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.

[McCulloch]

Therefore determinism in human beings is also true?

Yes, in a way. Determinism is a fall back position. Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way (except for on a subatomic quantum level where there may be some random behaviour in a determinist probability distribution). Unless there is a compelling reason not to, I believe that the combination of determinist parts results in a determinist, albeit more complex, system. You assert that there is a such a reason.

A person is a driving a car. Sometimes this person speeds.
[...]
How can this be true in the above situation?

Humans do not always behave rationally. I say that there are reasons that humans decide to do what they do. I did not say that there are good reasons.

Why speed? Do you get an adrenalin rush from flirting with danger? Is it a macho alpha male thing to show the others that you are superior? You're late for something and have assessed that the negative consequences of being further late outweigh the risks involved, after all, you're a good driver the speeding laws are there to protect us from all of those lousy drivers who don't have the skill to handle it.

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

Almost. I have not stated that there must be an emphasis on events. You might be right that events or our memories of past events may have a stronger influence on our decisions than biology, but I am not dependent on that being the case. How much we remember and how accurately we remember events, is itself a function of our biology, so it does get rather mixed up and complicated.

[achilles12604]

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?

Yes, in a way. Determinism is a fall back position. Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way (except for on a subatomic quantum level where there may be some random behavior in a determinist probability distribution). Unless there is a compelling reason not to, I believe that the combination of determinist parts results in a determinist, albeit more complex, system. You assert that there is a such a reason.

Interesting coming from you.

So could you explain how this is different from someone 100 years ago saying

1) The earth is very complex
2) Complex things in general are always designed where as much simpler things occur at random.
3) Therefore the earth was designed.

A person is a driving a car. Sometimes this person speeds.
[...]
How can this be true in the above situation?

Humans do not always behave rationally.

But their behavior is determined. Rationality doesn't matter unless they have a degree of choice in the matter.

If they are able to behave irrationally and go against all of their knowledge, this indicates will.

I say that there are reasons that humans decide to do what they do. I did not say that there are good reasons.

Why speed? Do you get an adrenalin rush from flirting with danger? Is it a macho alpha male thing to show the others that you are superior? You're late for something and have assessed that the negative consequences of being further late outweigh the risks involved, after all, you're a good driver the speeding laws are there to protect us from all of those lousy drivers who don't have the skill to handle it.

And of the 74 year old man who really has no where special to go and just drives faster some days? (my father)

As for your examples, they all seem to focus on youth. However, I know a great deal of older men and plenty of women who fall into the same category.

I would like to offer a solution to my question.

They speed because they want to. But this of course implies that their will is strong enough to overcome all their knowledge and biology which directly goes against the action of speeding.

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

Almost. I have not stated that there must be an emphasis on events. You might be right that events or our memories of past events may have a stronger influence on our decisions than biology, but I am not dependent on that being the case. How much we remember and how accurately we remember events, is itself a function of our biology, so it does get rather mixed up and complicated.

But the bottom line, is that if we are totally determined by a combination of events and biology, then we should not be able to make a choice which directly contradicts these. Yet people do this regularly.


I used the example of the drunk earlier. I stated that his biology was physically and mentally dependent upon the alcohol. You stated that because of his life events, he was able to over ride the biology and make a change in his life. We also have seen how several "determinates" are really nothing more than influencers which can be overridden.

Now we see a situation where someone's experience and biology are in agreement and yet he opposite choice is still made.

It appears to me that biology, experiences, and knowledge are all factors in INFLUENCING our CHOICES but ultimately we are able to decide to follow these nudges or go directly against them.

[McCulloch]

They speed because they want to.

Of course! But don't stop there. Why do they want to? Our desires are certainly a part of why we choose to do various things. Where do our desires come from? Our desire for companionship, acceptance, sex, danger avoidance, self esteem and a whole lot of other desires are biological in origin, aren't they?

But the bottom line, is that if we are totally determined by a combination of events and biology, then we should not be able to make a choice which directly contradicts these. Yet people do this regularly.

I used the example of the drunk earlier. I stated that his biology was physically and mentally dependent upon the alcohol. You stated that because of his life events, he was able to over ride the biology and make a change in his life. We also have seen how several "determinates" are really nothing more than influencers which can be overridden.

