Choose one of them Kleptin!

It seems that my opponent agrees with my definition of free will (since he hasn't stated anything about it in his round) - thus, we are going to continue the debate with the definition I offered in the previous rounds. It also seems that my opponent was confused as to what it means to have no control over the events the past. As he stated, we have resolved this issue to mean that we, in our present state, can't change what happened in the past. With this clarification, it seems my opponent is claiming that there is a logical fallacy in my syllogism - let's entertain that thought: ==================== The consequence argument (my syllogism) ==================== My opponent claims that my syllogism is commiting the equivocation fallacy, so let's examine his reasons for saying so along each line of my syllogism: 1. Events of the past determine our present state: "What if the events include acts of free will and free decision? Yes, our present state would be the result of the consequences of the past, but there is nothing about this statement that precludes free will. " ----> Read this quote closely. My opponent admits that the present state is a result of the consequences of the past - immediately affirming my first premise. It doesn't even matter if one were to pressupose as of now that free will exists, it still holds that what happens in the past will lead us to the present. In fact, this premise isn't even controversial; is it not obvious that the past leads to the present? 2. Our present choices and actions are the necessary consequences of the past Again, this point alone is not meant to demonstrate that free will does not exist - in fact, for it to succeed it doesn't even need to exclude free will. In other words, it can very well be so that some of the events in the past were free choices. However, even then it's plainly obvious that our present state is a necessary consequence of the events of the past. If Jane Doe decides to sit on a chair with her own free choice, the necessary consequence is that she is sitting on a chair! The past events is her deciding to sit on a chair (and presumably walking towards it, leaning towards it, bending her knees, etc. ) while the present state is her sitting on the chair. As you can see, even if we were to preclude free will it doesn't invalidate this point. 3. We have no control over the events of the past. And yet again, my opponent confuses the point of this premise. It's not to disprove the existence of free will by itself because, as stated before, it doesn't need to preclude that free will doesn't exist. 4. Since we have no control over either the events of the past, we have no control over the consequences of them. :. Therefore, we have no control over our present choices and acts. Read above. You see, my opponent commits the same error over and over - he believes that each of my premises need to exclude free will to work. As I have demonstrated, this doesn't need to be so. Jane can choose with her own free will to sit on a chair, but this still means that the necessary consequence is that she will be sitting on her chair. It's not a matter of free choice, but of time and consequences (which is why this argument is called the consequence argument). Only by combining all my premises together will you get the final conclusion that we have no free will. ==================== Agency vs. Free will ==================== My opponent offers an argument that is amusing, but ultimately baseless. His basic reason is that when he performed those actions, they felt free. You say you experience free will with your senses, but how in the world is that experience like? What does it sound like? What does it taste like? What does it look like? What does it smell like? What does it feel like? You seem to say that you have an experience of free will, but it doesn't seem to apear that you can give an account for what it's like. Irrespective of what such an experience is like (or remotely like), the fact remains that just because you felt that your actions were free, whatever that means, does not mean they really are free. This argument is really a mere assertion; you can't show that your actions are any different from agency - which are choices that are still abiding under physical laws. I have shown with my syllogism that free will is an empty idea, it is not feasible. So the way I explained your seemingly free actions was to introduce the concept of agency, which exlpains it perfectly. So really, I'm not asking what if agency is the explanation. I'm saying IT IS in place of free will. Why is free will an illusion, you ask? Simply because we as more intelligent beings have much more complex psychological and sociological paradigms. Because of our rationality, it becomes a much harder job to understand the underpinnings of human behavior. This should be evident when you have animal biologists who can accurately tell you many predictions of certain animal behaviors, when psychologists can only roughly speculate how humans behave under certain conditions. When a cat looks at food, it only thinks of a few things (are there predators around, is the food edible, etc. ). When a human looks at food, it thinks of MUCH more things due to it's rationality and higher intelligence (what kind of food is that, can I finish it, do my friends want some, should I go on a diet, is that fattening, etc. ). The illusion of free will occured because of the emergence of human rationality - this is the explanation. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Finally, bringing up the issue of the brain in a vat-like though experiments is a red herring. As of now, there really isn't a solid refutation of the brain in a vat (causual theory of reference is a maybe), but all it shows is that empirical knowledge is fallible. We can still function by saying certain scientific claims are not 100% true, but very LIKELY to be true. Is free will the same? No - with it both being philosophically and scientifically ludicrous, there is very elbow room for it. It's been great debating you Kleptin - hope there more of this in the future.