Human beings have free will

The Argument from the law of Conservation of Energy I concede this point and retract the argument, since it is rather insignificant to the crux of the negative case. The Law of Causation Physicality: Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics. (1) My opponent mixes physicality and existence. Something can exist while being non-physical (ie. thoughts, dreams). I simply argue that a non-physical thing cannot affect physical things such as the brain and body. Of course my opponent is free to dispute the premise and argue that the will is a physical thing. However, he’d have to demonstrate what the will is. Is it matter? Is it energy? On the premise that freewill is non-physical, it lacks the ability to cause physical things. In this way, I don’t believe the argument begs the question, so I sustain it. “Upon this basis the argument for determinism proceeds as follows: Like effects have like causes, the effect is like the cause, the effect is in fact the cause transformed, as the lightning is the effect of the preceding electrical conditions. 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”(2) The Arguments from Neuroscience Objection 1 “If interpreted as urges or intentions, for example, then the subject still has time to "veto" this urge or intention or decide to act on it. ” Libet’s concept of “free won’t” or the conscious veto was nothing more than a last minute reconciliation with moral responsibility. It can be rebuked in the same fashion as “freewill” itself. Of course people have the ability to resist action. However, what prevents this resistance from being subject to the determinist system as well? Whether or not one vetoes will be due to antecedent neuronal causes. Sam Harris writes: “I think Libet’s reasoning was clearly flawed, as there is every reason to think that a conscious veto must also arise on the basis of unconscious neural events. ”(3) Objection 2 “For all we know these brain events are correlated with the urges, intentions and considerings - not the decision to itself” This objection may be troublesome in the archaic and limited technology of Libet’s time, but modern neural testing and fMRI disarms this doubt. As part of a surgical procedure conducted by surgeon and neurologist, Itzhak Fried, electrodes were implanted deep in the brains of the patients to precisely monitor their neuronal activity before pressing a button. It was found that their decisions could be predicted with 80% accuracy 700 milliseconds prior to the patient being aware that he had made a decision. (4) Another experiment conducted by neuroscientist, John-Dylan Haynes in 2008 modernized Libet’s experiment using fMRI. However, “critics still picked holes, pointing out that Haynes and his team could predict a left or right button press with only 60% accuracy…. ” (4) In both cases, the accuracy exceeded 50%, which as of now proves a strong correlative, if not causative relationship between the brain activity and the decision. The activity is not mere urge, intention, and considering, otherwise the predictability would be much lower. Freewill, being uninfluenced, being its own cause, its own origination, has an element of spontaneity. Decisions should not be predicted anywhere near this accurately if a will is truly free. My opponent may argue that choosing between a left and right button naturally lends 50% accuracy even through pure guesswork. However that would not retract or diminish these experiments given that the scientists saw numbers like 60 and 80! Argument from Rational Deliberation “When we are reasoning about anything we often think that we have several options to choose from wherein in which, in some sense, we could choose to do each one if we thought we had good reason to do so” The central tenant and preponderant point hammered by every determinist in the world is the notion that we cannot trust our senses. The implication of every test from Libet’s delay to the various fMRIs is the presence of a neuronal illusion – whether it means that our consciousness is referred back 500 milliseconds in time, or that antecedent brain activity predicts decision before decision is made. Yet, the Argument from Rational Deliberation relies solely upon common human perception – the very faculty in question. So, I find the conclusions derived from it, in a way, irrelevant. I also contest that determinism does not deny rational deliberation. It merely states that the outcome of that deliberation is inevitable whether the inevitability is recognized or not. Given that determinists, again, argue that we operate under an illusion, it is no wonder that we feel we are actually deliberating something with an undetermined outcome. My opponent attempts to use the consequences of a truth to destroy its validity – kind of like arguing that Conclusion Freewill is more contradictory to nature, science, and logic than it would appear. Things do not simply happen, they happen because a preceding force caused them to happen. A will therefore cannot act in a vacuum. It must have preceding cause; and every advancement in science and neurology corroborates this fact with increasing certainty. You also have the fact that a will has no place or fit in the universe, for actions are caused or they are random, both cases excluding the notion of a free will. Freewill stands among the ranks of the thunder gods and the rain spirits, the fire demons and the fairies – animistic assertions for phenomena that cannot yet be explained. From this mounting evidence, it follows that freewill simply cannot exist. I once again thank my opponent for the debate opportunity and the challenging responses. Sources 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://www.csulb.edu... 3. . http://www.eoht.info... 4. . http://www.nature.com...