People do not have free will.

Psychology Con claims that the physical limitations that affect my choices have nothing to do with determinism. I've repeatedly explained that if the factors that affect your decision are out of your control, then your will is not free, but DETERMINED by factors that are out of your control. Ergo, the choice was not free - it was the inevitable consequence of previous states of nature/physical affairs. However my opponent loses this point on psychology when he writes, "The question is whether we are able to make free choices, not whether physical factors can dispose us toward mental illness." The fact that Con manipulated the argument into a red herring is pretty obvious. The argument isn't about mental illness, specifically. The argument is about how physical forces (the brain) control our decisions. My opponent never once contests the fact that our brain dictates if we have mental illness; the brain dictates every single thing about our personality including our choices. We literally could not make a single choice if our brain was not working. Every choice we make is DEFINITIVELY controlled by the brain; that is an indisputable, biological fact. If we are mentally well, that is due to our brain being in tact and functioning properly. If every part of our psyche is determined by the brain, then our will is not free. Our will is controlled by our brain. Our brain is influenced by nature and nature. The nature part is genetics and any other physical factors that affect our choice. The nurture is our experiences or what we have been exposed to. Con dropped my example on PTSD which is a mental illness caused by a traumatic experience. Once again, it is our experience (and/or nature: genetics) that control our persona. On Phineas Gage, science has determined that his injury affected his decisions and newfound personality [1] because our decisions are influenced by things that are out of our control - nature and nurture - genetics/brain and previous states of affairs. Gage did not will his choices; his brain dictated his choices.Con continues, "There is no reason why free will should be mutually exclusive with the possibility of someone's personality being influenced by a brain injury." I'm not sure how many times I can repeat the explanation. If one's personality and choices are dictated by their brain... which is an indisputable, biological fact [2]... then our brain controls our choices, and our choices are not "free." I asked Con to present an example of a choice that he would make, but he declined to do so. Experiences are required for values. That's why Con neglected to present a value that could arise without experience. He can't. If he values loyalty, it's because he was taught things and experienced things that led him to appreciate that value. If he values lobster, it's because he was exposed to lobster and his taste buds (genetics) have compelled him to appreciate the flavor. His choice to eat lobster would be based on his experiences and genetics. Con writes, "we make decisions based on choosing between the possible reasons for action that are presented to us." How do we choose between possible reasons? We consider the outcomes which requires that we are exposed to the information (our experience) in order for us to make assumptions about the outcomes. Once again Con defeats his own argument. Con says, "What we need is actual evidence that these choices are determined, which my opponent has not provided..." That is completely false. First, I've given psychological proof by explaining how the brain controls our choices which is a biological fact. Second, I provided studies proving how our brain dictates our choices, and how the brain can easily have its choices influenced/manipulated and even predicted. My opponent dropped the contention/source that neuroscientists can manipulate our decsions. Third, I gave an argument from quantum physics explaining how determinism is widely accepted at the anatomical level. And finally, I explained how determinism is logically valid in philosophy. Con writes, "As you read my argument, you can see that you have the ability to weigh my arguments, to focus on what I am saying..." It is one's experience that is MANDATORY for the choice to read this debate. If one did not experience exposure to this debate, they would not be able to choose reading it. Can cannot deny that prior experiences and one's brain have everything to do with the person's choice. Con continues, "You also have the ability to drift and let my words pass over you, or evade my arguments. Either way, the fact of choice is evident." Once again my opponent points out the blatantly obvious fact that a choice is evident, which I have repeated is true throughout this discussion. The point is that the choice is not FREE from antecedent states of affairs: nature (physical forces of nature and biology) and nurture (events from the past and our personal experiences). All of these things are out of our control, so our choices are not free but determined by these factors. On the brain study, Con writes "What were these people given to engage in conscious, rational deliberation about? They were only deciding whether or not to move their finger." The choice to move one's finger is a conscious decision. Con is completely wrong in suggesting that a choice requires the careful deliberation of arguments. We make split second choices all the time; most of the time they are instinctual reactions or our brain processing information much faster than we can consciously interpret it (although our brains can) [3]. In fact research shows that 90% of our purchases are subsconsious [4]. This is just further proof that we are at the biological mercy of our brains! My opponent's claim that the study on brains has no bearing on free will is completely false, which is why it is highlighted in articles that are specifically about free will. PhysicsCon says that my burden is to prove that determinism is valid even if free will is not. Indeed the resolution is about FREE WILL, not determinism, but I do believe determinsim = reality so I accept that burden as stated in R1. However the point here is clear: the scientific community has reached near consensus that free will doesn't exist. Either things are determined, or things are random/chaotic (indetermined). Neither possibility allows for free will, yet I do believe that quantum mechanics arguments are in support of determinism. I accidentally wrote the word "matter" in the last round instead of "consciousness," so let me repeat how my opponent's argument is self-refuting. Con said, "consciousness isn't composed of matter as currently understood by science, which means that bringing in physics is irrelevant to the capacities of consciousness." First, he concedes that he is talking about consciousness "as currently understood by science" which means current understanding does not discount the possibility. Second, many physicists do suggest that consciousness does in fact involve matter [5]. This has been observed at the quantum level [6]. MIT’s Max Tegmark says that by “matter,” he doesn’t mean that somewhere in the deep recesses of your brain is a small bundle of liquid, sloshing around and powering your sense of self and your awareness of the world. Instead, Tegmark suggests that consciousness arises out of a particular set of mathematical conditions, and there are varying degrees of consciousness [7, 8]."No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1) was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2) does not work in the microworld... but the first detailed quantum model of consciousness was probably the American physicist Evan Walker's synaptic tunneling model, in which he showed electrons can 'tunnel' between adjacent neurons, thereby creating a virtual neural network overlapping the real one" [9]The quantum double slit experiment is a very popular experiment used to examine how consciousness and our physical material world are intertwined [10]. But I don't have enough character space to go on about the various theories. Physics is relevant to this discussion not only because consciousness may be composed of matter (which is another debate entirely), but because the outcomes of measurements are chosen as necessary causations via the butterfly effect. The outcome of all the events in the universe were determined at the inception of the universe.It's been explained: "It's like detonating a bomb in empty space. It doesn't matter how many times you detonate it, assuming you detonate it the exact same way each time, you'll get the same outcome each time (things will be pushed out at the same speed, and finally come to a stop at the same place)." PhilosophyApparently my opponent realizes how self-evident it is that we don't have free will. And indeed I am saying that our choices are nothing but chain reactions.It's true that I don't know why I believe in determinism, but I am 100% certain that it has to do with my prior experiences which Con does not (can not) contest. Con says that my "free deliberation" of determinism means I am not a determinist which is nonsensical. My deliberation was rooted in my exposure to the philosophy and the fact that my brain functions well enough to reason the way it does.Con writes, "the question is whether the process of reasoning that takes place after experience is due to a deterministic series of chemical reactions, or whether it is due to a series of acts of free deliberation." Con maniputively uses the words "free deliberation" as if deliberation could be free from prior experiences which it cannot be. Deliberation MANDATES that you be exposed to (experience) certain information; otherwise you would have nothing to deliberate. Therefore your will is dictated by your experiences and brain function. Con has lost the debate. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...