The Instigator
PreacherFred
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Harlan
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Man has the ability to exercise free will

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,970 times Debate No: 98
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (18)

 

PreacherFred

Pro

This topic has been discussed since the earliest of times and involves religious, ethical, and scientific implications. In the realm of theology, the Creator does not assert His omnipotent power over individual will thereby allowing humans to make choices. On an ethical plane, without free will, how can we hold anyone morally accountable for their actions. While great strides have been made in scientifically mapping the thought process, the actions of the body are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question is: Does the machine (brain) control the soul or does the soul control the machine?

In contemplating on whether or not to issue this challenge, I weighed all of the options and possibilities (consequences) of my contemplated action and decided to go ahead and issue the challenge.

My intention is not to win or loose the debate, but supply a forum where ideas can be freely exchanged in a refreshing, open atmosphere without rancor.
Harlan

Con

Hello, Fred. This is one of my favorite subjects, and I am glad to have this debate with you.

The photons emitting from my computer screen have triggered a complicated cause and effect, resulting in me accepting the challenge.

I would like to start off by establishing what free will is. We are discussing the theoretical ability of the mind to make decisions of its own, and to control its own fate.

I would now like to speculate on the nature of a mind. Its home is the brain. The brain is a physical object, which acts like any other physical object. Chemical reactions occur within it, which makes our "decisions" and "thoughts". You will refute by saying that we control our decisions. If you see a plate of food in front of you would eat it, right? If there was no plate of food there, would you have still made the decision to eat it? No. Of course not, several things, including the smell of the food, and your vision that reveals the food, CAUSED you to eat it.

The brain is such an endlessly complex thing, but it still follows rules and cause and effect just like anything else. The nature of this speculation is incredible, as it is that of a brain pondering on the workings of it. We can, of course, never fully understand and predict the complex chemical reactions of a brain. Because we may not predict it, we assume it controls its own fate. The same may be applied to the rolling of a die. No man can predict what number it will land on when tossed across a game- board. We perceive it to be random. Though it is obvious that it is not random, and the die still follows the laws of physics, and every little crumb on the table that the die comes across, causes the die to make a slightly different course.

Let's look back to history, shall we? In the very early ages, before science, people would perceive that things such as rain were the will of gods, and would dance and what not for rain. Of course none of them could perceive of water being held in clouds, evaporation or what not, so they assume that the rain has a will of its own. In our advanced era, we know that rain is caused by a predictable system of cause and effect. How is our brain any different?

I have no wish to turn this into a theological debate, for I am an atheist. I will note however, that there is in fact, theological determinism. You should look it up. It is the belief that god controls the actions of Humans.

wrote more ethic and sci can post round 1 or in comments. prefference?
Debate Round No. 1
PreacherFred

Pro

Thank you, Harlan, for accepting this debate. In contemplating to asking you, I did weigh in certain parameters that might apply. I respect your beliefs as an Atheist as, I am sure, you respect mine as a Christian. A classic tool of anger management and conflict resolution is to agree to disagree. Therefore, as I indicated in my opening statement that while discussing free will does involve theological, ethical and scientific levels of discussion, I will agree to focus most of my attention to the scientific arena leaving the rest for future debates.

Without a doubt, science has been making great strides in explaining the inner workings of the human brain. Some studies have even shown that an electrical impulse caused by a chemical reaction can be observed a split second before the thought becomes conscious. This would seem to back up your theory. However, could not science be mistaken as to what that observed process actually is? Science assumes that the process involves the formation of thinking. Could it not, however, be recording a memory process that is being played back by the machine (brain) which would allow us to make a more rational thought based upon past experiences? Much like a computer, anything that ever happens to us is recorded in our brain. And, as you indicate, an external stimulus may occur to cause the brain to recall that memory and replay it in our brain which we can, therefore, use to make rational decisions?

As infants, we are attracted to that bright orange and blue, dancing, flame. We want to play with that flame despite warnings that we should not. At this point the brain does not have any memory to fall back on to tell us not to play with it. Once we feel the intense heat and finding it not to be pleasurable the brain records a strong memory to not play with fire. In the future when the brain is stimulated by the site of flame, the brain recalls the memory lesson and quickly replays it in order that we can conclude to not touch the flame.

Some of these recorded memories become so strong that we come to trust them as irrefutable fact. It was a fact, based upon the collective experience influenced by the then available means of transport, that the world was flat. As man developed the means of transportation that could go further, men like Columbus and Prince Henry the navigator began to challenge that "collective memory" and developed a thought that the world was, indeed, round. They decided to prove that cognitive thought and defy the "collective memory" and subsequently proved the world to be round. I thought to instigate this debate and proceeded to weigh all of the possible outcomes and I (with respectful emphasis) decided to proceed with the challenge perceiving that the outcome had more potential for good than it did for bad.

In your analogy of the die, you state that the apparent randomness of the process of throwing the die is just that, apparent. Even factoring in other things as the lint, quality of the felt, the degree of the force of the throw, etc. there is a limited, although large, amount of possibilities on the outcome of the action. Could we not take this a little further? The brain contains a beaker-full of chemicals. While the number is again huge, this limited amount of chemicals can be combined in a limited number of ways in order to produce a limited number of results. This would seem to say, then, that man's thought processes are limited. How, then, could man ever progress to the point where science is today if there isn't something more than the limited amount of thought processes that can be achieved with that beaker-full of chemicals?

You state that "Because we cannot predict it (the complex chemical reactions) we assume it "the brain) controls its own fate." I respectfully submit that this statement is inherently flawed since "x "amount of chemical processes can only result in "y" outcomes. Once "y" outcomes is determined, then we could predict the outcome of anything, even the future. While I may be able to influence what will happen in the future by what I do today, I cannot be certain that I will do tomorrow what I did today. I may decide to do something different.

Aside from Spiritual aspects, could not the Shaman be a more focused person that was more attuned to the workings of nature in those ancient times? Being more attuned to the changes of nature he may have noticed certain signs (that the People didn't) to which he concluded that the chance of rain occurring were sufficient enough to call the People to a rain dance? His success rate was probably just as good as today's meteorologists. Much as we malign today's weather man, we still tune into the weather forecast in order to attempt to plan our day.

In conclusion, there is a distinct possibility that modern science is just beginning to map out and record the memory processes of man rather than the result: cognitive thought.
Harlan

Con

Hello,

I agree the primary nature of this debate should be that of science.

I do not think that science is "mistaken" but will consider what you have to say…However you look at it; outside influences cause it to happen. Things don't decide to happen. A planet doesn't decide to orbit the sun. A tree does not decide to fall down. Our brain, like the planet and the tree, is a physical object, made of physical, tangible components. Therefore it should act in the same manner. Things only happen because other things cause them to happen. With your logic, we should be able to control the universe with our mind. We obviously can't. Does this make sense? Otherwise, things could happen for no reason, because they Caused themselves to come into existence, which is wholly impossible.

The memory, the trial and error that has been learned, and many other things don't allow you to touch the flame. Do you have freewill, Fred? Tomorrow, go about your regular business skipping, wearing a pink tutu, singing Britney spears, while repeatedly stabbing yourself in the leg, and drinking gasoline. Can you? Get back to me on this one.

Memory is not the only thing that controls what a person does. Innumerable factors are involved in this equation. You seem to only focus on memory. With your theory of using memory for helping rational thought, doesn't memory have some control over "rational thought", you admitted yourself that many of your decisions are based on memories. Can memories not CAUSE a "decision" to happen, then?

"How, then, could man ever progress to the point where science is today if there isn't something more than the limited amount of thought processes that can be achieved with that beaker-full of chemicals?"

Good question. Does any one person fully understand every single advance in technology known to man, or have the potential to invent all of them? Humans are social animals. How can ants, with EXTREMELY limited brains, build those mounds, and have an affective system of attaining food? Joint force. Humanity is big. Anyways, just because the brain is limited at some point, does not mean there are several possibilities. The chaos theory explains to us that the slightest change in an equation, the tiniest itty bitty change can make very different outcomes in the equation. Let us take all the numbers, let's say, 1-10,000,000. That is limited. But imagine all the near-endless solutions to using those numbers in equations.

"Once "y" outcomes is determined, then we could predict the outcome of anything, even the future"

AHA!...You are surfacing on a whole new area of such things as determinism. The chaos theory explains this too, though. This idea is on the very edge of chaos. Do you know what one of the main ways the chaos theory was discovered? Predicting weather patterns. They tried, but then found that the computer was rounding the tiniest little fraction to the nearest something or other (for there are infinitely many fractions within one unit). The weather equation was seen to turn out one way, but when the computer did the equation again later, the outcome was completely different. To conclude, a Human mind cannot possibly be predicted by a human mind, but IF there was some sort of entity, possibly a super computer that could factor in every variable in the universe, and knew every thing, every variable in play and in what existence they were, it is perceivable that the future could be predicted. Realustically, this is probably not going to happen.

When we are discussing science, we must acknowledge evolution, don't you agree? Well…We know that at one point our ancestors were bacteria of some sort. Do bacteria have free-will? Or do you perceive that that was adopted somewhere along the way. The relevance if this is…We will not possibly fully apprehend our brains in their unimaginably complex state to which they are today, so the one way to go about it is to look at a simpler form of our brain. Scientifically, a Human is an animal. Animals obviously do not have fre-will, so we shouldn't either.

If you truly to make this into a scientific debate, I can warn you that science is on my side. If you don't believe me, ask a scientist. In fact, let's ask the greatest scientist of the 20th century:

"In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, that ‘a man can do as he will, but not will as he will,' has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralysing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it conduces to a view of life in which humour, above all, has its due place"
--Albert Einstein

out of spac
Debate Round No. 2
PreacherFred

Pro

You present some apparently very good points, my friend. While you don't think that science can be mistaken, haven't earlier theories been disproven as time goes on? Therefore, what is being promoted as absolute scientific truth today may very well be proven wrong tomorrow. Both the planets and the trees do not have the ability, as far as we know, to think and therefore cannot determine their own fate. While things may come about because something caused them to begin the process of cognitive thought , the ability to exercise free will is a matter of choice. Something may stimulate a thought in my mind but I may decide to ponder that thought, if ever, at a later time.

While we may not be able to control the universe yet, the mind is a powerful force. It is said that the conscious mind is like the picture of an iceberg. Only 10% of the iceberg is showing above water level with 90% below water. That part below water is equal to our subconscious mind which, for the most part, is going about its business without us knowing exactly what it is doing. While experiments by Benjamin Libet show that unconscious brain activity precedes the conscious decision, he does not interpret his findings as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will. Libet points out that: "although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains the right to veto that action in the last few milliseconds."

Memory can serve man very well. It is but a tool and, as such, is only effective if I use it but if I do it will make things easier. The older we get, the more items are stored in the memory bank, and have been reinforced to the point that we accept them without further thought. Without thinking about it I know in a millisecond of memory that touching the flame is not going to be a very smart thing to do. The only control memory has over rational thought is what I have decided to give it. Past experience tells me that skipping around the facility I work at might be dangerous, wearing a pink tutu is just not my style (I have decided, although I once consciously wore a brown shoe and a black shoe to a class I was teaching in order to prove a point.) and at my age I have difficulty remembering the lyrics to most songs. I have a distinct aversion to needles and experience tells me that a bowie knife would cause much more pain and damage and my studies show that drinking gasoline, although some desperate alcoholics have tried it, could definitely be fatal. While I could very well choose to do any of those things that you suggest, I would more than likely choose not to do them.

No matter how large the number, possible outcomes are limited. Free will, however, is the monkey wrench in the machine. Could it be, Harlan, that a "human mind cannot possibly be predicted by a human mind" because a human mind cannot predict another's free will? You are probably right in that man will never build a super computer capable of predicting the future exactly because any computer is built upon human input and you just can't input free will into a computer.

You hit upon something that we have agreed to debate in the future, the theological question of when, in the evolutionary time line, free will was infused and by Whom! You are correct in stating that animals do not have free will. While man's body may have evolved from animals, it is free will that makes us different from them.

Einstein specifically states that he is talking from a philosophical point and offers no scientific proof as a basis for his assumption. Einstein also wrote: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." His famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice."
Harlan

Con

Hello

Science itself, by definition can not be mistaken, while scientific theories can be disproved (thus eliminating the "Science" element of it). The idea that people use free will to decide whether they want free will is ludicrous (it is like saying, "vote no if you don't want democracy"). A thought can certainly cause another thought to form. All a "thought" is, is the complex-calculator-that-is-the-mind's process that you are aware of.

Assuming that you were "sane" (a relevant term, mind you), my mind concluded that you would not be able to carry out my thoughtful suggestion. I was right. You could not do it. Your mind kept you from doing it.

