Free Will is Real and Compatible with Determinism

My opponent has clearly defined what he means by free will, and I accept his definition. However, by this definition, free will does not exist. My opponent claims the following things in the resolution: 1. That given a certain precise physical circumstance, a living being would be capable of choosing between multiple possibilities of how to react, rather than being led to one choice by deterministic forces. 2. That the above does not contradict determinism. My opponent is wrong on both counts. First I will respond to my opponent's arguments. ====== RESPONSE TO OPPONENT I agree with my opponent's definition of Determinism: "causality is responsible for all events of the past, present and future. " My opponent claims that it is scientifically verifiable that "animate beings respond to cause and effect differently than does inanimate matter. " This is not a scientifically verifiable fact - it is mere conjecture for which my opponent has provided no evidence. I ask my opponent to provide in his next round the scientific evidence that verifies his assertion. My opponent makes the argument that "if determinism is correct, then that means the state of the universe could be calculated just based on the previous states of the universe," with the implication that "that's just mind-boggling. " This is a thinly veiled argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how that could possibly be, therefore it is not. " That's not good reasoning. My opponent then makes an appeal to consequences. If the universe is deterministic, then he claims that we have no influence on our own destiny. He says that this is less appealing than creating our own destiny, with the implication that this is evidence against determinism. It is not. It is an argument from wishful thinking, which is not good reasoning. My opponent notes that determinists don't accept that living beings can respond to a single specific situation in multiple ways. However, he gives us no reason to believe this premise. He simply claims that it is true, with absolutely no evidence. My opponent notes that causality does not strictly apply to the quantum world. Actually, we don't know this. It's a ramification of the unproven copenhagen interpretation, which also says that the entire macroscopic world is determined by physics. [1] It is indeed possible that quantum effects are entirely deterministic, but we simply do not know how to determine what variables will hold what values - that is to say, we do not have a full understanding of how quantum mechanics works. [2] Also, I'd like to quickly note that while a non-deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics contradicts determinism, it does not affirm free will as defined in this debate (that living matter is not subject to the macroscopic deterministic laws of science). [1] . http://abyss.uoregon.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... I'd like to note, before I get to making my own arguments, that my opponent has completely failed to provide actual evidence that free will exists at all. Allow me to now give my arguments. ========= CONTENTION THE FIRST: ARGUMENT FROM ATOMS Humans, like all living matter, are composed of atoms. Atoms obey the deterministic laws of physics, and they are incapable of doing anything that physics does not dictate they do. Our thought processes are the result of atoms moving and creating effects on other atoms within the brain and body. 1. Atoms obey the deterministic laws of physics. 2. Atoms cannot act in a way other than the way physics dictates. 3. Humans are a complex machine made completely of atoms. 4. Humans act in accordance with the deterministic laws of physics and nothing else. ========= CONTENTION THE SECOND: ARGUMENT FROM NEUROSCIENCE Neuroscience has found that decision-making happens in anterior cingulate cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, parietal lobe, and the areas of the brain that create the phenomenon of emotion [1]. These areas of the brain all receive and send signals based on chemistry and physics. In particular, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex seems to be responsible for calculating which of various potential choices is superior [2]. Thus, the portion of consciousness which appears to be capable of "choosing" between alternatives is just a lobe in the brain that chemically responds to signals from the rest of the brain. The rest of the brain is likewise composed of lobes that respond to each other and to input signals from the senses. There is no room for a mystical non-deterministic factor in decision-making. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org... ========= CONTENTION THE THIRD: ARGUMENT FROM THE UNIVERSE My opponent freely admits that nonliving matter acts in a deterministic way. I wholeheartedly agree with him on this issue. Let us examine what this entails, however. Let us take the early universe into account. It contained no life, therefore by my opponent's own admission, it was entirely deterministic. Now let us consider what would have to happen for it to cease being deterministic at some time in the future. At some point, atoms would have to deterministically arrange themselves in some way that would later not have to follow the laws of physics. My opponent has provided no evidence for this very extreme claim. In any case, let us examine something else. The earliest "lifeforms" were likely self-replicating strings of proteins. Hopefully we can agree that these did not act in a non-deterministic fashion. Later, cells developed. We likely also agree that cells do not have the ability to act in a way other than the one physics and chemistry dictate, despite rudimentary methods for responding to stimuli in complex ways. Plants certainly don't have the ability to decide anything, let alone decide anything using "free will. " My opponent should probably revise his definition to be more specific about what things don't follow the deterministic laws of physics, and if he could, why or how they manage to become unentwined with the scientific laws of the universe. ========= CONTENTION THE FOURTH: DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE Even my opponent, in his first round, notes that determinists disagree with free will and with the assertion that living matter is non-deterministic. This is quite true by definition - in my opponent's own words, "Determinism asserts that causality is responsible for all events of the past, present and future. " This would indeed include the actions of living beings, and contradict the definition of free will used in this debate. ========= FINAL WORDS My opponent has not given us a reason to think that living beings are not governed by the deterministic laws of science. I have provided evidence showing that it is at least a much more reasonable assumption that we are governed by deterministic effects (see Contentions 1, 2, and 3). The definition of determinism we are using also contradicts free will, a fact that contradicts the resolution. The resolution cannot be affirmed unless both its claims are true, and I have provided evidence that neither claim is true. Thus, I have negated the resolution. Good luck to my opponent.