Only if taken individually. Taken together the person's biology, experiences, relationships, environment and other factors must be determinative of his choices. At this point, you might be justified to point out that I am begging the question, assuming to be true the point being debated. However, I must point out that determinism is so pervasive in the universe that it must be assumed to be true unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Now we see a situation where someone's experience and biology are in agreement and yet he opposite choice is still made.

I don't see such a situation.

It appears to me that biology, experiences, and knowledge are all factors in INFLUENCING our CHOICES but ultimately we are able to decide to follow these nudges or go directly against them.

How is it that you come to that conclusion? There are a number of different factors that affect a human's decision, some pushing one way and others pushing the other. In every case, the human in question weighs the factors and renders a decision. The relative weight assigned to the different factors will vary from person to person, depending on their neurology and their life experiences, but you cannot find an example of a human who disregards these factors.

[achilles12604]

They speed because they want to.

Of course! But don't stop there. Why do they want to? Our desires are certainly a part of why we choose to do various things. Where do our desires come from? Our desire for companionship, acceptance, sex, danger avoidance, self esteem and a whole lot of other desires are biological in origin, aren't they?

True enough. But I addressed this. Speed we are biologically AGAINST. Not for. So your argument here works in reverse. Companionship, Sex, danger avoidance. These are all important for survival. Thus Biology has helped us over millions of years.

Take a look at the last one. DANGER AVOIDANCE.

You are making my argument for me. If our bodies are programed for self-protection and nature intended for us to go a maximum of 15 MPH, then speeding is AGAINST both our biology and life events. Of course I have already said this in my previous post.

But the bottom line, is that if we are totally determined by a combination of events and biology, then we should not be able to make a choice which directly contradicts these. Yet people do this regularly.

I used the example of the drunk earlier. I stated that his biology was physically and mentally dependent upon the alcohol. You stated that because of his life events, he was able to over ride the biology and make a change in his life. We also have seen how several "determinates" are really nothing more than influencers which can be overridden.

Only if taken individually. Taken together the person's biology, experiences, relationships, environment and other factors must be determinative of his choices. At this point, you might be justified to point out that I am begging the question, assuming to be true the point being debated. However, I must point out that determinism is so pervasive in the universe that it must be assumed to be true unless there is evidence to the contrary.

There are examples to the contrary. Any time someone goes against both biology and life events they are acting contrary to this. Speeding was the example I used.

Now we see a situation where someone's experience and biology are in agreement and yet he opposite choice is still made.

I don't see such a situation.

Is speeding encouraged by our biology?

Is speeding encouraged by our life experiences?

You have answered no to both of these questions in this post. So witness your first example of such a situation.


Of course we can move on if you like. Shall we discuss the biological necessity of murder? I am interested to see how that fits your definition.

It appears to me that biology, experiences, and knowledge are all factors in INFLUENCING our CHOICES but ultimately we are able to decide to follow these nudges or go directly against them.

How is it that you come to that conclusion? There are a number of different factors that affect a human's decision, some pushing one way and others pushing the other. In every case, the human in question weighs the factors and renders a decision.

Thank you.

The relative weight assigned to the different factors will vary from person to person, depending on their neurology and their life experiences, but you cannot find an example of a human who disregards these factors.

And thank you again.

I have never put forth that people do not have these factors present. I have ALWAYS been of the opinion that these factors INFLUENCE a persons decision. But ultimately the person must choose. Hence choice, not determinism.

Conflicting factors necessitate the ability to choose a course of action from opposing biology and events. This is why someone who chose to go through a reddish/yellow light one time, may just decide to stop at the next one. Simply choice.

[McCulloch]

True enough. But I addressed this. Speed we are biologically AGAINST. Not for. So your argument here works in reverse.

Not at the rate that evolution works. Biologically, we are advantaged by greater speed. The faster you can go, the more likely you are to escape danger and catch food. Vehicles have not been with us long enough to affect our biology.

The two examples you have cited are someone speeding and an alcoholic getting on the wagon. To that you have added murder.

As I have shown, at the time humans were evolving, and until recently, speed has been a good thing. So the pleasure of going fast is a natural urge. A hunter who can demonstrate that he can go fast, is more likely to be a good provider and mate.

