Free will is an illusion.

[WafflesFTW]

Think about it. Assuming our brains are computers, they simply take in input and provide output based off of that input. Simple enough? Well then it is easy to say that the development of "life" is based off of input and output devices and the initial programming. Nature and nurture DEFINE life. Why is Osama bin laden evil? He was born under particular circumstances and influenced by them as well. By induction we can prove that these influences caused his particular path in life. Any other "soul" would bear the same brain, the same information in that brain, and the same reactions. Since one cannot, in reality, "control" one's actions he/she is incapable of being good or evil. Why? Because the actions that an individual takes is all based off of circumstance. Then would it be possible to predict the future? Perhaps. But such a machine designed to predict the future can not ever come into contact with the beings it will influence. It would have to be programmed with everything about everything. If the future is ever attempted to be unveiled, by induction it wouldn't be since the computer would figure it out and crash because of an infinite loop. Hence the future would remain a mystery to think about. If you think about it it makes sense. We are but carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. Theists scoff and say when did "life" occur. I'm arguing that it never occurred. Particular configurations of atoms survived and could replicate, eventually leading to the stage today. Just look at the concept of a lobotomy theists. One cut and a personality is completely changed. The being is the same, but "nature, physical change" resulted in a completely different attitude. It is unreasonable to assume that such attributes are the mark of "evil" opposed to a different structure of the brain.

[Sjoerd]

Physics can't put us under duress. Duress requires other wills to force yours into submission. Putting a gun to your head and ordering you to sign a contact is an example of duress. Keeping you from floating away is just gravity.

The electric impulses that caused the gun to be put to your head originate from the same natural laws and processes as everything else, including the Earth's gravity. It's just less obvious. Therefore, the person who holds the gun to your head is not accountable for his actions, either, it's just the physics that made him do it.

[Thought Criminal]

Physics can't put us under duress. Duress requires other wills to force yours into submission. Putting a gun to your head and ordering you to sign a contact is an example of duress. Keeping you from floating away is just gravity.

The electric impulses that caused the gun to be put to your head originate from the same natural laws and processes as everything else, including the Earth's gravity. It's just less obvious. Therefore, the person who holds the gun to your head is not accountable for his actions, either, it's just the physics that made him do it.

It is helpful not to repeat refuted arguments. You'll note that I already explained that duress requires a will, which natural laws lack.

TC

[Sjoerd]

Physics can't put us under duress. Duress requires other wills to force yours into submission. Putting a gun to your head and ordering you to sign a contact is an example of duress. Keeping you from floating away is just gravity.

The electric impulses that caused the gun to be put to your head originate from the same natural laws and processes as everything else, including the Earth's gravity. It's just less obvious. Therefore, the person who holds the gun to your head is not accountable for his actions, either, it's just the physics that made him do it.

It is helpful not to repeat refuted arguments. You'll note that I already explained that duress requires a will, which natural laws lack.

TC

Very well. I am not a native English speaker, so I will not discuss the definition of "duress". I still don't see why a natural or human origin of the force would make any difference in accountability, though.

[Thought Criminal]

Very well. I am not a native English speaker, so I will not discuss the definition of "duress". I still don't see why a natural or human origin of the force would make any difference in accountability, though.

Because we can hold another moral agent accountable for duress inflicted upon you, but we cannot hold nature accountable. The buck stops with the last moral agent in the causal chain.

TC

[Sjoerd]

Very well. I am not a native English speaker, so I will not discuss the definition of "duress". I still don't see why a natural or human origin of the force would make any difference in accountability, though.

Because we can hold another moral agent accountable for duress inflicted upon you, but we cannot hold nature accountable. The buck stops with the last moral agent in the causal chain.

TC

I see, but I find it very hard to blame anyone who couldn't have possibly have acted otherwise than he did because of the natural forces acting upon him.

[Thought Criminal]

Very well. I am not a native English speaker, so I will not discuss the definition of "duress". I still don't see why a natural or human origin of the force would make any difference in accountability, though.

Because we can hold another moral agent accountable for duress inflicted upon you, but we cannot hold nature accountable. The buck stops with the last moral agent in the causal chain.

I see, but I find it very hard to blame anyone who couldn't have possibly have acted otherwise than he did because of the natural forces acting upon him.

All of us act as a result of natural forces, and in fact, could not act at all if not for natural forces.

Let's say I'm driving my car when a boulder falls down and crushes the engine. Natural force. So I get out and start walking. The ground is loose and slides out from under me, causing me to fall into a ditch and break my leg. I wind up dragging myself to the nearest house, but it's locked. In desperation, I break the window and let myself in. I try to call 911, but the phone's out because boulders knocked down a pole. I pull myself into the bathroom and swallow some analgesics, then I use a wooden spoon I found in the kitchen with two ties in the closet to make a crude splint for my leg. The owners arrive hours later to find me passed out on their sofa and immediately call the police with their cell phones. They then press charges for breaking and entering, as well as petty theft.

