It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form

Pro argued that I seemed rather dismissive of the emotional aspect of his arguments. Pro did argue that emotions can alter the behavior of an organism, and I conceded these points. I also argued, however, that this argument does not lead to the conclusion of a free will, instead, it supports a theory where all decision-making is caused by elements beyond our control. Pro provided another argument as to how emotions can alter behavior, and gave the example of S&M. Again, it is true, as I've already conceded, that emotions will alter actions, but the consciousness does not have any causal role in choosing actions. For people who enjoy S&M, is it because they made that conscious decision at some point in their lives to have an uncontrollable desire? I daresay that anyone would agree to this. And one can only expand this line of though, and think of all the desires that they currently have. Which of them did they made the conscious decision to enjoy? Or rather, is it that, if we thought long enough, we would understand that we have a genetic or environmental cause for all of the desires that we possess? Pro argued that my argument for consciousness as an evolutionary spandrel was irrational because it was inconsistent with his conclusions that I conceded to. Given these three conclusions: -There are things that exist that process information without consciousness/emotional awareness. -Conscious awareness is not required for information processing. -Human brains to not require the emotion of pain to function. To say that it is inconsistent to hold these three conclusions, while also arguing that the consciousness of a living organism (distinct from a non-living information processing machine), can be the useful and necessary result of existing functions, is unjustified. No contradiction exists, and Pro failed to demonstrate how. Again, the main issues with Pro's arguments, is that while all of them are conceded as being sound, they do not justify the conclusion that we have free will. All of his arguments can be true, while he still fails to prove that free will exists. Pro brings up sleepwalking again, and argues that limited consciousness is the result of alternate behavior. However, this was only asserted, and never demonstrated. During the sleepwalking state, there is less brain activity overall. There may be other factors that determine why the sleepwalking state leads to different actions. We would need to look at a study to determine the casual factor. Pro also argued that, in relevance to the sleepwalking issue, that animals do have a free will. While this does make his theory consistent, and deflect the issue of consciousness being an evolutionary gradation, it does cause some problems overall. Animals, like humans, have the ability to choose among a variety of options, depending on the environment. So, while decisions may be schocastic, the main question is whether the decision making comes from subconscious brain activity, or from the ability to make free, conscious decisions. Pro argued that he provided arguments and examples where the removal of consciousness affects the outcome of situations. However, those situations also minimize other brain activity, so it is impossible to prove that it was in fact consciousness that caused the change. In the first study I provided, Pro seems to have conceded that the decision-making process originates in the subconscious brain, so that if there does exist a free will, it may only be able to determine between options already provided by the subconscious (a "free don't. ) I also conceded that if all we have is a "free don't", then this is still enough to prove his conclusion. In response to this, I provided a study that attempted to demonstrate that we don't even have a free don't. Pro argued that he did not understand the study, that I should have explained it better, and therefore it would not be fair for me to do this in this round as he would not be able to respond. So, I will take what he did concede from this study, and try to argue my point again. Pro said, "all it would show us is that if we don't care about an action it might not be freely chosen. " He went on to give valid criticisms of the study, but they will not be necessary for my point. At least in some situations that we have studied, participants' subconscious brain initiated a veto response even before the participants' consciousness noticed that decision. So, this is not the all-powerful evidence to show that there is no free will at all, but it is a step in the direction to show that the consciousness may not have any causal role in decision making, and may only be a sort of reader of the data. Pro argued against my proposal that a free will would prove detrimental to evolution. He again uses the example of sleepwalking to prove that consciousness has causal effects, while still omitting that sleepwalking is a disorder, where brain activity is running counter to its effective state. There is minial brain activity as well, thus showing that we cannot reasonably determine, at least from this example, that consciousness has a causal role in decision making. To further stress my point that free will would be detreminetal to evolution, consider two organisms: One organism has no free will, and will always make subconscious decisions towards survival and procreation. The other organism has free will, and it may make decisions towards survival and procreation, or it may choose against survival and procreation. Which of these two organisms has a higher success rate for survival and procreation? In pro's summary, he argued that consciousness and emotion both have a purpose. We both agree that emotion has a causal purpose to action, but that does not affect free will. What we disagree on is the consciousness' causal role in determining actions. He argues that a "passenger consciousness" would not be useful, even as an evolutionary spandrel. For my summary, I argue that I at least attempted to give examples in the current scientific field against free will. My opponent gave some examples of consciousness affecting free will, but these were merely thought experiments, and I showed how there could be other explanations. It could be possible that free will exists, but I believe the arguments I have presented make for a more reasonable explanation of reality than my opponent has offered. If you disagree with that statement, vote Pro! And thanks again to Pro for a wonderful and challenging debate, and thank you for your masterful ability to notice the weaknesses in the studies I offered. The peer-reviewed scientific community could use your intelligence!