Resolved: On balance, Human "Free Will" Likely Exists
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
full resolution: It is more likely that free will does exist for humans, rather than it does not exist.
Free will: Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. The doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
No kritiks allowed, burden of proof is shared.
- " an agent who makes a particular choice has the ability to do otherwise, insofar as several actions are possible for him or her, none of which is predetermined, and yet
- the agent intentionally endorses the chosen action and thereby stands in the required special relationship to it." 
- “In other words, it's definitive that I have to drop any type of "subconscious" free will”
- “We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.”
- “Here, we show that predictive activity patterns recorded before a decision was made became increasingly stable with increasing temporal proximity to the time point of the conscious decision. Furthermore, detailed questionnaires exploring subjects' thoughts before and during the decision confirmed that decisions were made spontaneously and subjects were unaware of the evolution of their decision outcomes.”
- “We report progressive neuronal recruitment over ∼1500 ms before subjects report making the decision to move. We observed progressive increase or decrease in neuronal firing rate, particularly in the supplementary motor area (SMA), as the reported time of decision was approached. A population of 256 SMA neurons is sufficient to predict in single trials the impending decision to move with accuracy greater than 80% already 700 ms prior to subjects' awareness.”
- “The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will”
- You want to do something
- You are forced to do something
- Do you choose to want more sleep? Certainly not, you simply do.
- Do you choose to want to sleep in? Certainly not, you simply do.
- What about such activities as going to the gym? Most people do not want to go to the gym but choose to - to get healthier, to lose weight, whatever it may be.
- Do you choose to want to get healthier? Certainly not, you simply do.
- Do you choose to want to get relaxation? Certainly not, you simply do.
- Free Will precisely defined
- Possibility of Different outcomes
- Options, Options
- Randomness vs Justification
- You want to do something
- You are forced to do something
Nulla. It's exactly as I said earlier, one is compelled by logic while the other is not. Why? Because one is and isn’t you don’t choose what you are compelled by.
2. it does not defeat my first argument of free will either, it does not even touch on it.
3. "Consciousness occurs because there is something it is like, intrinsically, to undergo a certain organization of actualized differences in the brain." -- Con's Article
4. you are either compelled by reasoning or you are not, why is there a possibility of another choice? Do you choose whether or not you are compelled by reason? You may choose to act upon that reasoning but you do not choose to be convinced by it.
Weakeredge attempts to make an attack that would result in a reductive form of physicalism. His evidence is as such:
- Consciousness is shown in energy in the brain
- The operation in the prefrontal cortex prepares for decision long before the actual decision
- Before and during operation, subjects were unaware of the decision
- Neurons were fired before the decision
Firstly, consciousness as energy does not prove that the brain functions were uncontrolled. The preparation for a decision does not negate the possibility of choosing a different decision. The action of before and during resulting in unawareness is here. But it does not imply that we made, and will make all decisions with a lack of endorsement as an agent. Despite the brain activity before actually coming to fruition of the decision only proves that the agent must rationalize and endorse the action. Otherwise, the randomness and indeterminant nature would disprove free will.
My claim is that you do not choose what you want, or what you desire, not that our inability to do x or y prevents our free will.
Again, not at all, most people are simply more compelled to quit smoking whenever more reasoning is provided, some people are compelled by perhaps hurting their children, as my father was, while others take many years with professional therapy to do so. My point here is that no one chooses what they are compelled by to stop smoking, the physical aspect con is trying to point out, does not rebuke my argument.
Finally their last paragraph, a choice is simply an illusion and is being presumed by both con and their expert, what we should look at is what caused their actions. For example: Let’s say Abe was playing basketball, why? Pro would assert because they choose to do so, however, why is their desire to play basketball higher than anything else at the moment? Did they choose to want to play basketball? None of this has been refuted, Pro has just asserted that I have only considered a physical aspect of the issue, whenever they have failed to demonstrate any other aspect of the issue.
Con has repeatedly ignored the fact that I already stated the difference between "can" and "will do", as assisted by my paper. Con has failed to separate the action that we sponsor and will do, versus the other activities that we could sponsor and would do if we would sponsor it. Con has not given any reasoning why determinism is incompatible with my expert's idea of a metaphysical free will plane. Pro does not have to prove that free will exists beyond a reasonable doubt, only that it may simultaneously exist despite Con's refutations. The lack of physical free will does not disprove a mental free will, and so free will still exist.
1. Pro noting something and proving something are two very different things, my point was that you do not choose to want something, all my opponent does is say that you choose something because “it is who you are” then I must ask this question, do you choose who you are? What aspects make you up? No, not that Pro has demonstrated.
