The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

Mind was the last thing to come into existence

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 10/16/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,760 times Debate No: 13391
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)




In this debate I will argue against the current understanding of the universe, which explains that energy came to existence first followed by matter, followed by life, followed by mind and consciouness.

Our current understanding of the origin of the universe holds that it emerged in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago from nothing. There were no initial conditions, inherent nature, order, purpose, design, or underlying non-physical existence from which the big bang emerged. The early universe emerged from nothing having a single unified force, from which four fundamental particle-force fields emerged through spontaneous symmetry breaking and froze to form matter, stars, planets, organic molecules, living cellular organisms, and later into humans with brain and nervous systems complex enough to generate conscious behavior. This view describes the sequence of existence in an order where energy comes first, followed by matter, followed by life, followed by mind and consciousness. In this view, consciousness is an emergent property of random bits of matter/energy that bind together from physical processes into unitary biological organisms. But how can a conscious observer having a free-will enter the closed chain of cause and effect remains unexplained.

However if we try to reorder the sequence of existence giving consciousness and mind the first position instead of the last, the problem could be solved, as in that case consciousness is not created and remains there from the beginning till today. This view could in a way be helpful in developing a unified theory where all diversified forces of nature gross and subtle are unified by transcendent underlying conscious force which is higher than ordinary waking state of consciousness.


I'm going to start with some basic definitions. The universe is everything. Energy is everything that is not matter, and includes forces. Matter is something that occupies a finite amount of space, and includes dark matter. Life is any collection of matter on planet Earth that is arranged in such a way as to enable self-sustaining biological processes. Consciousness, what my opponent terms "Mind", is the additional ability of lifeforms to make decisions based on observed phenomena. My overall argument is that what my opponent terms "free will" is not free, though it may appear to be. This is another debate where I don't think we should bother with sources as it is philosophical in nature.

You will note that all of these things rely on the previous to exist. Without energy there could be no charge and thus no matter. Without matter there would be nothing to form life. Without something that enables us to think, we can have no consciousness. Therefore prima face my opponent's assertion that there can be consciousness without energy, matter and life, within the context of this universe, is absurd and requires some justification. The conventional model seems to fit much better with our understanding of existence. Asserting a "transcendent underlying conscious force" does not at all solve the problem because, as a force, it must behave predictably, and cannot exist without energy - besides which there is no evidence for it - so it will not win you this debate.

To justify his assertion that consciousness comes first, my opponent notes a conscious observer of free will cannot enter a closed chain of cause and effect. Two responses. My minor response is that there is no reason why it cannot. There is no reason to suppose that a closed chain cannot establish an open chain, and if you have proof of the contrary I'd like to see it. My major response is that free will is an illusion. Say my computer mouse dies. I have a choice - replace it, or use my touch-pad. So now you'd say I have free will to choose which option I pick, right? Wrong! About 100 or so factors come into my head - different desires, wills and memories - all with a different weighting of importance based on other desires, wills and memories. Ultimately the fact that I have only $2.50 in my bank right now (which is true) will hold greater importance than all else, so I will use the touch-pad. I will think that I have made that decision. In fact, given a table of all my relevant experiences and the relative importance I assign to each, it would be entirely predictable. Therefore we are still a closed system.

Does this mean human behavior is exactly predictable? In theory yes, but in practice, no. First the full configuration of the human mind has not been mapped yet, preventing us from testing theories about the relative prominence of desires and wills in our thinking, but more importantly preventing us from discerning relative importance weighting. Second, it is near-impossible to extract ALL the experiences of an individual. However, the behavior of people can often be known. We often make judgments about how we think others will react. Ask any chess player, business leader, politician, or even entertainer. Of course we very occasionally get it wrong, either because we don't know how others minds will assign relative importance, or more likely because we don't know what motives and experiences drive others.

