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.

[FinalEnigma]

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.

oh, we are? I thought we were discussing whether free will existed or not, which depends on your definition. I just don't think your definition is valid.

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.

Because that seems to me to be what free will is. and yes, free will like that is obviously impossible and worthless

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.

This seems somewhat ridiculous. for free will to be free it must accept constraints?

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.

I just don't see how you differentiate influence from duress or compulsion. everything is compulsion. nobody has ever actually made a decision that was not ultimately determined by external forces


Your in the woods, alone and lost. you have nothing with you but the clothes on your back. You haven't had anything to eat for days and are on the route to death by starvation. Then you come across an apple tree. the apples are nice, big, juicy apples at the perfect ripeness. Are you going to eat some apples?
If you are being honest, Yes. the circumstances decided your action.

[Thought Criminal]

oh, we are? I thought we were discussing whether free will existed or not, which depends on your definition. I just don't think your definition is valid.

I've demonstrated clearly and repeatedly that the definition I endorse is valid. Your refusal to accept this is not an argument.

Because that seems to me to be what free will is. and yes, free will like that is obviously impossible and worthless

Looks like you just made my case for me.

This seems somewhat ridiculous. for free will to be free it must accept constraints?

If it were entirely unconstrained, it would be free but not will. I've also given the example of our inability to fly to the moon by force of will alone.

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.

I just don't see how you differentiate influence from duress or compulsion. everything is compulsion. nobody has ever actually made a decision that was not ultimately determined by external forces

The example I gave above demonstrates the difference. Decisions must be influenced by outside forces in order to be free, but undue influence impairs freedom.

Your in the woods, alone and lost. you have nothing with you but the clothes on your back. You haven't had anything to eat for days and are on the route to death by starvation. Then you come across an apple tree. the apples are nice, big, juicy apples at the perfect ripeness. Are you going to eat some apples?
If you are being honest, Yes. the circumstances decided your action.

Unless you think Mother Nature is a woman of a certain age, dressed mostly in leaves and holding a nasty grudge against you, none of this adds up to duress. Only an agent is capable of duress.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I've demonstrated clearly and repeatedly that the definition I endorse is valid. Your refusal to accept this is not an argument.

I think we have a disagreement on the topic of this thread. TC obviously considered only the title, "Free will is an illusion", and has shown that there are definitions of free will for which this is not the case.
However, the OP itself mentions no free will at all. If I interpret it correctly, the whole point of the OP is the question how people such as Osama Bin Laden can be blamed for their actions when these actions are completely determined by the natural laws of the universe. No one has challenged the "when", not Jester, not FinalEnigma, not TC and not myself.
So, I propose to drop all bickering about definitions of "free will" and "duress" and focus on the question:

How can people such as Osama Bin Laden be blamed for their actions when these actions are completely determined by the natural laws of the universe?

Final Enigma, thanks for your compliment on my English. My first language is Nederlands, which for some reason is called "Dutch" in the English language.

[Thought Criminal]

I've demonstrated clearly and repeatedly that the definition I endorse is valid. Your refusal to accept this is not an argument.

I think we have a disagreement on the topic of this thread. TC obviously considered only the title, "Free will is an illusion", and has shown that there are definitions of free will for which this is not the case.
However, the OP itself mentions no free will at all. If I interpret it correctly, the whole point of the OP is the question how people such as Osama Bin Laden can be blamed for their actions when these actions are completely determined by the natural laws of the universe. No one has challenged the "when", not Jester, not FinalEnigma, not TC and not myself.
So, I propose to drop all bickering about definitions of "free will" and "duress" and focus on the question:

How can people such as Osama Bin Laden be blamed for their actions when these actions are completely determined by the natural laws of the universe?

Final Enigma, thanks for your compliment on my English. My first language is Nederlands, which for some reason is called "Dutch" in the English language.

Asked and answered. We hold people accountable for the choices they make of their own free will. There is no natural law that forces people to become murderers.

TC

[Sjoerd]

Asked and answered. We hold people accountable for the choices they make of their own free will. There is no natural law that forces people to become murderers.

TC

Now you are contradicting yourself. Given all internal and external physical forces that acted on Osama Bin Laden, how could the outcome have been any different? How could he not have become a murderer?

