There is no free will.

Thank you Con for your opening arguments Rebuttals Con's Randomness argument I=Randomness in the world P1: If there is no randomness, then there is no free will P2: Randomness is possible C: Therefore free will is possible Free will=unrestricted choice Randomness 1. Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim http://dictionary.reference.com... Conclusion is wrong. Just because randomness is possible, this doesn't mean free will is possible. Why? They aren't the same thing. Free will=unrestricted choice. Randomness, occurring without definite aim. If I have free will, I make an intentioned choice to do something. If I'm governed by randomness, my action is without definite aim. The conclusion doesn't follow because Con incorrectly equivocates randomness to free will. They aren't the same things. Quantum Mechanics is a failed argument. Free will is a subject that interests me quite a bit. So I have some general familiarity in what academics think concerning free will. For the most part, Neuroscientist have found that the brain seems to be functioning in a determined way. Here is a quote from Neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga from his book, "Who's In Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain," "Modern neuroscience is happy to accept that human behavior is the product of a probabilistically determined system." (1) Naturally free will strikes at the very heart of who we are. Many, perhaps most, people don't like the idea of determined behavior. Fellow academics have put forward the idea that quantum mechanics can save free will for us. The idea has been put forward, and it has been found invalid by the academic community. Con puts forward the Quantum Mechanic argument for free will when he argues for randomness on the quantum scale, the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Since these three points all fit under the umbrella of quantum mechanics, I'll state why quantum mechanics doesn't offer us free will and those three arguments ultimately fail for those reasons. Quantum Mechanics is a physical description of sub atomic systems, less than an atom. Anyone who pays any attention to physics is aware the General Relativity describes the behavior of systems from atom size up and Quantum Mechanics describes systems less then an atom on down. To this point, the two systems, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics haven't been brought together. Human beings are clearly more than an atom. Quantum Mechanics in part describes electrons, quarks, gluon's, and other subatomic particles. Quantum Mechanics fails to give us free will because it is a system that describes systems that are nothing like human systems. This is why Quantum Mechanics has been dismissed by the academic community as a savior for free will. There is one other aspect of Quantum Mechanics that stands in the way of it providing a path to free will, probability. Quantum Mechanics cannot tell us where we will find the electron when we look for it. QM tells us where we are likely to find it, based on Heisenberg's probability equation. The foundation of QM is probability, where things are likely to be. Probability doesn't equal free choice. A dice has a particular set of probabilities, 16.667% chance it will land on any given side. That isn't free choice. For that reason also, QM cannot offer us free will. For these two reason the QM argument has been dismissed as a possible path to free will. Randomness is a determined system.We might think that dice are random and therefore not determined. This isn't the case. Determined means that the choice is set. A action I might take later is determined by the state I'm in now, environmental inputs I receive between now and when I commit the action. Lets see how randomness is actually determinism. You have a dice in your hand. As you throw the dice, you say, "If the dice is determined, you should be able to tell me what it will land on." As you throw, "What is it going to land on?" I say, "it has a 16.667% chance of landing on 1, 16.667% chance of 2, 16.667% chance of 3, of 4, of 5, of 6." I'm completely correct. The dice is random, but what will happen is determined. Probabilistic randomness is a determined system. A comment by Con I would like to address. "If we can't make any choice, then determinism is true." I just want to clean this up a bit. Determinism isn't that we cannot make choices. Determinism is that our choices are controlled by something we don't control. An example, I'm male. I'm attracted to women. I didn't choose either. I seek female companionship. (If you know what I'm saying) My biology has determined which sex I will be attracted to. My biology motivates me to approach women. This is what we mean by determinism when we are discussing free will. My actions regarding women has been determined. Choices exist, but what choice I make has been decided. Rand Funny quote from Rand (whoever that might be). "Thinking is not an automatic function." Wrong. If thinking isn't automatic, then how do I choose to think? Wouldn't I need to conclude, "I want to think, therefore I will start?" Is that not thinking? Thinking is automatic, otherwise I could never decide to start thinking. We see that I cannot choose to think prior to me thinking. Therefore thought cannot be chosen. Thought must be a determined action. I cannot choose to do it, that requires thought, we end up in an infinite regress. Poor conclusion by you Mr. Rand. Responsibility I've noticed that may who object to determinism, often object because they perceive that removes responsibility from the individual. Individual, "Sorry, no free will. I had no choice but to rob the store." Therefore they aren't responsible. Therefore they aren't punishable. These fears are largely unfounded. First, society is well within its right to protect itself from harm. We can punish those who commit crimes for this reason, free will or no free will. Second, our environment influences our choices. (another nail in the coffin of free will) Corrective punishment can alter the behavior of a criminal. Society is justified in punishing for that reason. The absence of free will (and it is absent) doesn't keep us from protecting ourselves from harm or corrective behavior. Further arguments against free will. If we wish to know whether we have free will or not, we must think about what motivates us to make certain choices. What motivates us is the key question? The story of Phineas Gage. (2) Phineas Gage was a railroad worker who lived between 1823-1860. He was described as generally a kind, thoughtful person prior to a brain injury he suffered while working. A blast drove a large iron rod through his frontal lobe. He survived the accident. But, post accident Phineas' personality was much different that what it was before. He could no longer hold a job. He became short tempered. He became more violent. He began using profanity much more than he had before. His friends said he was like a different person. What does this point to? It points to material aspects of our brain influencing who we are. Free will cannot exist if this is the case. Phineas' physical brain had changed. Phineas' personality then changed. This isn't free will. Priming (3) Priming takes place when someone says something to you that influences your response. One of my favorites was done on the show Brain Games. A staged accident had just taken place. Eight people witnessed the accident, although they didn't know it was stage. A fake police officer divides the group into two groups. He asks group A, "How fast was the car going when it slammed into the red car?" He asks group B, "How fast was the car going when it bumped into the red car." The only word that was changed was slammed and bumped. The group primed with the word "slammed" said the car was going 35-45 mph. The group primed with the word "bumped" said the car was going between 15-25 mph. What does this tell us? Just the simple slipping in of one particular word influenced how the witnesses responded and how they remembered the accident. Free will=unrestricted choice. This violates free will. An outside word, not of their choosing, has influenced their response. If free will existed, they should be free from this influence. They clearly aren't free. Decisions before the decisions are known In this article describing an experiment in which the subjects could freely decide which button to push, the one in the left hand or the one in the right hand. When the subjects decide to push the button, they would tell the experimenters when they made the choice. What did they find? The subjects brains were connected to brain imagining scanners. The experimenters found that the choice was made in the subconscious brain up to 7 seconds before the subjects were reporting they had made a choice. The experimenter could predict which button would be pushed before the subjects told the experimenter which button they were going to push by watching the brain scanner. (4) The subjects were unaware that their choices had been determined by their subconscious This is evidence of a determined system. This is clear evidence against free will. Con, back to you. Your subconscious knows what you are about to write, soon you will to. 1. http://www.amazon.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.psychologicalscience.org... 4. http://exploringthemind.com...