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.

[Thought Criminal]

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.

That works better with dogs than people.

TC

[Play_Dough]

Think about it. Assuming our brains are computers, they simply take in input and provide output based off of that input.

Your argument is flawed because it does not discuss the nature of 'consciousness'.
Metaphysically speaking it is the 'consciousness' that 'watches' the conclusions that 'our brains' (an organ) arrive at.
Your argument presumes that 'consciousness' can not cause the 'brain' (?) to reinterpret its findings.

The entire philosophical argument about 'free will' was the philosophical response to an 'all powerful God' who was/is the cause of everthing that happens.... therefore.... we then have no 'free will'.

Logically speaking --- it 'seems apparent' that we have and do express 'free will' however, if pressed, we cannot logically conclude that our seeming choices were not pre-determined.

To conclude that we have no 'free will' is illogical and (possibly) emotional. To conclude that we DO have free will is reasonable but not, ultimately, logical.

A third possibility exists.... and that is that our natural condition is to be possessed of free will until we do something to diminish it (natural law). In much the way that we can extinguish our 'life' perhaps that we can extinguish (or diminish) our 'free will' also.

Repeat: Your conclusion does not discuss 'consciousness'. Science is uncertain about the origins of consciousness.
'Brain' and 'consciousness' may NOT be synonymous.

Anyhow, your 'argument' (as posted) commits the logical fallacy of 'Begging the question'. You presume that your position is correct rather than demonstrate it.

For example (quote) " 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."

That is all emotional.... you are, in effect ,saying that free will is an illusion because we cannot, in reality, control our actions'.

You are begging the question to death. You are saying that 'we have no free will because we have no free will'.

You must supply a better argument. A 'hypothesis' is a nice place to start.

The free will issue cannot be settled to finality. But the balance of opinion is heavily in favor of the existence of free will.

.

[Sjoerd]

Your argument is flawed because it does not discuss the nature of 'consciousness'.
Metaphysically speaking it is the 'consciousness' that 'watches' the conclusions that 'our brains' (an organ) arrive at.
Your argument presumes that 'consciousness' can not cause the 'brain' (?) to reinterpret its findings.

So let's discuss consciousness then. As far as I can see, there are three possibilities for the nature of consciousness:

- Consciousness is nothing but an emergent property of the brain, and hence, ultimately material. This is the stance taken by Dennett and other naturalists. If this is true, assuming that the physicochemical processes in our brain are no less deterministic than those outside our brain, there is no reason to attribute free will to humans and deny it to say, potted plants. If will itself is emergent from the brain, it is not free, except in the negative-freedom definition mentioned by Thought Criminal. In that sense, potted plants have free will too, since we are unable to control or predict them completely.

- Consciousness is immaterial but passive. This is more or less the view held by Schopenhauer. In his philosophy, will rules supreme, but that will is not free at all, it is completely tied to our desires. The consciousness merely undergoes the will, it is not the source of it. The source of the will lies in the material world, in our brain.

- Consciousness is immaterial and actively influencing our actions. This is the view held by Descartes and other dualists. Dualism is not very much favored these days, since you need to establish some interaction point between the material and the immaterial world. At this interaction point, matter would obey mind, a process that is, to put it mildly, not widely accepted in science.

So, consciousness has now been addressed.

Logically speaking --- it 'seems apparent' that we have and do express 'free will' however, if pressed, we cannot logically conclude that our seeming choices were not pre-determined.

Logically speaking, Waffles' assumption stands in case of possibility (1) and (2), unless my argumentation is flawed, in that case please point out the error. If you want to argue for free will under possibility (3), be my guest, but please come up with a plausible mechanism of how your nerve cells are influenced by your mind. If I overlooked a possibility for the nature of consciousness, please list it and argue why it can lead to free will.

To conclude that we have no 'free will' is illogical and (possibly) emotional. To conclude that we DO have free will is reasonable but not, ultimately, logical.

Logically speaking, if you cannot reject Waffles' assumption in one of the ways that I outlined above, the only logical conclusion for you is to conclude that we have no free will (other than in a negative-freedom sense). To conclude otherwise would be unreasonable and illogical and (possibly) emotional.

[Thought Criminal]

- Consciousness is nothing but an emergent property of the brain, and hence, ultimately material. This is the stance taken by Dennett and other naturalists. If this is true, assuming that the physicochemical processes in our brain are no less deterministic than those outside our brain, there is no reason to attribute free will to humans and deny it to say, potted plants. If will itself is emergent from the brain, it is not free, except in the negative-freedom definition mentioned by Thought Criminal. In that sense, potted plants have free will too, since we are unable to control or predict them completely.

For the record, this is precisely the definition of free will that Dennett endorses.

- Consciousness is immaterial but passive. This is more or less the view held by Schopenhauer. In his philosophy, will rules supreme, but that will is not free at all, it is completely tied to our desires. The consciousness merely undergoes the will, it is not the source of it. The source of the will lies in the material world, in our brain.

This looks like epiphenomenalism.

