Man probably has freewill

Introduction My opponent has run away with the point on distrusting immediate perception. There’s a very good reason why I put that adjective there. Determinism does not render the perception inert,…then it really would be self-defeating. Rather, my point is that we’re seeing the issue of freewill from a naturally incomplete perspective. Determinism does not argue that what we experience is false,…it argues that it is misleading. Pro’s entire case is a ridiculous caricature of the arguments put forth. Pro has also yet to prove that the mind is separate from the body. I’m unsure how anyone can corroborate something so outlandish, but it still needs to be proven. Appealing to what we think is true is a weak argument. Dilemma of Determinism Yes, the question is whether we are free to want. And the argument states that a want with no necessary cause is arbitrary. A want with a necessary cause is determined. If wants originate from nothing, they MUST be random. If they originate from something, they MUST be determined. My opponent’s argument that such logic is inapplicable to the mind rests on the premise, again, that Dualism is true – QED. However, this is not even a physical argument, this is a logical observation. For my opponent to call it inapplicable suggests that the mind does not abide by logic in the way we think it does. Who has the self-defeating argument now? Neuroscience Study 1 Conceded – only because Libet’s technology was old. We have more accurate means of addressing this problem. Study 2 “Matter doesn't have teleos. Humans experience teleos, therefore our minds aren’t reducible to matter.” The conclusion does not follow. Purpose is derived from consciousness. Matter can produce consciousness. Therefore, matter can produce purposes. His argument is abusive in that it makes one think of an inanimate object, like a rock, having purposes,….when really it is an assembly of matter of unfathomable complexity, such as the human brain, that we say produces purposes. “Also nobody even knows when/where consciousness is! How can anything at all be said of it a posteriori when we still just experience it a priori, as free?” That is because consciousness is not a physical thing. Consciousness is an experience. We observe consciousness a posteriori through the machine that produces this sensation. “But a scientist who presupposes naturalism can’t speak on awareness.” They can speak on awareness because of the strong correlates between neural activity and the sensation of thought. The critical fact that Pro is ignoring is that the neurologists could predict decisions with well over 50% accuracy! A will that is free is spontaneous and unpredictable. A will that is free can decide on anything it wants and it would be incalculable by an outside observer. These scientist predicted decisions….accurately….hundreds of milliseconds before they occurred. Speaking of the more probable case, it’s safe to say that the mind isn’t a totally separate substance. My opponent has not and cannot reconcile this spontaneous otherworldly concept of the mind with these findings. and so long as we’re quoting Philosophers’ opinions of their own departments: “ Most contemporary philosophers given a choice between going with science and going with intuitions, go with science. Although I once dissented from the majority, I have capitulated and now see the interesting issue as being where the arguments from the intuitions against physicalism—the arguments that seem so compelling—go wrong.” – acclaimed Dualist Frank Jackson Objections to Determinism Fatalism This really isn’t an argument. The whole debate revolves around me proving the reasonability of Determinism. It doesn’t make sense to start squeezing arguments under this heading. Self-Defeating Determinism “An interactionist mind also cannot retrieve damaged information (stalemate again). We would expect the mind to improvise, which is exactly what we observe the effects of for blind people, etc; their lobes for hearing improve. (Science Daily)” Pro is refuting himself. What does it mean to retrieve information? Knowledge, according to the dualist, is stored not in the brain but the mind. If the processes in the brain cannot determine what we think, but rather what we think determines what occurs in the brain, then we cannot know things because the brain transmitted it to our consciousness. We must know things because knowledge already exists in the mind. The idea that we lose memory, a.k.a knowledge, from physical events is not compatible with the Dualist’s theory. Also, consider again the argument from Evolution: Conscious humans evolved from unconscious organic chemicals. In this process, matter is the only driving force of the evolution, therefore consciousness can only be accounted for through matter. If he rejects that and says that consciousness is a spiritual concept,…then he suggests that consciousness was inserted into the evolving human at some point in time. This carries a tremendous burden of proof to demonstrate who or what is responsible for the insertion, and when this occurred. Moreover, on a faster scale, babies go from a mass of inanimate cells to a living organism. When does their consciousness kick in, if not through matter? What inserts their consciousness in there? The evidence suggesting that consciousness is generated by matter is pervasive. It should only follow that dualism is improbable, so as is LFW. Kane’s Freewill This is a reconciliation with responsibility under what my opponent concedes is a perception of freewill. This has no bearing on whether freewill is true. Conclusion I understand that this is an extremely contrarian position to hold, as it questions our most intimate understanding of human existence. However, judging freewill only through immediate perception is like judging the depth of a lake by looking at its surface. One must look through multiple angles and conduct thorough investigation before he can make an objective conclusion.