Free Will Exists

This is the last round of the debate and, therefore, I will use it to defend my original arguments, which my opponent attempted to rebut in the previous round. Finally, I will summarize the debate.1. Defense of the causality argument. A. My opponent asserts that my argument from causality is fallacious, because "free will is not a physical thing to be governed by the laws of the physical world. " Indeed, we did agree that the concept of free will is itself just a concept and not a physical thing, but that does not mean that our thoughts cannot be predetermined by physical laws. Our thoughts arise by completely neurophysiological processes, which are governed by the interactions of molecular biology and physics. Therefore, if I were to show that our thoughts are deterministic, the definition of free will that we have agreed on would contradict reality, which is exactly what I have shown in the previous rounds. I have clearly stated the relationship between our ideas and thoughts (which are physical) and the concept of free will (which is a concept). My opponent seems to have misunderstood my points. My whole debate strategy was simply to show that the hypothesis of free will fails to correctly describe the nature of human thoughts, ideas and choices. B. My opponent asserts that "the events which lead up to a person making a choice might be determined, but that does not mean that the choice itself is determined. " Furthermore, he states that "There may be a cause the forces me to choose between writing this sentence or doing something else, but that cause does not make the choice for me". Additionally, he implies that we are only partly deterministic, which allows us to have some freedom. Please note that my opponent never supported these statements. I fail to see his reasoning why his choices are not predetermined, if everything else is. All of our decisions and thinking are by nature neurophysiological. I do not see where the extra freedom that my opponent argues for is coming from. Moreover, I have provided several reasons, both from experience and from scientific experimentation, why we cannot actually actively make our choices in a manner that is described by the concept of free will. C. My opponent argues that my example of brain tumor contradicts my point of view, arguing that those effects are issues of emotion, but not of free will. But it is completely obvious that if we cannot control our emotions, which may or may not arise from brain tumours, we are not in control of our conscious actions either. If one is already predisposed to agressiveness and rage (or, indeed, any emotions), a predisposition that comes directly from the physical brain, that person would not be in control of his actions. If one has a rage disorder, for instance, you would not expect such a person to behave calmly, because that person would never make such a choice. He is not able to freely determine his following actions, because he already has a neurophysiological bias, which is not only partly deterministic, but also fully deterministic, as I have argued on several occasions throughout this debate. I do not see how my opponent could claim that this example negates my position. My opponent claims that "The fact that not all people who experience rage and remain unrestrained then "inflict physical harm to other people" helps us see that people do indeed have a choice. " This is a non-sequitur. Just because people act differently in similar situations does not mean that they have free choice. This is because all of us are inherently neurophysiologically different. You will never find two identical tumours with absolutely identical effects on the brainø nor will you find two identical brains. The input information always varies, and, due to causal effects, the results vary. You cannot make valid comparisons here, nor can you make any conclusions from those. The fact that people behave differently is not a valid argument for free will. D. My opponent states that "The ability to feel something and not act on it is one the most important things that most sets people apart from other animals, and it is clear example of free will. " I would argue that many other animals are by their neurophysiological nature identically deterministic, just as humans, since brains function through molecular biology, physical interactions and electrochemical neurocircuits. My opponent never contested this point and he never showed how a biologically deterministic system,such as the brain, could result in non-deterministic choices and actions.2. Defense of the "Pick a City" argument. My opponent asserts that my argument relies on word play, arguing that it is analogical to the "throw the ball as fast as possible" scenario. However, it seems that he misses the point completely. My argument relies on the impossibility to have a free, unlimited choice, with all possible options available. It has nothing to do with the analogy of throwing a ball that my opponent provided. I fail to see the connection. However, even if we allow that this point (2a) does not contradict free will, my argument still stands due to the points (2b) and (2c), which offer further limitations, which are certainly not word play, but arise due to the impossibility to know where one's choices come from, and due to the impossibility to accurately and absolutely assess one's reasons for one's choices. My opponent completely dropped those points and never contested them.3. Defense of the Experimental evidence. My opponent comes up with an assertion that "subconscious decision can still be freely made. " Please note that he never provides any evidence for this statement. Moreover, my opponent tries to change the definition of free will and includes the subconscious as a valid reason for free will. This is nonsense, because obviously a free decision must necessarily be a conscious one. A free decision is that, of which a person is completely aware of and is ultimately responsible for. The subconscious decisions are no more the responsibility of a human than the decisions by the bacteria in our gut. The conscious is what we are talking about here. My opponent argues that the experiments predict human actions only in theory, but it shows that he has not read those sources. My citations clearly show that such predictions were made in practice. Furthermore, the fact that some decisions cannot be predicted are not due to free will, but to the complexity of human brain. A complex system can still be unpredictable, even though it is fully deterministic. The weather is an example of this. Conclusion:I still maintain that my arguments are completely sound and my opponent failed to meet his burden of proof. Also, I think that I have successfully managed to rebut my opponents points.