Sobriety. A person realizes that he is addicted to alcohol and decides to quit. How does he come to that decision? He weighs the long term advantages of sobriety against the short term pleasure of drink and the long term effects of uncontrolled alcoholism. Based on that, he decides to quit. I do not deny that people make decisions.

The rest of your post seems to be congratulating yourself for winning the point by showing that humans make decisions. You have missed the point. I have said all along that we make decisions. We make choices.

I have never put forth that people do not have these factors present. I have ALWAYS been of the opinion that these factors INFLUENCE a persons decision. But ultimately the person must choose. Hence choice, not determinism.

Conflicting factors necessitate the ability to choose a course of action from opposing biology and events. This is why someone who chose to go through a reddish/yellow light one time, may just decide to stop at the next one. Simply choice.

But did we make the choice freely? I might think that I could have made a different choice. But that is only because we don't know what choice we are going to make. We agree that we are influenced by numerous factors in making decisions. I claim that the sum total of these factors determine the decision, you claim that there is something else, something you fail to identify, is also a factor.

[achilles12604]

True enough. But I addressed this. Speed we are biologically AGAINST. Not for. So your argument here works in reverse.

Not at the rate that evolution works. Biologically, we are advantaged by greater speed. The faster you can go, the more likely you are to escape danger and catch food. Vehicles have not been with us long enough to affect our biology.

You are assuming that evolution has created humans to be advantaged by speed. This simply isn't so McCulloch. It simply isn't so.

Human's are slower than almost every other mammal on earth. We are worse at running, we have less stamina, we are slower.

No no. Your argument depends upon "facts" which are frankly untrue. Mankinds advantage comes from our ability to think and predict our prey. It comes from our ability to invent and use tools. But it certainly does NOT come from speed. Forgive me a smile at the thought.

The two examples you have cited are someone speeding and an alcoholic getting on the wagon. To that you have added murder.

As I have shown, at the time humans were evolving, and until recently, speed has been a good thing. So the pleasure of going fast is a natural urge. A hunter who can demonstrate that he can go fast, is more likely to be a good provider and mate.

If speed was supposedly given to us by nature to aid us in running . . . . . . nature obviously wanted us to lose to coyotes, dogs, cats, deer, moose, bear, . . . oh heck, just about anyone.

Your "fact" is simply false. We did not conquer nature due to advanced speed. Nature did NOT grant us increased speed to be better hunters. We were given better MINDS to make us better hunters.

The rest of your post seems to be congratulating yourself for winning the point by showing that humans make decisions. You have missed the point. I have said all along that we make decisions. We make choices.

Granted. However we are examining your theory that these choices MUST occur due to determinism. We are investigating if it is true that the patterns of events and biology does in fact necessitate the choice being made. You said it yourself. Probably on accident.

People take into account their experiences and then make a choice. When someone has conflicting data, they still must make a choice.

I have pointed out examples where the person makes a choice which directly goes against their biology. You stated that in these circumstances, life events was more powerful and controlling. (alcoholic leaving booze and being sober)

But then I gave you examples where the person performed actions which directly contradicted all their life events. And this time you replied that deep down they must have some biology which over-rides their life experiences. This of course directly contradicts your previous assertions (speeding). And then you cite "facts" about evolution which are simply inaccurate. You tried to claim that nature made faster men more successful at hunting but a very quick evaluation of nature shows this is simply untrue. Almost every animal we would be hunting is faster than we have ever been. Thus our speed is unimportant. Our minds and abilities to invent on the other hand aided greatly.

So which it is? Or is your argument that a person is controlled by whichever determinates support your position and these over-ride whatever other determinates go against your position?

I have never put forth that people do not have these factors present. I have ALWAYS been of the opinion that these factors INFLUENCE a persons decision. But ultimately the person must choose. Hence choice, not determinism.

Conflicting factors necessitate the ability to choose a course of action from opposing biology and events. This is why someone who chose to go through a reddish/yellow light one time, may just decide to stop at the next one. Simply choice.

But did we make the choice freely? I might think that I could have made a different choice. But that is only because we don't know what choice we are going to make. We agree that we are influenced by numerous factors in making decisions. I claim that the sum total of these factors determine the decision, you claim that there is something else, something you fail to identify, is also a factor.