[Thought Criminal]

Asked and answered. We hold people accountable for the choices they make of their own free will. There is no natural law that forces people to become murderers.

TC

Now you are contradicting yourself. Given all internal and external physical forces that acted on Osama Bin Laden, how could the outcome have been any different? How could he not have become a murderer?

Once again, you are claiming that causality impairs free will. This has been refuted enough times that I will only direct you to those refutations rather than repeating myself.

TC

[Sjoerd]

Asked and answered. We hold people accountable for the choices they make of their own free will. There is no natural law that forces people to become murderers.

TC

Now you are contradicting yourself. Given all internal and external physical forces that acted on Osama Bin Laden, how could the outcome have been any different? How could he not have become a murderer?

Once again, you are claiming that causality impairs free will. This has been refuted enough times that I will only direct you to those refutations rather than repeating myself.

TC

You can define free will one way or the other, whatever you wish. Can you not just answer the question?

[McCulloch]

How can people such as Osama Bin Laden be blamed for their actions when these actions are completely determined by the natural laws of the universe?

To my understanding, blame is a pointless exercise. I do not think that we should punish murderers because they deserve it. We should take action against murderers to promote and ensure a safe society, to prevent further criminal actions and to safeguard other humans. Osama bin Laden should not be necessarily blamed for his actions, but he should be dealt with severely because he is dangerous.

Final Enigma, thanks for your compliment on my English. My first language is Nederlands, which for some reason is called "Dutch" in the English language.

The English word Dutch is a corruption of Düütsch (Middelnederlands) or Deutsch (German) a word should be used to describe all Germanic languages, but in English only refers to Nederlands. Oddly, we call the people who call themselves Deutsch, German, derived from a Latin word of unknown origin.

[Sjoerd]

To my understanding, blame is a pointless exercise. I do not think that we should punish murderers because they deserve it. We should take action against murderers to promote and ensure a safe society, to prevent further criminal actions and to safeguard other humans. Osama bin Laden should not be necessarily blamed for his actions, but he should be dealt with severely because he is dangerous.

When I first thought about this some years ago, I finally arrived at that conclusion myself. I am still not sure if I like it, though. On one hand, it makes you to feel pity rather than anger, which is a good thing. On the other hand, it fails to satisfy some urge for justice or revenge. Finally, it somehow makes criminals less human, as if they were rabid dogs that need to be shot down, rather than responsible moral agents.

Final Enigma, thanks for your compliment on my English. My first language is Nederlands, which for some reason is called "Dutch" in the English language.

The English word Dutch is a corruption of Düütsch (Middelnederlands) or Deutsch (German) a word should be used to describe all Germanic languages, but in English only refers to Nederlands. Oddly, we call the people who call themselves Deutsch, German, derived from a Latin word of unknown origin.

Hehe... I know. The corresponding Dutch word is "Diets", but it is completely archaic. The word isn't Latin though... it is a Germanic word that means "folk" or "people". The ancient form is "theod"... It is part of the names of King Theoden of the Rohirrim in Lord of the Rings, and King Theoderic of the Ostrogoths. "Theoderic" still survives in Diederik/Dirk (Dutch), Dittrich (German) and Derek (English).

[Goat]

To my understanding, blame is a pointless exercise. I do not think that we should punish murderers because they deserve it. We should take action against murderers to promote and ensure a safe society, to prevent further criminal actions and to safeguard other humans. Osama bin Laden should not be necessarily blamed for his actions, but he should be dealt with severely because he is dangerous.

When I first thought about this some years ago, I finally arrived at that conclusion myself. I am still not sure if I like it, though. On one hand, it makes you to feel pity rather than anger, which is a good thing. On the other hand, it fails to satisfy some urge for justice or revenge. Finally, it somehow makes criminals less human, as if they were rabid dogs that need to be shot down, rather than responsible moral agents.

All of those are merely emotional responses. From a pragmatic viewpoint, it doesn't matter what rational you put behind the actions. The important part is that the safeguard of the rest of society is done. How this is accomplished might change how you emotionally deal with the issue, but the prinicple behind it is purely practical.