Not that I completely disagree, but there is a problem with that argument. There are different levels of abstraction
upon which you can look at any phenomenon
. And human beings
are a splendid example. In my first year of medical school
(which turned out to be my ONLY year of medical school), I learned Mathematics
, Biology of the Cell
. I think those are the major levels of explaining humans.
Now, it is possible to go as far as linking two levels, but usually not much further. So, for example, you can attempt to explain aspects of histology by understanding how cells operate. (Histology is the study of tissues). But it's still very difficult. I mean, the functioning of mitochondrea etc. is very low level compared to why vein tissue is built the way it is.
Try to go down another level. Try to explain the structure of veins by chemical reactions. It's just too much. It's practically impossible. And that's why we need, and have, levels of abstraction. Take a subject we know better than human operation: computers. Explain the running of Quake 2 with flip-flops. No way. Theoretically you should be able to; Quake 2 depends on the function of J-K flip flops. But it's impossible to actually do so.
Which is basically what you are trying to do. You can't explain consciousness by electrons. There are too many levels in between, and thus the argument that the brain is made up of electrons therefore I have no free will is flawed. It is simply a leap across too many boundaries and abstraction levels.
Go down lower than electrons. Most theories now agree that randomness is an inherent part of everything. Many physicians believe there are many more dimensions that we (Joe Public) know (and I'm talking about more than 20, while we know 3 (4 counting time)). So isn't it possible that this also works the other way? While you can predict an atom's behaviour almost precisely, you can't predict the behaviour of many smaller constituents of it. And you can't precisely predict the behaviour of a human.
Maybe it's not so obvious.