Free Will -- Achilles v McCulloch

[McCulloch]

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

Achilles12604 affirms. McCulloch denies.

[achilles12604]

Edison made a choice. You have presented no reason to believe that his choice was made freely and could not have been determined.

Lol. You have shifted the burden of proof. Remember it is your task to show that the events can be explained by determinism.

But no matter You wrote something else which I think makes one of my points quite clearly.

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.

So what about random choices made by humans. Those are under human control.

If I have two decks of cards in front of me and I pick up one of them, was I not equally free to pick up the other one? Can you show that determinism is the more likely cause of my choice? How?





I would like to also introduce another idea which I think throws a wrench into the theory of determinism.

The series of events can lead to certain results. Take an alcoholic for example. After some time the alcohol controls him. His body is physically and mentally dependent. If he kills someone while drunk, he is responsible for the murder but he is not totally responsible since he was mentally impaired at the time.

However, I think that his actions in the past give him the ultimate responsibility for the crime. Because he chose to start drinking, he helped to create the monster within and is therefore ultimately responsible for the resulting actions.

I think this shows the difference between determinism and free choice. His murder may have been caused by determining factors, however his free will to start drinking still gives him the ultimate responsibility.

Aristotle's claim that if a man is responsible for wicked acts that flow from his character, he must at some time in the past have been responsible for forming the wicked character from which these acts flow. (Borrowed from multiple sources).

So under these circumstances could not his free will have affected determinism and the ultimate outcome?

[McCulloch]

Edison made a choice. You have presented no reason to believe that his choice was made freely and could not have been determined.

Lol. You have shifted the burden of proof. Remember it is your task to show that the events can be explained by determinism.

No, I have not. The burden lies with you. You are the one affirming that "There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions. " My job is to show that your examples don't necessitate free-will but are consistent with determinism.
Edison made a choice. You claim that it was a free choice, but you have presented no evidence or reason to believe that it was a choice made freely.

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.

So what about random choices made by humans. Those are under human control.

You will, I presume, show that humans can make random choices.

If I have two decks of cards in front of me and I pick up one of them, was I not equally free to pick up the other one? Can you show that determinism is the more likely cause of my choice? How?

I was wrong. You have made no attempt to show that humans can make random choices. You have, in picking up one deck and not the other, made an arbitrary but not random choice. I don't know your brain, but something happened, some neurons fired that caused you to pick up one and not the other (and not both or neither). Could it have been the position, the color, the choice you made last time, the way that one reminded you of fried eggs, some childhood rhyme recited while choosing?

Having chosen one over the other, could you have gone the other way? If you were in precisely the same situation with precisely the same configuration of neurons and precisely the same influences, including all of the same memories, could you have done any different? You have failed to show any reason to believe that you could.

[McCulloch]

The series of events can lead to certain results. Take an alcoholic for example. After some time the alcohol controls him. His body is physically and mentally dependent. If he kills someone while drunk, he is responsible for the murder but he is not totally responsible since he was mentally impaired at the time.

However, I think that his actions in the past give him the ultimate responsibility for the crime. Because he chose to start drinking, he helped to create the monster within and is therefore ultimately responsible for the resulting actions.

I think that moral or legal responsibility is a red herring in the discussion of free will. Does it really matter if the person is responsible for the resulting actions? What does it mean to be responsible for such actions? If we decide that he is not responsible, but that he, because of his alcoholism, is still a danger, then it would be prudent to prevent him, by force if necessary, from committing such a crime again.

Aristotle's claim that if a man is responsible for wicked acts that flow from his character, he must at some time in the past have been responsible for forming the wicked character from which these acts flow. (Borrowed from multiple sources).

You have only pushed the problem back in time. By assuming what you have been asked to prove, you show that the man's free will in the past may have had a deterministic effect on his present character.

[achilles12604]

Edison made a choice. You have presented no reason to believe that his choice was made freely and could not have been determined.

Lol. You have shifted the burden of proof. Remember it is your task to show that the events can be explained by determinism.

No, I have not. The burden lies with you. You are the one affirming that "There is reason to believe that humans have the ability to freely choose when making decisions. " My job is to show that your examples don't necessitate free-will but are consistent with determinism.
Edison made a choice. You claim that it was a free choice, but you have presented no evidence or reason to believe that it was a choice made freely.

