Free Will -- Achilles v McCulloch

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Free Will -- Achilles v McCulloch

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions.

Achilles12604 affirms. McCulloch denies.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #2

Post by McCulloch »

I'll start with a few comments. Firstly, the debate is not necessarily about theism. There are Christian theologians who hold to determinism (Calvin and Augustine) and non-theists who seem to hold to free-will (Penrose). However, the debate is not without theological implications. Free-will gives some Christian theologians an answer to the problem of evil, sometimes making statements that sound to me like, "Earthquakes happen and Lions are carnivorous because Eve chose to sin."

The question is, "There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions. " Achilles' job is simple. He can either present a reason or reasons to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose OR he can demonstrate that humans can freely choose. My job is to show that whatever reason he may present is not valid or that whatever demonstration he performs can be adequately explained from a determinist point-of-view.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #3

Post by achilles12604 »

McCulloch wrote:I'll start with a few comments. Firstly, the debate is not necessarily about theism. There are Christian theologians who hold to determinism (Calvin and Augustine) and non-theists who seem to hold to free-will (Penrose). However, the debate is not without theological implications. Free-will gives some Christian theologians an answer to the problem of evil, sometimes making statements that sound to me like, "Earthquakes happen and Lions are carnivorous because Eve chose to sin."

The question is, "There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions. " Achilles' job is simple. He can either present a reason or reasons to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose OR he can demonstrate that humans can freely choose. My job is to show that whatever reason he may present is not valid or that whatever demonstration he performs can be adequately explained from a determinist point-of-view.
I will open with a couple of examples that I do not think can be addressed by a determinalistic view.

1) Youth. Youth in general have very little experience and as such they learn new things every day. Because they are learning new things every day they do not have experience in many areas of life from which to draw. Without prior experiences, determinism make no sense. This leads me straight into my second point

2) Accidents. Much of what people do is brought about by trial and error. It is these errors which show that we must have the ability to choose between two or more equally unknown options. When Edison was creating the light bulb he went through many different forms of filaments before he found one which worked. At the beginning of this project, as with much of science, his initian experiments were simply trying something and seeing what occured. No prior experience had happened yet. It was simply an idea. And this leads me to my third example of why determinism is incorrect.

3) Imagination. If necessity is the mother of invention, then imagination is the tool used to build the device. People understand what they need to have done. But this is their only form of experience. From there they must use their imaginations to form options. The formation of options is clearly a thought process which requires the ability to choose. McCulloch may point out that the people already knew the problem and this would indicate determinalism. However, knowing the problem and forming a brand new solution are very different cognative abilities. Take for example our fight against aids. Scientists have been using all of our experiences (determinism). However no gains have been made towards a cure. So now that we have exhausted our prior knowledge, we must try new ideas. We must use our imaginations to invent something totally knew. And each new invention, each the child of imagination, argues against determinalism. If the only thing humans did is use our prior experiences, we should still be using rocks to make fire because it worked. We should be using cliffs to kill animals for food because it worked. I almost said spears but even this was an invention.

Choice is certainly affected by our prior experiences. But they are not one in the same. And I think this is best shown in areas where we have no prior experience, and must make a choice as to how to move forward.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #4

Post by McCulloch »

