like in a story)
3rd person detached- observes all things that happen as if looking at them, takes into account every attribute in a situation except the experiences themselves (just like a movie narrator)
3rd person omniscient- This perspective takes into account everything, every perspective and every detail of a situation, even its own.
By acceting this round, you do not accept the following to be true, this is the case, the first argument. (keep in mind this means that acceptance and your first argument are in the same round)
The Argument Part 1
1.) Everything in the universe is calculable and thus ‘predetermined’
2.) As a human individual I could theoretically be put in a position demonstrating the calculable nature of other people and things
3.) As a human individual I could never be put into a position demonstrating my own calculability, this would bare a paradox
4.) Thus from my perspective I am the only individual with free will
1.) to win I must show that it is reasonable or rational to believe the idea that I am the only person who has free will.
2.) Con must prove that such a claim or belief is unreasionable and/or irrational. The debate will come down to whether or not the ideas presented could reasonably be accepted by a person.
3.) You accept the premise that determinism is a valid theory.
Hello, I welcome all viewers and voters and may this be a thought provoking debate. Let’s being…
I would first like to start off by responding to Furyan5’s initial statements. In the last round it was posited that free will is an illusion, this is because the universe is predetermined. But what I have to wonder is how exactly this impacts my case, as there was never a direct response to me which discredits any of my actual argument. It seems in fact that this wasn’t really a response to my case but a position of his own case on free will, in general. Without having stated the reasons for which this discredits my argument I must assume it is simply off topic, in essence, Furyan’s remarks don’t indicate the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Thus, while I think Furyan’s ideas are interesting, they don’t negate the resolution. It would be best if in the following rounds we simply refuted the case itself as I thought was agreed about before the debate.
In lieu of this, I would simply like to expand upon my argument more.
How perspective relates to truth and deriving each perspectives existance
As a man walked from the Shanghai market back to his village he began to get weary. Eventually the man had to stop for a break but alas, he was being followed by crooks who wanted to salvage the day’s earnings, the man tried to escape but being in his mid 50’s he wasn’t as spry as the old days. They knocked him over the head and he tumbled to the ground unconscious. He awoke over 5 hours later at 11 pm. “It’s night time! Ive got to get back home and treat my wounds” he exclaimed. As he stumbled back home he would never be aware of multifarious amount of satellites constantly passing over head, day and night. But what did the the satellites see? Up from their nook they clearly observed that the earth was half covered in light, and half in shadow. It was in fact both day and night on earth. Now this is an interesting concept, how can something be and not be? Well, according to the Law of Non-contradiction, nothing can, but we know reality works differently. Now don’t mistake me, the Law of NonC is usually correct, but not always. If someone were to ask me if a table had yellow paint on it, or gum under the table, there would only be one answer. The table could not both have And not have paint/gum on it correct? But what if someone asked you if the individual sitting at the table across the room was a male or a female? As it turns out the Law of NonC doesn’t apply here, as it doesn’t in many circumstances, because as we know a person can indeed be both a male and a female if they are transgender…..The overarching point here is that truth is not 100% black and white and is subject to perspective, DEPENDING ON THE TRUTH IN QUESTION, THAT IS. And free will is one of those loopy, weird truths, just like day and night, which isn’t black and white in its truth value in any given moment.
The universe is truth, it simply IS, and it is therefore an entirely factual existence. The universe has no consciousness, nor does it have any sense of time….ect, it is just a thing which exists and nothing more. Consciousness however, is entirely different from the universe (despite that fact that it is made from it). Consciousness exists as its own ‘existence’. What you and I experience and are experiencing at this very moment is a conglomeration impulses, emotions and other physical states, but consciousness itself, as the combo of those physical states which are formed into an experience, is intangible and doesn’t exist as we know it.
