Instigator / Pro
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#5823

Free will exists.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the contender.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
psychology
Philosophy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
1600
rating
24
debates
72.92%
won
Description

I will define free will as "the rational appetite" which I will explain in the debate. You can either present your own definition and defend it against mine or try and refute mine simply. Just know that I do not think that science is adequate enough to answer this question since it has limited its research physical observation. I think that free will is not something physical nor is it something that can be quantified by itself. You need reason to understand it. So be ready to address my reasoning.

However, You can bring in science if you wish. I will be using mainly philosophy. And by philosophy, I mean reasoning to my conclusions logically using the principles of philosophy, namely the first principles and any principles associated with this particular topic.

Round 1
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Pro
#1
Thank you Moozer325 for accepting the debate. I am very excited to see what you have to say on this topic.

To start off, I will reiterate what I have said above. I do not think science can properly answer the question of free will and its existence because I do not think free will BY ITSELF can be quantified, separated from a body or directly observed. What we see as actions are the effect of free will.

I will be using reason to prove that it exists. So, my main arguments will then be from the science of reason which is philosophy.

Definitions
The definition I am presenting of free will is the following:
Free Will: The Rational appetite.

   Rational means we are dealing with humans. It is the ability to reason. This is important because what we know determines the proper sense of "free" that we will be using.
   Appetite means it is a tendency towards an end. This means there must be a known end to tend toward. If there is no end to tend toward there is no act of the will.

Other definitions that I think are important:
The necessary: That which cannot not be.
Free: The power to choose means the end being preserved.
   This definition is important. It means that we must know there to be multiple means to the same end. Without these "multiple means" there is no free will.
To choose: The power to act upon means to an end or not to act at all.
   This "to choose" I will divide into two different aspects:
     1. Objective indifference: This is the ability to act on one means rather than another means both of which go to the same end. For example, to go this way to the store rather than that way.
     2. Subjective indifference: This is the ability to act or not act toward an end. For example: I choose not to go to the store at all rather than to go.
   

To start off I will provide a syllogism to show that man has a free will:

M) The will is from the essence of the soul, following upon the intellect, seeking what the intellect apprehends and proposes.

m) Now the intellect proposes universal good as necessary and particular goods as pursuable.

cl) The will seeks necessarily universal good but not necessarily particular good.

To the Major (M) premise: Soul here simply means our principle of life. What makes our life different from the animals is our rationality and volition. It has nothing to do with ghosts, spirits or any other wacko ideas people have come up with. "Following upon the intellect" means it is an appetite that tends toward what the intellect presents. The intellect presents knowledge by the way. 

***To the Minor (m) premise: The intellect presents the knowledge good in the universal sense, meaning as an abstraction from the real (Your philosophy- check here to see some of my definitions) which is also necessary. So, we are not free in regard to a universal good i.e. You cannot not want goodness. BUT the intellect also presents to us a particular good (in which this goodness resides to a specific degree but is not goodness itself) which it knows can be reached in several different ways. For example, I can walk this way or that way to go to the same store. Because the intellect presents these multiple means to the same end the will can tend to one or the other. I as a person, by exercising my will, choose which. Said simply: because I know many ways to do something, I have the ability to choose one, because the will by nature is an appetite. This is why the will is defined as rational (what the intellect presents) and appetite (the presentation of the intellect being tended toward.) Now the intellect can also present two ends. To go to the store or not to go to the store.

Thus we come to the distinction of choosing freely:

In order for there to be a true "free" We need both objective and subjective indifference. Proofs:
"free" requires objective indifference
M "free" requires that the will not will of necessity
m but where there is no objective indifference (multiple means presented by the intellect) the will wills of necessity.
cl "free" requires objective indifference

"free" requires subjective indifference
M "free" implies the power to choose
m but such a power is of the person himself and it presupposes on his part a mastery over his act of willing.
cl "free" requires subjective indifference

The first syllogism shows that we need MEANS to an END in order to choose. By the very fact of the existence of multiple means to the same end (which to deny is absurd) means we have a choice to that end. The power of the will is to choose one. This is the objective indifference and it proves we are free in this sense.

