Free Will

First let me say thank you for taking me up on my first debate. I appreciate any constructive criticism. Thanks also for doing this in a rational, respectful way. It is appreciated. Quote: "They take the position that free will is not compatible with determinism and determinism is true. I take the same position, but I think determinism is false. I believe in libertarian free will." -- Not necessarily the case, there can be chaos in the universe and it not be due to free will. If there is chaos in the universe than determinism is false. I believe there is some chaos in the universe (at least in the quantum world) so I'm not nailed to determinism. Just against free will. Argument: "1) If we do not have free will, we are not responsible for our actions." ***responsible means what? A dog can be responsible for eating my dinner before I get to the table it doesn't mean the dog had free will. If that's too complicated an animal (not to suggest you couldn't understand merely that it is a higher order thinking creature) substitute jellyfish for dog and my point stands. "2) We are responsible for our actions." We are responsible in that we are the most significant contributor to something happening. In other words, I am not as responsible for Obama being elected as my elected representative is. The person in China who doesn't have enough money for food is not responsible for Obama being elected. "3) Therefore, we have free will." Don't see how that follows. Basically what is being done here is fudging the word 'responsible'. A virus can be responsible or the primary cause of my death but I don't see the virus as having free will. So next argument (and you're right 2 is where I want to go) "2) If we necessarily believe as we do, then rationality is an illusion." We can be wrong. It can be the case that what is true is not obvious without further investigation. Such as quantum mechanics. We at one point in history (ancient Greece) could believe that we have to be able to choose, but as time goes by we learn more and more how more and more of our actions are in fact determined. I can stick an electrode in your brain and make you lift your arm. I have determined your action. We now know the electric current in your brain is what determines arm raising. Now this is an almost ridiculous simplification but point still holds. The first premise that we necessarily believe that our choices are free is also suspicious. I don't see how anyone MUST believe something other than we exist. I don't believe in choice, kind of defeats the premise there... The defense of premise 2 all hinges on determinism which I don't maintain because I understand that there are certain unpredictable things in the quantum world that do not have free will (and you'd have a hard time defending a charmed quark does have free will) suggesting that something could have gone differently and saying it has a will to choose are not the same thing. Main point: We are talking about the source of an action, not the alternatives. I believe in possibilities, just not agency. If you don't want to answer the questions ok. I think if you assert a will exists they ought to be addressed but the argument you're taking is all about options, which I concede there are. My argument against agency claims introducing agency violates Ockham's Razor. Which if that is not enough is subject to the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium. http://en.wikipedia.org... I also point out that even though options are given to all creatures, (such as the scorpion could have moved to the left) we do not ascribe agency to all creatures, just the ones most like us. This only proves we want to have agency, just like we want to have an immortal soul that will be given a mansion once we die (sorry for the Ricky Gervais movie reference). I don't see how just because an explanation appeals to our emotions it becomes rationally necessary where if it is not the case rationality is an illusion. I don't see a qualitative difference between the decision making process of a gorilla and a human I just see a quantitative one. We are more complicated thinker true, but my opponent in order to assert this new thing called will that is free emerges (or has a brute emergence - thank you panpsychics) they have to show how or why when the same parts are arranged in one way to produce a horse brain we have no free will but in a slightly different way we have human brain which has free will sometimes. We are not allowing the addition of any more parts than the same protons and electrons that make up the panda, the jellyfish or the hedgehog, otherwise all the questions I asked in the beginning involving these magic parts must be answered. It seems my opponent (who again I want to thank for taking me up on my first debate, and I appreciate the rational and respectful approach he/she is taking) claims if we don't believe in free will reason is an illusion. I humbly suggest that there is a chance that the thing being asserted that is not necessary, that has no evidence, that exists in my opinion only as a way of making us feel more important than we are, may be the illusion, and not reason.