Man probably has freewill

IntroductionWouldn’t an immediate experience be at the top of the lake since its “immediate?” It’s not like free will or consciousness is uncharted territory; we experience these things. What we don't experience is determinism or consciousness matter, so Con must face bottom of his lake for these things.He also says that our experience is misleading regarding freedom yet he can’t logically give a reason why! For all other immediate experiences, such as logic, are misleading too on his view. He's still offering a reason against reasoning. Now I affirm a mind-body connection, contrary to how Con mischaracterizes. I also announced the inadequacy of matter to account for consciousness while giving an argument for interactionism.Dilemma of Determinism I've shown Con’s dilemma false by proposing that a 1st mover is a contingent creation. Which is exactly what freedom, which entails AP is thought to be. Con: if a want originates from something, they MUST be determined. Pro: How so? If a want originates from a mind only --with no other outside cause, i.e, the mind IS the cause of the want-- then how is that mind determined to originate that want? A cause originated from only the mind is wholly free of constraints! Dualism need not be proven, it only needs to be possible to defeat the dilemma. Even if materialism is true QM leaves open the door, but no reason is given to accept materialism anyway.Con wrongfully accuses me of calling logic inapplicable. I merely said Con confuses physical with logical law. (Conduct point?)Study.2Can matter produce consciousness as Con asserts? Materialists have no explanation of consciousness since this,“It must be confessed, moreover, that perception, and that which depends on it are inexplicable by mechanical cause [brain states], that is by figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine so constructed as to think, feel and have perception, we could conceive of it as enlarged and yet preserving the same proportions [as the material brain], so that we might enter it as a mill. And this granted, we should only find on visiting it, pieces which push one against another, but never anything by which to explain perception. This must be sought for, therefore, in the simple substance and not in the composite or in the machine. (Leibniz)So material complexity has little to do with consciousness. Con actually concedes my point!“…consciousness is not a physical thing.. [its] an experience ... We observe consciousness a posteriori through the machine that produces this sensation” This is perfectly compatible with emergentist-interactionism, which supports freedom. Con would rather believe that his identity over time, agency & self is nothing more than chemicals interacting in a complex way. While naturalist Ned Block writes,“in the case of consciousness we have nothing – zilch – worthy of being called a research program… nor are there any substantive proposals about how to go about starting one. . . Researchers are stumped.”So rather than explaining consciousness, Con ends up denying it by telling us that consciousness is ‘nothing but’ a physical state or property. By contrast interactionism has better explanatory scope since we know that physical states aren't self-presenting, but mental states are, as evidenced by private access & incorrigibility. Thus, physical states aren’t identical to mental states.Con again falsely asserts correlation = causation, “strong correlates between neural activity & the sensation of thought” are expected on interactionism & LFW too.Con thinks free will is random yet Kane’s UR shows this false & so does my 1st mover agent idea. Con then ends with a quote from which Jackson goes on to answer with his famous ‘knowledge argument’ for dualism, thus biting Con’s own case:http://consc.net...Objections to Determinism Fatalism Extended: (I even formulated a syllogism!)Self-Defeating DeterminismCon thinks that information is stored in the mind & not the brain. Yet dualists think the mind is separate but connected to the body & can cause effects in the body. A 1st mover, can sift info like a librarian sifts books. Obviously the librarian isn’t aware of all the book info in the library at once, just like the mind isn’t aware of all the info in the brain at once! Rather the mind sifts the storehouse of memory, if interactionism is true.Con affirms that material things determine material content in terms of thought… but such a view seems altogether incoherent for its astronomically more probable that the mind thinks as an agent & the brain is a storage tool in a physical world. Memory loss is thus compatible with interactionism. For if the mind can’t retrieve damaged info, then that info can’t be retrieved- think of a burnt book from which our librarian can’t retrieve info … Con would gave us believe there’s no librarian! Argument from EvolutionCon totally lost this point, I would’ve loved to present Plantinga’s famous EAAN http://www.calvin.edu... If evolution is geared toward survival value & not truth value, our cognitive faculties would work arationally. Meaning we should severely doubt any belief including conscious humans evolving from unconscious organic chemicals with properly functioing congnitive faculties. Con’s point undercuts itself here.Kane’s FreewillCon doesn’t understand Kane. UR, so defined, assures that choices aren’t made randomly. Then Con arbitrarily downplays the role of perception to an embarrassing degree to make his self-defeating point. Kane's argument stands.ConclusionCon admits determinism “questions our most intimate understanding of human existence.” But in doubting our most basic understanding is inherent the doubt of other, less basic beliefs, including determinism! This affirms my main argument for freewill. Hence our perception of freewill stands within the absence of any aparent defeater.