Ah ha. So you wish for me to provide evidence against a non-falsifiable claim then?

Your claim: Everything is controlled deterministically. Any choice made is controlled by factors which we may or may not know.

Then I provide totally random choices and you claim it is my responsibility to prove that the events in question were not caused by factors of which we are unaware.

Now is this really your argument because if so we can stop the debate as you have adopted a position which can not be falsified. Any event, no matter how random or without cause, you can claim was caused by unknown factors which I must disprove. LOL

Since you have assumed a non-falsifiable position which has no evidence to support it, and then placed the burden of proof upon me, I would point out that there is no way to move forward. This is no different from the young earth creationist stating that the earth is young and any evidence to the contrary was put there on purpose by God to make you think the earth is old.

Skillful debate, but you are no closer to showing your position is correct. And since you offer no explaination for events with no apparent cause or reason which I have presented, my position is standing as the only one with evidentuary examples in place.

You need to show that these examples are in fact explainable through determinism. That is your position.

But notice I did not stop there.

The series of events can lead to certain results. Take an alcoholic for example. After some time the alcohol controls him. His body is physically and mentally dependent. If he kills someone while drunk, he is responsible for the murder but he is not totally responsible since he was mentally impaired at the time.

However, I think that his actions in the past give him the ultimate responsibility for the crime. Because he chose to start drinking, he helped to create the monster within and is therefore ultimately responsible for the resulting actions.

I think that moral or legal responsibility is a red herring in the discussion of free will. Does it really matter if the person is responsible for the resulting actions? What does it mean to be responsible for such actions? If we decide that he is not responsible, but that he, because of his alcoholism, is still a danger, then it would be prudent to prevent him, by force if necessary, from committing such a crime again.

I disagree that it is a red herring. In fact I came upon this while researching determinism. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwVariousKane.html

This is a position which allows for major determinism, (ie alcoholism) but still allows for the ability of a person to make small choices. Determinism itself is almost a dogma in that there are factions within it that demand various amounts of evidence to support it's own position. Major determinism I can accept. However, you are citing, without supporting evidence, that minor determinism (factors behind each action regardless of how small) is in fact true and accurate.

And this of course leads us back to the top of this post.

So it boils down to this. If you are in fact taking the position that minor determinism is true and any evidence or examples offered to the contrary are simply unable to be understood, then you have taken a non-falsifiable position without supporting evidence. This position also flys in the face of random occurances.




As a final thought, I wonder what you would say regarding individuals who's pattern of behavior change. A good example of this would be an alcoholic who decides to quit.

The body has adapted to the alcohol so physically and mentally the individual is addicted. However, this person chooses, against the physical biological tendencies, to quit drinking, and suffer the pain of withdrawal.

How is this choice explained by biological, physical and neurological stimulus? I do not think it can be. It is not determined by the person's physical make up. In fact it goes against this.

[McCulloch]

Ah ha. So you wish for me to provide evidence against a non-falsifiable claim then?

I didn't claim to have the most difficult job. Provide some evidence that there is a reason to believe that humans have free will.

I provide totally random choices and you claim it is my responsibility to prove that the events in question were not caused by factors of which we are unaware.

I missed where you provide a totally random choice. Random means a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. You have shown a situation where the chooser is apparently indifferent to which item is chosen so he chooses one quickly and arbitrarily.

It does not matter whether the decision being made by the human is one that is done with deep reflection and careful consideration or one where the human could not care less. When one of us makes a decision, we make it for a reason. Something in our brain causes us to choose this and not that. I claim that whatever that something is, it obeys the deterministic laws of physics, chemistry and biology. You, on the other hand, have made a claim that there is something operating besides the deterministic laws of the universe.

Since you have assumed a non-falsifiable position which has no evidence to support it, and then placed the burden of proof upon me, I would point out that there is no way to move forward. This is no different from the young earth creationist stating that the earth is young and any evidence to the contrary was put there on purpose by God to make you think the earth is old.

I think that my situation is quite different. All of science has shown that the universe seems to operate under deterministic laws. Any claim that suggests that these laws do not apply in a particular situation would require evidence. So, it is your position which seems to me to be closer to the creationists, swimming against the tide of evidence. I am not invoking any sky daddy to intervene and make my case. You require some kind of agent of this alleged free will, but refuse to identify what you think it might be.

