Free will probably exists in humans.

". . . I am saying that free will may exist in anything that has life. " Why is something living any different than something nonliving? The difference between life and no life is not discrete: something can be partially alive. For example, viruses are partially alive, but not completely since they do not have enough genetic material to reproduce on their own. So at what point does free will become possible? Unlike life, free will is discrete. So there is some level of life (or consciousness, or mental capacity) when free will is impossible, and a slightly higher level of life where it is possible. That is, if free will is possible at all. Why should free will be possible in living beings? Last I checked, living beings are still made of elementary particles. "You need to back up your determinism claim. " The first cause is a single event, and there can only be one effect. If there's more than one effect, they become predictable. If there are effects caused by the first effect, they also become predictable since they are not derived from a first cause, and are instead derived from the effect of a first cause. "It can be predicted if one knows what is going on inside the mind of the person in question; however, this prediction may not necessarily come true. " I think we need to define random. Random: Randomness is a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability. en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Random If the prediction doesn't come true, then it's random. Free will cannot be simply random. Randomness is not freedom. "I selected the option of accepting MTGrandP's debate; thus, I made a choice; thus, it was my choice. " But was it a choice from free will? Free will is not necessary for a choice, only for a free choice. (My previous definition of "choice" was inadequate; I meant "free choice" or "choice from free will". ) For example, computer programs make choices all the time. If I write an if/then statement into a computer program and then give it input, it makes a choice: it selects a course of action. It does not freely select a course of action, though. "I have now made an attempt to overthrow your proof. " No matter how much evidence my opponent provides, my opponent must counter my logical proof. Evidence, while frequently being enough, is not absolute. Logic is absolute. A logical proof overrides all other forms of proof. My opponent must counter my proof. "Only by your opinion of what real means. " By my opinion, arguments based personal feelings or perceptions are not real arguments. My opponent simply stated that he was making a choice. I agree that my opponent made a choice by his definition, but was it a free choice? "Actually, just because our desires are impacted by external factors, doesn't mean that we can't choose whether to act on them or not. The video did not state that free will was impossible; it only said that by his logic, any free will we have is trivial. Trivial free will is still free will. " I was not saying that the video was an argument. I was saying where I got my argument from. And yes, my logic is not exactly the same as the logic in the video. My logic for this point currently stands unrefuted. "According to Dennett, because individuals have the ability to act differently from what anyone expects, free will can exist. People can do what nobody would have expected, by their own free will, based on their ethics and morals. Not all of these things are introduced by others, because they had to have started somewhere. " They were not expected, but that doesn't mean they were not expectable. With enough information, it is possible that the seemingly unusual choices could have been predicted. For example, if the sun suddenly exploded, it would be unexpected. We -- besides being dead -- would have no idea what caused it. But we would still assume that there was a cause, since we generally don't see things happen without a cause. "The interpretation of these findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand. Consistent with this argument, subsequent studies have shown that the exact numerical value varies depending on attention. " I was aware of this quote, but did not think it important, because of the sentence that directly follows: "Despite the differences in the exact numerical value, however, the main finding has held. " *** Baggins in the comment section has pointed out to me that the judges are possibly biased. The idea of not having free will is scary. Even I agree with that. But we cannot avoid the truth simply because we don't like it. I ask the judges to ensure that they vote in an unbiased manner. Remember my argument in round two, about why even if free will doesn't exist, we might as well act as though it does. *** Everything is either caused by something else, or is unpredictable and therefore random. I have a quote from . http://www.juliansanchez.com... that sums it up pretty well: "The argument is that the idea of a process that is simultaneously "free"ï¿½ in the sense of being undetermined by the brain's previous physical states and a "choice"ï¿½ in the sense of being an action of the agent, as opposed to a simply random occurrence, is incoherent. " To refute my main argument, my opponent must either prove that there is some third option or that cause and effect do not work in the way we think, and instead work in a way that allows for free will. Until one of these criteria is filled, free will is proven impossible and the vote goes to CON. If my opponent refutes this point, these two arguments still stand: 1. Desires must come from somewhere. So either there is an infinite regress, or the ultimate source of desire is external. 2. What we think is free will is frequently our subconscious mind making the decision before our conscious mind does. Another argument: This is Nietzsche's argument against free will, from . http://plato.stanford.edu... For a human's free will to truly be free, it must be caused by nothing; if it had a cause, it would be predictable. Therefore, it must be its own cause or have no cause. But humans are not their own cause, so where does their free will come from? Nowhere? That not only doesn't make sense, but is randomness and therefore not free will. Given this evidence and the proofs that I have provided, free will cannot exist. I have offered three logical proofs and some empirical evidence. If one of my proofs stands unrefuted by the end of this debate, then I have proven that free will does not exist.