DEBATE: Shoop Vs Sidey [Free Will]

We have two ways of executing free will.

1. Controlling the past state of the universe

2. Being able to change the laws of the universe

If we cannot do either of these we do not have free will.

We cannot control the previous state(s) of the universe as each event is caused by a prior one as determined by the laws of the universe.

The only way for free will to exist is for our brain to have a supernatural power bypassing/or changing the laws of the universe.

Shoop must thus prove either (1) or (2) to show that we have free will ^^ [knock out]

I have no idea what Sidey is talking about, and I doubt anyone else here, including himself, does either.

Lets start over, what is free will? Well it has to do with a persons ability to make own choices. Sidey can return to explain why his points about changing the past and/or the laws are physics are relevant. Meanwhile Ill explain why I think humans have free will.

Free will is a biological phenomenom and a congnetive ability which we have evolved as animals. Just like we evolved vision and other senses. Free will is the ability to not only act upon reasons like when the wolves hunt because they are hungry or when the rabbit runs because it is their instinct to do so when they see a wolf but also to take responsibility for what we do and to be able to explain our reasons to ourselves and to others.

The key issue here I think is that we have a consciousness formed by atoms etc. This is where we form ideas, thougts and makes decisions, and this is why we are capable of free will. Unlike for instance birds who will just respond to stimuli in a predetermined way.

Shoop explained somewhat what free will is but provides no foundation for why it would exist.

Quote :

The key issue here I think is that we have a consciousness formed by atoms etc. This is where we form ideas, thougts and makes decisions, and this is why we are capable of free will.

Evidence of consciousness is NOT evidence of free will.

For free will to exist, as outlined in my initial post, we would have to control the complete set of factors influencing our neural circuitry and/or be able to change the physical laws of the universe.

Being able to decide whether you are going to wear a blue or red t-shirt is not free-will. Such decisions are determined by neural circuitry which is in turn determined by prior events in the universe as outlined by the laws of the universe.

Its not "outlined" in anything you have written lol. Nothing you write is even remotley close to make sense.

But its good that we at least seem to agree that consciousness exists. So what is consciousness? It is basically atoms working together in a way so that we can reflect upon our decisions. There are 2 types of decisions we can do, reflexes, like when the doctor hits our knee with a small hammer or when we pull our hand away from a hot stove, and concious decisions. Decisions our consciousness is aware of and decisions our consciousness makes. But what controll the consciousness? Do we do that? This is where it gets hard to understand, and this is where I think Sidey is misstaken.

Nothing "controlls" the consciousness. It makes decisions based on the information provided and based on its competence as a consciousness. But what is free will? Free will IS the consciousness, our consciousness is our will. If we are anything we are the consciousness. You can cut of my leg, transplant my heart, change my face but I will still be the same person as long as I keep my consciousness.

This is great Shoop. You have no understanding of this subject and it shows!

How can consciousness constitute free will when all our decisions are based on events in our brains that we have no control over? That we are unaware of?

Human choice is not free will. Choices merely spring up in the brain and you are no more responsible for the decisions you make than being born into this world.

Shoop's argument ->

1. I feel as if subjective consciousness is freedom (free will).
Conclusion: Subjective consciousness is freedom (free will).

This is not exactly a COMPELLING argument.

You must present a case for why our thoughts are not the product of prior causes as near EVERYTHING else in the universe demonstrably is.

Rofl that is not at all my argument, we HAVE consciousness. Its nothing subjective about that, it exists and we can make decisions with it.

These decisions are BASED on the information we have, obviously, and the competence of the consciousness by prediction the causalities of different actions, chosing the best.

I dont know what you are talking about when you say "the mind", but it would be interesting to hear where you think the choices come from, if not from ourselves?

This is ridicilus, you have no arguments for what you claim whatsoever and you dont even have a theory. What am I supposed to debate against?

All you do is say "free will dont exist, you are wrong" and then prove over and over again that you are stupid enough to missunderstand a very simple theory.