You need to show that these examples are in fact explainable through determinism. That is your position.

Do I have to figure out each of the magician's tricks and secrets before I conclude that he has not violated the laws of physics and performed real magic? All without knowing the specific details of the person involved. And you say that I'm asking you for impossible evidence! I submit that all I have to do is show that it is feasible that the outcome could be determined and does not necessitate free will.

I will read up on the responsibility vis-a-vis free will and get back to you on that.

This is a position which allows for major determinism, (ie alcoholism) but still allows for the ability of a person to make small choices. Determinism itself is almost a dogma in that there are factions within it that demand various amounts of evidence to support it's own position. Major determinism I can accept. However, you are citing, without supporting evidence, that minor determinism (factors behind each action regardless of how small) is in fact true and accurate.

It appears that I hold the view you have labeled minor determinism. I have yet to see any reason that any of our choices, large or small are exempt from the laws of physics.

This position also flys in the face of random occurances.

Let's put the issue of randomness behind us. My view is that all events are either caused by other events or they are random. The view of those who hold to free will is that there is a third type of event; a choice. Something that did not happen randomly but was not entirely caused by previous events. This view is held without support and without evidence.

As a final thought, I wonder what you would say regarding individuals who's pattern of behavior change. A good example of this would be an alcoholic who decides to quit.

I admit that we all make decisions. A person who is an alcoholic gets to the point where he realizes that this is not a good thing and to change his behaviour. He does it for a reason, doesn't he. He does not just arbitrarily decide, "Hey, I'm going to change today."

The body has adapted to the alcohol so physically and mentally the individual is addicted. However, this person chooses, against the physical biological tendencies, to quit drinking, and suffer the pain of withdrawal.

How is this choice explained by biological, physical and neurological stimulus? I do not think it can be. It is not determined by the person's physical make up. In fact it goes against this.

Humans have evolved to be highly adaptable. When we are convinced of the merit of doing something, we can be very tenacious about achieving it. It's in our genes.

[achilles12604]

Ah ha. So you wish for me to provide evidence against a non-falsifiable claim then?

I didn't claim to have the most difficult job. Provide some evidence that there is a reason to believe that humans have free will.

I provide totally random choices and you claim it is my responsibility to prove that the events in question were not caused by factors of which we are unaware.

I missed where you provide a totally random choice. Random means a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. You have shown a situation where the chooser is apparently indifferent to which item is chosen so he chooses one quickly and arbitrarily.

It does not matter whether the decision being made by the human is one that is done with deep reflection and careful consideration or one where the human could not care less. When one of us makes a decision, we make it for a reason. Something in our brain causes us to choose this and not that. I claim that whatever that something is, it obeys the deterministic laws of physics, chemistry and biology. You, on the other hand, have made a claim that there is something operating besides the deterministic laws of the universe.

Since you have assumed a non-falsifiable position which has no evidence to support it, and then placed the burden of proof upon me, I would point out that there is no way to move forward. This is no different from the young earth creationist stating that the earth is young and any evidence to the contrary was put there on purpose by God to make you think the earth is old.

I think that my situation is quite different. All of science has shown that the universe seems to operate under deterministic laws. Any claim that suggests that these laws do not apply in a particular situation would require evidence. So, it is your position which seems to me to be closer to the creationists, swimming against the tide of evidence. I am not invoking any sky daddy to intervene and make my case. You require some kind of agent of this alleged free will, but refuse to identify what you think it might be.

You need to show that these examples are in fact explainable through determinism. That is your position.

Do I have to figure out each of the magician's tricks and secrets before I conclude that he has not violated the laws of physics and performed real magic? All without knowing the specific details of the person involved. And you say that I'm asking you for impossible evidence! I submit that all I have to do is show that it is feasible that the outcome could be determined and does not necessitate free will.

I will read up on the responsibility vis-a-vis free will and get back to you on that.

This is a position which allows for major determinism, (ie alcoholism) but still allows for the ability of a person to make small choices. Determinism itself is almost a dogma in that there are factions within it that demand various amounts of evidence to support it's own position. Major determinism I can accept. However, you are citing, without supporting evidence, that minor determinism (factors behind each action regardless of how small) is in fact true and accurate.

