Free Will Exists

Hopefully, this will be an enjoyable experience for both of us, and the readers. I will now supply my argument against free will. In order for me to show that the free will hypothesis is unreasonable, I will need to argue against the assumptions of free will, that is: 1) A person is able to make choices (i. e. the present could have been different if you had chosen differently in the past) 2) One is the source of one’s own ideas, intentions and actions (i. e. you are ultimately responsible for what you think, for what you want, and for what you do) I will argue against these assumptions by showing that they are determined by either: a) A chain of prior causes which are out of our control b) Randomness, which is out of our control c) A combination of the two 1. The universe is governed by causality. The laws of cause and effect seem very obvious both scientifically and philosophically. Scientifically, for instance, we have Newton’s laws of motion. Assuming that the universe consists of many interacting particles, one should expect them to interact in a formulaically-defined manner. Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics provides a directional component to the universe, an arrow of time, based on the concept of entropy, which shows how causes determine effects, and how this process cannot be reversed. [1] Philosophically and logically one can define three types of causes: [2] a) Necessary causes (X is a necessary cause of Y, so that if Y exists, X must have happened) b) Sufficient causes (X is a sufficient cause of Y, so that if X exists, Y must necessarily happen) c) Contributory causes (X is not a necessary cause of Y, but altering X necessarily alters Y) In general, everything that happens must have happened because of some cause. Thus, any thoughts that arise, or any intentions or actions that one makes, must have been caused by something. One cannot alter causality, because one is governed by causality. There does not seem to be any evidence suggesting that one has free will, because the existence of causality necessarily limits your choices and actions, and such limitations contradict free will. A good example of how causes affect actions is a hypothetical patient with a brain tumour. For instance, if such brain tumour would facilitate aggressiveness and rage in a patient, he would, if unrestrained, inflict physical harm to other people. However, he would not be ultimately responsible for his actions, because they were caused by a tumour in his brain. Similarly, I would argue that all people are governed by such deterministic cause and effect phenomena, and that a brain tumour isn’t even necessary for this argument to hold, since the brain is a deterministic system anyway, made up of neuronal connections, over which one has no control over. As a result, free will does not even seem to fit with our neurobiological understanding of the nervous system. [3] 2. “Pick a City” argument. This is an argument which I adapted from a speech by Sam Harris. [3] It shows that there is absolutely no evidence of free will. The argument goes as follows: 1. Pick any city you want 2. If free will exists, you must have been able to pick literally any city. However: a) You don’t know all cities of the world, therefore your choice is already limited b) You didn’t think of all the cities which you know of. Most likely, you only thought of a couple of cities. c) Of these cities which you thought of, do you know why you chose that particular one? If not, then you are not aware of what caused this particular choice. If you do, then you still don’t know the reason why this had that particular effect on your choice, and not an opposite effect, for instance. In essence, you are not aware of how or why you make the choices you make. Therefore, you only seem to be an “observer” of your choices, rather than an active entity, which actually makes those choices. Your thoughts and choices just seem to pop up out of nowhere, and you are not responsible for them. Simply speaking, you cannot choose what you choose; neither can you choose what you will think the next moment. This is inconsistent with free will. It is therefore very easy to observe that: 3. You could not have picked any city you wanted. 4. Therefore, free will does not exist. 3. Experimental evidence against free will. The field of neuroscience has on several occasions shown that the brain can be predictable. A few examples: a) The experiments of Benjamin Libet show that the conscious intention to act is preceded by an unconscious intention, of which a subject is not aware of, and which can be recorded experimentally. [4] Thus, it is, in theory, possible to predict, what action a subject will make before the subject has consciously decided to make that action. b) Similarly, Chun Siong Soon has found similar results in his experiments, where an unconscious cause preceded the conscious decision to act. [5][6] c) Stefan Bode was able to experimentally predict decisions, by looking at brain activity [6] These are just a few examples of scientific research, and their results imply a predictability in human choices and decisions. In some cases, the subject is not even aware of what choice he will make, although that choice has already been predetermined. The predictability of human choices implies a deterministic mechanism of brain action, which, again, is inconsistent with free will. For free will to exist, a subject must be able to make a free choice, which should be in theory unpredictable and non-deterministic in nature. In essence, these are my three main arguments, which should be refuted by my opponent. I will likely provide additional arguments together with my rebuttals in the next round. For now, I await my opponent's case. Good luck! Sources: [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] [4] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] . http://www.pnas.org...