Libertarian free will is false.

My opponent has dropped his argument regarding quantum randomness, so it is conceded that "matter and energy follow a certain set of regulations in their course. " My opponent's only remaining objection to my syllogism is: "Life processes such as pain cannot be answered by physical laws without introducing serious paradoxes. " Because my opponent has not contended my biological explanation of consciousness and qualia, his final objection is easily answerable. ==The Paradox of Separation== My opponent's first paradox is that the neurons could not simulate a consciousness within a brain if they were separated, but could still communicate as if they weren't. Following my opponent's description of the scenario, where "all of the signals that are received by the computer in charge of this process are then re-sent to the intended target," a functioning consciousness would be produced, for the functional reasoning my opponent conceded last round. I had stated earlier that it would not because, as I was clear in my interpretation, I believed that the scenario involved a single neuron transmitting not to other neurons through a medium, but to non-functioning media, a "wrong audience," incapable of processing the signals in the same way as the original neurons. Of course, this still assumes that chemical communication is still allowed to function, as I believe my opponent intended for his supposed contradiction. Separation of neurons, assuming they still function and can still communicate, though a medium perhaps, should not cripple a consciousness, because the structure still functions exactly the same way. The only potential threat to the function of the separated neurons would be a small time-delay, for chemicals would have to travel farther between parts of the brain, which my opponent's system assumes shouldn't matter. Separated, assuming my opponent's premises, they still function the same way and do the same thing. My opponent's reasoning that this separation could not produce a consciousness is based, again, on the assumption that the consciousness has a physical or superphysical position or location, and that there cannot be a consciousness because the neurons are no longer connected. However, the consciousness results from a biological system, a number of parts working together, and my opponent's model proposes no interruption to this working together. In fact, because the consciousness is a system rather than a singular entity, the neurons do have a physical connection between them, in the medium of the model's "computer. " My opponent finishes by proposing a brain, separated at the halves, each separated half receiving a supplementary half to replace the original, making two brains. My opponent then asserts that the brain would produce only one consciousness on the premise that "one would think" so. However, there is no connection between the two halves anymore, as they are separated without medium, and so together they do not function as a consciousness, while the two new brains would function as a consciousness, for the model assumes the supplementary halves to function as the old half would have functioned. ==Conclusion== Having concluded an entirely deterministic universe, there is no possibility of randomness, much less libertarian free will. As qualia are observable biochemical phenomena that follow a deterministic path, they cannot demonstrate any inherent uniqueness to matter under the living condition. An individual cannot take multiple courses of action, because the regulations of the universe prohibit such indeterminism. Therefore, the resolution is negated. Thank you.