构建反驳论点和回应

Your argument posits that free will is an illusion, solely determined by neurochemical processes. However, this seems to overlook the subjective experience of choice. How do you account for our undeniable feeling of making decisions?

While I acknowledge the subjective feeling of choice, I'd contend that it's merely a sophisticated byproduct of those underlying neurochemical operations. The brain constructs this narrative of 'decision' to make sense of complex deterministic interactions. It's a perception, not an independent causal force.

But isn't reducing choice to a mere 'byproduct' a form of reductionism that strips away the very essence of moral responsibility? If our actions are predetermined, on what basis can we hold individuals accountable or praise their achievements?

That's a valid concern, but I'd argue that accountability functions within the social construct, regardless of true free will. We attribute responsibility because it maintains social order and encourages adaptive behaviors, not because an agent could have genuinely chosen otherwise in an absolute sense. Consider the function of law – it's a practical system.

So, if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that our concepts of praise and blame are practical tools for social engineering rather than reflections of genuine agency. My counter is that this perspective undermines the intrinsic value of human dignity and effort. It reduces complex ethical dilemmas to mere predictive computations.

On the contrary, I believe it elevates the understanding of human behavior by grounding it in scientific reality. The 'intrinsic value' of dignity can still be upheld, but perhaps reframed not as originating from an uncaused cause, but from the complex, beautiful interplay of factors that constitute a human being and their interaction with the environment.