For all you scientists out there, I know my analysis is too simplistic. It's the best I could fit in the word limit. But even if you don't believe in my theory that we are still a closed system (shared by many eminent scientists, by the way), recall that in this debate, my opponent still needs to justify why we are now an open system. My opponent's last argument - that

In conclusion, free will is an illusion, my opponent's logic is faulty, there is no reason why we are not a closed system or why consciousness must be first, so please vote con.
Debate Round No. 1


To start with, I would like to state here that no physical science has yet been able to either describe or predict mental activity. Research in the field of cognitive neuroscience has suggested there are "causal relations" between neural activity of the brain and "conscious experience". But it has not yet been able to describe which is the cause and which is the effect. The common notion is that neural activity is responsible for "conscious experience". But in absence of precise description as to which is the minimal set of neural activity that is responsible for consciousness, the notion could be a fallacy. On the other had it could be that a mind, which is free from all physical laws understood till date is the cause of neural activity of the brain.
Further to that I would like to state that there are higher-levels of consciousness than ordinary waking state. Sean O' Nuallain in his book "Zero-Power and Selflessness", in which he has done studies on the meditating mind, has stated that meditators often describe selfless states as well as higher states of consciousness than ordinary waking state. My opponent can reject that on the ground that these are subjective experiences and cannot be treated as empirical proof of existence of such states of consciousness. But I want to make it clear that in absence of any flawless method to measure consciousness objectively, we are not left with any option but to rely on subjective experience. When mind reaches the highest states of consciousness it could behave like a force, subtler than all physical forces known today, which requires no energy and yet has the ability to control other physical forces. To support my claim I am giving an example of a very common experiment, which is used to describe wave-particle duality of electrons. But here I will try to support my claim using the same experiment.
In this experiment, electrons are fired through two holes and their arrival on the other side is recorded on a screen. The special feature of this screen is that each electron makes a spot of light on the screen, and the spot stays there as other electrons arrive, each making its own spot, so that gradually they build up a pattern on the screen. But as thousands of electrons are fired through the experiment one at a time, the pattern that builds up on the screen is the classic interference pattern associated with waves. Not only are the electrons leaving and arriving as particles, but somehow travelling as waves, but they seem to "know" the past and the future as well. If thousands of electrons travelled together through the experiment, it might be easy to understand that they could jostle one another into an interference pattern. But only one electron passes through the experiment at a time, and somehow chooses its place on the screen on the other side so that the pattern that gradually builds up is the classic interference pattern. How can each electron possibly "know" its rightful place in the pattern? If one of the two holes is blocked off, the electrons form one blob of spots on the screen behind the remaining hole. With the other hole open and the first one closed, you get a blob on the screen behind that hole. But with both holes open, the interference pattern emerges, with the brightest part of the pattern on the line midway between the holes. An individual electron, passing through just one hole in the experiment, seems to be AWARE whether or not the second hole is covered up, and to adjust its trajectory accordingly. Is there a mind behind it? I think it could be. With no other satisfactory explanation, I bet, mind is the best candidate here.
Lastly, there is no proof that we don't have a free-will. My opponent joined this debate willingly, and that is certainly a proof of "free-will". If my opponent thinks otherwise, that he did not join the debate by his own will, then he only can answer what compelling circumstances compelled him to join in.


Dealing with all of my opponent's appeals to uncertainty:
1) This is another logical fallacy
2) This is not an argument, nor does it rebut mine
3) Even if you were right, it is only helping my case, because under a strict interpretation of the topic, if the point is moot it falls to me.
4) You can't just assert alternatives and expect them to instantly have the same scientific validity, or even to contradict, the null hypothesis, without further evidence.

Dealing with "higher consciousness":
1) It's an appeal to uncertainty at best
2) The accounts of meditatiors is the most unreliable because any who do not claim to have the highest level of mental ability will not attract as many customers as those who make the claim, even if said level does not exist. Their life depends on their lying in your cited book.
3) The conclusion you reach, that consciousness could be like a force, does not logically follow from the premise that there is a higher state of consciousness.