Here is a case where you might argue that I was under duress, but the fact is that nature had no will to impose upon me. Rather, I had some unforseen natural events that caused me substantial harm, leaving me in an emergency situation where I was forced to break various laws in order to stay alive.

When the judge asks me what happened, I'll tell them that I take full responsibility for any damage I caused to their house and for the items I broke/took, but that there was no criminal act.

TC

[Sjoerd]

All of us act as a result of natural forces, and in fact, could not act at all if not for natural forces.

True.
All of us act as a result of natural forces, and in fact, could not act at all if not for natural forces, and therefore, none of us can be blamed for anything, since natural forces are the sole ultimate determinant of our actions.

I emotionally reject this conclusion, but I can find no flaw in the logic. Therefore, I really would be rather grateful if you could find one.

[Thought Criminal]

All of us act as a result of natural forces, and in fact, could not act at all if not for natural forces.

True.
All of us act as a result of natural forces, and in fact, could not act at all if not for natural forces, and therefore, none of us can be blamed for anything, since natural forces are the sole ultimate determinant of our actions.

I emotionally reject this conclusion, but I can find no flaw in the logic. Therefore, I really would be rather grateful if you could find one.

I believe I already have. Free will is a requirement for accountabilty. Any act that I do not do under my own free will is not my fault. If free will required freedom from causality, then it would be impossible, not only because we can't be free of causality but because being thus free would undermine our ability to have any will at all. So this cannot be what we mean by free will.

And, in fact, it's not. Having causes doesn't make my actions less voluntary. What does?

Look at the scope. Accountability is not defined in terms of events. We can't sue the mountain for dropping a boulder on our car. Rather, it is an ethical concept, defined in terms of moral agents, or in plain English, people. So my will is free so long as it's not unduly constrained by other people.

If you threaten to fire me if I don't have sex with you, then any sex act I agree to would not be of my free will. As such, it would constitute a form of rape. We would hold you accountable for what I did under duress. Likewise, if you kidnap my mother and tell me I have to rob a bank or you'll kill her, I am not acting of my own free will.

I suspect that you're always going to have trouble understanding this so long as I'm the one explaining it, so why don't you do yourself a favor and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

TC

[FinalEnigma]

All of us act as a result of natural forces, and in fact, could not act at all if not for natural forces.

True.
All of us act as a result of natural forces, and in fact, could not act at all if not for natural forces, and therefore, none of us can be blamed for anything, since natural forces are the sole ultimate determinant of our actions.

I emotionally reject this conclusion, but I can find no flaw in the logic. Therefore, I really would be rather grateful if you could find one.

I believe I already have. Free will is a requirement for accountabilty. Any act that I do not do under my own free will is not my fault. If free will required freedom from causality, then it would be impossible, not only because we can't be free of causality but because being thus free would undermine our ability to have any will at all. So this cannot be what we mean by free will.

TC

Sjoerd is coming from the same direction I was earlier, but I was... semi-incapacitated at the time and didn't continue the debate as I should have. what you are doing here is changing the definition of free will to make it possible. Me and sjeord are saying that with the definition of free will as it is, it isn't possible.

Free will:
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

If you truly have free will then you shouldn't be predictable. As it is I can control people by altering their circumstances. If you want a guy to take his jacket off, turn on the heater. If I turn it up high enough, you're gonna take off that jacket... unless there is something else imposed on you that requires you to leave the jacket on.

Very well. I am not a native English speaker...

Then I must commend you on your command of the language. May I ask what your first language is?

[Thought Criminal]

Sjoerd is coming from the same direction I was earlier, but I was... semi-incapacitated at the time and didn't continue the debate as I should have. what you are doing here is changing the definition of free will to make it possible. Me and sjeord are saying that with the definition of free will as it is, it isn't possible.

With all due respect, I am changing nothing. There are multiple definitions extant and we're discussing which ones are worth considering. I think we all agree that free-from-causality will is impossible and worthless, which makes me wonder why you would insist that this is the only kind you wish to discuss.

Free will:
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

If you truly have free will then you shouldn't be predictable. As it is I can control people by altering their circumstances. If you want a guy to take his jacket off, turn on the heater. If I turn it up high enough, you're gonna take off that jacket... unless there is something else imposed on you that requires you to leave the jacket on.

This definition is your own, but it does not match usage. In particular, free will must allow constraints in order to be free. If I will myself to fly straight to the moon but external circumstances (i.e. lack of magical powers) prevent my will from becoming reality, does this mean I lack free will or that I'm just expecting too much from it?

Likewise, if we could not be affected by other moral agents, then free will would actually lack a key freedom. In specific, it would lack the freedom to consider the suggestions of others and either accept or reject them.

Having said this, if you are compelled, not merely influenced, by an external agent then this is duress, which does indeed impair free will. It's the difference between "Could you lend me five bucks" and "Your money or your life!". The former is voluntary, the latter is not.

As for predictability, the alternative would be utter randomness, and that would be incompatible with will. Instead, free will would demand that we are predictable in some ways, but only some and then only to an extent. The guy in the heavy jacket may leave it on even when you turn the heat up. Why? Ask him, not me.

TC