I did not. The concept of a spirit, or soul aiding in choices has been brought up several times during this debate and always by you.

How about the person's super ego? What is wrong with stating that the persons conscious self is capable of making a free choice after evaluating all the factors? Why must their choice be determined?




ALSO - You neatly avoided answering the following points which I bring up again for an answer.

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?

Yes, in a way. Determinism is a fall back position. Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way (except for on a subatomic quantum level where there may be some random behavior in a determinist probability distribution). Unless there is a compelling reason not to, I believe that the combination of determinist parts results in a determinist, albeit more complex, system. You assert that there is a such a reason.

Interesting coming from you.

So could you explain how this is different from someone 100 years ago saying

1) The earth is very complex
2) Complex things in general are always designed where as much simpler things occur at random.
3) Therefore the earth was designed.

A person is a driving a car. Sometimes this person speeds.
[...]
How can this be true in the above situation?

Humans do not always behave rationally.

But their behavior is determined. Rationality doesn't matter unless they have a degree of choice in the matter.

If they are able to behave irrationally and go against all of their knowledge, this indicates will.

I also present you the opportunity to bring forth points which I have erased and failed to address. I have been known to miss things in the past and I don't want to miss anything crucial.

[achilles12604]

I have created a comments section for this thread.

[McCulloch]

You are assuming that evolution has created humans to be advantaged by speed. This simply isn't so McCulloch. It simply isn't so.

Humans are slower than almost every other mammal on earth. We are worse at running, we have less stamina, we are slower.

No no. Your argument depends upon "facts" which are frankly untrue. Mankind's advantage comes from our ability to think and predict our prey. It comes from our ability to invent and use tools. But it certainly does NOT come from speed. Forgive me a smile at the thought.

I did not assume or state that humans are particularly fast. That does not change the fact that there is an advantage to being faster than your peers. Can you deny, all other things being equal, that the faster hunter has an advantage; in terms of success; in terms of survival; in terms of sexual selection.

So which it is? Or is your argument that a person is controlled by whichever determinates support your position and these over-ride whatever other determinates go against your position?

You are still hung up on the idea of a single determinate.

Here is a mathematical example:

Code: Select all

Let x = a + b 

For every value of a and b, x is determined (not just influenced) by a and b. In the case where a ≫b then x is primarily determined by a and where a ≪b, x is primarily determined by b but where a ≈ b, x cannot be said to have just one determinate, even though it is absolutely determined.

How about the person's super ego? What is wrong with stating that the persons conscious self is capable of making a free choice after evaluating all the factors? Why must their choice be determined?

The super ego might be a useful concept, however, it is being used by you much like the creationist end up using the God-of-the-gaps. You don't know why we make the choices that we make, so you invent a choice making agent, call it a soul, spirit or superego, it does not matter. You have no evidence that such a thing exists in reality and that if it does, it makes free choices.

ALSO - You neatly avoided answering the following points which I bring up again for an answer.

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?

Yes, in a way. Determinism is a fall back position. Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way (except for on a subatomic quantum level where there may be some random behavior in a determinist probability distribution). Unless there is a compelling reason not to, I believe that the combination of determinist parts results in a determinist, albeit more complex, system. You assert that there is a such a reason.

Interesting coming from you.

So could you explain how this is different from someone 100 years ago saying

1) The earth is very complex
2) Complex things in general are always designed where as much simpler things occur at random.
3) Therefore the earth was designed.

Frankly, I did not see the similarity in the two positions.
My position:

1. Humans are made from deterministic components.
2. Anything made completely from deterministic components is itself deterministic.
3. Therefore, humans are deterministic.

A person is a driving a car. Sometimes this person speeds.
[...]
How can this be true in the above situation?

Humans do not always behave rationally.

But their behavior is determined. Rationality doesn't matter unless they have a degree of choice in the matter.

If they are able to behave irrationally and go against all of their knowledge, this indicates will.

People have will and make choices. We agree on that. If the person's choice is really undetermined, that means he could have made a different choice given exactly the same past right up to the moment when he did choose: exactly the same past, different possible outcomes.

