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

Post #21

Post by achilles12604 »

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

achilles12604 wrote: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.


Yes and I will come to this in just a second. I have a thought on the way home.
achilles12604 wrote: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 probably used the wrong word. My point, which I am sure you got, is that the ideas of determinism are not solid. They fluctuate from person to person. So I am justified in pointing out that there are parties who provide a different definition of determinism than you are here. Since there are a variety of degrees of determinism, I want to nail down just how fundamentalist you are. :lol: (never thought you would be called a fundamentalist huh?)


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).


Yes, yes. I will come to this after I nail down your particular position.
achilles12604 wrote: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.[/quote]

I am going somewhere with this so don't worry.


So if there are circumstances where the person has no prior experiences, or prior experience has no significance, then biology is deterministic correct?

But if events are entered in, then biology can be over ridden by the person who wishes to meet a desired outcome correct?

I want to make sure I understand EXACTLY your position on this matter.
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 #22

Post by McCulloch »

I'll go over the rest and respond later, but I though that it might help if I gave you this.
achilles12604 wrote:So if there are circumstances where the person has no prior experiences, or prior experience has no significance, then biology is deterministic correct?
I believe that the only circumstance where a person has no prior experience or no prior experience of any significance is just after we are born. At that point, yes biology is determinant.
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 #23

Post by achilles12604 »

McCulloch wrote:I'll go over the rest and respond later, but I though that it might help if I gave you this.
achilles12604 wrote:So if there are circumstances where the person has no prior experiences, or prior experience has no significance, then biology is deterministic correct?
I believe that the only circumstance where a person has no prior experience or no prior experience of any significance is just after we are born. At that point, yes biology is determinant.
Ok. So then once events have been entered in, biology becomes an influencer, but not a determinant correct?
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 #24

Post by McCulloch »

McCulloch wrote:I'll go over the rest and respond later, but I though that it might help if I gave you this.
Apostle Achilles wrote:So if there are circumstances where the person has no prior experiences, or prior experience has no significance, then biology is deterministic correct?
McCulloch wrote:I believe that the only circumstance where a person has no prior experience or no prior experience of any significance is just after we are born. At that point, yes biology is determinant.
Apostle Achilles wrote:Ok. So then once events have been entered in, biology becomes an influencer, but not a determinant correct?
Perhaps more like co-determinant with events.
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 #25

Post by achilles12604 »

McCulloch wrote:
McCulloch wrote:I'll go over the rest and respond later, but I though that it might help if I gave you this.

Apostle Achilles wrote:So if there are circumstances where the person has no prior experiences, or prior experience has no significance, then biology is deterministic correct?

McCulloch wrote:I believe that the only circumstance where a person has no prior experience or no prior experience of any significance is just after we are born. At that point, yes biology is determinant.

Apostle Achilles wrote:Ok. So then once events have been entered in, biology becomes an influencer, but not a determinant correct?


Perhaps more like co-determinant with events.


I am struggling with your definition of determinate. If something DETERMINES something else, then it can not be altered or changed. Nothing else matters. However, if it is a combination of influencers, then the number of things influencing can not be limited to one, or two or ten.

Would you explain the difference in your mind of determinate and influencer? I will provide mine.

Determinate
1. having defined limits; definite.
2. settled; positive.
3. conclusive; final.
4. resolute.

Influencer
1. the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others: He used family influence to get the contract.
2. the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others: Her mother's influence made her stay.
3. a person or thing that exerts influence: He is an influence for the good.


It appears to me that if multiple things are included, that none of them can be determinate. If I say that his consumption of a shot determined that he would become drunk, then that is it. The drunken state was determined by taking the shot.

Influencers on the other hand can include various degrees of direct and indirect force.

His drunken state, which was determined by his taking the shot, was influenced by his dehydrated state, lack of food during the day, and lateness of the hour.

None of those things CAUSED his drunken state, but they certainly added to it. However the shot CAUSED the state and was aided by the other factors.