Dealing with the Quantum Experiment:
1) Your conclusion is based on a flawed understanding of our dimension and particle physics. Electrons, like everything, exist in space and time. Quantum Mechanics tells us that they can "leap" in both - that is, time travel or teleport (by virtue of this fact, they can even exist in two places at the same time (entanglement)). The electrons may show the illusion of awareness, but in reality they are not aware, only behaving as any particle that moves both backwards and forwards in time at once. From the formulated pattern they go back through the slit, just as they come out of it to build the observed pattern. Note: no consciousness. This is not me making up a theory by the way - this has been reported in scholarly peer-reviewed journals and even New Scientist.
2) The above is a better explanation than mind because again, mind, just like life, requires matter (plural) - not a single particle.
3) Even if electrons had a "mind" behind them, that does not prove "higher consciousness" or even provide evidence of it directly.

Buffing my no-free-will argument:
1) My opponent asserts a lack of proof. This is a) an appeal to uncertainty, and b) ignorant of the evidence I presented in round 1, that we make reliable judgments about reactions often.
2) What compelled me to join this debate? Many things spring to mind:
a) the fact I love debating
b) the fact that I like more theory-driven debate
c) the fact that I like debates about the nature of existence
d) the fact that, after reading your opening argument, I knew exactly how to respond
e) the fact you are somewhat new to this site
Weighing against this, too, were a number of factors (ie the fact I have law exams in one week!)
3) None of the above is actually an attack on the no-free-will argument.
4) If my opponent really does act unpredictably, not going on any sort of compulsion - why did he join this site? The chance that he came across it randomly and, without any sort of influence whatsoever, moved his hand to the correct positions to start several debates - without even thinking he might want to debate - is so remote I doubt even my opponent could give a figure.

Also note how my opponent has dropped the closed-open system argument. I hope this is because it's so flawed it's not even worth mentioning again.

This debate is now, apparently, about whether there must be a higher consciousness. I've given you good unrebutted evidence that the most fundamental assumptions of this "higher consciousness" are incorrect. My opponent has only said "Oh, but it MIGHT be true." That won't win him the debate. Vote for the side with the evidence - vote con.
Debate Round No. 2


1. Firstly, my opponent has tactfully avoided the question "what is the minimal set of neural activity that is responsible for consciousness?" It was my friends proposition that Mind depends on Energy, matter and Life. To prove that Mind depends on all these things, he has to answer the question. Simply by saying it is "somewhere there" you can't prove that mind is in the brain. So the position of his argument is no better than mine.

2. Regarding the question about existence of higher states of consciousness, I will reiterate that, in absence of any flawless method to measure consciousness objectively, we are not left with any option but to rely on subjective experience.

3. In his contention regarding the quantum experiment he forces his notion that mind is life-like and requires matter to exist, which he hasn't yet proved as stated hereinbefore.
In support of his no-free-will argument my opponent has stated that he "loves" debating or that he "likes" this and that. But like, dislike and love are possible only if there is free-will. Presumably, he joined the debate willingly, because in his own words he has agreed that he joined the debate because he loves debating. That is a foolproof evidence of free-will. I guess any rational person will agree to that.

4. I have not dropped the argument regarding closed system. I maintain my previous stand. I did not discuss it because my opponent was not able to describe how a closed system can give way to an open system, without referring to his self-propounded no-free-will theory, which I did argue against.