It appears that I hold the view you have labeled minor determinism. I have yet to see any reason that any of our choices, large or small are exempt from the laws of physics.

This position also flys in the face of random occurances.

Let's put the issue of randomness behind us. My view is that all events are either caused by other events or they are random. The view of those who hold to free will is that there is a third type of event; a choice. Something that did not happen randomly but was not entirely caused by previous events. This view is held without support and without evidence.

As a final thought, I wonder what you would say regarding individuals who's pattern of behavior change. A good example of this would be an alcoholic who decides to quit.

I admit that we all make decisions. A person who is an alcoholic gets to the point where he realizes that this is not a good thing and to change his behavior. He does it for a reason, doesn't he. He does not just arbitrarily decide, "Hey, I'm going to change today."

The body has adapted to the alcohol so physically and mentally the individual is addicted. However, this person chooses, against the physical biological tendencies, to quit drinking, and suffer the pain of withdrawal.

How is this choice explained by biological, physical and neurological stimulus? I do not think it can be. It is not determined by the person's physical make up. In fact it goes against this.

Humans have evolved to be highly adaptable. When we are convinced of the merit of doing something, we can be very tenacious about achieving it. It's in our genes.

So allow me, if you will to summarize.

If someone makes an otherwise random choice (ie Edison choosing copper to try next) then there must be sub-conscious and untestable reasons why which are impossible to identify. This accounts for your physics, biology and neurology.

But at the same time, if someone acts in a manner which totally opposes the physics, biology and neurology (like the alcoholic) then they are also being deterministic because they made a choice which was influenced by outside events. It wasn't simply a decision.


So right now you are standing on an unprovable hypothesis that all minute decisions are controlled by factors which can not be proven or tested and simultaneously asserting that these same factors can be overcome at will but only if outside influences dictate as much. Is this about right?

[achilles12604]

You, on the other hand, have made a claim that there is something operating besides the deterministic laws of the universe.

I made the point that even within the biology, and other things you assert are deterministic, choice can be made. I cited a source which coincides with this view point. This doesn't have to be some magic fairy in our heads.

I also observed that the philosophy of determinism is in itself a dogma with various branches. I cited an author who allows for events to be deterministic, but also allows for freedom to choose despite biology. This position I can accept to a degree. But you are claiming that biology causes determinism but at the same time refuting this with your events determinism.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Basically I am observing from my debate with you that determinism has its own set of dogma. The same as any religion. In Christianity we have fundamentalists who claim that God did it and anything which can not be explained right now must fit under the "god" theory as well. Then we have individuals who accept science because they have observed the process and recognize that it has some merit. But they still hold to beliefs above and beyond the scope of science.

Similarly the website I cited before allows for original choices. They do not insert biology as a controlling factor. But they then observe the cause and effect of those and other choices on the person. I find that this determinalistic view marries more easily with the observations of the world, including the first choices of youth and the random choices of Edison, et al.

So I feel that your position contradicts itself. Either biology and neurology is deterministic, or else events are deterministic. If people are controlled by biology, then events should have little impact on their choices because their biology is the most direct influence upon them. Biology is unchangable. If people are controlled by events, then under circumstances where they have not prior experience, they must have the ability to choose a course of action from the various possibilities.

I do not see how you can have it both ways and I would suggest that this is the reason why the authors in my cited website allow for a first choice followed by a pattern of choices.

[McCulloch]

If someone makes an otherwise random choice (ie Edison choosing copper to try next) then there must be sub-conscious and untestable reasons why which are impossible to identify. This accounts for your physics, biology and neurology.

But at the same time, if someone acts in a manner which totally opposes the physics, biology and neurology (like the alcoholic) then they are also being deterministic because they made a choice which was influenced by outside events. It wasn't simply a decision.

So right now you are standing on an unprovable hypothesis that all minute decisions are controlled by factors which can not be proven or tested and simultaneously asserting that these same factors can be overcome at will but only if outside influences dictate as much. Is this about right?