"While I could very well choose to do any of those things that you suggest, I would more than likely choose not to do them"

You "could" have done them? If our world fo0llows cause and vent, I was aware that if something in the past did or did not happen, there was no other possible course of events, as there is no such thing as randomness. You "more than likely" would have done what you did? Things are not random, Fred. Things only happen if things cause them to happen.

Are you saying that the mind has infinite possibilities? This is obviously not true…the mind is limited at some point. Do not get me wrong, the Human mind has a very complex system for deciding courses of action, but not infinite. Well, it depends what you mean by "infinite", for inside the number 1, there is an infinite amount of variations (1.1, 1.01, 1.001, 1.0001, 1.00001, 1.000001, 1.132432543246322542523) The mind is not capable of everything, though. Theoretically, the human mind could be predicted, but because of the chaos theory, it would be INCREDIBLY difficult, but once more, the Human mind is not capable of everything, and it would take well over a lifetime (WELL, well over) to factor in and understand all the variables in the universe, for one moment in time. I doubt that we will create a computer if such computing power, because where would we get all the information? You can not fit a universe in a computer. Way, way too much information. It is probably not something we could do. Though strictly theoretically, it is "possible". How could I make the assertion that you would not do the actions I asked of you to take? Of course I did not know all the variables of the Universe, and thus I was not sure, but I knew that few minds were allowed to work in this manner, though some might be forced to.

I do not believe in such a thing as a god "investing" free will in someone (side-note: who put the freewill in the god?). While we are in a scientific debate, you must agree that a Human is an animal. You stated yourself: "animals do not have free will". Do you concede, then? Or do you take that back? Or would you make the argument that scientifically Humans are not animals (which is unfactual)? Or do you revise that statement to say: "animals, exempt Humans, do not have freewill". I would be OK with this. Though our brains work the exact same way as other animals.

The purpose of quoting Einstein was that not only does he have great understanding of things, and would be a great person for input, he summed it up very nicely. God does not play dice indeed, and accordingly nothing is random or happening for no reason, thus there being no freewill.

Since we are debating with the context of science, the scientific world is a logical one. In this world (our world) things happen because things made them happen, not because they decide to happen. No offense, but I don't think you're going deep enough, Fred. You must keep asking "why" on every aspect. WHY do we do this? WHY does our mind decide that? WHAT made it decide that? WHY did it make it decide that? Things happen for reasons. You are just floating on the surface when you say that the mind has memories, but somehow those brain cells decide their own fate. You need to delve, and try to find the reason for each and every aspect. And therein lies the answer, everything has a reason, and thus the brain cells cannot decide their own fate.

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 3
PreacherFred

Pro

Harlan, the definition of science is:" ability to produce solutions in some problem domain." It is a fact that solutions that were valid yesterday, may become invalid today based upon further research. Sometimes, the scientist comes to a conclusion based upon flawed data making his conclusion invalid – or a mistake. I don't think I said people decide on whether or not they want free will. I do say that man has the ability to use free will, or he can choose not to thereby utilizing only that portion of his brain that responds to instinct, the reptilian brain. A thought certainly can form another thought. "I think I will write a book," may produce another thought: "What kind of book will I write?"

I am glad that you assumed that I am sane. In doing so you might have even placed a wager on my response because, being sane, why would I want to do things that are considered by most to be insane? The fact remains that I could have done some of those things you proposed (I once danced onstage acting like a stripper akin to wearing a pink tutu to work) but I considered the consequences and decided they were not things that I should do, especially at work! What would force me to do something that I choose not to do?

I truly believe that the power of the mind is infinite. The more we use it, the better we get at doing things. Doesn't it seem that each generation seems "smarter" than the previous ones? Perhaps we are observing a micro-second of evolution? When computers first were developed, they were the size of a room. Today, I am working on a minuscule laptop going at corvette speeds compared to the model T speed of the older ones. Computers will continually evolve into smarter, faster machines because someone decided to study and research computer technology and take it to the next level by experimentation. If it is theoretically possible, then it can be done…we just haven't figured out how yet!

Again, we will leave the origin of free will to the theological debate and remain in the scientific realm. Miriam-Webster defines human as "of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: a: having human form or attributes b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature." An example would be all Native Americans are Native Americans, but not all are Wampanoag Native Americans. Something sets them apart. While man may be described as a "bi-pedal mammal" something sets us apart from all other mammals: our ability to make decisions, to make choices, to exercise free will. We can ask the questions: "Who? What? Why? What are the consequences? Then we can decide to act, or not act.