5. The debate is still about the basic question "What is the proof that mind is dependent on the brain?" As for my claim that mind can exist beyond the brain I will refer to a study done by Dr. Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist from Netherlands, who studied a group of patients who had suffered cardiac arrests and who were successfully revived. He found that 62 patients (18%) had a Near-Death Experience (NDE), of whom 41 (12%) described a core experience. Many of the subjects had "NO NEURAL ACTIVITY" in the brain as understood from a flat-EEG. Among other symptoms they had fixed and dilated pupil sufficient to describe the subject "brain-dead" or "clinically dead". Such "experiences" encountered by people declared "clinically dead" or "brain dead" suggest that the mind can survive "brain-death". Given bellow is a link to Articles by Dr. van Lommel, which describe the study and conclusions in detail:

I believe readers are sensible enough to understand that my opponent's claim that he has evidence on his side is baseless. He proposed that Mind depends on Energy, matter and Life. But he hasn't been able come up with evidence to support that.


Responding to question "what is the minimal set of neural activity that is responsible for consciousness?":
1. You never asked this in round 2, there was no tactful avoidance
2. Even if I admit one can have consciousness without neural activity, the argument is still an appeal to uncertainty
3. The fact that the brain has electrical charges that are dependent on mental activity constitutes pretty strong evidence the mind is dependent on the body.
4. Given that the mind is dependent on the body, in order to be conscious, one needs to have significant enough neural activity in order to respond to external phenomena.

Dealing with higher consciousness:
1. My opponent again ignores all my points.
2. I have already said the "subjective experience" of these men was not, in all probability, an experience but a lie.
3. Personally I'm a bit confused as to what exactly makes one consscious object more conscious than another. Consciousness is a state - it is either true or false. Look around you - how are you more conscious than a deer or an octopus?
4. Finally, yes we can test for consciousness, and doctors often do. For an example, take the Turing test, which is the very first such test.

Dealing with the Quantum Experiment:
1. I did not say that mind is "life-like". I said that it requires life (which I presume you agree, requires matter). Two reasons. One, without a body, a mind has no way to act anyway. A mind acting on an electron is frankly absurd because electrons cannot be observed, let alone controlled. Two, prima face a mind is part of the body, ie the experience of electrical charges within the brain. The burden of proof rests squarely on my opponent to tell us why he thinks this is not so.
2. Like and dislike are not evidence of freewill, let alone foolproof. They are themselves based on countless other experiences as I noted in my first point. All of them are linked back to individual experiences. I can remember all of my debates (which now number in the hundreds), and the positive experience associated with them that I gained from instinct, for example my competitiveness and my will to success. Where exactly is the free will in making a choice if my choice is predictable?
3. My opponent ignored 4/5 of my points, and I'd frankly like to hear more of a response from him.

Dealing with Closed Systems:
1. How a closed system can give way to an open system: fire neutrons in a controlled manner at some electrons. Watch as the electrons disperse unpredictably.
2. "My" no-free-will theory is not self propounded: a Google search for "no free will" gives me half a million results, among them: , , and
3. Even if it were, I think my round one analysis, taking up two paragraphs, still justifies some sort of response.

Dealing with van Lommel's experiment:
1. Van Lommel is trying to disprove an established theory, that our thinking is one with our brain. This is something that has been proved in numerous studies ie and
2. To do so he needs strong evidence. 12% is not strong evidence.
3. Even if it were true that it were strong evidence, the study has had strong criticism from skeptics, because:
a) It assumes people do not have life-insight changes after a NDE
b) It deals with reported NDEs, there is no way to be sure that any study member was not lying
c) And so on ... there is a list of about two dozen on this page:

Finally, I'm still not 100% sure what I'm arguing about. My opponent's model of a "consciousness force" has been rather ill-defined, so please clear that up. The points in this debate are at best moot, at worst they've fallen to me. Thus I should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3


1. Even in the last round my opponent has not answered the basic question "what is the minimal set of neural activity that is responsible for consciousness?" Thereby he is giving me reason to suppose that he does not have an answer to it. He has even used the words "Even if I admit one can have consciousness without neural activity …" which in a way indicate his inability to answer the basic question. Thus, his claim that mind is dependent on a living brain turns out to be unfounded in absence of sufficient proof. As for my case, I have already given a proof that mind can survive "brain-death".

