I vote tie
Both are well read, both understood their opponent as well as their own. Both a tad windy for my tastes but, they were very good. Oh and both were top notch classy gentlemen debaters
I appreciate the compliments as well as that vote!
I read both of your arguments and it took me a while to pick a winner. I believe Iâm going to have to side with Pav by just a hair. I can definitely agree with what Pav was saying, but to really get his point across I think he just needed a slightly different perspective. Tabâs argument was really good, and if he looks at the World with those eyes he will deffinitely get far, because as he says, pavâs point isnât worth considering because it would be an unpredictible event. But I donât think you got Pavâs point. Itâs not that it hasnât changed the outcome to two completely different ends, itâs about whether it ever could. To help Tab figure out why I picked Pav over him iâll give my own example.
Our actions can be changed by information. there is an infinite number of potential information. (e.g. 0,1,2,3âŚinfinity) and information can be used to create more information. Your theory holds true in the beginning, When your dealing with just evolution and a small amount of information and early human civilization. As information icnreases and becomes more available, so does the way it effects our actions. Itâs possible that a peice of information be created much later than another peice of information. (e.g. you gave an example of two books written far apart from each other that were pretty much exactly the same.)
When a small action leads to some giant event itâs not that the trigger must eventually happen, what if another action existed which had the opposite effect. Or that the same trigger not triggering had the opposite effect? Lets hypothetically pause our universe. Weâre going to make an exact duplicate of this universe and set it right next to this other one. I think that if you hit play, if there where really probability differences between the two I believe you would eventually see a big difference between the two worlds.
So basically what iâm saying is that the timing of the trigger is also extremely important. In one of these universes, this famous scientist who is studying the power of lasers is left hanging off of a cliff. In one universe the scientistâs friend saves him while in another one he doesnât and the scientist ends up falling to his death. In the universe where he survives he goes to create extremely powerful lasers while in the other World the technology has yet to exist. Now both of these universes are in trouble because there is a giant asteroid heading for Earth. In the universe with the powerful lasers they are not worried because they have the technology to destroy the asteroid. In the other universe they are struggling to figure out a way to stop the asteroid. they end up not figuring out anything and end up being destroyed by the asteroid. This of course assumes that the only solution was a powerful laser. Thatâs not to bad of an assumption even if their where other methods maybe they werenât thought of yet, or maybe they couldnât be executed. Thatâs all irrelevant because here are two different ends to the same equation. Life on Earth didnât create Nature as we know it. The World used to be ruled by dinosaurs. If the dinosaurs never went extinct they would still be here and we wouldnât. it wasnât until the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs that allowed the chance for human life. That was an occurence that changed the outcome of the this World, whether the change was determined or not is irrelevant. As long as you accept the possibility.
to avoid from veering to far off from pavâs point I wonât say much more. But Tab, I agree when you say we are limited by our biological functions. But to say that these limits cause an inevitable future is a little much. I can easily see how a certain action can diverge to different path which will lead to a diferent outcome. these differences in outcomes will eventually cause a dramatic change between the Worlds. The stage that you are trying to get a feel for is caused by these smaller actions adding themselves together. I hope that makes you understand why I chose Pav over you. I think Pav was pretty much making this point but your argument was attacking something different other than this point.
One last thing, I donât quite have 100 posts so I wonât mind if you donât count this vote, thought I might as well give it a try since I was interestedâŚ
I think that is a very well-reasoned Judgment.
Of course, had you simply said, âPav wins,â Iâd have still concluded that you made a well-reasoned judgment. (Just Kidding)
Iâm going to leave it up to Tab whether or not your vote counts because he is the adverse party in this matter.
TheBerto,
I made a few comments regarding the example in your post. I cannot post them here because they could influence the outcome, so I have PMâed them to you.
The Berto - Thanks for the time you took to read, and to post. The first considered vote of the judging.
Good enough for me - Your vote stands. Damn your eyes.
EDIT - deleted what would have been a furtherence of my argument.
- Hey Pav - sorry you posted while I was editing. I deleted my continued argument. The debates over, better not muddy the waters till the voting is done.
Can you delete your counter arguments until the time limitâs upâŚ?
I straight-up deleted the post altogether. Iâm sorry about that, I should have thought of that.
EDIT: Sorry, missed that by an inch, deleted this post as well.
tab is right and the compatiblism contradicts itself
there is a cause which produces an effect- which then becomes a cause to another effect. the original cause was the overall cause of the whole thing
Iâm really not gunna read the rest of this novel though
After reading and re-reading both arguments, I have to say that Iâm struggling with the idea that the two sides are mutually exclusive. Seems to me there is a distinction to be made between the two, but it is a fine distinction, almost like comparing apples to oranges.
Tab concedes that on an individual level, we certainly feel like weâre able to make autonomous choices. Even while refuting Pavâs cereal guy argument, he brings in quantum indeterminacy and the butterfly effect. Which seems to support Pavâs cereal guy argument. But Tabâs main argument relies on a grander scale, anthropologically, demographically, and temporally. And although he posits that the optimal solutions exist outside of time, that doesnât seem like an especially useful axiom, because we donât exist outside of time. We can only judge those solutions as optimal after the fact, and hindsight is 20/20.
