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.

[Beto]

Evidence? Uhm... Almost all ancient cultures believed in these beings and some people can feel or even see them. Hopefully, modern equipments will see them one day.

Actually, what modern equipment shows is that these people "usually" suffer from one form of schizophrenia or another. Oddly enough, to a Christian a vision of Ganesh is probably a symptom of schizophrenia, but a vision of Jesus is just gosh darn lucky.

[The_Spirit_of_Truth]

Actually, what modern equipment shows is that these people "usually" suffer from one form of schizophrenia or another. Oddly enough, to a Christian a vision of Ganesh is probably a symptom of schizophrenia, but a vision of Jesus is just gosh darn lucky.

Do you know that the schizophrenia is quite a normal thing? Look at our God and all the opposites that he created / rules. The part of the God wants opposite things than his other part but he as a whole is in a perfect harmony with all the contradictory thoughts that are in him. See this excerpt and please think about it:

Sirach 33:

[7] Why doth one day excel another, when as all the light of every day in the year is of the sun?
[8] By the knowledge of the Lord they were distinguished: and he altered seasons and feasts.
[9] Some of them hath he made high days, and hallowed them, and some of them hath he made ordinary days.
[10] And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created of earth:
[11] In much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and made their ways diverse.
[12] Some of them hath he blessed and exalted and some of them he sanctified, and set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned out of their places.
[13] As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best.
[14] Good is set against evil, and life against death: so is the godly against the sinner, and the sinner against the godly.
[15] So look upon all the works of the most High; and there are two and two, one against another.

[k-nug]

waffles, I happen to agree with the general premise of your theory. Garbage in, garbage out, as been said by a few friends. I happen to believe our consciousness is pretty much made up of our experiences, and what we become as adults is made up of what we learned as children.

[Sjoerd]

Evidence? Uhm... Almost all ancient cultures believed in these beings and some people can feel or even see them. Hopefully, modern equipments will see them one day. But I am afraid that I cannot give you that strong evidence like you would want it.

Modern equipment has accomplished just the opposite: electrical stimulation of a certain brain area causes people to see Jesus and other supernatural experiences.

To everyone:
If part of human behavior would be random, would you consider that free will? If a create a computer program whose output is dependent on a random number generator, would you say that the computer has free will? I would not. I would define "free will" as "my actions being caused by a part of me that is free of material causes", therefore "my actions being caused by something immaterial". Therefore, in my opinion, if you believe that humans are completely material, you cannot believe in free will. If you believe in an immaterial soul that has no influence on our daily actions, then you cannot believe in free will. If you believe in an immaterial mind that does influence our daily actions, then you can believe in free will.
But maybe I am wrong.

[Beto]

Evidence? Uhm... Almost all ancient cultures believed in these beings and some people can feel or even see them. Hopefully, modern equipments will see them one day. But I am afraid that I cannot give you that strong evidence like you would want it.

Modern equipment has accomplished just the opposite: electrical stimulation of a certain brain area causes people to see Jesus and other supernatural experiences.

I would say it causes people to see what they were indoctrinated to believe in. Do you have a link to that study?

[Sjoerd]

I would say it causes people to see what they were indoctrinated to believe in. Do you have a link to that study?

There you go. This is the original study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9347 ... d_RVDocSum

and this is a BBC science program on it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rain.shtml

[Thought Criminal]

To everyone:
If part of human behavior would be random, would you consider that free will? If a create a computer program whose output is dependent on a random number generator, would you say that the computer has free will? I would not. I would define "free will" as "my actions being caused by a part of me that is free of material causes", therefore "my actions being caused by something immaterial". Therefore, in my opinion, if you believe that humans are completely material, you cannot believe in free will. If you believe in an immaterial soul that has no influence on our daily actions, then you cannot believe in free will. If you believe in an immaterial mind that does influence our daily actions, then you can believe in free will.
But maybe I am wrong.

I would, of course, agree that the sort of free will you describe here does not exist. However, I don't think that free will should be taken to mean free from causality. Frankly, it's not clear to me how that would even be desirable, much less possible. As you point out, randomness is not freedom.

I suggest that there is a variety of free will that is worth having and is real. Namely, free will in the sense of being free to make your own decisions without external control. This sort of free will is not only compatible with causality but positively requires it.

A guy named Daniel Dennett has written more extensively about this topic, taking the compatibilistic stance that I summarize above. I'd recommend him if you're into that sort of thing.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I suggest that there is a variety of free will that is worth having and is real. Namely, free will in the sense of being free to make your own decisions without external control. This sort of free will is not only compatible with causality but positively requires it.

A guy named Daniel Dennett has written more extensively about this topic, taking the compatibilistic stance that I summarize above. I'd recommend him if you're into that sort of thing.

TC

Yes, I have read Consciousness Explained and I rather like his theory. To return the question: are you familiar with the two definitions of freedom by Isaiah Berlin (preceded by Nietzsche)? The free will that you describe would perfectly fit the concept of negative freedom (free from ... instead of free to ... ). I would say that this kind of free will requires more than causality: it requires that the causes of decision making are beyond external control, too. Therefore these causes must be either (partially) random, or they must be chaotic (as in Chaos theory) so that minuscule uncertainties about the causal factors get amplified, defeating any prediction. Fortunately, human biology is extremely chaotic. The signal of a single photon leads to hundreds of cAMP molecules leading to thousands of ion channels being activated, causing a measurable hyperpolarization of the outer cell membrane. For hearing, the minimal signal is about ten molecules of air hitting your tympanum. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle forbids that evil doctors ever know or control such subtle signals. Therefore, they cannot control our decisions, and we have (negatively) free will.

[Thought Criminal]

Yes, I have read Consciousness Explained and I rather like his theory. To return the question: are you familiar with the two definitions of freedom by Isaiah Berlin (preceded by Nietzsche)? The free will that you describe would perfectly fit the concept of negative freedom (free from ... instead of free to ... ). I would say that this kind of free will requires more than causality: it requires that the causes of decision making are beyond external control, too. Therefore these causes must be either (partially) random, or they must be chaotic (as in Chaos theory) so that minuscule uncertainties about the causal factors get amplified, defeating any prediction. Fortunately, human biology is extremely chaotic. The signal of a single photon leads to hundreds of cAMP molecules leading to thousands of ion channels being activated, causing a measurable hyperpolarization of the outer cell membrane. For hearing, the minimal signal is about ten molecules of air hitting your tympanum. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle forbids that evil doctors ever know or control such subtle signals. Therefore, they cannot control our decisions, and we have (negatively) free will.

I'd suggest Freedom Evolves or even his old monograph, Elbow Room, for his specific views on compatibilism. Other than that, I'd agree that unpredictability suffices to prevent us from being trivially manipulated.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I'd suggest Freedom Evolves or even his old monograph, Elbow Room, for his specific views on compatibilism. Other than that, I'd agree that unpredictability suffices to prevent us from being trivially manipulated.

TC

Mind you, there are plenty of ways of being non-trivially manipulated. I don't think it is possible with present scientific knowledge, but watch/read Clockwork Orange for a really scary example of Pavlov conditioning.