2. To quote him once again "The fact that the brain has electrical charges that are dependent on mental activity …" shows that neural activity is dependent on mental activity, which he has agreed to in his own words. It only supports my case instead of supporting mind's dependence on the body as misconstrued by my opponent.

3. To clear his confusion "what exactly makes one conscious object more conscious than another" I will give an example. Suppose there are two persons one is awake and one is sleeping. The person who is awake is in a higher state of consciousness than the one who is sleeping. Conversely the person who is sleeping is in a lower state of consciousness than the one who is awake. So consciousness is not a binary state – true or false. It has many layers. When a person is in deep coma his is in another state of consciousness and there are still other states of consciousness like the vegetative state and the permanent vegetative state. There are other states of consciousness which are yet to be discovered by science. That's all I can clarify for now.

4. I will now quote my opponent for a third time, "… my competitiveness and my will to success". He readily agrees in his own words that the "will" to succeed is one of his instincts. But for the sake of the argument he maintains the no-free-will theory which is self-contradictory.

5. What he says about a closed system giving way to an open system is his appeal to uncertainty. Even if he refers 10 million or even a billion websites about the no-free-will theory that won't amount to a proof and in absence of proof that simply doesn't go down my throat being a rational person.

6. It is not an established theory that our thinking is one with our brain. I can clarify why only a certain percentage of subjects remembered the "NDE" by referring to our experiences in a dream state. How often do we remember dreams? When we do we hardly remember every single detail of our dream. In most cases we don't remember anything at all. So it is possible that the remaining subjects also had an NDE, but were not able to recall it. Criticism by skeptic people doesn't make the study unscientific. My opponent should clearly state what other scientific method could have been used in the study.

Regarding my opponent's claim that he should win the debate, all I can say, is that I don't have a problem with him winning the debate, subject to the condition that he can convince me with evidence to support his proposition that mind depends on a living brain.


Responding to my opponent's points:
1) Maybe you didn't read r3 para1 ss4? Furthermore, just because a mind can survive brain-death, this is only true if the brain is somehow resurrected. You have not proven that the mind is apart from the brain.
2) When you find an exact correlation between electric charges and thoughts, this is very strong evidence that the two are the same. Therefore the mind IS these charges and not some higher-up magic fairyland as my opponent appears to assert. Neural activity is not dependent on mental activity, but rather interdependent. Without the charges there is no mind. Therefore mind and body are one. Therefore the mind depends on the body.
3) That's not much of a clarification. When one is in a coma one is not conscious because one cannot respond to observed phenomena, as required by my definition. When sleeping one is conscious because one can respond to observed phenomena, for instance, if I shake a sleeping person they respond by waking. When awake it is the same. So again, yes it is a binary state.
4) My will to success is not a decision I made. I didn't wake up one morning and think "I'm going to WIN for the rest of my life." No - all people want to win, to be successful and so forth. This is because it is an instinct that we have no control over. We can only suppress it if there is a stronger instinct preventing us, such as fear. Could you therefore please explain how the no-free-will theory is self-contradictory?
5) The number of websites is not a proof of the theory, it is proof the theory is not "mine" or "self-propounded." I was showing your ignorance of a well-established theory. It's not an appeal to uncertainty, it's an appeal to authority (there IS a difference).
6) It clearly is an established theory. I had two sources that prove it, and you called it the "current understanding" in round one! When we have a dream in a state we do not expect to have a dream, this is a dream we are highly likely to remember. So 12% is actually very low, especially considering any old tramp off the street could just waltz into van Lommel's office and claim to have had an NDE - no checking of medical records was done - and the NDEs were all recorded TWO YEARS after the event, so patients with life-changes as a result may have "imagined" a vision of some sort. So here would be a more accurate scientific assessment: after an NDE, go up to the hospital bed and ask the patient if they saw anything while dead. Then ask the doctor what drugs the patient was taking. When you have a good sample, test first if it could possibly be due to medical drugs. If this is ruled out, test second whether something might be actually happening.

