Free Will is Real and Compatible with Determinism

Free will was, traditionally, a philosophical question, although science has begun pursuing the question more vigorously since the development of modern scanning technologies. There has not yet been any solid discoveries made about consciousness or free will. We know next to nothing about the emergent properties of consciousness and free will. I am reluctant to engage in a "citation war" when it's merely postulates and hypotheses – not evidence – that can be cited. Such a "he said, she said" effort is a waste of time. Of my opponent's 7 "Responses to Opponent", 3 of them were Sock Puppet fallacies (putting words in my mouth). In all 3 cases, my opponent went "quote mining" to pull quotes out of context and put his own spin on them. I consider this practice to be less than honest. Here's the 3 Sock Puppet fallacies: 1.My opponent makes the argument that "if determinism is correct, then that means the state of the universe could be calculated just based on the previous states of the universe," with the implication that "that's just mind-boggling." 2.Also, I'd like to quickly note that while a non-deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics contradicts determinism, it does not affirm free will 3.My opponent then makes an appeal to consequences. If the universe is deterministic, then he claims that we have no influence on our own destiny. He says that this is less appealing than creating our own destiny, with the implication that this is evidence against determinism. #1). There was NO implication that "that's just mind-boggling". The mined quote is extracted from under the heading of "Determinism – Logical Conclusions:". I was simply expositing standard logical conclusions of determinism – as explicitly indicated by the heading of that section. I'm sure most of you have heard or read the same logical conclusion before. I was also setting up the following scenario in which the fatalism of determinism was emphasized (May the force be with you). #2). Who said anything about quantum mechanics affirming free will? My point was, once again, clearly stated: "We already know that causality does NOT apply, at all, to the quantum realm; so it's positively NOT true that absolute causality applies to everything. Living beings, therefore, set no precedents by responding differently to causality." #3). What consequences? This was an appeal to reason, not to consequences. Why would you deny the evidence of your experience, not to mention the enpowerment of free will, for the illusions and fatalism of determinism? The Sock Puppet part comes with the spurious and specious injection of the "with the implication that this is evidence against determinism" closing remark. Of the remaining 4 Responses to Opponent, 3 are false and 1 is misleading. The false ones first: 1.My opponent claims that it is scientifically verifiable that "animate beings respond to cause and effect differently than does inanimate matter." This is not a scientifically verifiable fact 2.My opponent notes that determinists don't accept that living beings can respond to a single specific situation in multiple ways. However, he gives us no reason to believe this premise. 3.My opponent has completely failed to provide actual evidence that free will exists at all #1). I said "verifiable", NOT "verifed". The animate mode of response is too observably obvious to bother with experimentation but I'll humor my opponent anyway . . . On a cloudless day, place 2 identical vials of water in direct sunlight and 2 identical twins in the same direct sunlight. I think we already know where this is heading. The 2 vials of water will heat up in unison but, because of motility, consciousness and intelligence, there's no telling what the 2 twins will do. One might strip off her clothes and sunbathe. The other might head for shade. Inanimate objects and animate beings have 2 different modes of response to causality. #2). This is just plain ridiculous. Hello? What has my opponent been reading? Did I not emphasize it enough? Repeat after me: "The animate mode of response." Like I said, "For some reason, most determinists don't (or won't) acknowledge the differences between a living being and a lifeless rock." #3). I repeat, "The animate mode of response". As I stated in my argument, "Options are what it's all about . . . because options mean choices and choices means free will." Admittedly, I didn't dwell on this point – because it's too self-evident (to me). I'll dwell on it now. Free will is axiomatic to the act of planning. If you've ever made a plan and executed it, revised a strategy or out-maneuvered an opponent, then you've got empirical evidence of free will. You've learned from causality: adapted to it and extrapolated it into the future -- then chose your options accordingly. You've demonstrated the intelligent mastery of causality it takes to have free will. Everybody lives as if they have free will. They work, play, think and plan as if they have free will. That's a LOT of empirical evidence for free will. Conversely, what's the evidence for the claim that free will is an illusion? And finally, the 1 misleading Response to Opponent. 1.My opponent notes that causality does not strictly apply to the quantum world. Actually, we don't know this. It's a ramification of the unproven copenhagen interpretation, which also says that the entire macroscopic world is determined by physics. #1). Quantum mechanics is all about probabilities. Where to begin? How about the basics? My opponent needs to familiarize himself with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, quantum fluctuations, wave-particle duality, wave function collapse, quantum entanglement, Schrï¿½dinger's cat, photon and radioactive emissions, etc. See: http://en.wikipedia.org... There is no consensus on what the Copenhagen Interpretation is, exactly. However, ALL those who developed it (Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrï¿½dinger, Born, etc.) agree that it is probabilistic and indeterminate. Contemporary popularizers of quantum mechanics (Brian Greene and Michio Kaku) state outright that the quantum realm really is as bizarre, random and unpredictable as it seems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org... Could it be that the quantum realm is only bizarre because we don't understand enough? Possibly. But it appears to be genuinely random and unpredictable by nature. See: http://www.dimaggio.org... My opponent has forced me to waste a lot of time, effort and pixels fending off Sock Puppet fallacies and misrepresentations, leaving me little room to rebut his own arguments. In my opponent's first contention, he is still denying the difference between a rock and a human without ever addressing the animate mode of response directly. It's denial to ignore the options causality presents animate beings. My example of the single-celled organism makes this point clear. The "Argument from Neuroscience" is completely speculative at this stage and deals with brain activity, not consciousness and free will. My opponent's appeal to science is without evidential merit. My opponent's "Argument from the Universe" continues to deny the difference between a rock and a human. The advent of life introduced new phenomena to the universe that clearly delineate the animate from the inanimate. Denial is not a strategy. In the "Determinism and Free Will Are Mutually Exclusive" argument, my opponent is quote mining again. I explained determinism, under the "Determinism – Logical Conclusions" heading, for the benefit of defining my terms – NOT because it's my position or belief. Final Words: My opponent believes that denial is some sort of strategy. He has failed to address the animate mode of response. I challenge him to explain how humans and rocks are causally identical.