People do not have free will.

Free Will Is Incompatible With Psychology "We have the ability to choose what the reasons for our action will be." That is false. We cannot control what reasons ultimately affect our decision. My opponent presents: "For example, a person who is running and trying to decide whether or not to stop can choose to let their actions be caused by their exhaustion (stop running), or they could choose to let their actions be caused by their desire to get in shape (keep running). Which they choose depends on them alone."That is wrong. Sometimes I want to run 4 miles without stopping, however the fact that I am out-of-shape means I have to stop and catch my breath in between. I am not able to do what I want because the physical forces and limitations of the universe (gravity, my body weight, the terrain of my path, my physical capabilities, etc.) are all influencing my decision to stop running. I do not have control over these things that have ultimately driven my inevitable decision. Suppose I choose to stop and protect my body rather than keep running. As I explained in the last round, a choice is undeniably made. But I've outlined why this choice is not free from antecedent states of affairs that are out of our control. If I do not have the energy to keep running because I didn't eat lunch, the antecedent state of affairs dictated my choice in that moment. I chose but the choice was determined by prior acts, decisions and physical properties. My opponent clearly does not see the flaw in his own logic. In response to my example from the last round, Con writes, "Lots of people who are on diets choose to eat anyway, as we can observe all around us." Indeed I have explained that people on diets have to make a choice to eat or not eat. While the choice is made, it is the inevitable result of prior states. As I explained, people who choose to eat have made that choice because certain factors (XYZ) took precedence to them over other factors (ABC). The reason XYZ was more important than ABC was dictated by two things: genetics and prior experience. That is a fact. Any single thing Pro claims to value (he can try to name something for example) I can explain is based on his experiences that have led him to value that thing. My opponent says "We cannot disregard previous experiences in deliberating, but we can choose which experiences to consider, how carefully to consider them, and what logical steps to follow in our deliberations." Once again, while we do make a choice, that choice is made in our brains which are NOT controlled by us. In the last round, I gave the example of schizophrenia and argued that if we are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, we cannot will ourselves to not have it. The mind controls us; not the other way around. If we have alzheimers, we cannot will it away. Our mind is at the complete mercy of our brain - that's why brain deterioration and traumatic brain injury can have huge affects on the individual. Consider the most famous case in psychology: Phineas Gage. After suffering a traumatic brain injury, his entire personality changed [1]. Were his choices "free," or did his brain injury dictate the vast majority of his new, completely uncharacteristic behavior? The latter is true. People who hallucinate are at the mercy of their brains. When people take drugs and jump out of windows, their "will" to jump was not free - it was dictated by the things they ingested. When people suffer or respond to PTSD, it is their brains controlling their choices. Their reaction is based on prior experiences, just like ALL of our reactions. Neuroscientists have found ways to manipulate the brain into making certain choices [2]. But more on science in a sec. My opponent did not respond to my quote from the last round, arguing that people's experiences inevitably and directly impact their choices. He claims we can consider what value we give things in weighing each decision, but he does not deny that our genetics nor our experiences directly affect the value we place on things... and since our genetics nor our experiences are within our control, our choices are determined by things outside of our will. Con has not negated the argument from psychology at all. And more on the science issue: Neuroscientists from UCLA and Harvard -- Itzhak Fried, Roy Mukamel and Gabriel Kreiman -- have taken an audacious step in the search for free will. Fried and his colleagues implanted electrodes in twelve patients, recording from a total of 1019 neurons. They adopted an experimental procedure to monitor the brain while making choices. With this data, the experimenters could see neurons whose activity correlated with the will to act in the brain. They observed changes as long as a second and a half before the decision, and as early as seven tenths of a second before it. The researchers could predict with over 80% accuracy not only whether a movement had occurred, but when the decision to make it happened. So it turns out that there are neurons in your brain that know you are about to make a movement the better part of a second before you know it yourself [3]. Free Will Is Incompatible With PhysicsMy opponent questions why I would bring up quantum mechanics when there is no definitive consensus. Obviously the intent is to debate which conclusions in physics have more credibility. God is not (and arguably can not) be proven, yet people debate God's existence all the time. Quantum physics has in fact given us some clues about the way the universe works. I've explained that physics most likely yields a determined universe, a chaotic universe (which is a form of determinism - see quote from last round) or an indetermined universe. Con suggests that indeterminism is inconsistent with determinism. Even so, if indeterminism is correct, we would still not have FREE WILL which is what this debate is about (per the resolution). I don't have to prove that determinism exists; I only have to prove that free will DOESN'T exist. That's why I've used arguments from physics to explain how science shows a direct link with causality that eliminates the possibility of free will. "Quantum mechanics in the standard interpretation has an indeterministic element that is a popular hiding place for free will. But quantum mechanical indeterminism is fundamentally random (as opposed to random by lack of knowledge). It doesn’t matter how you define “you” (in the simplest case, think of a subsystem of the universe), “you” won’t be able to influence the future because nothing can. Quantum indeterminism is not influenced by anything, and what kind of decision making is that?" [4]I have explained why physics does not agree with free will. Con says "consciousness is not made of matter, not as matter is currently understood by science." This is self-refuting. If consciousness is not understood by science, then Con has no reason to say what matter is or is not made of. He is making that up without any evidence based on his own assertion. Regardless, it's not true that physics is irrelevant to this debate about conscious choices. "Physical determinism generally refers to the assertion of a deterministic physical universe (greater physical system). This holds that a complete description of the physical state of the world at any given time and a complete statement of the physical laws of nature together entail every truth as to what physical events happen after that time" [5]. Allow me to explain further: our universe (described by quantum mechanics) is deterministic or indeterministic, in that the outcomes of measurements are chosen at random from the slate of possibilities, OR chosen as necessary causations. So, if quantum effects help to shape our conscious choices, they sever the connection between us and the initial conditions of the universe. Free Will Is Incompatible With Philosophy Con accuses determinism of being self-refuting, when in fact his own argument is self-refuting."If all of our beliefs are merely determined by our previous experiences, as opposed to based on rational deliberation from the evidence of experience, then we have no reason to think that any of them are true." A-ha. He suggests that our beliefs are based on rational deliberation from the evidence of experience. But in order to consider the evidence of experience, we must be exposed to the evidence. Thus it is still *our experience* which matters. My opponent has negated his own argument and used his own argument against himself.Con writes, "If all of our beliefs are deterministically caused by stimuli, then we have no basis for sorting truth from fiction." This is unsupported. Truth is defined as that which is in accordance with facts or reality. We can still be exposed and react to facts in a determined universe, obviously. Con says, "Determinism could seem perfectly reasonable to you, but on this theory you might just believe it because your parents always told you it was true, or something like this. On this view, you have no grounds for your belief in determinism." Indeed I believe it was my experience (my exposure to determinsm based on my exposure to philosophy classes and materials) that have led me to recognize there is no free will. Yet Con's argument is pretty nonsensical or at the very least irrelevant. Just because my experiences have led me to this conclusion doesn't mean my conclusion is invalid. Moreover, Con's beliefs are based on his experiences as well. "Again, if all of our beliefs are merely determined by the laws of physics, then we have no reason to think that any of them are true." If evolution was determined by physics, should we assume evolution isn't true? No. Physics, like math, is the science that studies matter, motion and time -- it is completely relevant to this discussion.Out of characters. I will make my conclusion in the final round.SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...