General notes:
1) I raised 19 points in the last round and only got a response to six. About two thirds of all my points in this debate have been ignored by my opponent. Clearly my opponent does not have the answers.
2) Most worryingly, my opponent did not clarify his model as asked, so I can only presume that my opponent himself doesn't know what he's arguing for.
3) My opponent still needs to provide a principle basis of why the view held by a clear majority of scientists and skeptics is wrong.

So far this has been a disappointing debate. I've tried to engage with the issues, but my opponent keeps ignoring them. My opponent even refuses to tell us what he contends. Every one of the legitimate arguments my opponent makes has been an appeal to uncertainty in one form or another, every one of his rebuttals has been ignorant of something I've said already. What more must I do to convince you? I've provided an argument, you've provided nothing for four long rounds! Mind clearly comes after body, and that is what I am most proud to propose.
Debate Round No. 4


1.Mind remains active during "brain death" when there is not neural activity and the EEG IS FLAT that directly proves mind and brain are not one.

2.A "causal correlation" is one which suggests that two things are related by a cause-and-effect relation. It does not make the two things one and the same. Moreover, it does not tell anything about which is the cause and which is the effect. In the case of mind and neural activity there is such a relation. This means either (1) mind is the cause of neural activity or (2) neural activity is the cause of mind. The fact that mind continues even when there is no neural activity refutes the second proposition thus automatically upholding the first.

3.What I said about layers of consciousness is a neuroscience fact. I tried to simplify it for better understanding of my opponent. But his reasoning seems to be clouded by his "instinctive will to win", so I failed to convince him.

4.I will discuss that in the end.

5.No theory can be called a well established theory in absence of supportive evidence which is logical and convincing. We do have a free-will, that is an established fact and you need to come up with strong evidence to disprove that.

6.The study was done in a similar manner to your suggestion and Dr. van Lommel did check the medical records, so the study was a scientific one.

In the end I have a few suggestions to give to my friend (pro) and he can either accept or reject my suggestions, at his own "free-will". Firstly, I want to clear his notion that all people want to win. Take me for example; I started the debate just to encourage discussion on the topic. I don't have an instinctive desire to win this debate. I am not saying it is wrong if you want to win. But I think to seek the truth and find it out gives you more pleasure. I will be happy if you win. Here, let me make a vote appeal for you:

My dear readers, I thank you for being patient and request you to vote my brother "pro".

My dear friend, it's a wrong notion you have about instincts that they can't be controlled. Just sit straight, close your eyes, take a deep breath and meditate.


OK, my opponent's whole argument rests on this claim: that neural activity can continue during brain-death.
1) I've told you it does not, because the only way the mind continues is if the brain does continue.
2) I've told you that in 88% of cases mind definitely does not remain active (cf van Lommel). The final 12% can be put down to statistical error, bias and drugs.
3) I've told you this is an example of an appeal to uncertainty even if you're right.
4) My opponent has not given any response to any of the above. He must do so in order to win this argument.

Second I'm going to deal with layers of consciousness (not being a neuroscience fact). My opponent said that we HAVE NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE in rounds one and two. Therefore my opponent agrees it is not a fact. In rounds two and three I gave analysis as to why the subjective experience he relied on was wrong. I never got any response to this, so I assume he dropped the argument. Now my opponent must provide evidence for layers of consciousness from neuroscience. He has not done so, because he cannot do so. I've also said in round 2 that the conclusion is wrong based on the logical premises, and it's an appeal to uncertainty.

Third, my opponent claims I did not provide evidence to support my no-free-will claim. Yes, I did. I came up with loads of websites choc-a-block full of writing by top neuroscientists to refute that claim. I came up with a paragraph of sophisticated analysis that my opponent never responded to. What more must I do to provide evidence?