Imagine, for example, that I had been deliberating about where to spend my vacation, in Europe or Newfoundland, and after much thought and deliberation had decided I preferred Europe and chose it. If the choice was undetermined, then exactly the same deliberation, the same thought processes, the same beliefs, desires and other motives that led up to my favoring and choosing Europe over Newfoundland, might by chance have issued in my choosing Newfoundland instead. That is very strange. If such a thing happened it would seem a fluke, like a quantum jump in the brain, not a rational choice.

[achilles12604]

You are assuming that evolution has created humans to be advantaged by speed. This simply isn't so McCulloch. It simply isn't so.

Humans are slower than almost every other mammal on earth. We are worse at running, we have less stamina, we are slower.

No no. Your argument depends upon "facts" which are frankly untrue. Mankind's advantage comes from our ability to think and predict our prey. It comes from our ability to invent and use tools. But it certainly does NOT come from speed. Forgive me a smile at the thought.

I did not assume or state that humans are particularly fast. That does not change the fact that there is an advantage to being faster than your peers. Can you deny, all other things being equal, that the faster hunter has an advantage; in terms of success; in terms of survival; in terms of sexual selection.

You made this claim so let's not assign the burden of proof to me shall we.

My point is simple. You stated that humans which are faster are better hunters and are therefore more desireable as a mate. But I have provided reasons why the basis of your claim is unfounded. Faster humans are not necessarily better hunters.

Take Mike Johnson and put him against Bill gates 10,000 years ago. Mike may be faster but he is still not nearly fast enough to catch a deer. He isn't fast enough to catch much of ANYTHING. So how is this an advantage? But take bill gates who uses his inventive inginuity to set the very first trap.

Who was successful, the human who tried to run down the deer or the one who set a trap? Of course the trap.

So your basic assumption, that a faster man is a better hunter and therefore nature promoted faster humans, is simply unfounded. And more than that it flies in the face of scientific understandings of natural selection.

I believe you are continuing to defend this position because it is necessary to even argue against my example of the speeder. And this is ignoring the point that you flip flopped which takes precidence between biology and events. But more on that in the next section.

So which it is? Or is your argument that a person is controlled by whichever determinates support your position and these over-ride whatever other determinates go against your position?

You are still hung up on the idea of a single determinate.

Oh no. Not at all. You can have all the determinates you want.

My point is that when you were defending my example that the drunk was being controlled by his biology, you cited that personal evperiences outweighed the biology and the person was determined that he would try and break the cycle of alcohol.

But then when I presented a situation where the opposite was true, (that life events were in fact the determinates being ignored during the choice to speed.) you began saying that biology must have kicked in and over-rode that person's life events and he reverted back to natural selection.

And of course your natural selection argument is another point which I have a hard time swollowing because it is not in line with what we know of natural selection. If people were cheatas maybe? Antillope, sure. But humans advanced more successfully because they were faster? Na. This does not mesh with science.

How about the person's super ego? What is wrong with stating that the persons conscious self is capable of making a free choice after evaluating all the factors? Why must their choice be determined?

The super ego might be a useful concept, however, it is being used by you much like the creationist end up using the God-of-the-gaps. You don't know why we make the choices that we make, so you invent a choice making agent, call it a soul, spirit or superego, it does not matter. You have no evidence that such a thing exists in reality and that if it does, it makes free choices.

I have provided examples which fly in the face of determinism. Instead of changing the basic premise and accusing me of God of Gaps (you don't agree with the majority of psycology concerning the existence and purpose of the super ego??? ) let us focus on the plausibility of determinism. After all you are assuming that people are solely determined without being able to prove it and in the face of examples which do not agree with your theories on the matter.

If anything, determinism is the God of Gaps.

Determinist - "Well we don't know for sure why he made the choice he did, but since we know that we are all determined, their choice must have been determined."

This sound familiar?

ALSO - You neatly avoided answering the following points which I bring up again for an answer.

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?

Yes, in a way. Determinism is a fall back position. Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way (except for on a subatomic quantum level where there may be some random behavior in a determinist probability distribution). Unless there is a compelling reason not to, I believe that the combination of determinist parts results in a determinist, albeit more complex, system. You assert that there is a such a reason.

Interesting coming from you.

So could you explain how this is different from someone 100 years ago saying

1) The earth is very complex
2) Complex things in general are always designed where as much simpler things occur at random.
3) Therefore the earth was designed.

