Man probably has freewill

I will meet the BOP from two principle angles: philosophically (where Freewill violates logic) and scientifically (where freewill violates physics). The Dilemma of Determinism P1: Either determinism is true or it is false P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist C: It is impossible for freewill to exist Premise 1 invokes the law of excluded middle, which should make it logically valid. I don’t think it needs much explanation. Premise 2 can be justified by Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument. ” It asserts that if we have no choice as to whether the laws regarding the universe are true, and all those laws dictate determined actions, then we have no choice as to the occurrence of those actions. (1) Having no choice as to the occurrence of one’s own actions is the negation of freewill. Premise 3 can also be justified using Inwagen’s “Mind Argument. ” He states that “an act that occurs by chance, if an event that occurs by chance can be called an act, cannot be under the control of its alleged agent and hence cannot have been performed freely. ”(2) We can form this premise knowing that either actions are random, or they are caused. Where an action has no cause, it must be random. If my opponent objects, he should name an example where this is not the case. Given these three premises, it follows that freewill cannot exist. Neurology Rapid growth in technology has led to startling neurological discoveries, all of which completely support the theory of Determinism. I will present them in the order of progressive significance. Libet’s Delay Benjamin Libet’s experiments in the late 20th Century measured the time lapse between decisions, consciousness, and actions. Using electrical stimulation and a clock face oscilloscope to determine the time of awareness, they found that there was a 500 millisecond delay between a neural event and the subject’s conscious awareness of it. This led to the conclusion that “the perceived time at which we make a decision must be subjectively referred back by 500 milliseconds. Unlikely as it seems, and contrary to our own impression, we must have made our decisions slightly before we actually became aware of them”(3) Study no. 1 Twelve right-handed subjects (aged 22-29) were tested using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the University of Leipzig. They were placed in front of a screen, showing a descending cascade of letters. They were then to press either a button to the right or to the left at random, then report what letter was on the screen at the moment of their decision. This was the conclusion: “In summary, we could replicate the finding of Soon et al. [30] that motor intentions were encoded in frontopolar cortex up to seven seconds before participants were aware of their decisions. Using ultra-high field fMRI on a 7 Tesla scanner, we could show that these patterns became more stable with increasing temporal proximity to the conscious decision. These findings support the conclusion that frontopolar cortex is part of a network of brain regions that shape conscious decisions long before they reach conscious awareness. ”(4) Study no. 2 An experiment conducted by neuroscientist, John-Dylan Haynes in 2008 modernized Libet’s experiment using fMRI. They were able to predict which button a patient would press (left or right) with 60% accuracy. (5) Study no. 3 As part of a surgical procedure conducted by surgeon and neurologist, Itzhak Fried, electrodes were implanted deep in the brains of the patients to precisely monitor their neuronal activity before pressing a button. It was found that their decisions could be predicted with 80% accuracy 700 milliseconds prior to the patient being aware that he had made a decision. (5) Impressive Results Professor Patrick Haggard from the London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience goes even farther than the aforementioned studies. He proves that the human mind can be coerced by outside forces in the universe. He demonstrates “transcranial magnetic stimulation” using magnetic coils held over his head while simultaneously measuring electrical activity in his muscles. When his assistant presses a switch to activate the coil, his fingers twitch. “Christina controls Prof Haggard's fingers like a marionette. The mechanical nature of it is unsettling. A graph on a screen shows his muscle activity plotted by time; 20 milliseconds after she clicks the button, it depicts an elegant leap and drop, like a heartbeat on an ECG. That 20 milliseconds is how long it takes for the signal to travel down his nerves. ”(6) The conclusion here is a definitive negation of the spiritual will. As Haggard explains, “We don't have free will, in the spiritual sense. What you're seeing is the last output stage of a machine. There are lots of things that happen before this stage – plans, goals, learning – and those are the reasons we do more interesting things than just waggle fingers. But there's no ghost in the machine. (6) Conclusion Empirically speaking, the evidence against freewill is mounting. Along a scientific framework, it will be difficult and eventually impossible to reconcile this concept with what we know about the mechanics of the mind. I’m looking forward to my opponent denying science. Along a philosophical framework, Freewill is blatantly absurd. The concept doesn’t seem to fit anywhere using logic. Therefore, the conclusion follows, freewill likely does not exist. Sources 1. . http://www2.drury.edu...2. . http://www.informationphilosopher.com...3. . http://www.consciousentities.com...4. . http://www.plosone.org...5. . http://www.nature.com...6. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...