BOB SAGET!
Smash Lord
I'm taking the side of free will and Dre. is taking the side of determinism. Since I'm too lazy to make the first arguements Dre. will start.....
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
BOB SAGET! vs Dre. (1vs1) "free will vs. determinism"
- Thread starter BOB SAGET!
- Start date
- Status
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
Err... you're supposed to do it in the center stage.
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
I'm assuming this is what you're thinking of doing.
I double posted so you would know I've made my argument.
Sorry for the delay, but I'll kick things off now, here's my determinist argument (remember this isn't necessarily what I believe, I said I was happy to take either side-
The reason why we have no free will is because what is claimed by the libertarians (I think that's the word, anyway they're the people who argue that we have free will) to think freely is actually a contingent entity.
Aristotle distinguished between the possible(or passive, can't remember, but I'll just call it possible) intellect, and the agent intellect. Basically, the possible intellect contains all knowledge that individual human has. It containts every thought/idea that that person could conceive. The agent intellect, on the other hand, is specifically what a person is thinking at a given time.
So at time t, a person may be thinking X. So at time t, the agent intellect contains the thought X.
Unless I've misinterpretted Aristotle (which even if I have, it doesn't really affect my argument), the agent intellect is what we consciously think.
Now our conscious mind appears to be free, we appear to be free thinkers. However, before we can get thoughts into our conscious mind, or agnet intellect, they have to come from the possible intellect, which is the storage room for everything we know, so to speak.
The free will debate is essentially about whether we freely chose to think thought X, or whether if we were determined to. I'm going to show now why it is determined.
If thought X is what we're currently thinking, how can we have freely chose what we are currently thinking? If X is our current thoughts, and we freely chose X, what we use to freely chose x would be... you guessed it, other freely chosen thoughts. So essentially,the libertarians are arguing that we're using thought X to chose thought X, which is circular.
The issue is, at time t, we are thinking of X. However, thought X is not all knowledge stored in our mind. Here's how we arrive at a thought.
Y(all possible knowledge) -> thought X. The question is whether the arrow part of the picture was done by free choice or not. But if thought X is the only thing we can consciously analyse, how can we say the movement from Y to X is freely done, when we can only experience X? It's like saying you could see the world before you were given vision.
So ultimately, we do not have free choice, because what we experience in our minds (X), comes from Y, yet we do not experience Y, or the movement from Y to X. If we truly had free will, we could experience Y as well as X, but we can't.
To have free will, not only would we need to experience X, but we would need to able to consciously experience Y (which remember, is all knowledge stored in the particular individuals' brain, Y is pretty much all the Xs a person has). We would begin iwth experiencing Y, then chose which Xs(thoughts we like), but we don't do that, that process is already done for us, hence why all we can experience is X.
Sorry for the delay, but I'll kick things off now, here's my determinist argument (remember this isn't necessarily what I believe, I said I was happy to take either side-
The reason why we have no free will is because what is claimed by the libertarians (I think that's the word, anyway they're the people who argue that we have free will) to think freely is actually a contingent entity.
Aristotle distinguished between the possible(or passive, can't remember, but I'll just call it possible) intellect, and the agent intellect. Basically, the possible intellect contains all knowledge that individual human has. It containts every thought/idea that that person could conceive. The agent intellect, on the other hand, is specifically what a person is thinking at a given time.
So at time t, a person may be thinking X. So at time t, the agent intellect contains the thought X.
Unless I've misinterpretted Aristotle (which even if I have, it doesn't really affect my argument), the agent intellect is what we consciously think.
Now our conscious mind appears to be free, we appear to be free thinkers. However, before we can get thoughts into our conscious mind, or agnet intellect, they have to come from the possible intellect, which is the storage room for everything we know, so to speak.
The free will debate is essentially about whether we freely chose to think thought X, or whether if we were determined to. I'm going to show now why it is determined.
If thought X is what we're currently thinking, how can we have freely chose what we are currently thinking? If X is our current thoughts, and we freely chose X, what we use to freely chose x would be... you guessed it, other freely chosen thoughts. So essentially,the libertarians are arguing that we're using thought X to chose thought X, which is circular.
The issue is, at time t, we are thinking of X. However, thought X is not all knowledge stored in our mind. Here's how we arrive at a thought.
Y(all possible knowledge) -> thought X. The question is whether the arrow part of the picture was done by free choice or not. But if thought X is the only thing we can consciously analyse, how can we say the movement from Y to X is freely done, when we can only experience X? It's like saying you could see the world before you were given vision.
So ultimately, we do not have free choice, because what we experience in our minds (X), comes from Y, yet we do not experience Y, or the movement from Y to X. If we truly had free will, we could experience Y as well as X, but we can't.
To have free will, not only would we need to experience X, but we would need to able to consciously experience Y (which remember, is all knowledge stored in the particular individuals' brain, Y is pretty much all the Xs a person has). We would begin iwth experiencing Y, then chose which Xs(thoughts we like), but we don't do that, that process is already done for us, hence why all we can experience is X.
BOB SAGET!
Smash Lord
Before we go into hardcore debating we must first define what free will and determinism means.
Free will is a concept in traditional philosophy used to refer to the belief that human behavior is not absolutely determined by external causes, but is the result of choices made by an act of will by the agent (person.)
So my idea of free will is the person makes the final decision when it comes to thoughts and actions, however not without influence from the environment.
Please tell me your defenition of determinsim..........
Now about your arguement, it seems as though you believe our thoughts are chosen randomly. Our environment effects our thoughts.