- Consciousness is immaterial and actively influencing our actions. This is the view held by Descartes and other dualists. Dualism is not very much favored these days, since you need to establish some interaction point between the material and the immaterial world. At this interaction point, matter would obey mind, a process that is, to put it mildly, not widely accepted in science.

This has been refuted rather soundly, but it won't go away! Dennett is well known for attacking Cartesian materialism, the persistent ghost of the dualistic silliness.

So, consciousness has now been addressed.

Or even explained.

Logically speaking, Waffles' assumption stands in case of possibility (1) and (2), unless my argumentation is flawed, in that case please point out the error. If you want to argue for free will under possibility (3), be my guest, but please come up with a plausible mechanism of how your nerve cells are influenced by your mind. If I overlooked a possibility for the nature of consciousness, please list it and argue why it can lead to free will.

His argument is fatally flawed because it assume incompatibilism.

Logically speaking, if you cannot reject Waffles' assumption in one of the ways that I outlined above, the only logical conclusion for you is to conclude that we have no free will (other than in a negative-freedom sense). To conclude otherwise would be unreasonable and illogical and (possibly) emotional.

I agree that we have no free-from-causality will. Then again, "freedom" from causality impairs the ability to have will at all, so this is not a desirable thing.

TC

[Sjoerd]

For the record, this is precisely the definition of free will that Dennett endorses.

...

His argument is fatally flawed because it assume incompatibilism.

...

I agree that we have no free-from-causality will. Then again, "freedom" from causality impairs the ability to have will at all, so this is not a desirable thing.

I agree with your points, however let's stay on topic. You can redefine free will to anything you like, but the most important kind is the "free will" that makes you responsible for your own actions, i.e. the "free will" of ethics, morality and law.

Potted plants don't have this kind of free will, you can't sue a potted plant or disapprove of its morality.

If this kind of free will does not really exist, we might need a serious overhaul of our current ethics, morality and law. There must be some people on this forum who oppose this, yes? Let's hear some solid argument from them.

[Thought Criminal]

I agree with your points, however let's stay on topic. You can redefine free will to anything you like, but the most important kind is the "free will" that makes you responsible for your own actions, i.e. the "free will" of ethics, morality and law.

I don't think Dennett is redefining the term so much as clarifying which of the possible definitions is meaningful. As it turns out, the one he endorses is precisely the one that's relevant to ethics, as we do not hold people accountable for what they do under duress, only when they act of their own free will.

Potted plants don't have this kind of free will, you can't sue a potted plant or disapprove of its morality.

I'd suggest plants have more trouble generating will than freedom.

If this kind of free will does not really exist, we might need a serious overhaul of our current ethics, morality and law. There must be some people on this forum who oppose this, yes? Let's hear some solid argument from them.

I don't think there are. Rather, what I've been seeing are people who attack various attributes that are necessary for daily life with the goal of replacing them with their religious equivalents.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I don't think Dennett is redefining the term so much as clarifying which of the possible definitions is meaningful. As it turns out, the one he endorses is precisely the one that's relevant to ethics, as we do not hold people accountable for what they do under duress, only when they act of their own free will.

Please enlighten me. Determinism means that we are constantly under duress from the laws of physics, right? How can we then be accountable? How can we blame anyone for anything?

Rather, what I've been seeing are people who attack various attributes that are necessary for daily life with the goal of replacing them with their religious equivalents.

What, do you mean water and bread and air? Other humans? Or do you mean ideas? While I agree that ideas in general are necessary for daily life, any idea in particular can be replaced without general harm.

[McCulloch]

Please enlighten me. Determinism means that we are constantly under duress from the laws of physics, right? How can we then be accountable? How can we blame anyone for anything?

What positive good comes from blame?

[Thought Criminal]

Please enlighten me. Determinism means that we are constantly under duress from the laws of physics, right? How can we then be accountable? How can we blame anyone for anything?

What positive good comes from blame?

Quite a bit, actually. In order to gain rights, you must agree to be bound by the corresponding obligations. If we can hold you accountable for your actions, then we can grant you these rights. Otherwise, we need to put you under the supervision for someone who we can hold accountable, who acts as your guardian, jailor or the equivalent.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

I don't think Dennett is redefining the term so much as clarifying which of the possible definitions is meaningful. As it turns out, the one he endorses is precisely the one that's relevant to ethics, as we do not hold people accountable for what they do under duress, only when they act of their own free will.

Please enlighten me. Determinism means that we are constantly under duress from the laws of physics, right? How can we then be accountable? How can we blame anyone for anything?

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.

Rather, what I've been seeing are people who attack various attributes that are necessary for daily life with the goal of replacing them with their religious equivalents.

What, do you mean water and bread and air? Other humans? Or do you mean ideas? While I agree that ideas in general are necessary for daily life, any idea in particular can be replaced without general harm.

I mean philosophical concepts that, if invalid, would remove the underpinnings of our daily lives. If, for example, life were meaningless, morality didn't exist and free will was a fiction, we would be philosophically doomed.

The harm is that legitimate ideas would be replaced with religiously based ones, complete with all their baggage. For example, we could have morality, but only at the cost of signing up for sins and divine law.

TC