Not quite. Since we can find no reason to believe in any causal agent operating inside a human brain, we by default conclude that the activities of that brain are deterministic. Edison makes an arbitrary (but not necessarily random) choice or an alcoholic makes a determined deliberate decision to go against his own physiological cravings. Each decision is made by a complex and unintelligible set of processes which individually are well understood to be deterministic. Why do you persist in asserting, without evidence, that the combination of these processes is not?

[achilles12604]

If someone makes an otherwise random choice (ie Edison choosing copper to try next) then there must be sub-conscious and untestable reasons why which are impossible to identify. This accounts for your physics, biology and neurology.

But at the same time, if someone acts in a manner which totally opposes the physics, biology and neurology (like the alcoholic) then they are also being deterministic because they made a choice which was influenced by outside events. It wasn't simply a decision.

So right now you are standing on an unprovable hypothesis that all minute decisions are controlled by factors which can not be proven or tested and simultaneously asserting that these same factors can be overcome at will but only if outside influences dictate as much. Is this about right?

Not quite. Since we can find no reason to believe in any causal agent operating inside a human brain, we by default conclude that the activities of that brain are deterministic. Edison makes an arbitrary (but not necessarily random) choice or an alcoholic makes a determined deliberate decision to go against his own physiological cravings. Each decision is made by a complex and unintelligible set of processes which individually are well understood to be deterministic. Why do you persist in asserting, without evidence, that the combination of these processes is not?

I cited evidence. But you haven't responded to post 17 yet so perhaps my point has not been fully made yet. We should combine back into one reply back and forth. Let me attempt to fix this.

You, on the other hand, have made a claim that there is something operating besides the deterministic laws of the universe.

I made the point that even within the biology, and other things you assert are deterministic, choice can be made. I cited a source which coincides with this view point. This doesn't have to be some magic fairy in our heads.

Since we can find no reason to believe in any causal agent operating inside a human brain, we by default conclude that the activities of that brain are deterministic.

Each decision is made by a complex and unintelligible set of processes which individually are well understood to be deterministic.

You make a leap here which I do not think is warranted. I allude to this in post 17. I agree that there are processes within our mind. I agree that the outcome of these process is the inevitable action we take. But I do not agree that biology, and neurology are alone in making this decision. As I showed in post 17, these processes can be, and are regularly overcome by individuals.

How can you continue to claim that biology, physics, and neurology within the brain are deterministic when clearly biology, physics and neurology can be over come to produce a different result?

[McCulloch]

You, on the other hand, have made a claim that there is something operating besides the deterministic laws of the universe.

On the contrary, I made the point that even within the biology, and other things you assert are deterministic, choice can be made. I cited a source which coincides with this view point.

I don't deny that choices can be made. I deny that the choice ultimately is a free one.

I also observed that the philosophy of determinism is in itself a dogma with various branches. I cited an author who allows for events to be deterministic, but also allows for freedom to choose despite biology. This position I can accept to a degree. But you are claiming that biology causes determinism but at the same time refuting this with your events determinism.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Basically I am observing from my debate with you that determinism has its own set of dogma. The same as any religion. In Christianity we have fundamentalists who claim that God did it and anything which can not be explained right now must fit under the "god" theory as well. Then we have individuals who accept science because they have observed the process and recognize that it has some merit. But they still hold to beliefs above and beyond the scope of science.

Dogma! Get behind me Satan. Dogma is a prescribed position given by an authority and held on the basis of that authority. I hold to determinism because there is no reason to believe anything else.

I fear that you are trying to oversimplify my position. I do not claim that our choices are determined entirely by our biology. Our choices are determined by a complex mixture of biology, chemistry, physics all of which are deterministic, combined with our prior experiences, stored in a biological medium as memories, events and situations (all of which are derived from events, situations and decisions equally deterministic).

So I feel that your position contradicts itself. Either biology and neurology is deterministic, or else events are deterministic. If people are controlled by biology, then events should have little impact on their choices because their biology is the most direct influence upon them. Biology is unchangable. If people are controlled by events, then under circumstances where they have not prior experience, they must have the ability to choose a course of action from the various possibilities.

You mistake my position if you feel it contradicts itself. Biology and neurology can be deterministic and events can be deterministic. People's choices are caused by a combination of biology and external events interacting. Biology is not unchangable. If it were, I would have more hair.