Human beings have free will

The video to the right will be referred to later on in this argument. Determinism The definition of freewill that this debate refers to automatically assumes Incompatibilism. If freewill is the ability to choose without constraint, then determined actions exclude freewill. Predetermined action is in and of itself the ultimate constraint on the free choice, for what can be free if all actions are inevitable? To prove that human beings have no freewill, I therefore offer the argument for Incompatibilist Determinism - a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. (1) The Argument from Physics The law of conservation of energy postulates a fixed quantity of energy in the entire universe, where energy can neither be created nor destroyed – only converted to varying forms. This suggests that any motion of the body is solely caused by and subject to prior physical factors. Thus, the only way for a non-physical factor such as “the will” to force a body movement would be for it to create energy…an obvious impossibility. If my opponent denies that “the will” would need to create energy, then he suggests that a non-physical factor can affect already existing physical things…. which too is an obvious impossibility. “If a state of will, which is mental, caused an act of the body, which is physical, by so much would the physical energy of the world be increased, which is contrary to the hypothesis universally adopted by physicists. Hence, to physics, the will of man is not a vera cama in explaining physical movement”(2) The Law of Causation No action is uncaused, and we live life and inquire explanations for observations under this assumption. Human action is a physical event; hence it must be created through an antecedent physical cause. Freewill is not real or physical, yet we bestow upon it the power to cause physical action. This is contrary to the nature of the Universe and has little to no scientific basis. It is a tradition in human history to explain phenomena with simple animistic assertions (ie. The thunderstorms once caused by Zeus, and the rain by rain Gods). Thus, to say that the will may control the body is similar to arguing that we may levitate rocks through mind control. Something unreal and non-physical has no bearing on physical things. “Now human action is, of course, a physical effect; hence, we must expect to find only a physical cause; hence, any non-physical, psychical cause is from the nature of the case precluded, hence, of course the human will effects nothing. ” (2) The “Dilemma of Determinism” Argument 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. (3) 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. ”(4) 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. Libet’s Delay This study involved a series of conscious patients and their reactions to varying electrical stimulation, or the interval between when the stimulus was given and when the patients were consciously aware of it. It was found that when the stimulus was given, brain activity called “evoked potential” (EP) ensued tens of milliseconds afterward. The EP had to persist for 500 milliseconds before the subject became aware of it. However, half of a second was too large and noticeable of a period of time. The study would have suggested that it takes .5 seconds for human beings to respond to everything. This would contradict our own perceptions, since we believe that we react to numerous things far quicker than half one second. It followed that humans act before they are conscious that they have acted, and when the action reaches consciousness, our brains fabricate the retroactive illusion that we were conscious of the event at the moment the event occurred. The conclusion was thus: “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 become aware of them. ”(5) which leads to the necessary conclusion for this debate - If we make our decisions before being aware of making them, then our decisions are predetermined. As predetermined action is the most powerful constraint on freedom, humans must not have freewill. fMRI Testing 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. ”(6) Strengthening Libet’s observation, it is found that the decision to act occurs before we think we are making the decision to act – further undermining the causally direct spontaneity of the will. “ Another lab recently used fMRI data to show that some “conscious” decisions can be predicted up to 10 seconds before they enter awareness (long before the preparatory motor activity detected by Libet). Clearly, findings of this kind are difficult to reconcile with the sense that one is the conscious source of one’s actions. ”(7) The video above illustrates the procedure and conclusions from a very similar fMRI test: . http://www.youtube.com...ConclusionGiven these arguments, it is evident that the existence of freewill in humanity is highly improbable, if not impossible. My opponent must not only defeat all of those arguments to fulfill his portion of the burden, but prove the existence of freewill as well since he has the affirmative case. Without further ado, I await my opponent's response. Sources1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://www.csulb.edu...3. . http://www2.drury.edu...4. . http://www.informationphilosopher.com...5. . http://www.consciousentities.com...6. . http://www.plosone.org...7. . http://www.atheistnexus.org...