achilles12604 wrote:1) Youth. Youth in general have very little experience and as such they learn new things every day. Because they are learning new things every day they do not have experience in many areas of life from which to draw. Without prior experiences, determinism make no sense.
You're going to have to connect the dots on this one. How does the inexperience of youth support the notion of free-will? The young gradually build up a bunch of experiences throughout life, all of which influence future decisions. Both determinists and free-will advocates agree.
achilles12604 wrote:2) Accidents. Much of what people do is brought about by trial and error. It is these errors which show that we must have the ability to choose between two or more equally unknown options. When Edison was creating the light bulb he went through many different forms of filaments before he found one which worked. At the beginning of this project, as with much of science, his initian experiments were simply trying something and seeing what occured. No prior experience had happened yet. It was simply an idea.
Intuition and random events prove free-will? I am not quite following your reasoning here.
achilles12604 wrote:3) Imagination. If necessity is the mother of invention, then imagination is the tool used to build the device. People understand what they need to have done. But this is their only form of experience. From there they must use their imaginations to form options. The formation of options is clearly a thought process which requires the ability to choose.
We are not debating our ability to imagine or to choose. We are debating whether our choices are made freely. Humans choose. We both agree on that. We even perceive that our choices are made freely.
achilles12604 wrote: McCulloch may point out that the people already knew the problem and this would indicate determinalism. However, knowing the problem and forming a brand new solution are very different cognative abilities. Take for example our fight against aids. Scientists have been using all of our experiences (determinism). However no gains have been made towards a cure. So now that we have exhausted our prior knowledge, we must try new ideas. We must use our imaginations to invent something totally knew. And each new invention, each the child of imagination, argues against determinalism. If the only thing humans did is use our prior experiences, we should still be using rocks to make fire because it worked. We should be using cliffs to kill animals for food because it worked. I almost said spears but even this was an invention.
Imagination and ingenuity are not ruled out by determinism. Humans are intelligent beings. We have been selected for survival for our ability to think creatively, even off-the-wall. An engineer looks at the bubbles in his glass of beer and dreams up a better particle accelerator. That does not mean he has free-will.
achilles12604 wrote:Choice is certainly affected by our prior experiences. But they are not one in the same. And I think this is best shown in areas where we have no prior experience, and must make a choice as to how to move forward.
But we always have prior experience. There is nothing new under the sun. We face each new experience by relating it to something that we already know, adapting and testing our conclusions and our trials as we go along.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #5

Post by McCulloch »

Our thoughts have their origin in our brains. Our brains are composed of very many neurons connected together. Each neuron is just a biological cell which behaves in a predicable way. While the whole thing put together is indescribably complex and for all practical purposes, unpredictable, it is just the sum of its parts. Nothing goes in except for the sensations from the nerves leading into it. There is no reason to believe that there is a magic kind of spirit being that inhabits our brain to give it its thoughts, dreams or imagination.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #6

Post by achilles12604 »

First, I feel we should clarify. What definition of "freely" would you like to make this debate about?

Do you mean freely like freedom from a dictator pointing a gun and forcing you to make a choice, or are you using an illogical "freely" like people should be free to fly without technology if they like? Just how "freely" are you wanting choice to be?



McCulloch wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:1) Youth. Youth in general have very little experience and as such they learn new things every day. Because they are learning new things every day they do not have experience in many areas of life from which to draw. Without prior experiences, determinism make no sense.
You're going to have to connect the dots on this one. How does the inexperience of youth support the notion of free-will? The young gradually build up a bunch of experiences throughout life, all of which influence future decisions. Both determinists and free-will advocates agree.
My point is what happens when youth are faced with a choice they have never seen before? They have no experience in the area. If they have no experience with something then making a decision about it can not be based on prior experience.
achilles12604 wrote:2) Accidents. Much of what people do is brought about by trial and error. It is these errors which show that we must have the ability to choose between two or more equally unknown options. When Edison was creating the light bulb he went through many different forms of filaments before he found one which worked. At the beginning of this project, as with much of science, his initian experiments were simply trying something and seeing what occured. No prior experience had happened yet. It was simply an idea.
Intuition and random events prove free-will? I am not quite following your reasoning here.
Random events? No. Random choice . . . well that is what this debate is all about right?

Intuition. What an interesting word.
a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes;
Tell me. Would you consider a choice based on intuition one based on experience given the above definition?

And trial and error is also a thought process which uses prior experience to make only one choice. . . . don't use the last type of material. Any future materials must be chosen without the aid of any successful experiences.


So I will give you a scenerio. You tell me where determinism comes in, ok?

Thomas Edison has tried aluminum, cotten and paper in his light bulb and none of them have worked. Now he must choose what to try next out of the following options:
1) Copper
2) Algea
3) wood
4) human hair
5) Iron
6) Silicon
7) Magnesium

He chooses to try a copper fiber next. So what factors determined that he would try copper next instead of Magnesium? Or like many scientists before was he simply choosing materials at random until one showed some kind of progress and pointed in the right direction? Or was he equally free to try Magnesium next?




achilles12604 wrote:3) Imagination. If necessity is the mother of invention, then imagination is the tool used to build the device. People understand what they need to have done. But this is their only form of experience. From there they must use their imaginations to form options. The formation of options is clearly a thought process which requires the ability to choose.
We are not debating our ability to imagine or to choose. We are debating whether our choices are made freely. Humans choose. We both agree on that. We even perceive that our choices are made freely.
See above. What factors would determine where the person's imagination would take them? Take Edison for my particular example.

