Libertarian free will is false.

My opponent presents two objections to my case: first, that true randomness is possible, and second, that the properties of matter change when it becomes considered "living. " Every instance of randomness describable is no more than a lazy or practical failure to see the deterministic nature of events. Rolling dice, for example, are said to be random or unpredictable because the onlooker most likely cannot observe their throw precisely enough to calculate their path; however, should one keep track of the rotation, velocity, and position of these dice, they will bounce, spin, and roll in a predictable sequence, following the laws of nature. A coin toss follows the same principle. Which side the coin lands on is not random, but unpredictable with man's limited perception. A calculation with the rate of rotation of the coin and its initial upwards velocity, among other factors, can consistently predict the side on which the coin will land. The behavior of quantum particles, relevant or not to free will, is exactly what my opponent says, "seemingly random," just as the roll of dice or the flip of a coin. Bohmian Mechanics [2] successfully reconcile determinism and quantum mechanics by following Schrödinger's equation, eliminating the subjective need for an observer for a system to be defined, applying the pilot wave, and mathematically explaining the before-supposed "random" nature of the universe. Randomness is an illusion, formulated by the mind to give a simple explanation for things it cannot figure out. It is devised in theories to suppose understanding by choosing not to understand. In a common paraphrase of Einstein [2], "God does not play dice with the universe. " My opponent also challenges my syllogism on the premise that matter suddenly behaves differently when it becomes part of the complex system called "life. " He asserts that sensations are necessarily immaterial through the following statements: "Modifications in atomic arrangement don't cause feelings. Somehow, a physical construct converted a physical signal into an emotional one, something that nonliving matter can't do. " His argument is entirely circular: it supposes immateriality (immaterial emotions) to argue the immateriality of qualia. His circular premise, furthermore, is false by his own source [3], which states: "Once the pain signal gets to the brain, it is sent to a number of structures for processing. The location and intensity of the stimulus is deciphered by the primary and secondary somatosensory cortex. The emotions and automatic reactions to pain are processed in a number of location, including the hypothalamus, superior colliculus, and amygdala. The complete pain experience, however, arises from the co-operation of a network of brain areas. " The supposedly immaterial sensation of pain is nothing more than a processing of an electrical stimulus designed to direct a defensive reaction. The answers to my opponent's educational inquiries are simple deductions from the above. Pain is felt as an urgent motivational factor of decision. No one molecule "creates pain" because pain is a complicated impulse that affects the behavior of the human through a feedback system. When the pain impulse reaches the brain, "it is sent to a number of structures for processing. " The actions of matter can create sensations because sensations are material. A functioning brain isolated from a body could still process pain because, by premise, it is still functioning. Stimulating only the pain receptors would only stimulate the remainder of the brain if that part weren't isolated, for "the complete pain experience. .. arises from the co-operation of a network of brain areas. " The same reasoning applies to the single neuron question, for in isolating a single neuron, one prevents that neuron from transmitting the signal to the other parts of the brain. My opponent improperly concludes from the failure of a single neuron to process pain by itself that pain is immaterial, ignoring his own source to the contrary, that pain is the result of an impulse on a system, rather than a part. His questions are similar to a man arguing that a computer cannot process Starcraft II because if one removes the processor and sends the same electrical signals to it by itself, it can't process the game. Just as the processor needs memory, secondary memory, and other parts to simulate Starcraft II, the brain requires a hypothalamus, superior colliculus, and other structures to process, or "feel" pain. His argument relies on the fallacies of Division [4] and Composition [5]. My opponent concludes his argument with two though experiments. His first supposes that isolating two parts of the brain and sending them signals would give the same mind a feeling of pain. His experiment fails by his own supposition: it defies the laws of logic for communication to occur without it occurring. The explanation is that it does not occur; the two parts of the brain cannot communicate, and so pain is not "felt" at all. The input may still be processed and returned, but to an empty theatre. Pain processes an impulse through a system, and taking apart this system ceases its functionality. The second thought experiment supposes the construction of a "robot," a useful word for my opponent due to the emotionless connotations it has, that has emotions. My opponent asserts that an emotional response cannot be programmed into the machine. This assertion, however, has its owner as a counterexample. Over billions of years, evolution has programmed species to respond to threats to their functionality, for those that cannot respond to these threats cannot function, and those without functionality cannot reproduce. For the most complicated multicelled organisms, like my opponent, pain serves to identify and remove these threats. If matter can be structured for qualia by chaos, there is no reason to believe it cannot be structured for qualia by design. My opponent's objections defeated, it can only be concluded that libertarian free will must be false. Thanks to my opponent, and good luck to him on his next round. ==Sources== [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] . http://en.wikiquote.org... [3] . http://www.suite101.com... [4] . http://fallacyfiles.org... [5] . http://fallacyfiles.org...