Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 9:12 pm
by DMB
I am going to close this thread. It's not for the debate itself.

Toker, please PM me if you agree on Tom's suggested lengths. Otherwise, please discuss this with me and Tom by PM.

Toker proposed the debate and ought to go first.

As I understand it, toker's position is that humans have free will and Columbus's that they don't. Please prepare your opening post, toker. We can discuss other rules by PM.

We ought to be able to get things straight and have the opening post in about 5 days.

try again

Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 5:03 am
by toker
Yes we have free will. Who chooses to claim they can make no choices? Let's hear from you!

Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 11:07 am
by davidpbrown
"again"!?.. Did the idiots will the last attempt? :p

I'm not trolling here.. I think it's a very interesting topic but what is interesting is the definition; determining what can be suggested about what free will might be.

Define 'we' or 'I' - the mind in a each different context is a different personality?
Define 'free will' - it sounds a bit woo.

Are you suggesting that given a 'choice' to make that we can come to two different conclusions? If most choices that each of us make result in one conclusion, then can you suggest choices where more than one outcome might be an option? Are we talking only 'pick a random number' or something more sophisticated?

Where is the balance of what we choose and what is not a choice?

Are you suggest that we are magic beyond the biology, rather than just outputting results from the input to a particular configuration of brain that is considering a problem in a particular context? The complexity of that maybe is interesting, it might make our brains tingle as it tries to keep up, but at what point are you suggesting that 'choice' is realized?

I don't know I've ever seen anyone argue that free will doesn't exist but the arguement will be simply to challenge for a definition of free will, not to defend that free will doesn't exist. It's an idiot that argues a negative. Hence the teapot challenge.

That is, I'm not sure you need an opponent, just the default requirement to consider, 'what can be suggested about the notion of free will'.

I would debate the point but I can't see a debate.. much as I'd love to see one. For the record, I'm entirely resolved what free will is, or where we are properly making choices. So, there's my interest in seeing a definition hammered out.

Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 1:38 pm
by Jobar
This is the Debate Proposals forum, not the debate itself. If you're interested in actually debating, then you should respond here; otherwise we'll move this discussion to Philosophy, and open it to all.