The second syllogism shows that two ENDS are always presented. To act or not. "free" implies we must be able to choose action or no action. THIS FORMALLY CONSTITUTES OUR FREEDOM OF WILL. And it is because the intellect always presents the option to act or not. Thus in every court of law, for every convicted criminal that is actually guilty we say that he should have chosen not to do the action that is the crime.

Add on notes:
1) If the intellect cannot present multiple means because of some defect in the brain (drugs, alcohol, etc.) then one acts without free will. Thus, drunkenness will diminish punishment of a crime if one was drunk when he committed the crime unless one can prove he chose to get drunk in order to commit the crime. Thus in this debate, I do not consider abnormal circumstances that show defects in the brain.

2) I understand there are other senses to the word "free", but I am not using those senses of the word. For example, we talk about Physical freedom which is the ability to move around without being forced, being able to do what you want, etc. I am not talking about "free" in that sense even if there is an underlying similarity. I am speaking specifically about an ability to choose one means over another with knowledge of both that go toward the same end and the ability to simply act or not.


What I have presented above is a very very condensed explanation of free will according to the philosophers I know, and which I think are better than others because of their clarity of thought. I understand it is very abstract and difficult to understand. That is why have given 2 weeks for a response. If you would like clarification on a particular point, please PM me or simply ask in the comments. I am happy to answer, and I look forward to Con's response.


Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
Con
#2
Sorry if this response comes a bit late, I’m visiting family for thanksgiving, and I don’t have much time for DART. 

I am super excited for this debate though, free will is one of my favorite topics in philosophy, and I look forward to debating it. I’ll start with a beginning argument without consideration to yours, and then I’ll rebut what you’ve wrote.

Why Free Will does not exist

My argument has been said before in many shapes and forms, so I won’t belabor the point too much.

We as humans have brain which are used to move our body and think. Our brains are made of neurons which control the brain by firing electric signals. In turn, those neurons are made of atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, and maybe more. 

All of those particles have no free will, they are not alive. They are all deterministic in that they are just bouncing around interacting with other particles. You can see where I’m going with this. How can something have free will if it is made completely of things without free will? 

To put it into a syllogism:

Premise 1: All humans are made up of things without free will
Premise 2: Things without free will cannot create something with free will
Conclusion: Humans cannot have free will

There is actually a lot of evidence to support this. There was a very famous study done a while ago (I can cite it if need be), called the hungry judge study. It found that just after a meal break, a parole board was 65% likely to grant parole to someone, but near the end of the session, that number dropped to 0%. 

So not only is it irrational to assume that by some magic, particles absent of free will can create it, but the evidence supports that claim, even though it’s not needed to prove it.

I'll give one last example. Free will cannot come from things absent of it. For example, my Lego dragon could not choose anything, because it's Lego blocks can't choose anything. Computers can't choose anything because their code tells them exactly what to do. Our brains can't choose anything because our neurons are going to react in a certain way whenever anything happens. 

Rebuttals

M) The will is from the essence of the soul, following upon the intellect, seeking what the intellect apprehends and proposes.

m) Now the intellect proposes universal good as necessary and particular goods as pursuable.

cl) The will seeks necessarily universal good but not necessarily particular good.
I agree that premise 2 and the conclusion are logically sound, yet I feel that Premise 1 is circular reasoning. If I understand your argument right, you are saying that intellect perceives the world, and will acts on that perception. Intellect perceives what is good and bad, and will follows the good. I agree that if this is true, then free will exists, yet Premise 1 relies on the assumption that free will already exists. To expand it out, Premise 1 is basically saying that "If free will exists, then it is from the essence of the soul...". 

I may be misunderstanding your argument, but it seems a lot like circular reasoning to me at first glance.

To the Major (M) premise: Soul here simply means our principle of life. What makes our life different from the animals is our rationality and volition. It has nothing to do with ghosts, spirits or any other wacko ideas people have come up with. "Following upon the intellect" means it is an appetite that tends toward what the intellect presents. The intellect presents knowledge by the way. 
Okay, so this makes me think I interpreted correctly about the intellect part. You're also saying that free will comes from our unique ability as humans to reason. I disagree, and once again I think you already make the assumption that free will exists when creating these syllogisms. Like I said before, It is irrational to assume that we as humans magically have free will by some special ability to reason when all the things that make us up are purely deterministic.

