Free will probably exists in humans.

And so we come to the final debate round. I have learnt a lot throughout the course of this debate and as a result of the research it has compelled me to undertake. I hope my opponent and any readers have learnt from it too. In this round I will not be presenting any new arguments, which would be somewhat discourteous to my opponent but will instead attempt to rebut his final points and provide a summary of the case for Pro. === Predictability. My opponent concedes that in practical terms, humans are capable of acting unpredictably. As one of his main criteria for free will seems to be that an "entity with free will must be capable of acting unpredictably" he seems to be saying that free will does exist in humans on a practical level but not on a theoretical level. As the resolution does not clarify whether we are discussing humans on a practical or theoretical level, I believe this could be seen as conceding the entire debate. ==== Randomness. My opponent suggests that by agreeing that a choice selected completely randomly is not free, I have negated the resolution but this is not true. I have maintained throughout that the decision to behave randomly can be freely made, Con ignores this here. He also suggests that I have conceded that "everything is either unpredictable (random) or predictable" when I have done no such thing and have pointed out many times that choices are not always predictable. --- Con: "randomness (unpredictability) is the only alternative to determinism (predictability), this leaves no other option." Pro: Saying it does not make it so, there is another option: choice. Con: "Choice is a completely separate issue. That is similar to saying "there is another option: bacon." A choice is either predictable or unpredictable; there is nothing else that it can be." Randomness =/= unpredictability. While everything that is truly random may be unpredictable. Not everything unpredictable is random eg. some human choices. My opponent has illustrated my point very effectively in the above quotations. There is no way I could have predicted that he would choose to compare choice with bacon. This probably wasn't truly random (my opponent would say it could certainly not have been) he was probably thinking about eating bacon at some point prior to his comment. The point is he chose to write it and there is no way I or any other human could have predicted it. --- Con: "I have proven that at no point is the rational actor in control." My opponent has proved no such thing. He has offered no contention to the question of the act of veto which is the most obvious example of this. --- Con: "This statement is nonsensical; numbers do not behave." I am sorry that I have to point out that a standard secondary meaning for the word is: "2. To act, react, function, or perform in a particular way: This fabric behaves well even in hot weather." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Many scientists, computer technicians and ordinary people in everyday life frequently use the word 'behave' to describe the functioning of non-rational objects, data, systems or equipment. I would suggest that the difference between the two definitions of 'behaviour' exists because rational beings have control (free choice) over their behaviour whereas irrational objects do not. This is the point I was of course attempting to make after my opponent compared human behaviour with numbers, which he continued to do in his final post. --- "A computer can make a choice." I'm not going to bother pasting any more definitions but a computer certainly can't make a choice. A computer can only respond to data in the way it is programmed to, that's not choice. My opponent seems to be arguing that humans are no different to computers in this respect, I think we probably are and would expect most people to agree. --- Pro: Personally, I don't think entities with absolute knowledge are likely to be possible so I'm not sure why we should create such an unnecessary entity in this debate. Con: "Even if such an entity cannot exist, the entity is theoretically possible. But the entity is not really necessary for my case." I believe that my opponent's main argument that everything is fundamentally predictable requires us to contemplate an entity that could predict anything. My opponent concedes that it cannot exist and I'm glad to hear it's not really necessary. I would remind my opponent of his own interpretation of Occam's razor ( a basic tool of assessing probability ) : "don't create unnecessary entities". http://www.debate.org... If no entity can predict every human action then I don't see how all our actions are predictable. ====== Sources. Con: "I remind the reader that Libet's experiments are not particularly important". I remind readers that it was my opponent who first cited Libet to back up his own arguments, not realising that he actually supported mine. Con has conceded that none of the sources he posted (apart from definitions) supported his position. His final source http://www.math.rutgers.edu... I can only assume is posted in error as it is bizarre and totally irrelevant. Con accuses me of baseless appeals to authority but I would like to point out in one case I am appealing to the authority he himself cited. His attempts to rebut Libet's own opinions make little sense to me. Con:"He only believes in free will because he thinks that something unfortunate will happen if he doesn't." ? ==== Summary. Throughout this debate Con has basically made the same argument again and again: (para-phrased) 'Determinism or randomness there is naught else or in between.' I have shown that his dualistic logic is flawed and it is not such a cut and dried issue. Yes, much human behaviour can be predicted and yes a truly random action is not itself a choice, but free will does exist in the area in between. ---- I could easily in this debate have proved the resolution on semantic grounds. My opponent has conceded that the perception of free will exists in humans and also that by his own arguments free will exists on a practical level. I do not expect these semantic points to swing votes in any way but I hope they may help my opponent defend against such arguments in future. ---- Much of my examples and evidence have been completely ignored and my opponent has carefully sidestepped the issue of vetoing one's actions. In all his rebuttals of mine, Daniel Dennett's and Benjamin Libet's opinions he has avoided this central point. An individual has the ability to freely choose or decide not to perform an action he is about to do. As my opponent has not taken any opportunity to rebut this clearly observable fact I can only assume that he concedes it. ---- My opponent contends that computers can make choices and plans but this is only the case in AI fantasy. In reality computers cannot learn for themselves, (it took decades to develop a robot that could walk up a flight of steps) and can only react the way a person has programmed them to. Their choices are the choices of their programmer. Con would have us believe that our own functioning is identical to that of a computer, that we are automata responding mindlessly to external stimuli. Of course as self-aware beings with a certain amount of control over our actions, human beings are very different from computers. ---- Affirmed: Free will probably exists in humans. I think I have gone beyond my burden and proved that it almost certainly exists, albeit on a limited level from what many people might believe. Thanks to you the reader and to MTGandP, hopefully we'll get the chance to debate again sometime. (Unless either of us chooses not to.) Pro.