Free Will

That was quite the introduction, and I do applaud you. However, your arguments fail on critical matters. Before I begin, I will restate the definition of free will. "The doctrine that human beings possess a freedom of self-discretion, individual to their being--and under their full control--as to be free of external and internal determination. Thus human beings are indeed fully responsible for their actions." It is important to remember that free will certainly does not equate to making decisions. Free will has absolutely nothing to do with the way we behave. In your argument, you addressed examples regarding human attitude, morality, and actions. This was your so called evidence of free will. No. The concept of free will is far more profound than that. Free will isn"t the the observable fruit on the tree, but it's is the roots under the ground. The roots that we can"t see or observe. No, but it"s even more than that. Free will originates at the seed. Well, that is, if if free will existed. It is crucial to understand what free will is. When I argue that free will is an illusion, I argue this" The ability to make choices only appears to be free will, however, everything from our thoughts to our actions has been determined by factors which we do not choose. Free will assumes that humans have a "soul" if you may. And this soul is not only who we truly are, but it is also is also responsible for all our choices. Free will is the concept that everyone possesses their own self-discretion, and this self discretion acts as an "independent variable." This brings me to my first point. Free will is riddled with illogical paradoxes that prove its falsehood. The first problem with free will is the paradox of the independent variable. For this argument I will be focusing on constant variables and independent variables. The most important step is to define the terms in the context of which I will be using them. Independent Variables: The independent variable is the free will that is individual to each person. In order for free will to exist, all people must have their own independent variable. The reason is because if people do not have their own independent variable than it is merely a constant variable, which brings me to constant variables. Constant Variables = All variables that are not under the control of the Independent Variable. These variables include every last detail of everything that transcends the Independent Variable. They encompass everything from atoms, viruses, bacteria, other human beings, nature, Earth, the solar system, the Milky Way, and the Universe. Of course, all of these things are not under the control of the independent variable. These variables would remain constant even if a new independent variable were to be input into the equation. Now, free will can not exist if different independent variables"the souls of different people"do not result in a different answer, when plugged into an identical equation of constant variables. For example, say I were born as Barack Obama. All constant variables are the same. This means that anything not under the control of my independent variable will remain constant. I have absolutely no control over my molecular form, and therefore I would be molecularly identical to Barack Obama. Now, I am "given," the identical constant variables that Barack Obama was "given." Of course, I have absolutely no choice in what constant variables I am "given." Notice that I do add quotations around the word given. To proceed, with identical constant variables, I will be born into the same family as Obama. The same environment. All constant variables are exactly identical, as I have absolutely no control over them. Now, according to free will, I should have a different independent variable than Barack Obama, and therefore I will not live the exact same life that he did. However, how could this so called "free will," this independent variable, be any different than Barack Obama's? At what point did I ever get a chance to choose a different independent variable? When did I choose to possess a different free will? If this different independent variable, was "given" to me, then it is a constant variable, as I had no control over it. If it is given to me then how did I choose it? At what point do I diverge from Obama's life. We are the same person now. Yet, "I" have done nothing. I have simply "received" Barack Obama"s constant variables, not to my own discretion, and I simply acted upon these constant variables. I had absolutely no control in the matter, and now I am Barack Obama. Everything he does in his life will be what I do. My life will be exactly identical, and even if it is not it can only be explained by a differing constant variable, as there is no way to acquire a differing independent variable. Free will becomes a major paradox when you take a closer look. How can you have a differing independent variable, if you must choose to have a differing independent variable in the first place? You must have a differing independent variable to choose a different independent variable. The point is, we are only a result of the massive accumulation of all our constant variables. We possess no special free will that separates us as individuals. There is absolutely no way to have an individual independent variable, and no way to have free will. Therefore it is more logical to believe that free will is an illusion. Here is a mathematical example to prove my point even further. Now, here is a set of constant variables. These constant variables account for every last miniscule detail that impacts your life. Of course, these constant variables are all out of your control. ((55,098+91*188,972,345-70/10*(65,890,783*3,221,834-99,142,)+88/8+11,666,663*(59,422-488,008,065)-5*(4*(849+773/666))/5*732+(9^2(1*(65*3^2/77^2)/4^2))+22*19*13+7-903,827*(91*843/9-52)+391,839,941*2*(76-3^2/9+13^2)+55,098+91*188,972,345-70/10*(765,001,783*23,221,834-99,142,744,321)) *X Here I have accumulated every single constant variable in your life. This includes anything and everything that you have no control over. However, do you see the bolded X at the bottom. That is the independent variable which you have control over. According to free will, if you and I were given the same constant variables, we would still live different lives because of that one constant variable which we can manipulate to our own discretion. Now, I have a question? Why would your X be any different than my X? For instance, how could your X = 36,972 but my X = 28,999 Like I said, if that X value was given to you, then you did not choose it. Thus, it would merely be another constant variable to add to that massive equation. There is no possible way to have a different independent variable. Possessing a different independent variable to plug into the equation would require a different independent variable to choose what the former independent variable was. Something like this. X = (66*91-777,456)+Y VS X = (66*91-777,456)+Y The value of Y will now have to be different in each equation, in order for the output to have differing values for X. Therefore, our independent variables would be the same. Say... 13, for example. Okay, now if you plug 13 into that massive equation the output will always be the same number. Every single time. The result will always be the same. This massive equation of more constant variables than we can count. We can add as many constant variables as we want and the result will always be the same. To have free will is to have a unique free will that will change the set variables in which you are placed. This math equation explains it well. Free will asserts that all people possess a unique and independent variable that is individual to them, and therefore it will result in a different dependent variable when placed in the set formula of constant variables. Constant variable which they did not choose. Now which is more logical to believe? An assumption made at birth through the mere observation of the five senses. An assumption riddled with major paradoxes? Or a logical, well thought out, and thoroughly investigated proposal? I rest my case that it is far more logical that free will is an illusion. However, I have many more arguments in my arsenal. Now, to refute your arguments. "Now, here's the fun part. While I believe that free will is always the case, in the context of this debate, the only thing I need to prove is that in one single little circumstance, free will is at play. Since my opponent has graciously let me go first, I'm gonna do the mean, awful thing and shove burden of proof upon him. This means that, in order to win by the standards he himself has set, he must prove that free will is NEVER at play. Perhaps he was going to do this anyway. Who knows?" -Indeed, I was planning to prove that free will is never at play because free will is actually a black and white subject. Free will can either exist or not exist. If it exists in even the slightest way then it exists. However, it is an illusion so its existence is out of the equation. I gracefully accept the burdon of proof. "Attitude." "Even people with very similar lives react different ways to different situations. In fact, if what you propose is really the case, where does individuality come from? Outside sources effecting people in the same way, but resulting in different choices? Seems unlikely." -My argument is far more specific then just, "same situations." I prefer to use, "identical molecular form." "Morality." -Nothing to do with free will. "Actions." "Influenced, yes, but mindless and completely pre-determined? No way. -Yes way. Well, not the mindless part but the dermined part is quite correct. Overall, these arguments don't have anything to do with free will. Sources: http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://phys.org... Vote Con. -JR