I am an addict (alcohol being a drug)science tells me that I inherited a genetic makeup that made me so. Science can demonstrate that prolonged use of the drug causes further alterations within my brain chemistry. That makes sense. I took something that caused a change that effected my brain. However, a pathological gambler never ingests anything yet science shows the same brain chemistry changes as the alcoholic. But, the pathological gambler never ingested anything to cause the effect on the brain. His repetitive behavior (or, thinking)did. Sort of like mind over matter, wouldn't you say? By doing certain things over and over again I have developed a newer habit (sobriety) that defies my genetic nature and the changes caused to my brain chemistry by continued use of the drug. Certainly not an easy feat but I haven't had a drink in almost seven years. Defies nature, don't you think? The fact is I first tried recovery back in 1998 but I only have seven years of "clean time." Recovery didn't work until I chose to do the things necessary to make it work despite my genetic makeup! I chose!

Things (planets, trees, etc.) certainly do not make things work. I make things work by using my intellect and my freedom to choose what to make work. Perhaps, Harlan, my "why" questions are meant for you to think about my statements in a different way than you have in the past. Everything does have a reason but man has not been able to discover every reason just yet. Logical is defined as being "capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; a logical mind." Truth is, life can be illogical at times.
Harlan

Con

Hello,

In actuality, what is later discovered to be invalid was in fact invalid from the start, but this is irrelevant. Instinct and what you perceive to be "rational thought" (but what is really just extremely complex cause and effect which appear to be rational) are deeply intermingled.

No, you either did do as I proposed, or you didn't, and to the fortune of your co-workers you did the latter. It is not as if you "could" have done something else. At the time, I could not predict the future (My mind did not know all the variables), and thus was not positive which crossroad events would inevitably take, and it may have been perceived by some, that it was random, or that events chose the crossroad. But now, that we can look back to the past (based on memory) and observe the outcome, we can reasonably conclude that the equation could only add up to your un-compliance with my friendly suggestion. Let me explain this mathematically:

We will use a simple equation for this experiment, quite unlike the complex equations of the mind. The equation is: 2+3. We, in this context, know all variables involved: 2 and 3. Using our knowledge of all the variables in question, and our mind's amazing computing ability, we can predict the future and say it will equal 5. This is a much simplified version, however. In reality, being the humans with oh so limited minds; we would NOT know all the variables. Let's say that we only knew the existence of 2. We would not know what all variables might be included, so estimates of the results could be any figure. We cannot predict the outcome with the limited info. After the thing itself happened, and we observed that it was 5 that ended up happening, we know that it could not have been anything else that was the answer, for 2+3, despite your philosophies WILL ALWAYS equal 5. According to your ideas, 2+3, could "choose" to equal 7, or 10, or 23,476,353,658,346. This is obviously untrue. Series of events, in actuality follow one path, there are no crossroads; the crossroads are just illusions.

And this is the easiest answer to the question of free will, and we may conclude that free-will does not exist. The mind does not control math. Math is undisputable. You cannot deny the logic I have provided above.

To answer your question, 2 and 3 force you to choose something. The matter of free-will is not about forcing to do something against your will; it is about forcing your will to do whatever. It makes you "choose" what you choose.

I have proved that the mind is not infinite, but 2+3 cannot equal an infinite amount of things, it can only equal one thing. If it was infinite, my mind could control the universe (and trust me, if I controlled the universe, things would be a lot more amusing). The computer is indeed a good analogy for the brain, because the computer, like the brain, has no free will. Your analogy seems to agree with my side. Anyways, I suppose it would be "possible", as in we don't know for sure any variables that deny it, but I strongly doubt that the equation of events will equal humans building such a computer. There are many variables including even such things as the human race being wiped out before we reached the level of technology.

AS for your differentiation between Humans and other animals, I say: a brain is a brain, brains don't have freewill. Look at this article: http://www.apa.org...

It shows how similar human and chimpanzee brains are. You earlier proposed a sort of "micro evolution", evolution takes millions of years, Fred. So we can reasonably look back…6 thousand years and conclude that human's brains are not dissimilar from humans. Infants born and raised today constantly are raised in the environment of the information age. The minds of 6 thousand years ago, which we can conclude are basically the same as now, lived as animals, so I do not see your connection.