Frankly, I did not see the similarity in the two positions.
My position:

1. Humans are made from deterministic components.
2. Anything made completely from deterministic components is itself deterministic.
3. Therefore, humans are deterministic.

Your first point is an unprovable assumption. And it is difficult to maintain given examples where determinism doesn't really apply. We are still addressing your use of natural selection (where it doesn't apply) and the lack of addressing conflicting determinates.

If human's were solely made of deterministic components I could agree with you. But you have not shown that a persons conciousness is deterministic. In fact given your "rational" quote concerning humans, and the inability to address random selections, and bahavior which directly contradicts "determinates" I would say that a persons concious ability is certainly NOT deterministic.

Biology - sure.
Life events - Sure.

But not a persons super ego, or conscious nature.

A person is a driving a car. Sometimes this person speeds.
[...]
How can this be true in the above situation?

Humans do not always behave rationally.

But their behavior is determined. Rationality doesn't matter unless they have a degree of choice in the matter.

If they are able to behave irrationally and go against all of their knowledge, this indicates will.

People have will and make choices. We agree on that. If the person's choice is really undetermined, that means he could have made a different choice given exactly the same past right up to the moment when he did choose: exactly the same past, different possible outcomes.

Imagine, for example, that I had been deliberating about where to spend my vacation, in Europe or Newfoundland, and after much thought and deliberation had decided I preferred Europe and chose it. If the choice was undetermined, then exactly the same deliberation, the same thought processes, the same beliefs, desires and other motives that led up to my favoring and choosing Europe over Newfoundland, might by chance have issued in my choosing Newfoundland instead. That is very strange. If such a thing happened it would seem a fluke, like a quantum jump in the brain, not a rational choice.

My argument is not that he WOULD make a different choice, but that he CAN make a different choice. (Determinism vs Influencer) The actual choice makes sense, but as you pointed out . . . Not all choices made by humans are rational.

[McCulloch]

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

Achilles affirms. McCulloch denies.

Achilles has brought forth a number of examples where people make decisions. In each case, the decision maker believes that he is free to decide which way that he will go and an outside observer cannot always accurately predict what the decision will be based on a knowledge of biology, neurology and the subject's prior life experience. Humans make many decisions. Some of them trivial and seemingly arbitrary; others deliberately made after a great deal of thought. Some of them seemingly following biological urges; others apparently against biological tendancies. Some of them seemingly rational and sensible, given the life experiences and society in which the decision was made; others irrational or deliberately contrarian. And everything in between.

Achilles has caught me in the trap of trying to make me explain how specific decisions can be explained within a deterministic framework. The answer, after much thought, is quite frankly, I don't know. I don't know why the red ball went into the corner pocket; I don't know why a storm rose at just the right time to destroy the Spanish armada; I don't know why the long feared big earthquake hit California the day after Obama was sworn in for his second term. However, I have no reason to believe that the physics of pool balls, meteorology or geology is anything but deterministic.

Every component, every cell, every atom and molecule, every organ in a human behaves in a deterministic way. Unless there is a compelling reason not to, I believe that the combination of determinist parts results in a determinist, albeit more complex, system. Achilles posits that there is something called consciousness which is not deterministic. He has yet to present evidence that consciousness is not deterministic.

If the person's choice is really undetermined, that means he could have made a different choice given exactly the same past right up to the moment when he did choose: exactly the same past, different possible outcomes. Imagine, for example, that I had been deliberating about where to spend my vacation, in Europe or Newfoundland, and after much thought and deliberation had decided I preferred Europe and chose it. If the choice was undetermined, then exactly the same deliberation, the same thought processes, the same beliefs, desires and other motives that led up to my favoring and choosing Europe over Newfoundland, might by chance have issued in my choosing Newfoundland instead. That is very strange. If such a thing happened it would seem a fluke, like a quantum jump in the brain, not a rational choice.

Achilles argues that he can make a different choice. Yet he has presented no evidence that our choices are not determined. He asserts without evidence that given exactly the same situation, we can make choices different from what we actually do. Humans only feel that we have free control over our decisions, because we don't know what we will choose to do. But there has been nothing presented yet as a reason why we should believe that free-will is anything but an illusion.