But we need to remember that the only way we can even understand the entire previous argument is through our consciousness, in order to understand things we have to empathize with them, look at things from their shoes. But how do we empathize with the truth in reality? How do we empathize with the universe, that which has no consciousness? We do something very simple, to account for the disparity in existence between the two, we simply pretend that the universe has a consciousness, that is, that there is a being, a perspective which sees all things as they really, truly and factually are, as we speak through it. We call this the detached perspective, it is the perspective that ‘knows’ it is objectively both day and night simultaneously on the earth. Humans on the other hand live in the first person perspective, we are restricted and limited in our perception of reality. Now, this isn’t to say that a human (1 person perspective) can’t also know that is both day and night, for instance a person on the ISS, but the point was to show, using a familiar scenario, that humans are limited and restricted, while we all can agree, speaking through this made up detached perspective, that even though it is either day or night for US, that objectively it is both day and night.
But now there is an issue….If in all of existence there are two separate realities, we need to account for both to achieve the Ultimate truth of the situation. And this is where the omniscient perspective comes into play. For people to be able to make claims about not just one segment of reality, but all of them, we need yet another perspective. So to answer what the omniscient perspective is it will simply be, the perspective of everything. Taking into account all perspecives. Thus, in this perspective for instance we would clearly be able to tell that, while sally thinks pop tarts are terrible, and jonny thinks they are great, that pop tarts are both great and not great, because here we can empathize with both perspectives.
“A being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, would smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will." Albert Einstein .....[On the detached perspective]
So here we have covered a few key areas. I have derived each perspective’s basis, origin and use and should be able to more clearly use them in explanations now.
Thank you, I pass the pen back to CON
Thanks for defining free will.
I am the only individual in existance with free will....
If free will doesn't exist this statement is false.
Choice is but a hypothetical creation of the mind showing a variety of potential expected outcomes. It gives us the illusion of free will but does not exist. At the moment of action there is only one possible option. As my opponent does not wish to persue that aspect of the dabate I will not attempt further proof.
Yes, truth is subjective to each person and although it may seem to contradict at times, as in it being day/night/both depending on your perspective, the fact remains that from your perspective only one is true. If you are on the dark side of the planet it is night (on that side of the planet) Not the whole planet.
As an individual you can only see one perspective
Pro claims that if he is ever put in a position showing his own calculability it would bare a paradox. This is where the claim fails. He could never be put in that position because only at the moment of action is a action set. Before the action it is merely hypothetical and after the action it can't be changed. You can't know what you going to do till that moment arrives. But that doesn't mean you have choice when that moment arrives. Its predestined.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.
So far I agree that everything you say is true from your perspective. But it is also true from my perspective.
But subjective truths can't both be true.....well that is the common misconception.
The fact is we are both looking at different realities.
Real is defined by our perceptions. To perceive the same reality we would need to occupy the same spot and grasp the same concepts. Every sense needs to be perfectly alligned so we see, smell,feel, tase and hear exactly the same. To be honest, I believe the reality my left eye sees is a different reality from the one my right eye sees. And my brain combines the two creating I third. I could also close both eyes to create a 4th reality.
Therefore billions of realities exist and although similar in appearance its possible for something to be true in your reality and false in mine.
Take an orange. We both look at it and agree the orange is real. But we are not looking at the same orange. Your angle of view differs from mine. And what is seeing? There is no light shining from the orange? Its light being reflected off the skin. The actual colour of a orange is (absorbing all coloures except orange) which we can't percieve.
So is there a bigger picture? A being who sees all realities? I dnt know. But if there was it would be pointless to create us and predestine our actions. The outcome would be predictable. Unless an element of randomnes is added. Nothing too big as it may destroy the entire realities. I would love that to be me. And everything that happens around me has a purpose. For me to learn. But by writing this down for you to read I am teaching, not learning. So sadly I must admit I am not the one with free will.
There is however a problem. You also taught me quite a bit. Therefore you are not the one with free will.
There is only one person with free will. The person reading this debate. This person has learnt from both of us.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|