There is free will.
Debate Rounds (4)
Also, I'd like to establish that we accept the universe exists for the purpose of this debate.
Yes i agree.
I will try to be clear with my argument.
I want to start off with the bases of my dabete.
I believe the intertwined laws of nature controls our perceptions of the world and our actions.
This means the environment,genetics,evolution,societys,relashionships,time and space,how you were raised etc.
There is no sign for me that suggests free will can exist.
I agree that laws of nature do "control" us. However, that control does not extend to consciousness.
Heisenburg's uncertainty principle states that position and momemtum cannot be simulataneously known at the smallest level . There's a lot more to it, but the general idea is that classical physics and the simplicity of cause and effect go out the window at quantum levels. Apply these principles to the brain, and the brain is an uncertin creature.
It's very hard to figure out exactly how to brain works. For the most part, physicists are stiumped. It might be impossible for something to completely understand itself. And if that level of metacognition is not possible, then free will is open and possible. We can study the physics to the utmost degree, but still never predict what a human mind will decide. Until physics can be used to read thoughts and predict cognitive actions, free will is still alive.
But I do have to point out to the audience though that this debate is in the philosophical Category not the scientific.
therefore by then accepting my opinion and then pointing out somewhat scientific fact to
contradict it...it doesn't make sense if you're still debating against me. ???
I already know that the quantum level has it's own physics and it doesn't
seem to effect the general laws of classical physics why are you saying the simplicity
of cause and effect go out the window at quantum levels and then tagging that you can apply
the principles to the brain,and the brain is an uncertain creature? Is this you trying to be
philosophical/crawl out of the debate.
Again this debate is not in the scientific category.
What I disagree with is that that implies fate. Our thought process is not predestined because there's no way to predict what someone is going to think. The reason I was bringing up the uncertainty principle is because in all likelihood our brains run very much on the quantum level. It's impossible to predict, so therefore we escape fate.
Sorry for being "philosophical" and using "science." I'm merely trying to show you a sign that suggests free will can exist.
So let me rephrase my earlier comment, nature may shape us and give us a domain in which to live and think, but it doesn't control our every thought.
I do believe in fate.we are just not able to predict certain events thus modern computers
aren't capable of viewing every single factor that makes us run and putting it all together to give us a sum.
But one day we will
By you saying It's impossible for us
to estimate the quantum level,you're practically just like the people saying back 80 years
ago that humanity couldn't go to the moon because they thought it was impossible.Also you can see this
accruing countlessly between scientific studies
You give no evidence for your claims that suggests that nature doesn't control our every thought
So for me to sum up everything...
Is that if the big bang was natural and every thing that came out of it was natural,wouldn't it
suggest that we are 100% natural ergo we can some day predict the future with accuracy.
Patterns emerge from what is natural.
It's not a matter of gumtion or ingenuity. The brain fully understanding itself is an impossibility. Allow me to ask a few simple questions:
What are you thinking about?
Are you thinking about what you are thinking about?
Are you thinking about the point of these questions?
Or are you thinking about you thinking about the point of these questions?
The point is that your cognition of your thoughts is always one step behind the actual thought. You can't be cognizant of what you are thinking at any one time. It's an impossibility.
Predicting future events or evaluating current happenings with certainty at the quantum level is sceintifically impossible. It's a crazy concept to wrap your head around--one that even Einstein was resistent to accept--but our studies of quantum mechanics assert that the universe is random and runs on probability.
Also, here's a quick reading if you're curious. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was perfectly legal in arguing science, as Con did not stipulate otherwise. Pro argues that free will exists because we cannot understand the human mind, that at the quantum level, it's impossible to predict what the human mind would do. Con never addressed this, instead he complained about irrelevancies. The sources used are hard to give sources points to, although citing the uncertainty principle was arguably good enough, considering the dearth of sources in the debate. I'm going to give 1 point for sources, because I don't think Pro earned 2, so I'm placing a vote in the S&G category in order to give that 1 point.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.