So explain how there can be multiple determinates? I would think that there can only be at most ONE determinate and a bunch of infuencers. Or perhaps simply a bunch of influencers acting together could accomplish the desired effect but no single ONE of them would have the outcome alone.


And for good measure, here is the definition of determine.

de·ter·mine /dɪˈtɜrmɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-tur-min] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -mined, -min·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision.
2. to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.
3. Geometry. to fix the position of.
4. to cause, affect, or control; fix or decide causally:


If something determines something else, it settles it. It causes it. It controls it.
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 #26

Post by McCulloch »

achilles12604 wrote:I am struggling with your definition of determinate. If something DETERMINES something else, then it can not be altered or changed. Nothing else matters. However, if it is a combination of influencers, then the number of things influencing can not be limited to one, or two or ten.
I think that I see your problem. Do you believe that for something to be determined, it must have one and only one factor which determines it? I do not. Something can be determined by a combination of factors.

Take, for example, today's weather in the city where you live. The set of determining factors contain, but are not limited to
  1. latitude
  2. angle of the earths axis
  3. proximity to geographic features; oceans, lakes, rivers, mountains etc.
  4. ocean currents
  5. the jet stream
  6. the recent weather in nearby areas
Weather prediction is difficult and inexact, yet, no one pretends that weather has free will or that weather is not anything but determined.

Human behaviour is the same, except it is vastly more complex. You have presented no reasons to believe that human decision making is anything but determined by a combination of factors.
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 #27

Post by achilles12604 »

McCulloch wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:I am struggling with your definition of determinate. If something DETERMINES something else, then it can not be altered or changed. Nothing else matters. However, if it is a combination of influencers, then the number of things influencing can not be limited to one, or two or ten.
I think that I see your problem. Do you believe that for something to be determined, it must have one and only one factor which determines it? I do not. Something can be determined by a combination of factors.

Take, for example, today's weather in the city where you live. The set of determining factors contain, but are not limited to
  1. latitude
  2. angle of the earths axis
  3. proximity to geographic features; oceans, lakes, rivers, mountains etc.
  4. ocean currents
  5. the jet stream
  6. the recent weather in nearby areas
Weather prediction is difficult and inexact, yet, no one pretends that weather has free will or that weather is not anything but determined.

Human behaviour is the same, except it is vastly more complex. You have presented no reasons to believe that human decision making is anything but determined by a combination of factors.
I agree with you about weather and I think it provides a wonderful comparison to humanity.

You were actually closer with your deleted analysis of my position. Before the delete, you wrote
McCulloch wrote: I am beginning to see your difficulty. If something is determined, then
it cannot be altered except by those things which determine it. Take
today\'s weather at your location for example. The weather is
determined. It cannot be altered or changed. It has no free will. It does not
freely decide what it will do today. However, there are quite a number of
factors which together determine what the weather will be.

So also, in my view, is human behaviour determined, except that it is
vastly more complex and difficult to predict. It would be wrong and
rather simple minded to argue that human behaviour is determined by only
one single factor.

But I would be reluctant to call these factors influencers. While
individually they influence and do not determine the outcome, together they
do determine the outcome. There is, in my view, nothing else, such as a
soul, spirit or other source of human free agency.
My replies to these two things are slightly different because in your first response you understood and elaborated upon your position. In the non-deleted post, you ask me a question . . .
Do you believe that for something to be determined, it must have one and only one factor which determines it?
My answer to this is a resounding no. My disagreement is with what you define as a determinate vs an influence.

I can not agree that something is a determinate when multiple things are working together. Rather, I see that there are multiple influencers which play off each other to determine the outcome.

Take your weather example. The end result is influenced by wind patterns, global heating, humidity, etc. However, wind patterns are not a determining factor in a storm. Rather they are one of many factors which influence and impact one another to form a result.

I think that you would agree with this based upon your previous post.



I think the difficulty is in our definitions. To me a determinate is something which is the deciding factor. There can be a primary determinate aided by influencers. Or there can be multiple influencers which arrive at a result.

But we are just going over definitions now. Let's move on.
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 #28

Post by achilles12604 »

I would like you to answer a question for me. Plain and simple.