If I understood correctly, Tabâs position can be summarized in this sentence:
Pav points out that one must consider the role irrationality plays, introducing a somewhat random factor which results in our inability to predict future events with a high degree of accuracy. He agrees that probability enables us to make fairly reliable predictions, but the door is left open for deviations from those predictions. Whereas Tabâs argument analyzes the past to reveal inevitability, Pavâs seems to focus more on the unfolding of the future and our inability to predict developing events.
Iâd sum up Pavâs argument with this:
You both did a great job in illustrating your points and making your case. The fact that you each came at this debate from differing vantage points makes it difficult to judge; and as I said earlier, the positions themselves are not so far apart. It wouldâve been easier if one of the positions was for strict determinism.
But since that was not the case, Iâll have to give a slight, very slight edge to Pav. You two are both excellent in your rhetorical skills, both were eloquent and compelling, and actually both arguments were convincing. If Tab wouldâve talked a little more about how inevitabilism can help us view the future as well as the past, I probably wouldâve given him the edge.
Well done, both of you.
A fine and reasoned decision.
What, me, disappointed� No [size=60][sob][/size] not at all.
I agree that Anita came to a well-reasoned Judgment. Thank you Anita for all of the compliments that you paid to both myself and Tab!
Iâm going contrary to my nature to comment on one of these debate things, probably because I ended up feeling sorry when you kept begging for people to choose who wins. Christ, my kids do that to me what seems like a million times a day, give me a break. And itâs a little ironic given the topic, no? But WTF, you probably wonât be surprised that itâs my opinion that neither of you wins.
Also, as far as style, I thought you both proceeded into discussion without clarifying well enough up front your individual understandings of the critical terms used here. Because of this, it seemed to me to end up as a debate of exploring some fundamental meanings as one goes along rather than refining a more concise initial position, so I took points away (before Iâd even given any, as a matter of fact!) for that.
As for the specific stuff, hereâs a little bit. I didnât have time to read all that dialogue Tab wrote. And Iâm pretty sure that had I read all of it, my opinion wouldnât change. But I could be wrong.
Again, neither of you really identifies which definition of youâre aruguing over. I think thatâs a problem that ends up confusing the debate, because when youâre discussing one, another one stands in the background without note but influencing the argument anyway. If free will is an agentâs ability to control his or her action according to his/her will (as long as conditions of the situation permit this), then thatâs one thing. And mostly what youâre arguing over, I think. But the broader idea about free will as something that transcends our physical existence and how the workings of the world ultimately control us is lurking back there, not really elaborated upon by either of you. I think Tab comes closer when he talks about an individual âexperiencingâ the freedom of choosing and how he can âfeelâ after-the-fact as though he couldâve chosen differently. I think heâs reaching for the ultimate when he saysâŚ
âRegardless of the truth of the matter, a society believing, and acting upon the belief, that it possesses freedom of choice will act very differently from one that does not. The simple existence of the concept in the group mind, frivolous or real, has effect.â
âŚand yet doesnât explain the âeffectâ, so Iâm not sure how or why thatâs relevant. Anyway, just because anyone â or an identified group of anyones â believes they possess freedom of choice doesnât mean that they do. What heâs labelled âfreedom of choiceâ is the fact that agents have the ability to control their behavior and choose their actions. That doesnât mean they possess self control in the ultimate sense.
Pavâs view of the ultimate sense of it shows up (I think!) as he notes the âunpredictability of happenstance in the purely physical worldââŚbut then assumes once a âsufficiently sentient breed of agents came into beingâ were prompt to mentally categorize all of this unpredictability into âthe novelty of choiceâ.
Of course right off, âcame into beingâ implies causality and I assume the point is that it took humans to construct the idea of causality. But humans also constructed âhappenstanceâ. So whatâs the point here, really?
What does âquantum indeterminacyâ mean and whose finger is doing the tapping?
Moving along, Pav elaborates upon what he believes to be a valid depiction of a chain of cause and effect to illustrate how events of the âpastâ will have impact on âthe futureâ. As I read, I could hear the ice cracking and I wanted to shout a warning to him to get out of there NOWâŚbut I figured the noble souls who enter this ILP Chamber do so with the understanding that sinking into the freezing depths is, well, an option.
He says itâs all because a guy chose Cocoa Puffs for breakfast. Actually, he said âwantedâ, which wouldâve (shouldâve IMO) allowed him to introduce the concept of intention into the mix. But anyway, his point is that the decision that, on the surface, seems relatively inconsequential, actually leads to âvast intended and unintended consequencesâ. Really?