Fourth, my opponent's claim that van Lommel's study "was done in a similar manner to your suggestion" is a downright lie. You can take my word for that because
1) I actually bothered to read all of van Lommel's report
2) I cited a website that lists a multiplicity of errors made by van Lommel
3) I cited two really obvious errors I found myself; and
4) I'm a statistics student at university

Finally, on why my opponent made this topic. He wanted (according to him) to encourage discussion. That's because, presumably, 1) he likes dialogue, 2) he is interested in this topic, and maybe even 3) he wants others to know more about the topic. At the very least, my opponent must agree that (2) is the result of life-experiences, one does not wake up one morning and randomly out of the blue decide to become interested in neuroscience. (3) is clearly based on the instinct to care for others, while I argue (1) is based on things he was taught when he was very young. And his meditation example- when we meditate we remove choices, not instincts. When you have no choices you have nothing for your instincts to act on. But that is no control over the instincts which remain as strong as ever. But don't take my word for it. Take my evidence. I've told you, for example, that the inherent predictability of behavior shows why free will is wrong. I've given you two sources, and told you there are thousands more on the internet. Go do your own research. But given my opponent's unwillingness to engage with this topic, I think it's clear this point falls to my side of the house.

I applaud my opponent's humility (another instinct, by the way). I'm sure that in my victory he will gain gratification that he "won" in a sense. Vote for the side with the better argument. Please vote for me.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
Please don't bring up new arguments weeks after a debate finishes and expect me to respond to them.
In my view, though, it's a poor scenario because an animal will always prefer one over the other on rational grounds. One bundle is always a bit larger or closer, or the one the animal looked at first.
Posted by SoumyaMitra 7 years ago
The theory of hard determinism, that states there is no free-will, is best challenged by a paradox called the Buridan's_ass paradox.
An_ass is placed between two equally alluring and equidistant bundles of hay. It has no rational basis for preferring one bundle over the other. It has no free-will either. Will it starve to death?
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
The resolution is an empirically determined assertion in the history of the universe, either mind was the last thing or it was not. Pro admitted that modern science says it was. Pro therefore has the burden of proof to upset modern science. Pro did not state the science correctly. Con was not very coherent, and called upon his own brand of non-science with higher planes of consciousness stuff, but nonetheless Pro did not meet his burden of upsetting modern science.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
@SoumyaMitra- same as larz said. And aside from that, I did provide evidence. All your response to it was "The evidence is only a quote from NY times." How does that refute my claim, AND my backing from a neuroscientist M.D?
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
@SoumyaMitra - Even when your case lacks evidence (which it more often than not does) I am still obliged to respond to it. I have given plenty of evidence for no-free-will, there is no onus on me to present a formal proof.
Posted by SoumyaMitra 7 years ago
The subject matter of all the three debates relate to the nature of "Mind". One of my basic arguments is that MInd does not have a material basis. To support this contention I have presented similar arguments in all three debates. But they are not thrown at random. May be you guys are not linking those arguments with the rest.

I havn't ignored your arguments. But they seriously lack evidence. As for your case larztheloser there is no proof of the no-free-will theory you are taliking about. And in your case m93samman you hav'nt provided any satisfactory evidence for your claim that mind is a part of the brain.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
It's all 3 of his debates. I feel like he's not really debating, just throwing all the studies he's ever read about neuroscience in random orders into all three debates. He ignored my arguments too
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
@SoumMitra - this is very silly because me and m93samman are running very different cases. I was wondering why you ignored almost all of my points!? That's probably why.
Posted by SoumyaMitra 7 years ago
Yes my arguments in round 2 here and round 3 in the referred debate are similar, because in both cases I am contending against the notion that mind is dependend on / part of the brain.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
Compare Con's round 2 in this debate with Pro's round 3 in the following debate

Eerily similar...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
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 m93samman 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
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