We decide which environment to go to, thus we decide which thoughts enter our brain. However, say you're watching a hockey game, do you have to be thinking about hockey the whole time? Say you have a test the day after and instead of studying, you're watching the game. There are 2 external influences, it is you're free will that decides which is better to follow. It's also free will that allows us to choose which option to act up on physically. Even if you're brain has made up its mind, another act of free will is needed. Humans can go with and against temptation.....thus an act of free will.
Free will is a concept in traditional philosophy used to refer to the belief that human behavior is not absolutely determined by external causes, but is the result of choices made by an act of will by the agent (person.)
So my idea of free will is the person makes the final decision when it comes to thoughts and actions, however not without influence from the environment.
Please tell me your defenition of determinsim..........
Now about your arguement, it seems as though you believe our thoughts are chosen randomly. Our environment effects our thoughts.
We decide which environment to go to, thus we decide which thoughts enter our brain. However, say you're watching a hockey game, do you have to be thinking about hockey the whole time? Say you have a test the day after and instead of studying, you're watching the game. There are 2 external influences, it is you're free will that decides which is better to follow. It's also free will that allows us to choose which option to act up on physically. Even if you're brain has made up its mind, another act of free will is needed. Humans can go with and against temptation.....thus an act of free will.
BOB SAGET!
Smash Lord
Lets go Dre.......................post your arguement.........
Double post so you know I've responded.
You haven't really proved anything here. I can just as easily say that it is a determined thought that decides which environment we go to.
Also, I never said the process was completely random. It relies on a formula including variables such as prior experience, environment, current mental/physical health, persnality (in this case genetic disposition to favour certain things over others) etc.
You need to show me the problem with determinism, and why free will is more logical. Although you don't realise it you've just presented me a hypothetical explanation, saying "assuming free will is true, this is how it works".
You haven't really proved anything here. I can just as easily say that it is a determined thought that decides which environment we go to.
Also, I never said the process was completely random. It relies on a formula including variables such as prior experience, environment, current mental/physical health, persnality (in this case genetic disposition to favour certain things over others) etc.
You need to show me the problem with determinism, and why free will is more logical. Although you don't realise it you've just presented me a hypothetical explanation, saying "assuming free will is true, this is how it works".
BOB SAGET!
Smash Lord
I'm going to define determinsim and prove to you why it's illogical......
Determinism is the belief that every event in the universe is the inevitable consequence of a preceding cause.
It seems you believe Genetic Predetermination is what decides our thoughts and actions. We consider an action without cause a miracle. We certainly don't see gravity as a miracle. It's a natural law. We drop a book on the ground, we know it was caused by gravity. Because of gravity the book fell. This is a good example of cause and effect.
Some people believe the causes and effects of macrocosmic events govern the entire universe.
Example, the big bang is how it all started. So if believe in determinism you believe that all events in your life are predetermined at the big bang. But what caused the Big Bang?
Determinism considers all events in the universe and in our life as unbreakable chains of prior causes. Human beings would not be able to insert new causes into a preexisting causal chain.
So if we have no free will, we can't be responsible for our actions. So if a guy has a sinful condtion, he can't be responsible because it was caused at the beginning of the universe; long before he existed. So there's no way he could of altered his terrible actions.
Under the doctrine of absolute causality, society can't hold us responsible if we get drunk and start breaking windows and start getting into autmoblie accidents. If we have no Free Will, there can be no responsibility and no punishments. Society could not exist.
Why would a determinist try to prove to a libertarian, determinism is right? If a libertarian has no control over thoughts and actions he is forced to believe in free will because the Big Bang has caused him to.
Human society has existed for a millenia, it has only been able to prosper by holding members responsible for their actions.
The relationship between causes and effects (causility), governs most aspects of macrocosmic human existence. However, the randomness inserted by the inherent unpredictability of microcosmic (human) events extends into the macrocosmic world and allows for an indeterminate future. Therefore, human beings have Free Will.
Determinism is the belief that every event in the universe is the inevitable consequence of a preceding cause.
It seems you believe Genetic Predetermination is what decides our thoughts and actions. We consider an action without cause a miracle. We certainly don't see gravity as a miracle. It's a natural law. We drop a book on the ground, we know it was caused by gravity. Because of gravity the book fell. This is a good example of cause and effect.
Some people believe the causes and effects of macrocosmic events govern the entire universe.
Example, the big bang is how it all started. So if believe in determinism you believe that all events in your life are predetermined at the big bang. But what caused the Big Bang?
Determinism considers all events in the universe and in our life as unbreakable chains of prior causes. Human beings would not be able to insert new causes into a preexisting causal chain.
So if we have no free will, we can't be responsible for our actions. So if a guy has a sinful condtion, he can't be responsible because it was caused at the beginning of the universe; long before he existed. So there's no way he could of altered his terrible actions.
Under the doctrine of absolute causality, society can't hold us responsible if we get drunk and start breaking windows and start getting into autmoblie accidents. If we have no Free Will, there can be no responsibility and no punishments. Society could not exist.
Why would a determinist try to prove to a libertarian, determinism is right? If a libertarian has no control over thoughts and actions he is forced to believe in free will because the Big Bang has caused him to.
Human society has existed for a millenia, it has only been able to prosper by holding members responsible for their actions.
The relationship between causes and effects (causility), governs most aspects of macrocosmic human existence. However, the randomness inserted by the inherent unpredictability of microcosmic (human) events extends into the macrocosmic world and allows for an indeterminate future. Therefore, human beings have Free Will.
- Status