Free will does not exist

Hi AndrewB686,Thank you for taking the time to make detailed and coherent arguments, I am really enjoying this debate thus far.Now let us continue the round of rebuttals by first addressing your initial arguments.Rebuttal #1 l Free Will and CausalityMy argument is not for Contra-Causal Free will, rather it concerns Neurons and a degree of randomness involved that originates from Quantum Mechanics. Here is an illustration of the difference between what you have presented and the argument I have presented."Classical mechanics is deterministic -- that is, if you know exactly the situation as it is now, then you can predict exactly what it will be at any moment in the future. Chance plays no role in classical mechanics. Of course, it might happen that the prediction is very difficult to perform, or it might happen that it is very difficult to find exactly the current situation, so such a prediction might not be a practical possibility. (This is the case when you flip a coin.) But in principle any such barriers can be surmounted by sufficient work and care. Relativistic mechanics is also deterministic. In contrast, quantum mechanics is probabilistic -- that is, even in the presence of exact knowledge of the current situation, it is impossible to predict its future exactly, regardless of how much work and care one invests in such a prediction."[1]This argument does not take into account as is mentioned above, the probabilistic nature that could very much so be integral to human behavior and decisions. Rebuttal #2 l Unconscious Neural Activity Disproves Free Will?The degree of randomness involved with the dynamic synaptic reweighting accounts for unconscious neural activity that entails a different conclusion than what you brought up in your initial argument. This Criterial Causation that Peter Tse argues for concludes with this brief summation:"At the moment those criteria are satisfied at some unknown point in the future, leading to some action or choice, those criteria cannot be changed, but because criteria can be changed in advance, we are free to determine how we will behave within certain limits in the near future. Criterial causation therefore offers a path toward free will where a brain can determine how it will behave given particular types of future input. This can be milliseconds in the future or, in some cases, even years away."[2]Notice that there are certain limits to this conception of free will and does not supersede one's biology, and does not go beyond all the natural orders of causality. However, because these criteria can be changed in the future, it can effect decisions as Peter Tse mentioned, which are merely milliseconds in advance. This isn't just an illusion, it is the ability for an agent to act otherwise in a certain circumstance, though with limitations based upon prior criterial shifts in synaptic reweighting that takes place on the level of the neurons, with of course the degree of randomness and unpredictability afforded by the quantum mechanical nature of it's origin.Rebuttal #3 l Genes, Environment and Background and ChoiceYou state:"The power of genetics in determining outcomes and predisposing us towards certain proclivities and desires cannot be overstated. Why do we feel an attraction towards a certain way of life, or a certain decision? Our genome has been craftily developed through evolution, and the result is a comprehensive system that plays a role in determining every decision that one makes."I have no problem with accepting the idea that genetics may indeed predispose us to a certain way of life, though it can be overstated when that is the presented as the sole and primary factor. Genetics may predispose a person to a certain kind of behavior, but it does not preordain decisions and fits perfectly within my presentation of how free will works, in that moral agents have the capacity to choose otherwise within a limited framework.Remember in order for Hard Determinism to be true, you must be able to sufficiently document how each and every decision and event in our lives is predictable, without any degree of chance or randomness.Counter Rebuttal #1 l Causality and Quantum MechanicsYou said: "The mind-boggling unreality that is quantum mechanics remains a mystery that theoretical physicists are still attempting to tame. I agree that these probabilities are not entirely understood, but that does not mean they are free from the constraints of causality."Your attempt to cut and paste your understanding of Causality onto Quantum Mechanics. While I do not believe it should be replaced, I do come to the same conclusion as this article does:"Quantum mechanics forces us to reconsider certain aspects of classical causality."[3]The fact is that there is so much involved with Quantum Mechanics that is very mysterious to us currently, and for you to disregard it and affirm hard determinism is prematurely coming to a strong decision before all of the evidence has been gathered. Please remember, you are the one with the burden of proof as you affirmed the negative statement for Free Will not existing, all I have to do is demonstrate that it just might exist and it's too soon to close the case on this one.Also, I would say that you have mischaracterized my argument by summing it up to simply randomness. Remember what I previously cited in this response, "because criteria can be changed in advance, we are free to determine how we will behave within certain limits in the near future." These random changes in criteria open the door the door to not just allow different behavior in the future, but to even allow the conscious mind to have multiple pathways for behavior in the future, thus granting us the ability to act otherwise within certain parameters.Counter Rebuttal #2 l Free Will is Just About it Coming From Me?You said:"In layman's terms, that conception of free will amounts to nothing more than 'I do this and not that, and my thoughts are mine, so therefore I am free'."This is not what he wrote, though I believe Peter Tse spends too much time dealing with the issue of self-causation, he lays out other criteria including the ability to act otherwise, which this argument has been listed earlier.You also said:"Your mind unconsciously decides upon an action based off of prior experiences and genetic makeup, and it only appears in your consciousness after the decision has already been made."It's a little amazing to me how confidently you speak about how this works, while the Unconscious Thought Theory (UTT) has been very popular amongst Neuroscientists and Psychologists as of late, you will often find remarks like this that advise for the type of caution you disregard."But they also warn that the study does not finally rule out free will: "Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed."[4]This further establishes my contention that due to the strength of scientific arguments for free will, and because there is so much more to understand about the conscious and unconscious mind, that it is too soon to claim definitively that you know that free will does not exist and hard determinism is true.You also cite sources that support UTT, but of course fail to take into account that there are contrary studies that did not reproduce this outcome."Ninety-eight Australian students participated in a functional replication of a study published by Dijksterhuis et al. (2006). The results indicated that unconscious thought does not necessarily lead to better normative decision making performance than conscious thought, which is contrary to the results found in Dijksterhuis et al. Since other studies showed a positive, though statistically not signi@257;cant, effect for unconscious thought, a meta-analysis comprising a total of 17 experiments was conducted. It suggests that there is little evidence for an advantage to normative decision making using unconscious thought."[5]You linked this:"The conscious brain makes up about 17 percent of total brain mass and controls just 2 to 4 percent of actual perceptions and behavior. The nonconscious brain makes up about 83 percent of total brain mass and controls 96 to 98 percent of perceptions and behavior."This information is extremely bold, and offers no scientific backup besides naked assertions coming from a non-scientist who wrote it. No article I have written on this topic has stated anything like 96 to 98 percent of our behavior and perceptions is governed by unconscious brain activity. In order to do this, one would have to understand ALL of the functions of the conscious and unconscious mind, and then distribute one by one how each one is affected by either the conscious or unconscious mind. As this is not possible, all of these percentages are simply conjecture.Concluding Statements:My opponent has provided a strong argument, however with regard to how huge it's implications are, that we (our consciousness) has little to do with behavior and decisions, and that we are in a sense biological robots, carrying out our genetic predispositions. These contentions have far reaching implications on every part of society, and therefore require much more evidence than what has been provided in order to firmly know that free will does not exist.Due to this I believe the resolution should be dismissed.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman[1] http://www.oberlin.edu...;[2] A criterial neuronal code underlies downward mental causation and free will, Lecture at Boston University, May 14, 2011 [3] http://arxiv.org...;[4] http://www.sciencedaily.com...;[5] http://dtserv3.compsy.uni-jena.de...;