Libertarian free will is false.

Thanks to my opponent for waiting until Monday to post, for my schedule would have hindered my posting otherwise. I would like to correct my sourcing last round, as I already have in the comments, within the debate rounds as well: the number next to "Bohmian Mechanics" should be a [1] rather than a [2]. ==Randomness Versus Determinism== My opponent asks for a few sentences from my source that make the Bohmian mechanical interpretation preferable to other interpretations. J. S. Bell, the developer of Bell's Theorem, which tried to discredit the existence of nonlocal variables, flopped and advocated Bohmian mechanics upon his exposure to them, writing: "But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated" [1]. Bohmian mechanics is superior to other interpretations because it does not assume the creation of alternative universes in the case of parallel observation, it does not assume a universe subjective to the observer, and it does not assume random movement. On top of all this, it is mathematically valid and lacks a valid objection [1]. My opponent counters my inductive argument against randomness with the statement that the behavior of matter at the macroscopic level differs from the behavior of matter at the microscopic level. Applying this statement to randomness, it would be improper to argue that biological factors are random based on the assertion that quantum mechanics are random, so my opponent's entire objection collapses. ==Life: Pain and Consciousness== My opponent's key argument lies in his assumption that the pain consciousness experiences is somehow immaterial, although everywhere it has been proven material. This idea originates with the idea that consciousness is immaterial, and so I will start here. The conscious mind can be proven material by a look at evolution and the brain. First, evolution: organisms evolved over time from life considered not to have consciousness into life with consciousness, and because the matter constructing the life that has this consciousness has only changed structure, by the Law of Conservation of Mass, and the parameters of the universe haven't changed, the consciousness must have developed by the structure of matter. Therefore, consciousness is simply a material system. Second, the structure of the brain: every aspect of consciousness depends on brain activity, and therefore, every aspect of consciousness depends on the activity of matter. Pain depends on brain activity, specifically, on electroneural signals, histamines, and bradykini [2][3]. Breaking the physical process of pain in one of the many ways breaks the conscious process [4]. Vision depends on brain activity, specifically, a chemical signal from the retina [5]. Decision depends on brain activity located in the frontal region [6a], and when that decision is influenced externally [6b], the affected human will still believe to have made the choice itself. Concluded that both pain and the consciousness that experiences it are material, my opponent's new inquiries can be answered. Pain is experienced in the consciousness as part of a negative. The pain sensation must necessarily be exposed to the consciousness for the consciousness to calculate it in its actions. Not exposing the conscious sectors of the brain to the pain would prevent an intelligent, calculated reaction, and so organisms that didn't consciously process pain had a significant evolutionary disadvantage [7]. As to the exact location the conscious brain becomes aware of pain: "Unfortunately there is no discrete centre where pain is recognised [sic]. Pain is so important to survival that almost the whole brain is involved" [2]. Pain can be processed in multiple parts of the brain and still be experienced only by that brain because the brain functions as a system. My opponent argues that individual neurons could not produce pain. This is precisely the fallacy of composition [8], for he is stating that because a neuron cannot individually cause the sensation of pain, a brain composed of neurons cannot either. The neurons work together to perform the neurological processes, and can't do anything, like process pain, by themselves. Making a neuron act as if it was still part of a brain would not cause a consciousness to experience pain because that neuron would send the right signals to the wrong audience, and so there is no remote consciousness problem, as my opponent may wish. My opponent's first thought experiment, different from the above scenario in that it has "artificial brains" to do exactly the same function as the brain, would produce a consciousness that could feel pain, following the assumption that the supplementary brain does exactly the same thing as the human brain. If it behaves the same as the brain, then of course it will act like one. However, if I am still not interpreting my opponent correctly, and the supplementary brain only serves the unnecessary function of "convincing" the neuron that it is in a brain, then, for the reasons described in the preceding paragraph do the consciousness and pain not occur, and the scenario is different because pain and consciousness are functional results of material processes, and therefore must have these processes occur to function. My opponent wisely drops his second thought experiment. ==Conclusion== Regardless of the scope, if the universe lacks randomness, then it is deterministic, and if the universe is deterministic, then free will is impossible. Free will can only exist if the universe has indeterministic behavior and this behavior results from the intervention of life. However, no properties of matter change during the establishment of life, so libertarian free will is false. ==Sources== [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://jubilation.uwaterloo.ca... [3] http://www.suite101.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.science20.com... [6a] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6b] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.suite101.com... [8] http://fallacyfiles.org...