You cannot not want goodness. BUT the intellect also presents to us a particular good (in which this goodness resides to a specific degree but is not goodness itself) which it knows can be reached in several different ways. For example, I can walk this way or that way to go to the same store. Because the intellect presents these multiple means to the same end the will can tend to one or the other. I as a person, by exercising my will, choose which. Said simply: because I know many ways to do something, I have the ability to choose one, because the will by nature is an appetite. 

Again, this feels a bit like you're just explaining how you think free will works, and not why it must exist. This is a good definition for free will, and if It is real then I would say this is probably how it works, but you still have yet to say why it is real. Or maybe you did and I missed it, sorry if that's what happened.

In order for there to be a true "free" We need both objective and subjective indifference. Proofs:
"free" requires objective indifference
M "free" requires that the will not will of necessity
m but where there is no objective indifference (multiple means presented by the intellect) the will wills of necessity.
cl "free" requires objective indifference
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of this is that free will is necessary whenever there are multiple means to an end. The will wants the end, and it relies on free will to choose which path. I disagree though, seeing as I had problems with your first syllogism, and so I'm not inclined to believe in a will. Additionally, you could easily be making choices about which means to an end without the existence of free will. The fact that you are making choices doesn’t necessitate that they must be free choices. As I suggested before, your brain could be making predetermined choices without you knowing.

The first syllogism shows that we need MEANS to an END in order to choose. By the very fact of the existence of multiple means to the same end (which to deny is absurd) means we have a choice to that end. The power of the will is to choose one. This is the objective indifference and it proves we are free in this sense.

The second syllogism shows that two ENDS are always presented. To act or not. "free" implies we must be able to choose action or no action. THIS FORMALLY CONSTITUTES OUR FREEDOM OF WILL. And it is because the intellect always presents the option to act or not. Thus in every court of law, for every convicted criminal that is actually guilty we say that he should have chosen not to do the action that is the crime.
I’ll accept that we have to make choices in our lives, but again, that doesn’t make it so that those choices must be freely made by ourselves. The option to choose doesn’t come in a package with the ability to choose. For all we know, choices are being made, but not by us, or choices are an illusion, and everything has been determined. Point is, existence of a choice does not equal ability to make that choice.

For example, when hiking there might be two different paths I could take. However, that doesn’t mean that I am making the choice. My argument about our brains being essentially computer trying to pick the best outcome still holds water. If I choose a path, that was just the way the particles hit each other at that time, not me.

Once again, sorry If I misunderstood your argument, I’m still getting better at speaking philosophy talk. I yield the floor.

Round 2
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Pro
#3
Thank you Moozer325 for responding. I appreciate your insights into this question. You bring up very good points and I am very excited to address them.

A. Rebuttal of Con's argument.
1Firstly I will address Con's argument for why he thinks free will does not exist as I have heard this argument before. Con's essential argument I think he put perfectly when He said the following:
Premise 1: All humans are made up of things without free will
Premise 2: Things without free will cannot create something with free will
Conclusion: Humans cannot have free will.

First, I will address his syllogism.
Premise 1: All humans are made up of things without free will
Yes, but there is a distinction Con is missing....

In philosophy we speak of what things are made of. We call this the material cause. This is what Con addresses here only in his first premise. All things also have what is called a form. The form is the way the matter is organized. We can take the same matter and make different things. For example ice, steam and water are all made of H2O. But those are three different things that act differently under the same circumstances. Science has a theory right now called the emergence theory( Emergence - Wikipedia). This theory essentially says that basic matter acts very differently when organized a certain way. For example: Hydrogen is flammable. Oxygen is flammable. But try lighting an oxygen and 2 hydrogen combined on fire. In other words, try lighting pure water on fire. I don't think you can.

So also with humans, our matter is made in such a way that the body is the "house" so to speak, of what we call our form. Philosophically we can determine the form of something by comparing, contrasting, and eliminating what we call "nota" (nota is simply something we can say about a specific thing.) A nota of a human for example would be risible, intelligent, reasonable, breathing, living, etc... there are different degrees of abstraction for nota. The nota that separates us from all other things is the fact that we have reason. I.E. an intellect. 

