Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Report

I think I think therefore I think I am—

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum

The Debating Society held its first debate for the academic year 2007-2008 on the 18^th of August, 2007at 9:15am. The topic being “I think I think therefore I think I am - cogito cogito ergo cogito sum”. The topic which raises questions about the idea of free will and existentialism saw two teams debate the very existence of free will. Sushrut Desai and Aakash-pierre Rebello argued for the existence of free will, and Pavitra Kacholia and Jeet Shroff took the opposing view arguing the non-existence of free will. The moderator for the morning was Mr. Rishabh Kumar.

The first speaker Pavitra began with literally interpreting the topic. The first “I think” stood for “I perceive”, the second being self explanatory, the last “I think” was interpreted as “I believe”. She went on to explain the concept of free will by stating that free will does not originate from anywhere, but from the individual himself. According to the argument for determinism, every event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. This would mean that the future is predictable, therefore making determinism incompatible with the concept of free will. Quantum mechanics on the other hand argues the future to be unpredictable and random due to occurrences not in one’s control. This too, does not support the concept of free will since the future is decided by random events not in one’s control. Pavitra ended with saying that though there may be many external influences the final decision should be of the individual decided by his own volition. She explained on the basis of the results of a study, which said that the human subconscious predetermines your “voluntary” choices. And if you have been through certain experiences in the past, it remains in your subconscious. Therefore those actions are habitual more than the expression of one’s free will.

The second speaker Sushrut Desai questioned the assumption that there was only one way of defining free will. He argued that on a macro level almost everything was predictable, the actions of countries, different groups of people. But on a micro level, the future is not predictable. An individual’s daily wardrobe selection is unpredictable because an individual may exercise his free will in deciding what he would wear on a particular day. According to him, the free will of an individual may be intercepted by influences from different elements, but the very existence of the free will of an individual cannot be denied.

The third speaker for the morning Jeet Shroff humorously admitted to being the first speaker to speak about something more tangible and relatable. Understandably, since he spoke in terms of the Constitution of India before an audience of law students! He explains how we choose from a number of different existing options and are bound by laws of the land (when they exist). We are also expected to live in a particular way to be accepted as rational. Therefore what we believe is “free” will, is actually individuals choosing from a number of available and acceptable options.

Aakash-Pierre Rebello, the third speaker for the morning defended his view by first stating that they (the team for the concept of free will) never claimed there existed “unbridled freedom”. That “free will” could be constrained by choices but that does mean free will does not exist. He argued that Immanuel Kant read Rousseau and was influenced by his philosophies but he was a pioneer in his own right. He did exercise his free will. Aakash claimed he was thinking. Thinking was happening. He then replied to Jeet’s argument saying law exists, but you have the choice to follow it or not. You have the choice to accept it the way it is or fight it. It is because of the experiences we have had that we are aware of morality. We still have the choice to follow it or to defy it. Survival is human instinct, and still, there are so many who choose not to.

The teams were then open to questions from the house. To a comment made by Pavitra, in which she said that knowledge does not come from nothing, you build on accumulated knowledge, Sushrut promptly questioned the claim by saying that even Stephen Hawking was once an infant, who built on accumulated knowledge, but he has been a pioneer. He did come with path breaking ideas.

There were many in the audience who made some interesting comments. Rahul Donde quoted Smith from the movie Matrix reloaded who informs another character from the movie “you think you are free but you are really not”, and while narrating the relevant scene; he raised the question if free will was in fact a delusion. Neha Taishite also seconded that by added that thinking was indeed a perception. Shweta Vasani commented that the conditioning of a person is a part of his identity. A person may be influenced but that does not restrict his free will. Someone in the audience also said, applying the empirical theory, we act on a definitive set of reasoning. We do not have control over what reasons we receive, we act on the same impulses. Vikram Singh from the audience complained that Pavitra reduced everything to statistics, forgetting that human beings are dynamic. He also raised an important point regarding the roles of the id, the super ego, and the ego. He explained, that even if the unconscious mind does have certain impulses, the conscious mind or the ego decides what to act upon.

At the end of the debate the participants were allowed one sentence each.

Pavitra – “while voting, we are talking about control over one’s volition.”

Sushrut – “I believe in control. If It exists at a conscious level then free will exists.”

Aakash – “I think therefore I speak.”

Jeet – “Our choices are predetermined; therefore acting upon them is not exercising one’s free will.”

There were thirty five people in the audience, of which twenty seven voted for the existence of free will, seven voted against it, and one abstained.

- Namrata Zaveri