My point is that the agent endorses the idea, and thus if you had the possibility of otherwise, with the other world's existence proving a free will, then free will exists. We cannot control the genetic predispositions that make us up. It is just that, the vast majority of decisions occur because our rational self has used the free will to precisely choose that idea. That is why free will exists. Otherwise, determinism may force one who does not believe in murder, to murder someone.
2. I have already demonstrated with a study that consciousness is physical, as are psychological aspects, they say that it is illogical to use only physical “biological” aspects to prove a lack a free will, but have they supported this opinion? No. Again they have not demonstrated this. The physical level is the psychological level.
Physical may be a demonstration of the psychological, but con has still failed to refute how each part of every chemical and fiber that we analyze is still only part of what makes someone them. We can only jump to conclusions in terms of game theory and ideal (point 3). As such, the best and only way to determine psychology is the theories regarding such, not what may partially influence the psychology of the person. Even if we could guess at the physical decision, the reasoning and the more abstract layers of free will are still far beyond what we can understand. Until we can simplify the entire psychology field into physical, we should prefer the rationality based on the nature of human beings as a whole, rather than specific persons' neurons firing.
3. Pro has continued to assert and assert that my argument does not negate the possibility of a different decision, but it does, if we do not choose our desires, then we can not choose which desire is greatest and that causes our decision making if the brain is subconsciously making our decision before us, then we cannot choose, all of Pro’s arguments (similar to their expert) are based on the assumption that one can choose another option, they are begging the question.
Con is once again mistaking the physical outcome of your decision for your mental. He has failed to show that the difference between "can" and "will" prevents free will's existence.
4. This is a gish gallop if I’ve ever seen one, how can I know for sure? Due to my neurological evidence which proved you do not choose, and the fact that you can not choose whether to be convinced of x or not. Or are you saying right now, you can truly believe that Australia does not exist. You can say that you do not believe that Australia exists, but can you choose to believe it doesn’t. No, you can’t., again Pro’s arguments are presuming the agent has another option, which is begging the question.
But Determinism presumes that the other option does not exist at all, which is also begging the question. Why does it surpass the possibility of the other dimension existing (or the possibility that I would choose the other decision)?
I will draw battle lines here and highlight why I am still winning:
- Con has displayed a strong correlation of our scientific understanding, predictions, to the way that we act. He had not shown that this is inconsistent with our endorsement and rationality. If a neuron fires the cell while you are unaware, is this really against your will? After all, you are your brain. And does the formation of choices, not match your decision in the end, matching you as the agent of morality?
- Con has repeatedly argued that the person is unable to choose the option because you cannot choose your reasoning. However, the reasoning is used to establish a counter-argument against indeterminism (as, without reasoning, selections are random and not made of free will). The possibility of other reasonings existing provides the free will counter-argument. One person who believes in smoking will likely smoke. One person who does not will not. But, since both actions exist, persons, in general, have the choice to smoke or not smoke, regardless of their reasoning.
- Con asks for a reduction of the choosing of options to the results of the options but has not justified why this is more reasonable than the reverse (results of the option comes from choosing options). If our endorsement was not a requirement, then the motivation of smoking vs the motivation of not smoking doesn't make sense in terms of "free action" as argued by my first researcher.
- Con thinks that assuming free will is a bad idea to prove free will, but it is by demonstrating that free will can coexist with determinism that displays, Con's second argument fails to refute free will.
In the words of my same old expert:
The more coarsely defined state of an agent and his or her macroscopic environment can still be consistent with more than one such sequence, and thus different alternative actions can be possible for the agent".
“Weakeredge attempts to make an attack that would result in a reductive form of physicalism. His evidence is as such:- Consciousness is shown in energy in the brain- The operation in the prefrontal cortex prepares for decision long before the actual decision- Before and during operation, subjects were unaware of the decision- Neurons were fired before the decision”
“Finally their last paragraph, a choice is simply an illusion and is being presumed by both con and their expert, what we should look at is what caused their actions. For example: Let’s say Abe was playing basketball, why? Pro would assert because they choose to do so, however, why is their desire to play basketball higher than anything else at the moment? Did they choose to want to play basketball? None of this has been refuted, Pro has just asserted that I have only considered a physical aspect of the issue, whenever they have failed to demonstrate any other aspect of the issue.”
“- Behavioral prediction and explanation is not the same as the executive function we use for actual choices and planning.”
“ Con thinks that assuming free will is a bad idea to prove free will, but it is by demonstrating that free will can coexist with determinism that displays, Con's second argument fails to refute free will.”
“Though biological dispositions rule over the global ideals that seem to contradict with free will, the moral responsibility is entirely different, as there must be the possibility of otherwise to prove that one can choose to do otherwise.”
Con: Therefore the person does not choose their actions, Free will doesn't exist