So to this premise, I would say that there is more than just matter. Combined, they can make the complex thing known to us as a human. We, as a whole, most certainly act differently than the atoms in our body. This premise leaves out an essential aspect to the whole point. Remember, I said we act as a whole, as a person, not just certain parts independent, by themselves purely. That is rather important to my argument.

Premise 2: Things without free will cannot create something with free will
Yes but once again I think Con is missing an essential aspect.

I do not posit that the matter by itself produces free will. It must be organized in such a way that an intellect can exist. So, as above, there is more than matter involved. This is why I said that I do not think science can answer this question because they have limited themselves to the study of matter and its principles. As shown above, there is more than matter. Something immaterial called the form. You cannot separate the form from the matter. Neither can a thing exist without a form.

Conclusion: Humans cannot have free will
In light of what I said above, I deny this conclusion.

B. Rebuttal of Con's rebuttals.
2.Secondly, I will address Con's rebuttal of my arguments. 

 I feel that Premise 1 is circular reasoning. If I understand your argument right, you are saying that intellect perceives the world, and will acts on that perception. Intellect perceives what is good and bad, and will follows the good. I agree that if this is true, then free will exists, yet Premise 1 relies on the assumption that free will already exists. To expand it out, Premise 1 is basically saying that "If free will exists, then it is from the essence of the soul...". I may be misunderstanding your argument, but it seems a lot like circular reasoning to me at first glance.
The first premise is actually the conclusion of a previous argument given by Aristotle to show that something exists that makes us move. I did not add it here for the sake of brevity. But he essentially says that movement is an essential aspect to life. Even if it is unnoticeable. He gives the argument that because we move, in whatever various ways we can use that word, there must be something moving us, coming from his principles of causality. He will say that the thing that moves us as a person is the will. Aristotle, and I with him, hold it absurd to deny the existence of movement/change. There are different causes that move us, some from without, some from within depending on what you want to look at. Internal movement comes from our form. Meaning the way our matter is organized lends itself to self-movement. He later shows what causes this internal movement is a process where we sense something, it goes into our brain, we abstract to understand and know it, leading to movement from within. My argument simply shows that this internal movement is free. Even determinists think we have a will, just not a free one.

I am sorry if I wrongly assumed you held that position as a determinist. I presented this first argument with that assumption already in mind. It does not assume a free will, it simply assumes a will and the syllogism demonstrates how it is free.

Okay, so this makes me think I interpreted correctly about the intellect part. You're also saying that free will comes from our unique ability as humans to reason. I disagree, and once again I think you already make the assumption that free will exists when creating these syllogisms. Like I said before, It is irrational to assume that we as humans magically have free will by some special ability to reason when all the things that make us up are purely deterministic.
Not quite, I said the will is an appetite that follows upon the reason/intellect. Free will does not come from it; it follows upon it. Following my explanation of it as an appetite. I do not remember writing it is from the reason. i am sorry if I confused you there.

Again, this feels a bit like you're just explaining how you think free will works, and not why it must exist. This is a good definition for free will, and if It is real then I would say this is probably how it works, but you still have yet to say why it is real. Or maybe you did and I missed it, sorry if that's what happened.
To answer this it will be as I said above. There is a will because there is internal movement. Movement  here does not necessarily mean physical movement. In philosophy it can also mean immaterial movement, such as a movement of thoughts or a movement from not-understanding to understanding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of this is that free will is necessary whenever there are multiple means to an end. The will wants the end, and it relies on free will to choose which path. I disagree though, seeing as I had problems with your first syllogism, and so I'm not inclined to believe in a will. Additionally, you could easily be making choices about which means to an end without the existence of free will. The fact that you are making choices doesn’t necessitate that they must be free choices. As I suggested before, your brain could be making predetermined choices without you knowing.
I will disagree with your idea of what "choice" means. By definition choice means there are other options. If there is no way to obtain any of the choices except one, then there is no choice and then you break the definition of the word you are trying to use. I am actually surprised you used this argument as it defies basic significatio rules of logic. 

You break the definition by denying an essential part to the word. I don't know how else to answer that.

