There are no such things as needs

It can be shown that needs imply the lack of choice. If one has to do something, he or she has no choice in the matter. The question has become: Is taking up space a person's choice? My opponent argues that for all we know, therefore we must assume that, the mind [self] and the body are not distinct. He further stipulates that even if it were shown that they are distinct, it would imply that the mind is non-physical, therefore the whole arguement is null and void because the mind never took up any space. First a side point that will tie in later. We can know we have a mind, some "self" that gives perspective. Weather this is a function of the body or some metaphysical thing is not for me to say. What can be aid is that I have a mind. The mere wording of the statement proves it. It is arguably the most undoubted axiom we have. Second, we can not assume they are not distinct, but this is a mute point. Lets assume they are not distinct, that the mind is somehow the byproduct of our body [brain]. It would have to be subject to the laws that govern all physical things. If we knew the exact state of one's brain (and the whole universe as its surroundings), and all the laws that govern subatomic and atomic interactions in that brain, we could, in theory, predict exactly what brain state follows. This is to say that if the mind is the product of the physical, then the mind is predetermined by nature. In such a paradigm, the terms "choice" and "want" are utterly meaningless. How can anyone "decide" to do one thing over another if what they will do is all ready determined? What has happened is we have thrown away the concept of free-will. But free-will, like the "self", all too self-evident. One can not simply reduce all of his or her choices as mere illusions. How powerful an illusion it must be to turn simple cause and effect into this phenomenal sense of control we have over our minds and bodies. It is arguably another of the undoubted axioms we have. So if free-will exists, it follows that our minds are in fact non-corporeal. But my opponent argues that proving free-will (and the metaphysical nature of the mind) is only half the problem. He states that if the mind is non-physical, then the mind takes up no space, therefore the arguement falls apart altogether. This claim assumes that the mind and body are utterly distinct. This is a risky assumption, and perhaps one that should be avoided. We do have a body. This body takes up space. We do have a mind. If the mind controls the body, they must be linked in someway. Therefore if the body dies, then the mind either dies, or is all that is left of the self, thus the self is reduced to an entirely non-physical thing. It's like trees. There are trees all around us, and even if we are not around a tree, they can still exist as thoughts in one's mind. But if every tree was cut down and burned, the idea of a tree could and would continue to exist, in an entirely non-physical form. So when when we ask after the trees have been cut down, "Do the trees take up space? ", the answer is no, at least not in their proper sense. Further we ask, "did trees take up space at some point? " we must say yes. Are bodies are like the trees, and death cuts us down and puts us into a non-human state. What is it to be human verses non-human? Humans have minds, non-humans do not. I use the term human loosely to include any animal that may have consciousness. So, if we have two distinct but connected parts, one being physical, one not, then if one's body dies, so does the non-physical part of that person. We can not say at a funeral that the thing in the casket IS so and so, only that they WERE so and so. It's always past tense, and even if the cadaver's body is referred to as his or hers, it is meant in the past tense. He or she is not there anymore. What this leaves us with is two options. Either free-will is an illusion and all "choices" are needs by definition, or the mind and body are distinct but connected, thus there are no needs, only wants. I look forward to my opponents response.