The Instigator
Viana
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is no 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Viana
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 80749
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

Viana

Pro

I will defend the position that there is no free will.
First round is acceptance
vi_spex

Con

if i can be mentally enslaved free will must exist, for balance

Debate Round No. 1
Viana

Pro

The first thing that I need to clarify is that I do not see animal's consciousness as anything other than a mechanism that triggers responses to the chemical and physical stimuli that acts on the nervous system.
So here is my base argument of free will being nothing but an illusion.
Suppose you have two perfect spheres. One is still and the other, in motion, is in a collision course with the other sphere. When these collide a "calculation" will be made and an outcome drawn. Into this calculation many things are factored in, such as the mass of the spheres, the attrition of the surface they stand in, if there is an atmosphere or not, the velocity the moving sphere has at the moment of impact, the plasticity of both spheres, etc. So when the standing sphere is hit all of these factors will be "processed" and the sphere will move in a certain direction with a certain speed and acceleration and will eventually come to a stop on a certain spot. If you repeat the experiment in the exact same way you will come to the same result again and again. This because it all comes down to math. The equation that determines where the sphere will stop is still the same as when you did the first experiment. Just like x+y=w if you change x for 1 and y for 2 w will be 3, always. The same way you have the equation to determine where the sphere will come to a halt if you do not change the variables that factor into this equation the result will also be the same.
In the real world there is no reason why this should be different and it never seems to be. Because the real world is a much more dynamic place than just two spheres colliding the equation turns a LOT bigger. So it's very hard to predict outcomes since this equation needs so many variables to be factored in.
Now tell me why this should be different for humans.
Take this in consideration.
You are talking to somebody and they ask you "can you pass the salt, please". Now in order for one to predict what will happen (because, again, we are in the real world) one has to take many factors into consideration. What is your current state of mind, what is your relationship with this person, how did the sound propagate in the air, how far away the salt is, is your hearing working properly, and many more billions of factors. Based on these factors you will make a decision. One which might not even evolve salt at all.
Now tell me this.
If all the conditions were recreated perfectly. An exact same copy of the universe you were in. Would your answer to "can you pass the salt, please" be any different. I don't think it will. And there lies my biggest problem with free will. What do you say?
vi_spex

Con

humans have a far greater capacity to be unresonable then animals

you are talking about something that can happen.. which you dont know

why are you trying to prediction anything, tell me why you made the choice to try to predict to figure out the answer?

free will is not having beliefs, to contrast with having beliefs i dont see that i dont see


Debate Round No. 2
Viana

Pro

I don't mean to be rude but you are making no sense. Your writing is really difficult to interpret you make grammatical errors which make sentences completely incomprehensible, you're not making any arguments just conclusions.
vi_spex

Con

planting a stone in the ground and watering it dosnt give you fruits

free will, is the freedom to see, because if you dont see you dont have a choice, if you dont see which ice cream you are choosing how could it possibly be your choice when it comes to the ice cream you get to eat when the guy is done making it...

a blind man dosnt have the choice to choose the right picture in the photoalbum by lack of sight, so sight enables him to make a choice because now he sees which picture is the right or wrong one in contrast with the one he is suppose to bring with him or whatever..

if you see god is true how could you see hell is not true.. where as, if you see there are 10 choices of ice cream to choose from, you have memory of which you like, you can also choose ice cream based on the color of the flowers on the side of the ice cream store you see