I’ll accept that we have to make choices in our lives, but again, that doesn’t make it so that those choices must be freely made by ourselves. The option to choose doesn’t come in a package with the ability to choose. For all we know, choices are being made, but not by us, or choices are an illusion, and everything has been determined. Point is, existence of a choice does not equal ability to make that choice.
An ability is determined and specified by its object. If there is an ability to choose then there must be several choices. If there exists choice, then there is an ability to choose. How do you say "choice exists" if there are no other choices? 
I do hate getting bogged down in semantics, but this is kind of critical to the argument. If we posit that "choice" means simply multiple ways for something to be accomplished and then posit there is no "to be accomplished" we are missing the entire point. If we simply posit "choice" to mean "multiple ways" then we deny the very definition of the word we are trying to use.
To choose by definition means there must be a choice.
Choice by definition means there must be a way to choose. 
This is how we define things. Without them we end in contradiction and absurdity. At best we would end in incomplete ideas making argument stupid.

I yield the floor to my worthy opponent.


Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
Con
#4
In philosophy we speak of what things are made of. We call this the material cause. This is what Con addresses here only in his first premise. All things also have what is called a form. The form is the way the matter is organized. We can take the same matter and make different things. For example ice, steam and water are all made of H2O. But those are three different things that act differently under the same circumstances. Science has a theory right now called the emergence theory( Emergence - Wikipedia). This theory essentially says that basic matter acts very differently when organized a certain way. For example: Hydrogen is flammable. Oxygen is flammable. But try lighting an oxygen and 2 hydrogen combined on fire. In other words, try lighting pure water on fire. I don't think you can.
I'd say this is a false comparison. You make the analogy of water, which obviously is not flammable being made of things that are flammable. While at first glance, there does seem to be a connection, I disagree. With free will, you can't possibly having a being with it made of things that don't have it. The particles absent of free will are following specific "if-then" instructions when interacting with other particles, thus causing things in the wider world to happen. If I have free will and I'm controlling the particles I'm made out of, then they have free will by extension, because they are following instructions coming from me, not from how they are made. They either do what they are destined to do, or they do what I tell them, there isn't really a possibility where both happen.

With H2O, the oxygen and hydrogen become resistant to fire when they are put in that order, and even though separately they are flammable, those individual particles are actually flammable when constructed as water. Your argument states that thought he particles that make up my brain are absent of free will, they must gain free will when constructed specifically to form my brain. However, that's not really how that works, those particles are deterministic no matter what order you put them in. Take this for example. When you have two hydrogen and one oxygen separately, the particles all have the quality "flammable". When you put them together, not only does the whole combination gain "non flammable" but the individual particles must gain it too. However you've conceded the point that the particles that make me up are devoid of free will regardless the order they are in. In order for their specific combination to gain "free will", they must gain it too by coming together, but that's not how it works. Sorry if that makes no sense.

An ability is determined and specified by its object. If there is an ability to choose then there must be several choices. If there exists choice, then there is an ability to choose. How do you say "choice exists" if there are no other choices? 
I do hate getting bogged down in semantics, but this is kind of critical to the argument. If we posit that "choice" means simply multiple ways for something to be accomplished and then posit there is no "to be accomplished" we are missing the entire point. If we simply posit "choice" to mean "multiple ways" then we deny the very definition of the word we are trying to use.
To choose by definition means there must be a choice.
Choice by definition means there must be a way to choose. 
This is how we define things. Without them we end in contradiction and absurdity. At best we would end in incomplete ideas making argument stupid.
I think I'd agree with this. I'm sorry that I didn't clarify my position too well, but I'll elaborate here. To me, choice is really an illusion. There may be two paths on a trail that lead to the same place, but even though we theoretically could go either way, we will always choose whichever one our brain determine is the best one. For whatever reason it decides, our computer brains will pick a way to get to the end. 

A good analogy would be one of those robots trained to walk. It uses sensors to perceive its terrain and surrounding, and from there is figures out the best way to get through them and to the other side. This may change with AI technology, but that Robot still doesn't have free will. It can't decide not to walk, or to walk somewhere else, it's only choice is how to achieve its goal, and based on it's coding, it will only ever pick one way to achieve that goal. So it is with our brains, they are just computers of neurons, not binary.

I will disagree with your idea of what "choice" means. By definition choice means there are other options. If there is no way to obtain any of the choices except one, then there is no choice and then you break the definition of the word you are trying to use. I am actually surprised you used this argument as it defies basic significatio rules of logic. 

