It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form

Thank you for the next round of arguments. I did not state that you needed a mechanism for free will. I don't understand where in my argument you inferred that, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I am arguing is that you have 5 conclusions that relate to consciousness and emotions, but they do not logically conclude that we have free will. This is the fallacy of a non-sequitor. If you want to prove free will (and I am not saying you need a mechanism), you need to provide examples of how consciousness plays a causal role in affecting actions. Pro did provide one argument for consciousness having a causal role in decision-making. He argued that sleepwalking occurs with none or minimal conscious awareness, and the actions made in this state differ from actions that those same people would do during a time of wakefulness. I have to rebuttals to this argument: First, sleepwalking is a disorder, which is the reason why people produce different actions. There are many other disorders that also cause people to behave in completely different ways. This is what we would expect if humans are limited to control by aspects of their brain. A person with and without disorders will act in different ways, but we do not need to bring in free will to state why that is, as it all can be explained by brain functions. Second, animals also have sleep disorders (1). It is possible that animals can also experience sleepwalking. Do you argue that animals also have free will, and that their free will is then limited while they sleep? Pro argued that consciousness is not necessary for proper survival function, so it may be useful in other ways, like weeding out stupid decisions, and emotions can act as a modifier (I will provide a rebuttal to this later). He argues that consciousness being merely us as passengers is not useful. This may not be the case. In architecture, there is a concept known as "spandrels." It is the space between two arches. If one wants to build a structure, and use arches, it is necessary to connect them. The spandrel is not useful on its own, but it exists because of the necessary outcome of using arches. In biology, there is a similar concept (2). A spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic of a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic. Given this understanding, it is possible that this is what consciousness is- something similar to an evolutionary spandrel. A subjective personal experience for each individual organism may not be useful for survival function, but may be necessary as the byproduct of other features. Perhaps one cannot have a living, functioning organism without it having a consciousness that is just a passenger. I apologize for referencing only an abstract to the study. I had thought this experiment was more well-known, but I should have been more exhaustive of my description and sourcing. Thank you, pro, for providing a link to the full article. In regards to the study, you are correct in pointing out that the predictions for the decision will be slightly better than chance, and that our subconscious brain may only push for one option over the other. The main point, though, is that all decision making starts at the subconscious level. This means that consciousness has less of a role, and may only be deduced to a filter, as pro argued. Still, even if consciousness is a filter, pro has proven that free will exists. To rebut this claim, I refer to another study, testing this theory, done in 2013. This time, I will provide a link for the entire article: (3) Abstract: Inhibition of prepotent action is an important aspect of self-control, particularly in social contexts. Action inhibition and its neural bases have been extensively studied. However, the neural precursors of free decisions to inhibit have hardly been studied. We asked participants to freely choose to either make a rapid key press in response to a visual cue, or to transiently inhibit action, and briefly delay responding. The task required a behavioural response on each trial, so trials involving inhibition could be distinguished from those without inhibition as those showing slower reaction times. We used this criterion to classify free-choice trials as either rapid or inhibited/delayed. For 13 participants, we measured the mean amplitude of the ERP activity at electrode Cz in three subsequent 50 ms time windows prior to the onset of the signal that either instructed to respond or inhibit, or gave participants a free choice. In two of these 50 ms time windows (W22;150 to W22;100, and W22;100 to W22;50 ms relative to action onset), the amplitude of prestimulus ERP differed between trials where participants "freely" chose whether to inhibit or to respond rapidly. Larger prestimulus ERP amplitudes were associated with trials in which participants decided to act rapidly as compared to trials in which they decided to delay their responses. Last-moment decisions to inhibit or delay may depend on unconscious preparatory neural activity. With the two studies combined, we can understand that not only is decision-making started by the subconscious, it seems as though that the concsiousness does not have any ability to manipulate the decision. Also, pro argued that a consciousness that can make free choices is benefical because it could weed out the bad decisions. In contrast, I would argue that a free will, if it did exist, would be detriemental to a living organism. If an organism had very low intelligence, then its consciousness would inevitably make much more detrimental actions than would an organism that only has the ability to act in such a way that it enhances survival and reproduction. A free will could go against survival and reproduction, and would thus could destroy a species. Luckily, humans do not have a free will. To summarize my point: Consciousness may be an evolutionary spandrel that exists because it may be what a complex, living organism requires. All animals have consciousness, and it may become more complex over an evolutionary period, but only by gradation. We should not think that, just because we are one of the most complex organisms, that means we have free will in choosing our actions. Realistically, it is good that humans don't have a free will, as that could inhibit the progress of evolution. I look forward to your rebuttals. Cheers! (1) http://www.sleepandhealth.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(biology) (3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...