Also I feel we should clarify. How freely would you like to make this debate about?

Do you mean freely like freedom from a dictator pointing a gun and forcing you to make a choice, or are you using an illogical "freely" like people should be free to fly without technology if they like? Just how "freely" are you wanting choice to be?

I will repost this at the top so as to make it a headlining question instead of a mid-post question.
achilles12604 wrote: McCulloch may point out that the people already knew the problem and this would indicate determinalism. However, knowing the problem and forming a brand new solution are very different cognative abilities. Take for example our fight against aids. Scientists have been using all of our experiences (determinism). However no gains have been made towards a cure. So now that we have exhausted our prior knowledge, we must try new ideas. We must use our imaginations to invent something totally knew. And each new invention, each the child of imagination, argues against determinalism. If the only thing humans did is use our prior experiences, we should still be using rocks to make fire because it worked. We should be using cliffs to kill animals for food because it worked. I almost said spears but even this was an invention.
Imagination and ingenuity are not ruled out by determinism. Humans are intelligent beings. We have been selected for survival for our ability to think creatively, even off-the-wall. An engineer looks at the bubbles in his glass of beer and dreams up a better particle accelerator. That does not mean he has free-will.
I stated that imagination will bring forth various options which did not exist before. Then the person must choose between these options. You are correct, a person can be creative and still be confined by their prior experiences. I do not think a person must use their prior experiences to choose between brand new and previously untested ideas however.
achilles12604 wrote:Choice is certainly affected by our prior experiences. But they are not one in the same. And I think this is best shown in areas where we have no prior experience, and must make a choice as to how to move forward.
But we always have prior experience. There is nothing new under the sun. We face each new experience by relating it to something that we already know, adapting and testing our conclusions and our trials as we go along.
I disagree. People have firsts and when they do they have multiple choices as to how to approach their firsts. Then when one fails they choose a different route. But the choice as to how to proceed, is made without prior experience with their first.

But again this brings us back to your definition of "freely". Take shooting for example. You could say that because they knew which end of the gun the bullet came out of that they had prior knowledge and their actions were no longer free. If this is the strictness of your definition of "freely" then we will have little to debate. However if you consider that a first time shooter has no experience with kick back, hand position, sight alignment, etc., they must choose how to do each of these without any prior knowledge at all.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #7

Post by achilles12604 »

McCulloch wrote:Our thoughts have their origin in our brains. Our brains are composed of very many neurons connected together. Each neuron is just a biological cell which behaves in a predicable way. While the whole thing put together is indescribably complex and for all practical purposes, unpredictable, it is just the sum of its parts. Nothing goes in except for the sensations from the nerves leading into it. There is no reason to believe that there is a magic kind of spirit being that inhabits our brain to give it its thoughts, dreams or imagination.
Nor did I claim there to be one. So let's put this non-issue to bed and focus.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #8

Post by McCulloch »

achilles12604 wrote:First, I feel we should clarify. What definition of "freely" would you like to make this debate about?

Do you mean freely like freedom from a dictator pointing a gun and forcing you to make a choice, or are you using an illogical "freely" like people should be free to fly without technology if they like? Just how "freely" are you wanting choice to be?
Free as in unconstrained by external circumstances. Now it would be ridiculous for us to debate that any choice made by a human is completely or absolutely free from external circumstances. I think that we can both agree that most of the choices we make are constrained to some degree by physics and biology. So we can put to bed the non-issue of whether we can choose to do the impossible.