Person A if faced with a choice.

This choice has nothing really to do with biology.

Person A does have a lot of experiences all of which would cause the person to perform action G about the choice in question.

Given your theory of determinism and the above information, do you think you can make a determination about which choice person A will make?



Those the above fit your criteria for determinism? If not, what else should be considered?
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 #29

Post by McCulloch »

McCulloch wrote:Do you believe that for something to be determined, it must have one and only one factor which determines it?
Apostle Achilles wrote:My answer to this is a resounding no. My disagreement is with what you define as a determinate vs an influence.
I can live with your definition that a determinate is a single factor which determines the outcome and that influencers are factors which may change the outcome but by themselves do not determine the outcome.
Apostle Achilles wrote:I can not agree that something is a determinate when multiple things are working together. Rather, I see that there are multiple influencers which play off each other to determine the outcome.
I am not focused on what is a determinate. I am focused on whether the outcome is determined.

Let's look at types of events. There are some events, we both agree which are determined. The event, such as weather, can in theory be predicted, if all of the factors are sufficiently well known and understood. There are some events which are random. These events cannot be predicted. It turns out that the only truly random events are quantum.

It is posited by those supporting free-will that there is a third type of event. These events, an idea or a thought, are not determined yet are not random, they are an act of will, a decided event. Such decisions, they claim are not completely determined. I have yet to see a reason to believe in such events.
Apostle Achilles wrote:I would like you to answer a question for me. Plain and simple.

Person A if faced with a choice.

This choice has nothing really to do with biology.

Person A does have a lot of experiences all of which would cause the person to perform action G about the choice in question.

Given your theory of determinism and the above information, do you think you can make a determination about which choice person A will make?
No, I cannot. Like the weather, I can only assign probabilities of the outcome based on the information available. But, like the weather, my inability to predict the event does not prove or even indicate that the outcome was not 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

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

Post #30

Post by achilles12604 »

McCulloch wrote:
Apostle Achilles wrote:I can not agree that something is a determinate when multiple things are working together. Rather, I see that there are multiple influencers which play off each other to determine the outcome.
I am not focused on what is a determinate. I am focused on whether the outcome is determined.

Let's look at types of events. There are some events, we both agree which are determined. The event, such as weather, can in theory be predicted, if all of the factors are sufficiently well known and understood. There are some events which are random. These events cannot be predicted. It turns out that the only truly random events are quantum.

It is posited by those supporting free-will that there is a third type of event. These events, an idea or a thought, are not determined yet are not random, they are an act of will, a decided event. Such decisions, they claim are not completely determined. I have yet to see a reason to believe in such events.
So basically you are saying . . .

1) We have seen some major examples of determinism with things like weather.
2) People have a tendency to follow patterns of behavior based on experiences.
3) These patterns of behavior are similar to other examples of determinism like weather.

Therefore determinism in human beings is also true?
Apostle Achilles wrote:I would like you to answer a question for me. Plain and simple.

Person A if faced with a choice.

This choice has nothing really to do with biology.

Person A does have a lot of experiences all of which would cause the person to perform action G about the choice in question.

Given your theory of determinism and the above information, do you think you can make a determination about which choice person A will make?
No, I cannot. Like the weather, I can only assign probabilities of the outcome based on the information available. But, like the weather, my inability to predict the event does not prove or even indicate that the outcome was not determined.
Interesting.

Ok let me be a bit more specific.

A person is a driving a car. Sometimes this person speeds.

Now there is no biological reason to speed. In fact there is a biological reason not to speed. Human's were not built for high speeds. Nature never meant for human's to go 70 miles an hour. However, we are resourceful and we adapt. Now this person has many life experiences.

1) Speeding tickets in the past
2) Car crash once due to excessive speed
3) Many close calls

Now if this person speeds on a regular basis, how can your idea of determinism still hold true? Biology is either a non-factor or a negative factor. Life experiences are all negative factors.

Now if I have been reading your theory correctly, determinism is the combination of biology, and events with the emphasis on events.

How can this be true in the above situation?
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.

Post Reply