Fred, I am dearly sorry, but I can not explain to you all the variables involved in the decisions and psychological processes of gamblers, and drunkards. You keep asking for a simple explanation of why the gambler does something, and someone else does another thing, but I can't give a simple explanation of these processes. Those statements do not necessarily disagree with my arguments. Brain tissue can change shape. You CANT defy nature, Fred. Nature is to broad a sense. Nature is simply the nature of how things are, how they work and why they exist in such a form. You're brain cells do not choose in what direction they go, or how they multiply.

You drastically misunderstood my last paragraph (not your fault, just the confusion of limited man-made language). I was not complaining that you were asking "why" to much, I was complaining that you WERE NOT asking "why" enough, I think that you are not asking "Why" enough. I want you to ask "why" more. Does it make sense to you now?

-Harlan
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Thanks for a very good debate, Harlan. It is always a pleasure to debate with you and I didn't really think we would come to a mutual agreement. This argument has been going on for centuries. As you, I was relying on a closing argument. I still think though that if I can ask the question "Why" then I retain the ability to use free will.

You are a smart, young man, Harlan and I predict that you will go far in life.

Your friend,

Fred
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Wow, I didn't know that was the closing argument.

Thanks Fred, that was a fun one.
Posted by Retrospace18 9 years ago
Retrospace18
In my opinion, Free will persists, until faced with death.

Id like to keep it at that, and let the reader make his/her own decision on what i've said.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
As I said, emotions remind you of your goals, thus affecting decisions. So I am certainly not telling you they don't affect them. This is not a limitation however, it is an enhancement. And you can certainly reprogram your emotions if you try hard enough (and perhaps if someone else tries hard enough, depending how much of a fight you put up), for better or worse. For example I could in theory murder my family and not feel sad or angry about it. I won't (for many reasons), but it could be done.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Chaos theory works for everything. The brain acts like any other physical, tangible object. WE can see that you do form a coherent sentance, so that point is irrelevant.

Are minds are restricted and follow certain guidelines for our own good. Our mind is evolved just like anything else. It is called an instinct. It is why you sleep and drink water, and become angry or sad when someone carelessly murders your family.

Our brain all works together. Are you telling me that emotions never affect your decisions. When I say "mind", I mean the whole thing.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
That's all assuming chaos theory is correct in applying to human action, which hasn't really been demonstrated. If all these variables had such chaotic relevance in whether I hit a key, it would be almost impossible for me to form a coherent sentence.

Wait how could emotions result from "nature limiting our mind?" That is at stark contrast with evolutionary theory, which WAS made for humans and other life forums. Nature is not teleological, and since man's existence relies primarily on his mind, evolutionary forces would cast aside your model of emotions.

Besides, emotions exist previous to "mind" proper (they are centered in a more primitive portion of the brain). As such their existence cannot have reference to it.

As for them continuing to exist, we need only observe the case of the man who had brain damage to his emotional center. His life from then on was much less successful, because emotions continually remind you of your goals. Damn outta space :D
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
I do not mean to post much in the comments forum, when I am debating, but I have been adressed.

Science is based on logic. It does operate logically, by the definition of logical. Your limited human mind could not possibly understand the complex cause and events that determine the course of events. The world cannot fit in to a human mind. Too big. Obviously. Emotions develop from nature shaping and limiting our mind so as to make it working for the witholding of the human race.

Ragnar, Exactly. The tiniest, slightest changes may make vast changes in the equation. A butter fly flaps its wings on one side of the earth, a tornado forms on the other. It's simple. I can not reasonably post within my next 300 words. all the variables and factors involved in hitting a different key.
Posted by lvisman96 9 years ago
lvisman96
Harlan, science is based on logic, wouldn't you agree? Now if science is based on logic, then for science to the end-all of everything, the whole world should operate logically. As you well know, it is anything but. Why do people's emotions continue to exist ? What is emotion ?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
The tiny differences due to chaos theory have a long long way to go to explain why I did not hit the same key in those two situations.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
It would be impossible for it to be the EXACT same situation. The tiny differences change the course of action. It's called the chaos theory, read up on it.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
PreacherFredHarlanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by GrimParrot 9 years ago
GrimParrot
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dullurd 9 years ago
dullurd
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mariahsaywhaaa 9 years ago
mariahsaywhaaa
PreacherFredHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03