Debate Round No. 3
Viana

Pro

...I ...What?
vi_spex

Con

do you have a choice to answer this question if?
Debate Round No. 4
Viana

Pro

If? As I've previously stated I don't think I have the freedom to answer that question. I am not an actor, I am a subject. Subject to the laws the universe is ruled by and subject to the past. I don't see any astonishing difference between me and a rock. I mean there are many differences between a human and a rock but when it comes to the way we respond to stimuli we react just like the "software" intended both me and the rock. To say that a rock does not have free will but a human does is not in line with anything I'm aware science has produced so far. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but it's you who is defending a positive claim. You claim is humans are different to a rock in the free will department (I mean you did not say that verbatim but your line of thought makes it pretty apparent that you think that way so it's not far fetched for me to assume so and please, correct me if I'm wrong). That is a positive claim. You need to provide arguments in favor of it and back them up with evidence when you're defending positive claims. You have the burden of proof. You're saying that what humans act differently than other objects in nature. I don't want to insult you but this has been a very disappointing debate. I picked a topic that I thought was interesting and where I would be matched with a person that could offer me some insight into their world view but all I've gotten seems to be a man who smashes fortune cookies and types the randomly drawn badly written sentences when he should provide arguments to forward his position.
vi_spex

Con

rocks are not information

1=something
0=nothing

anything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, i can be mentally enslaved therfore i have free will
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Could be hard to answer. Where there never can be a protagonist, (free will). It makes no sense to look for an antagonist.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
your non answer is your inner ramble fool
Posted by Viana 1 year ago
Viana
Another rambling guy. nice...
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
right everyone is born mentally enslaved.. they should still accept Jesus thou??
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Ad 1. If we only had a concept of bad, but not good. What would a good deed be..Less bad ? If we only had a concept of good, but not bad. How bad could anything bee ?..There is no definition/concept of free will in an absolut form. And never can bee.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
1.No there is no free will as defined by pro. But this by definition also means that there is no unfree will... 2. Will is to "want something" To want makes it impossible not to want.
Posted by Viana 1 year ago
Viana
I'll have to look much deeper into compatibilism since I had little to no prior knowledge of that line of thought. Anytime you want to debate just hit me up with a message. I'm not sure how the messaging settings work since everyone that I've seen so far seems to have them disabled. I'm not sure if they are disabled by default but the sheer number of people that have them so makes me think that's the way it's set up. Anyway thanks for your support and participation Kyron
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
so you choose go to home because the rose reminded you of home somehow?

you dont have free will if its not you making the choice, by default free will exists if you can make a choice
Posted by KyronTheWise 1 year ago
KyronTheWise
A breakdown of both sides:

Viana is arguing that all of your choices, due to the influences of the many multitude of environmental effects around you, your actions and thoughts are determined by actions you don't have control over. Example: I see a rose. It makes me involuntarily (The first thought that pops up in my head) think of home. This makes me decide to go home today (I am at college, so its a long trip). Now, it may seem that you decided of your own free will to go home, but really, that rose did it, as my actions would have been different if my eyes had not fallen upon it. This type of thinking can be traced ALL the way back to the big bang, and possibly before if you want to think the deep thoughts that make your head hurt. Here's how you think of Viana's model: It's like forecasting the weather, but with enough information (RE: All information. A complete snapshot of the universe) that everything can be calculated. He's pretty much being Ian Malcolm and arguing Chaos Theory here.

Vi_spex is arguing (Well, I wouldn't call it that) for complete freedom of choice, or strong free will. From what I can tell, he is arguing that the choice to do something originates within you, and is not affected by anything else. Possible. However, he has not argued WHY this is true, just assumed it is. A couple suggestions for Vi_spex: Grammar is your friend, and just in case this isn't your first language, you are still responsible for ensuring that if you are going to debate in a particular language, that you do your utmost to make it coherent. Second: You need to provide evidence for your claims. WHY is something a certain way. Use more mechanics, less examples. Your examples won't make a lick of sense unless you explain the underlying mechanics first.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
choice is in contrast with the options you have
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 1 year ago
Kreakin
Vianavi_spexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - First round was for acceptance Con ignored this. Generally Con's replies were rather random and generally not relevant o the argument raised. S&G - Con didn't even start sentences with a capital letter and there were many other careless errors. Arguments - Pro's point about the variables cause and effect throws up was never refuted or addressed. I think perhaps Con did not even read Pros opening argument or just did not understand about the massive amount of intertwining probabilities that would need to be calculated to prove there is no free will, given we don't have an exact clone universe to compare. Sources -Neither side used any sources.