Your task, as I see it, is to show that there must be something other than physics, biology, neurology and the like that influences the decisions that we make.
achilles12604 wrote:My point is what happens when youth are faced with a choice they have never seen before? They have no experience in the area. If they have no experience with something then making a decision about it can not be based on prior experience.
I agree. We sometimes make decisions that are not based on prior experience. How do we make those decisions? We recall anything in our past that is analogous to the situation we are facing, stretching the metaphor if we must, we match patterns that we know to see if there is one that seems similar to the new one, we guess, we imagine, we analyze, we toss a coin.
Can you show that any of these activities is directed by something other than biology and physics?
achilles12604 wrote:Tell me. Would you consider a choice based on intuition one based on experience given the above definition?
Yes. Our intuition is a subconscious facility of our brain used to rapidly discover patterns and ideas bypassing the rational thought processes. The patterns are ones that have built up over our lifetime. That's why toddlers and infants have poor intuition and those of us who are older might have better intuition.
achilles12604 wrote:Thomas Edison has tried aluminum, cotton and paper in his light bulb and none of them have worked. Now he must choose what to try next out of the following options:
  1. Copper
  2. Algea
  3. wood
  4. human hair
  5. Iron
  6. Silicon
  7. Magnesium
He chooses to try a copper fiber next. So what factors determined that he would try copper next instead of Magnesium? Or like many scientists before was he simply choosing materials at random until one showed some kind of progress and pointed in the right direction? Or was he equally free to try Magnesium next?
He had options. He chose one of them. I don't know why he chose to try copper and did not choose magnesium. Neither do you. If determinism were true, then it would be possible if one had perfect knowledge of the state of every neuron in his brain and every environmental agent that affected him, to accurately predict his decision. If free-will were true, then there is some agent or factor other than the deterministic mechanisms of biology, physics etc making that decision. What might that agent or factor be?
achilles12604 wrote:I do not think a person must use their prior experiences to choose between brand new and previously untested ideas however.
Really? what then do they use? Imagination is only a creative mixing of our prior experiences and observed patterns.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
achilles12604
Site Supporter
Posts: 3697
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Colorado

Post #9

Post by achilles12604 »

McCulloch wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:First, I feel we should clarify. What definition of "freely" would you like to make this debate about?

Do you mean freely like freedom from a dictator pointing a gun and forcing you to make a choice, or are you using an illogical "freely" like people should be free to fly without technology if they like? Just how "freely" are you wanting choice to be?
Free as in unconstrained by external circumstances. Now it would be ridiculous for us to debate that any choice made by a human is completely or absolutely free from external circumstances. I think that we can both agree that most of the choices we make are constrained to some degree by physics and biology. So we can put to bed the non-issue of whether we can choose to do the impossible.

Your task, as I see it, is to show that there must be something other than physics, biology, neurology and the like that influences the decisions that we make.
This is not the premise you set forth at the outset.
Achilles' job is simple. He can either present a reason or reasons to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose OR he can demonstrate that humans can freely choose. My job is to show that whatever reason he may present is not valid or that whatever demonstration he performs can be adequately explained from a determinist point-of-view.
Free choice can be the byproduct of neurology and biology. We are not debating the existence or control of a soul here. We are debating the ideas of determinism.

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

This is not the same thing as me proving that something outside of the human body causes choices to be made. We must remain focused on the ultimate purpose as you stated it at the outset.


achilles12604 wrote:My point is what happens when youth are faced with a choice they have never seen before? They have no experience in the area. If they have no experience with something then making a decision about it can not be based on prior experience.
I agree. We sometimes make decisions that are not based on prior experience. How do we make those decisions? We recall anything in our past that is analogous to the situation we are facing, stretching the metaphor if we must, we match patterns that we know to see if there is one that seems similar to the new one, we guess, we imagine, we analyze, we toss a coin.
Can you show that any of these activities is directed by something other than biology and physics?
That is not my job. It is your job to show that these activities can be accounted for through the idea of determinism.

