Expert's Debate competition R1: On balance, free will is more likely to exist than not

A brief outline of this final round: I'm going to begin with arguments that are insta-wins and move onto the murkier aspects of this debate afterwards. Self-CausationThere is a massive reoccurring problem with my opponents case; it is well exemplified within this contention. In round 3 con implies that free will requires self-causation. However, in round 4, he states that, "there is no such thing as self-causation." In other words, "Free will is defined as the presence of a non-existent concept." As we agreed upon in round 2, this debate comes down to definitional analysis of free will. On this front I believe that my definition of free will prevails, it is both logically consistent and non-paradoxical in nature. That said, I'll win using my opponents definition first, just to clear up any confusion. In round 3 I state that, "In more specific terms the conscious mind is capable of reflecting on past actions and deactivating or activating parts of the genome [rnd3:3]." I specifically cite Matt Ridley's book which dedicates an entire chapter to this reality. Con's response is to say, "What the conscious mind does is already decided before conscious awareness comes into play." I concede his argument, it is not a refutation to my point in the slightest. The field of epigenetics has demonstrated that retroactive reflection of actions has the capacity to methylate or demethylate sequences of DNA [rnd3:3][1][2]. This means that the mechanisms which control human activity (before the conscious mind is aware) can be retuned after the original action. In this way, future actions are dictated by conscious reflection on similar, past actions. Thus, conscious thought can directly influence future actions; self-causation, a genetic meta-decision making process, is a scientific fact. Definitional Analysis:As I previously mentioned, this debate occurs in two stages. First the judge must accept a definition of free will, and then they must decide if it is likely to exist or not. In my opponents round 2 he implies that free will is some sort of magical concept ("It requires some sort of magic that allows a person to act free of the laws of constraints"). In round 3 he clarifies and implies that it would require self-causation ("if quantum probability affects one decision over the other it is due to chance and not self causation."). In the former instance I believe it is logical to reject my opponent's definition at face value, magic (the black box) lacks any logical grounding. In the latter case, I have already demonstrated the reality of self-causation.To be perfectly honest my opponent never explicitly defines free will. I believe this makes the judges decision straightforward. In round 2 I define free will as a two step emergent process which involves: 1) A quantum non-predictable probalistic step and 2) A predictable determined step. This definition is preferable because it is mutually agreeable; con literally states that he has no problem with emergent processes. He clarifies that macroscale events can exhibit properties in addition to their microscale components. Moreover my definition is logically grounded, neither step relies on magical foundings, black boxes, or undefinables. Thus I would urge the judges to prefer the Pro Round 2 definition of free will. Now let's break down my opponents arguments. The majority of Con's arguments are against his own nebulous conception of free will. These arguments are extremely difficult to judge without knowing an explicit definition which he is refuting. His only argument against my definition of free will is that quantum events have not been demonstrated to effect decisions (step 1). So my next contention will be...Quantum Probabilities and the Conscious MindTo be very clear, there is no scientific study which demonstrates that quantum probabilities effect decision making. The scientific community has a, well justified, stigma against invasive experimentation on human brains. However, this also means that there is no scientific study refuting quantum effects in decision making. This entire contention comes down to the theoretical likelihood of Con's arguments against my own. Con's main argument is, "Quantum events entail uncertainty in the quantum realm. I’m unaware of how they cause uncertainty in something as massive as choice." I believe that the fundamental fallacy here is defining choice as, "massive". At it's base choice is 'a neurons ability to send an electron across a synapse to another neuron'. The relations in the brain, an advanced neural network, are only possible because of these action potentials. If electrons fall into quantum superpositions, if they can tunnel through barriers, if they can probabilistically follow separate synapses, then they can effect choices. Recall from round 2 that part of the definition of free will is the probabilistic generation of possible actions (effects). Step 2 only kicks in after a suitable possibility has been reached. A quantum effect as simple as an electron being fired down the wrong synapse could feasibly generate a completely different set of possibilities. Or, even an electron not reaching a synapse because it arrives in the wrong quantum state could preclude a possibility from ever being formed before Step 2 kicks in. Regardless, the parts of the brain are amazingly fundamental, there are just a great many parts (100s of billion of neurons). It is much more logical to suggest that quantum events can effects choice events because they occur on the same scale. Quantum Uncertainty Can Be an Argument for Free WillParaphrased my opponent's argument amounts to, "free will requires choice, probability is not choice." I once again agree. The step 1 of the two step model only serves to generate a number of probabilistic options. The step serves to demonstrate that determinism does not rule the decision making process. Warped back in time, under the exact same conditions, my opponent may arrive at a completely different course of action due to step 1. He may decide to wear slippers instead. Which fits perfectly with:The Essential Problems of Determinism are Absolved by Quantum MechanicsCon argues that a technical error in determinism does not generate free will. Correct, this is why a definition of free will is absolutely paramount in this debate. I have defined free will as the synthesis of step 1 (a probabilistic event) and step 2 (a determined event). In other words we arrive at step 1 (the nonconstrainted step) and step 2 (the constrained step). The emergent combination of these two steps generate realities which do not exist independently:1. Effects cannot be predicted. 2. Choices are not reproducible. Cons final argument on this issue is that, "Free will requires freedom." Hereby con falls back onto microscale mechanics, fortunately this does nothing to refute my case. Con concedes emergent properties which means my actor, the conscious mind, can exhibit properties outside of the microscale. And so the question becomes, "does the conscious mind have 'freedom to act'?" The answer is 'absolutely', the conscious mind acts (predictably) in step 2. My opponent's arguments, inside of this definition, are tantamount to saying, "the conscious mind constrains itself." That's not a constraint at all, it proves the self-causality that my opponent believes is necessary.Look judges, a debate about free will requires a defined macroscale actor. Free will means nothing on the microscale. My opponents continued attempts to discredit free will on the microscale are therefore meaningless. Step 2, using the conscious mind as an actor, should be 100% predictable. And step 1 results in non-determinism. The conscious mind is only constrained by it's own components, which are a part of itself. Thus the entire entity, the conscious mind, is free to act. My two step definition of free will is unrefuted. Thanks for the debate!Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...