It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form.

This argument is to demonstrate that free will exists based on the existence of consciousness and emotion. Argument 1: 1) Traits that do not serve a purpose are a waste of energy to produce. 2) Natural selection selects against anything that wastes energy. C) Therefore traits that do not serve a purpose will be selected against by natural selection. This first part of the argument can be seen in vestigial traits like wisdom teeth and the depressions on cave fish where their eyes used to be. In fact, it is trivially easy for a trait to be removed via the process of DNA methylation. This is where a methyl group is added to part of DNA to "turn off" a gene. This commonly happens as a first step in removing useless traits. Another option for traits is that they can be altered to serve a new purpose, like the current model showing that the appendix has gone from a digestive organ to an immune one. http://www.news-medical.net... Building on argument 1, I look at two traits, consciousness and emotion. This argument adapted for consciousness and emotion(argument 2) is as follows: 1) If consciousness and emotion served no purpose, then they would be weeded out by natural selection. 2) Consciousness and emotion have not been weeded out by natural selection(in fact the parts of the brain associated with them are expanding) C) Therefore consciousness/emotional awareness serves a purpose. Argument 3: 1) Computers process information(see below for a really cool example of this that is highly relevant to me) 2) Computers are not conscious/emotionally aware. C) Therefore something exists that processes information without consciousness/emotional awareness. Argument 4: 1) Consciousness/emotional awareness either is or is not required for information processing. 2) If things exist that can process information and lack consciousness, then consciousness/emotional awareness is not required for information processing 3) Non conscious/emotionally unaware objects exist that can process information. C) Therefore consciousness/emotional awareness is not required for information processing Computers lack self awareness, but they can respond to stimuli. They can do very complex things. Currently we can use computers attached to scanning devices to analyze the blood of patients for things like reticulocyte count and hematocrit to help us diagnose hematopathologies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Based on Arguments 2 and 4 we can conclude that consciousness and emotion have a purpose and that purpose is not necessary for processing information. This does not mean that they cannot aid in information processing or usage, just that they are not necessary for information processing to exist. I have more than just a logical rebuttal. The logical rebuttal only shows that it is possible for a system to exist that processes information while lacking consciousness and emotional awareness, but it does not show that such a system could exist in biology. For that I will use the evidence of medical procedures. A bilateral cingulotomy will remove the emotional aspect of pain while leaving the person aware that the pain is happening and where it is happening. Additionally, we can see on scans that the brain still is able to respond to the pain, it just no longer bothers the person. Why does this matter? Argument 5: 1) If consciousness and emotional awareness are necessary for the brain to be able to process information necessary for survival, then removal of consciousness or emotion would result in removal of the person's ability to process necessary information. 2) Removal of the emotion of pain has been done in medical practice without removing the person's ability to process the necessary information of damaging stimuli. C) Human brains do not require the emotion of pain to function. The reason I went through all of that is to defend against the rebuttal that our brains have consciousness and emotion as an emergent property that is necessary for a system that can process information. The main argument is Argument 2. Arguments 4 and 5 defends against that possible rebuttal. Now we know that the traits of emotion and consciousness persist, that they are easily removed without damaging the rest of the person(Argument 5), that they are not necessary for a functioning information processing system(Arguments 4 and 5), and that if they serve no purpose they would not exist(Argument 2). All that remains is to name the purpose. I would submit that the only reasonable purpose is to allow us to reason through the information we process in order to make decisions, ie free will. In fact, I would suggest that it is irrational to assert that there is no free will in the face of these arguments. This does NOT prove free will, it just shows that it is more likely than not that we have free will.