For the sake of mincing pointless details we can do away with tossing a coin or taking steps. However I did make the point that the first time someone chooses a course of action relating to a new task is hard to account for with a deterministic viewpoint.
achilles12604 wrote:Tell me. Would you consider a choice based on intuition one based on experience given the above definition?
Yes. Our intuition is a subconscious facility of our brain used to rapidly discover patterns and ideas bypassing the rational thought processes. The patterns are ones that have built up over our lifetime. That's why toddlers and infants have poor intuition and those of us who are older might have better intuition.
The sub-consious. This is starting to border on a non-falsifiable argument as the sub-concious is not something which can be tested as to what effect it has on peoples actions or choices. I also am not sure I agree that children do not have active intuition. There are several cases per year where children run away from strangers who approach them in their cars and ask them to get it. Many times the child remarks about how they just knew they shouldn't go with him. This is intuition and interestingly unless the child had been in a similar circumstance before they have no prior experience in the area either.
achilles12604 wrote:Thomas Edison has tried aluminum, cotton and paper in his light bulb and none of them have worked. Now he must choose what to try next out of the following options:
  1. Copper
  2. Algea
  3. wood
  4. human hair
  5. Iron
  6. Silicon
  7. Magnesium
He chooses to try a copper fiber next. So what factors determined that he would try copper next instead of Magnesium? Or like many scientists before was he simply choosing materials at random until one showed some kind of progress and pointed in the right direction? Or was he equally free to try Magnesium next?
He had options. He chose one of them. I don't know why he chose to try copper and did not choose magnesium. Neither do you. If determinism were true, then it would be possible if one had perfect knowledge of the state of every neuron in his brain and every environmental agent that affected him, to accurately predict his decision. If free-will were true, then there is some agent or factor other than the deterministic mechanisms of biology, physics etc making that decision. What might that agent or factor be?
Once again I am not sure that there must be something outside of the human body. But like I stated above even given the boundries of the physical body, we can still have free choice. Now if you are unable to explain how his choice can be explained through determinism I would be happy to move on to the next topic. Simply the observation that he made random choices several thousand times before he found something which would work is good enough for me at this time. Random choices are directly contradictory to the theory of determinism.




achilles12604 wrote:I do not think a person must use their prior experiences to choose between brand new and previously untested ideas however.
Really? what then do they use? Imagination is only a creative mixing of our prior experiences and observed patterns.
Ok I shall conceed for now the point of the imagination. Instead let us focus on the random choices and first choices stated above.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #10

Post by McCulloch »

McCulloch wrote:Your task, as I see it, is to show that there must be something other than physics, biology, neurology and the like that influences the decisions that we make.
achilles12604 wrote:This is not the premise you set forth at the outset.
OK, that's just my opinion. If you were able to do this then, I think that would have fulfilled the requirement of the original task. But if you want to go about it another way, that's fine with me.
achilles12604 wrote:Free choice can be the byproduct of neurology and biology. We are not debating the existence or control of a soul here. We are debating the ideas of determinism.

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

This is not the same thing as me proving that something outside of the human body causes choices to be made. We must remain focused on the ultimate purpose as you stated it at the outset.
We agree on the definition of determinism. As far as I can see, [feel free to correct me] events are either caused directly or indirectly by some agent or agents or they are random. If you deny determinism, then there must be some kind of non-determinist causal agent. That is why I raised this issue. However, let's stay focused on the issue being debated. If you prove determinism false, then we must accept the logical consequences.
achilles12604 wrote:That is not my job. It is your job to show that these activities can be accounted for through the idea of determinism.
You are claiming that because humans can deal with situations that are new, they must have free-will. But a sufficiently complex robot can make decisions dealing with new situations, by using a pattern matching algorithm and random choices. Your example does not prove free-will.
achilles12604 wrote:The sub-consious. This is starting to border on a non-falsifiable argument as the sub-concious is not something which can be tested as to what effect it has on peoples actions or choices. I also am not sure I agree that children do not have active intuition. There are several cases per year where children run away from strangers who approach them in their cars and ask them to get it. Many times the child remarks about how they just knew they shouldn't go with him. This is intuition and interestingly unless the child had been in a similar circumstance before they have no prior experience in the area either.
The subconscious is not non-falsifiable. Measurements have been made that show decisions are made in the brain before the human owner of that brain is aware of the decision. Children have active intuition. Infants and toddlers do not. A lot can happen in just a few years.
achilles12604 wrote:Once again I am not sure that there must be something outside of the human body. But like I stated above even given the boundries of the physical body, we can still have free choice. Now if you are unable to explain how his choice can be explained through determinism I would be happy to move on to the next topic. Simply the observation that he made random choices several thousand times before he found something which would work is good enough for me at this time. Random choices are directly contradictory to the theory of determinism.
Random events happen. They happen only on the quantum level, but they cannot be denied. However, since this discussion is about will, these random events, unless you can show that they are under human control, are irrelevant to our discussion.

Edison made a choice. You have presented no reason to believe that his choice was made freely and could not have been determined.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Post Reply