I didnât care for hypothetical Cocoa Puffs example because he started with a simple decision and then selected a chain of events in a linear way, so that he could base all the contingencies along the line on that one. But this doesnât reflect the intricacy of the web of causality. On the surface, he makes his neat linear case. No doubt he would respond âbut I only meant that as one possible example!â But thatâs not how it works. He doesnât realize that each of the occurrences that he has isolated at each point along the way to his chosen outcome are, in fact, at each moment, interrelated in this web through an infinite number of relationships that he canât possibly identify.
In other words, itâs not even remotely that simple and Iâd say itâs, in fact, so complex, that he canât claim that the example can prove anything about causality. Just as I can hold an orange in my hand and, as an exercise, try to imagine everything that occurred in the past to place it there. My way is a teensy weensy bit better, because Iâm starting with an actual orange (versus ending up with an imaginary ghost town) and I know a few facts about how it got there (I saw it, I bought it, I sat down at the table and gazed at it and thought about it. I have a reasonable certainty that it came from a particular tree in a particular location, and that it was picked, packed, distributed, displayed, chosen, paid for, etc. Thatâs my little linear chainâŚbut Iâm of course ignorant of the lionâs share of what actually caused that orange to be in my hand at the precise moment. I may deduce that it was part of a causal process, but there is absolutely no way that I can know this, because the web is too intricate.
This is a non sequitur to me. The future is simply a projection of thought, itâs not about causes- and effects-to-be.
All Iâve got the time for, sorry.
Good breakdown, Ingenium. The only thing that I would mention for now (and only because mentioning this wonât sway any votes) is that you attributed a couple of Tabâs quotes to me.
So Iâve put that down on the score sheet as another big fat double zero.
Tally stands at 2-1 to Pav. Thanks Ingenium. Should have read the dialogue though. That was my favourite bit. Quantum indeterminancy. Wiki.
I do not think you should ever expect the Chamber of debate to be well used compared to other forums. Obviously, debates like this take considerable time investment and arenât going to occur every day. But, in my view a forum that produces the occasional gem is probably more worthwhile than one that produces eons of crap.
This debate was pretty excellent. The standard very, very high throughout. I enjoyed both positions and think both were very well explicated. The heavily metaphorical approach worked well and was entertaining. I also appreciated the break from the âquote and shootâ approach.
Here is my breakdown:
In Tabâs first post, he argued that there was room for indivdual maneover, but that his verision of âinveitabilismâ leads to the view that the path of societies as a whole is determined:
What I mean to say by this is, throughout history, despite there being implicitly a diversity of choices to be made at any one point, overall, mimicking pre-determinism, only a select section of the starting populations would ever remain in existence, namely the ones who acted to follow exactly the path delineated by the best solutions to certain problems. Solutions which existed, in hypothetic form, prior to the event.
I felt this initial line of argument had promise. However, I feel the response from Pav somewhat missed a key element of Tabâs argument - that Tab was allowing for personal freedom and for decisions freely made to have an effect. The cheerioâs example, for example, was about how one person could trigger something in a society to happen - an example which Tab correctly defeated with his response that he has already allowed for this: that his argument was that this can only happen when the socitey at whole was in trouble. I couldnât see much trouble for Tabâs position after Pavâs first response.
However, in my view - Pav delivered a surefire real hit a bit further on:
Inevitabilism would indicate that anytime a fucked situation exists that there will be a trigger to set it off, however, this fails to take into account the fact that an unstable system not presented with a trigger will still maintain.
This point may be devastating, and I feel it is something Tab should have explicitly answered. However, if Tab does answer this in his final post, I can not locate precisely where (perhaps a disadavntage of his eccentric style?). This is certainly a disadvantage, in my eyes, for his inevitablism theory and a hit well scored by Pav.
That said, I do not feel that Pavâs one mighty blow was enough, and during the debate I personally felt that much of Pavâs posts were skirting round the edge of relevency. I think it was a tough one for Pav - you let Tab start which means he got to define the debate, and in my view Pav never fully caught up with the way it had been defined - preferring to talk about the freedom of individuals and the limited scope effect of that freedom, without latching on fully to the debate about societies and the general path of human kind. This is probably seen best in his final statement:
The Compatabilist believes in mobility, horizontal, vertical, rotational and circular mobility. In other words, the Compatabilist understands and accepts that there are going to be aspects of his own individual experience that are beyond his control, but that there are also aspects fully within the realm of his control. To wit, while some things have been determined, many things (quite possibly, most things) have not.
Thus, despite the fact that Pav defined, defended and supported his own theory excelently, I personally feel the debate went to Tab.
Post Edit: Iâve just read Anitaâs commentary (I didnât read other commentaries before - I thought it fair to give mine uninfluenced). I agree with everything Anita is saying, I guess we differ on votes cast as I am going more the style of debate-marking which says that the first speaker gets to define the motion, as it were, and thus it was Pavâs responsibility to respond to Tabâs arguments about societial inevitability. The fact that I am also struggling with the idea that the two sides are mutually exclusive (Anita) is a weakness for Pav as he did no set his account up clearly in a way that would refute Tabâs initial position.