We have a consciousness capable of making decisions, thus a free will.

Choices stem from neural events over which we have no control.

You must DEMONSTRATE that we are the authors of our choices.

Choices are based on neural circuitry and physical events both of which we have no control over.

One cannot know what one will do until a thought or intention arises.




Remember that I have one post left after this. You have two. I will lock the topic thereafter.

Pick your words wisely freakshow

Yeah this is why I dont want so few posts per persons, but w.e as long as we get argument I win anyway.

What I want to know is what you refer to as "we" in "You must DEMONSTRATE that we are the authors of our choices."?

Do you even remotley understand what a consciousness is? Our neural circuitry is our consciousness in physical form. It is YOU who have to demonstrate where these signals come from, I am the one defending the position that they represent the will of their own (=the will of our consciousness).

The other posts were jokes. Shoop isn’t qualified to discuss this subject. I’ll ignore everything Shoop said (he didn't say anything) and actually tackle the subject.

To have free will you would be REQURIED to have complete control over every single factor determining your thoughts and actions. Then in turn you would have to control the factors of the factors. That is the ONLY possibility of free will – complete control over all factors influencing your choices.

Our wills are EITHER

(a) Determined by prior causes that we are not responsible for
(b) The product of chance of which we are not responsible

Neither of these scenarios allow for anything resembling freedom.

Free will rests on two assumptions:

(a) That we could have behaved differently than we did in the past
(b) That we are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions in the present

These assumptions are both false:

*EEGs have been used to show activity in the motor cortex 300ms before a person decides to move.

*Experimenters have used fMRIs and found that they could detect which button a person would press 7-10 seconds before they consciously made the decision.

*Further evidence shows that the mere activity of 256 neurons is sufficient to predict a person’s movement 700ms before they consciously decide to move.

THAT IS, before you are aware of what you will do next your brain has already decided what you will do.

Free will is subsequently an illusion.

Quoting one of the experimenters:

Quote :

Decisions are caused by unconscious brain processes, then consciousness kicks in later. Our conscious decisions are predetermined by brain activity even if we cannot yet completely decode that activity. It is subjective experience that you think that you have free will. It's something that is implausible, its incompatible with the scientific deterministic universe anyway.

Choice (or free will) is supernatural. It must be some influence outside the physical world that is free of chance and causality. In other words, a fairy tale.

Big surprise Sidey isnt able to answer any of my questions or counter any of my arguments (something that should be easy if he is more "competent" to discuss this than me ).

Also a big surprise that Sidey wait until his last post to post data and doesnt give ANY sources to it. ^^

Anyway, what Sidey forgets is a Nobel Prize winning theory that states that there is a limit to how well we can predict the physical properties of a body and this is where all of Sideys arguments collapse. He seem to see humans as very complicated computers and only the result of "chance" and "prior events". He seem to think that with enough knowledge we can predict what a human will do and how he will act. Well we cant, thanks to quantum physics and the uncertainty principle we now know that free will is a possibility.

We know that we cant determine how someone will act, no matter how much information we have and no matter how complicated our tools are. But even despite this, does this give us free will? It certainly destroys all, yes literally ALL of what Sidey have written. The fact we are preparing ourselves subconsciously for many or even all of our decisions does not have anything to do with free will. First of all we know thanks to the uncertainty principle that the universe isnt deterministic, so no matter what our subconscious prepares us for we still have the possibility to change this decision with our consciousness. This is what it means to be responsible for your actions. But even if all of our decisions were made by our subconscious and we did live in a deterministic universe it would still be our free will. Our subconscious is a part of our consciousness.

What Sidey is arguing is like saying, you cant see since you cant do that without your eyes. And yes it would be true, we wouldnt have any free will if it wasnt for our consciousness, but we do have a consciousness capable of making choices thus making us agents capable of these choices which is the defenition of free will.

Game, set and match son.