We have no control

Your conclusion was a significant improvement over your earlier rounds in this debate, and I applaud your progress. If I can manage to organize my thoughts well enough in this closing then I think it could still be too little too late, but I am pleased that you’re making me work hard for this one. As a general rule, there are 4 rounds, and new arguments are not to be introduced past the 3rd. However, since this debate is only 3 rounds, I ask that voters not penalize my opponent even if they consider him to have raised new arguments. It is by the strength of our arguments alone that I wish us to be judged, I do not wish to prevail by any technicalities. 1) You may enjoy reading the work of prominent New Atheist and neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris. His ideas about free will seem fairly close to your own, as he also views free will as an illusion [5]. However, his theories have been slow to gain widespread traction for a variety of reasons. Here is an excerpt from Eddy Nahmias that I enjoyed [6]: We should be wary of defining things out of existence. Define Earth as the planet at the center of the universe and it turns out there is no Earth. Define what’s moral as whatever your God mandates and suddenly most people become immoral. Define marriage as a union only for procreation, and you thereby annul many marriages. The sciences of the mind do give us good reasons to think that our minds are made of matter. But to conclude that consciousness or free will is thereby an illusion is too quick. It is like inferring from discoveries in organic chemistry that life is an illusion just because living organisms are made up of non-living stuff. Much of the progress in science comes precisely from understanding wholes in terms of their parts, without this suggesting the disappearance of the wholes. There’s no reason to define the mind or free will in a way that begins by cutting off this possibility for progress. …. People are threatened by a possibility I call “bypassing” — the idea that our actions are caused in ways that bypass our conscious deliberations and decisions. So, if people mistakenly take causal determinism to mean that everything that happens is inevitable no matter what you think or try to do, then they conclude that we have no free will. Or if determinism is presented in a way that suggests all our decisions are just chemical reactions, they take that to mean that our conscious thinking is bypassed in such a way that we lack free will. Even if neuroscience and psychology were in a position to establish the truth of determinism — a job better left for physics — this would not establish bypassing. As long as people understand that discoveries about how our brains work do not mean that what we think or try to do makes no difference to what happens, then their belief in free will is preserved. What matters to people is that we have the capacities for conscious deliberation and self-control that I’ve suggested we identify with free will. I submit to the readers that the case made by Pro in item 1 that control is an illusion has by no means shown to be a solid one. 2) I’m not exactly sure what Pro’s contention here was, or what impact it has on the resolution. Should we refrain from feeling any joy or sense of accomplishment because in Pro’s view, we don’t really deserve it? I wonder if he wins this debate if he would feel any sense of satisfaction, and if so, if it would be hypocritical. But one thing I will say is that he may enjoy Malcom Gladwell’s popular book Outliers [7], which notes that our understanding of success and many other things is lacking because we focus too much on the individual. No one actually “pulls themselves up by their bootstraps” – the success we eventually see is only the tip of an invisible iceberg of events and causes which lead to a person being successful. Still, it is a long way getting from there to being able to say “we have no control”. 3) I don’t really get what Pro was trying to say here, except possibly that he is very clumsy and breaks his leg 1 out of 10 times he tries to get water. I’m sorry everyone, I just couldn’t resist a touch of humor at his expense. The statistical impossibility of things going right is really an illusion, and common sense should reveal this to any reader even without my knowledge of statistics coming into play. But as it is, statistics is part of what I do for a living. Here’s how things work. The number of things that could go wrong for you may be long, but it isn’t infinite first of all, and for ease of modeling it can be sorted into categories. I’ll give an example which I don’t claim is accurate or exhaustive, but it will at least give readers an idea of where the flaw is in Pro’s thinking. Event. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Probability You get to the sink and drink your water. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..0.99989 The faucet doesn’t work . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .0.00010 A meteor crashes into your house killing you. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..0.0000000000000000000001 A criminal breaks in and kills you. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..0.0000001 You are swallowed by an earthquake. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .0.00000000000000001 … 5267. Pro shoots lighting out of his eyes to kill you. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .0.0000000000000000000000001 You get the idea. Resolution negated. Thanks for reading, and Vote Con! References 5) . http://aphilosopherstake.com... 6) . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... 7) . http://www.amazon.com...