You break the definition by denying an essential part to the word. I don't know how else to answer that.
There is no real choice, because the universe has been predetermined since the beginning. While it is possible to conceive of other outcomes and paths to those outcomes, this is just an illusion. We are hardwired to "choose" whichever path we deem best suited to our cause, and though choices can appear, they are just an illusion. There may be multiple conceivable paths, but we are ultimately just going to choose one, and that's the one that has been determined for us since the beginning of the universe. I hope that clarifies what I mean.


Round 3
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Pro
#5
Thank you Moozer325 for your argument.

In this round I will firstly address Con's arguments against mine and then secondly address his understanding of free will.


Firstly, regarding Con's argument against mine.

I'd say this is a false comparison. You make the analogy of water, which obviously is not flammable being made of things that are flammable. While at first glance, there does seem to be a connection, I disagree. With free will, you can't possibly having a being with it made of things that don't have it. The particles absent of free will are following specific "if-then" instructions when interacting with other particles, thus causing things in the wider world to happen. If I have free will and I'm controlling the particles I'm made out of, then they have free will by extension, because they are following instructions coming from me, not from how they are made. They either do what they are destined to do, or they do what I tell them, there isn't really a possibility where both happen.
Forgive me for not explaining this in the last round. When I spoke of form, I continued with a conclusion drawn from the existence of form and what would in this argument become a principle. I am not making a comparison to water. I used the example of water to show the principle in philosophy that matter organized a certain way gives rise to properties that the whole contains, but not the parts individually. I brought in the Emergence Theory to show that even science demonstrates this principle of philosophy. I am applying this principle to the concept of free will because I am positing that free will is of the whole, not of the parts. We must look at the whole to demonstrate what is of the whole.

Free will is not in the individual particles by themselves. Free will is in the whole person. This is a conclusion we draw from the application of the principle that matter organized a certain way gives rise to properties that that are of the whole, and not of the parts. To say that because the whole does it, so also, by extension must the parts is a composition fallacy.

 While self-movement may be a characteristic of particles, I do not know, it is irrelevant to the point since we are here talking about the action of a whole thing. Based on the principle above, we can see that parts do not need, of themselves, the characteristics of the whole. This is a principle easily demonstrated in many realms. I, by myself cannot make any laws. But with other Representatives, we can collectively make laws. The action of the whole is not necessarily the action of every part. This comes from the axiom: The whole is greater than the part. That does not mean just physically. It also means in actions, in abilities and in potencies.

So, I conclude that Con's argument of "particles do not have free will, therefore the person cannot have free will" is actually in essence a composition fallacy that disregards the principle I stated above in bold and the aforementioned axiom in italics.

However, you've conceded the point that the particles that make me up are devoid of free will regardless the order they are in.
As individual particles yes. As part of the whole, the will arises from their organization. We can see this in all life forms. What I am arguing here is that it is free for humans.

 ...those particles are deterministic no matter what order you put them in
As individual particles, yes. As a part of the whole, no. Refer to the principle above. Remember, the whole has greater power than the parts. That is kind of the point here.

Secondly, I will refute Con's idea of free will as an illusion.

To me, choice is really an illusion. There may be two paths on a trail that lead to the same place, but even though we theoretically could go either way, we will always choose whichever one our brain determine is the best one. For whatever reason it decides, our computer brains will pick a way to get to the end. 
definition of illusion: a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.

If Con disagrees with this definition, that is fine but in that case I would like a definition.

Logically speaking, we must be able to show that something is illusory by showing the opposite or a contrary to be real or there is no way to actually determine if what is perceived is actually an illusion. So, in light of the above principle in bold which disproves Con's argument against free will, and which I assume would be the real thing he would point to demonstrate free will as an illusion, what does Con say is the real thing which proves the illusion? The above principle demonstrates that particles taken together as a whole carry greater characteristics than the particles themselves. So what is it that is real, that demonstrates free will to be the illusion?

There may be multiple conceivable paths, but we are ultimately just going to choose one, and that's the one that has been determined for us since the beginning of the universe.
Yes, we will just choose one. That is part of the definition of to choose. But once again you are attributing to the whole what can only be said of the parts. That is a composition fallacy.

I yield the floor to my opponent and eagerly await his response.
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet