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

I wholeheartedly agree with pro that the free will debate is often centered only on definitions. That is why I never defined free will in the beginning. I did not know which definition my opponent would defend and speculation would have taken too long. I am not (quite) arguing determinismI think I need to clarify this. While my arguments did, and perhaps will, take on a somewhat deterministic nature, I do not maintain that all events are causally determined. As I stated last round, quantum physics contradicts determinism, so I see no need to hold on to its claim that all events are determined. My opponent wastes a whole contention on a fact that we agree on, that determinism is flawed. Also, if pro thinks his paradoxes do more than refute complete determinism, he'll have to give a bit more, such as actually presenting the paradox instead of merely mentioning it without an argument nor source to go along with it. But as he only states that they refute determinism, and since I disagree with determinism, I'll leave it. Probability vs. Randomness; probability matters not This is another issue I'd like to clear up. As my opponent noted, quantum events are not always random, but rather probable. I agree with my opponent here and thus wish I had not stated my argument exactly how I did last round. However, I do not believe it changes anything. Disproportionate chance is just as significant, or insignificant rather, as equal chance. All it means is that x will happen 6 out of ten times whereas y only happens 4 out of ten times instead of both happening 5 out of ten times. X will be more probable instead of it being completely randomInstead of a dichotomy I am willingly forced to admit a trichotomy of events that occur. Willingly because it does not contradict the main essence of my argument. The three types of events that are found in our universe: 1. Event whose chance of occurring was 100% probably 2. Event whose chance of occurring was random 3. Event whose chance of occurring was probable or improbable "A small game of logic" Even if my opponent was the world's undefeated chess champion, that would be no cause to vote for him. For while he may be the "best machine" when it comes to chess, that has nothing to do with a philosophical debate surrounding free will. In the latter case, the best way to resolve the outcome is for the voters to trust and use their ability to comprehend and evaluate arguments. I don't see what this has to do with free will. "Machines" was an analogy. Humans are much more complex than machines but the connecting similarity is that both operate purely according to how their system and the environment dictate, not by some transcending entity that allows them to act free of their constraints. "Causality, The Prerequisite for Free Will?" All I need to do is argue against pro's definition of free will. I do not need to make my own exact definition, though I did set up some perimeters which were enough to make a case around. Pro can be assured that I would have attacked a specific definition had there been one, but as I went first, I did not have one. There is no reason to believe in free will until a definition has been given and thus my burden dictated no obligation to give one. It would be nice to know what "genetic meta-decision making processes" are because frankly I have no idea, but thankfully pro has only alluded to the future support for whatever those may be. "The two stage model of free will" This interpretation contains either errors or gaps on multiple points. Pro grounds this model in quantum physics and seems to argue from there that different possible scenarios can arrive from conscious deliberation and abstract thought. However, viewers should judge carefully here. All of us have an intuitive sense that we have alternative choices in life and my opponent uses quantum physics to prove different possible events can occur so it might make sense to see quantum physics as confirmation of this sense. However, pro has not shown how quantum effects are so present in our decision making. How do quantum events generate ideas? Is the uncertain position of an electron supposed to allow me to choose what to put on my hot dog? The quantum realm is the basis of a more deterministic though still microscopic realm which itself is the basis of the every day macroscopic realm. Quantum events are minuscule. The unpredictability of a certain quantum outcome entails, not, which choice I make, but something minuscule in nature. It has nothing to say about ordinary decision making. [1]Actually, in the realm of conscious thought process quantum events cannot be relevant and this has gone unproven since round 2. Probable or random, quantum events are still due to chance. If pro were to somehow (for he has not done so) show how probabilities in the quantum realm allow him to choose which shoe to tie first it would still be up to chance and not his conscious freedom, whether he ties the left or right. More realistically we would say it's mostly due to determined factors with a small amount of quantum probability, but the fact remains the same that if quantum probability affects one decision over the other it is due to chance and not self causation. If a probable event happens, the reason why the improbable event did not, is unexplained and if the improbable event happened, the reason why the probable event did not occur cannot be pinpointed. It can only be explained by saying x will happen most of the time but y will happen sometimes and that's quantum physics for you. What do probabilities equate to in everyday life? Let's suppose the following judgement reflects an accurate real life probability. "Yraelz will probably take the bus but he might instead take the metro". This equates to, "Yraelz will probably take the bus but due to the unpredictable nature of his quantum neurophysiology, he might take the metro." In other words, the fact that Yraelz takes the metro is entirely without proper explanation. The only explanation is that quantum mechanics is unpredictable. Quantum events in his brain might somehow make him choose the metro. (Pro has not shown how exactly quantum events enter into conscious choices which is why I say only "somehow"). There is nothing that links quantum probability with any kind of additional freedom of choice. If it affects choice, it does so in a way no more important than deterministic or random factors. Emergent properties and abstractions Concepts are not made up of atoms so I agree with pro that the world cannot be defined purely by atoms. I never committed the fallacy my opponent seems to be accusing me of. I never maintained that all macroscopic entities possess only their purely microscopic properties. However, all macroscopic properties are still based on the individual properties of that entity (the plane's ability to fly is based on the engines and wings etc...). Emergent properties are completely consistent with my position. I don't see where pro takes the assumption that I thought otherwise. Immaterial abstractions by the conscious mind are compatible with my case. If pro were to prove these abstractions came from an immaterial mind, that would be something, but considering what he has argued, we're still left with the assumption that abstractions are products of the material brain. Thus abstractions follow the rules of physics along with its constraints. What causes an abstraction is physical and abstractions themselves run on causality. Thoughts are abstract but the process of thought is still governed by causality. [1] http://library.thinkquest.org... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu...