Eise

I think the correct way to interpret this as free will, is that you could hit your hand with a hammer, if you wanted to. Obviously, you know yourself good enough that you would never want it, so you also can be pretty sure you will never do it. Full ack!

Moslims, Hinduists, Jews, etc would not agree with that. The bible is a bundle of different writings by many different people, and it was decided by humans which writings it would contain. So it is a collection of subjective impressions by many different people. It definitely is not 'THE Word of God'. And the bible says that the Apocalypse was expected during Jesus' lifetime, or shortly after.

It is not philosophy that decides that. It are lawyers and judges when there was coercion involved, and psychiatrists/psychologists if a defendant turns out to miss the capabilities necessary for evaluating the consequences of his deeds. In the latter case, if the defendant still poses a danger for society, he could be turned in into a psychiatric clinic, in the hope he can be treated. The role of the philosophers is just to point out, that free will comes in different degrees. At least in Europe that is daily practice in judicial cases.

Yes. It is the eradication of all evil on earth by God, reestablishing his kingdom on earth. According to Jesus it had to occur soon, maybe even during his lifetime, but surely very soon. Church members of Paulus were greatly worried about the fact that some of their companions had died, even before the last day. So the kingdom of Heaven should have been in place here on earth for already nearly 2000 years according to the bible. So the bible is wrong.

Where I do not quite agree with your formulation (chemistry?), I do agree with your overall position here. We should do what is best for society. Just to extend: not just Scandinavian countries, but two other countries I know quite well, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Finding the best possible way to integrate criminal offenders, in every individual case, should be our motivation, not the urge for revenge. That may include punishment, but we should always be open for better ways top cope with them. Envy the US sentencing policy??? The Western country with the highest prisoner percentage compared with the number of inhabitants. Is there less criminality in the US than in Europe? And you know that the 'high school for criminals' is jail, don't you? Exactly.

Very clever! You wouldn't have some positive concept? Something like instead of 'unlucky' as the opposite of 'lucky', describing it as 'sad'? E.g. 'voluntary'? I wholeheartedly agree here. But I think the compatibilist concept of free will exactly gives the basis for deciding for punishment or rehabilitation, or both. Sure. But it is not just subjective. We can at least try, as a society, to find agreements.

You can decide to do your utterly best to pass an exam. That can be an example of free will. But if you succeed, is another thing. Gilbert Ryle gave another simple example of this kind of category error: Say an athlete runs 100m in 8 seconds, and with such a fabulous time he wins the run. But he did not do two things: running so fast and also win. They are different kinds of descriptions of the same event. To extend this idea: the same holds for free will. Applying concepts like free will, and its companions, intentions, believes and actions at the neurological level is also an category mistake.

I could give iNow's and StringJunky's answer in my own words. What would be the difference? And which bald claim? That your question implies a huge category error?

That is true. That is the reason that I take 'usefulness' as criterion for a good definition of free will. How would you call then the opposite of a coerced action?

I did. By agreeing with the quotes I gave of iNow and StringJunky.

I did not react, because it contains such a blatant category mistake, that the answer should be obvious. Both StringJunky and iNow gave in essence the correct reactions: I have nothing to add to this, accept maybe a clarification of how category mistakes can lead our thinking into erroneous thinking. From Wikipedia: That was in 1949. One does not find the idea of a category mistake in the works of Plato and Aristotle. Maybe there is at least some progress in philosophy?

Well, in criminal cases, the difference is important. If somebody is convicted or not, is among many other aspects, dependent on the evaluation if somebody acted from his own free will. Questions like 'was he coerced?' or 'was he able to see that his action was against the law?' How would you make the difference? Me too. E.g. the dichotomy between determinism and free will. Compatibilism removes the dichotomy. Exactly. Then why not discuss the different definitions of free will? See where the definitions make a difference, and which one makes most sense. You are defining free will, and as by defining what a unicorn is, let it immediately follow by 'and it does not exist'. I've done no such thing. Indirectly, yes. You define 'free will' as libertarian free will, and then, as said just above, you deny its existence (I deny it too). But your followup is that you stick to this definition as the only correct one, instead of looking at the other possible, more useful, definitions.

Well, that explains the confusion.

Nope. I have no idea of why he referred to Aristotle. Given that he talks about vacuum, I suppose he refers to Aristotle's ideas about it: namely, that a real vacuum does not exist. According to A, objects move with a velocity, proportional to the 'impetus' divided by the density of the medium it moves through. As the density of the vacuum is zero, the velocity would go to infinity. That was absurd according to A, so the vacuum does not exist. But I think physics has made a little progress since A's days...

Why this denigration of philosophy, even after I repeatedly corrected you? You cited Plato (the ancient Greek philosopher...), you cited Einstein, giving the impression that he thought philosophy is useless, which is not the case, etc. I discovered no change in your position, or arguments against mine. Therefore my 'snipiness'. Well, that is really confusing, calling SEP 'Plato'. So I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but only if I really misunderstood you.

He said a lot about a lot of things so not until you tell us more specifically, no. It is of vital importance to know what Aristotle said, if you want to understand modern physics... No?

I think they are. No. You believe they are. For the record, not from me. But somebody else already compensated you . +1 is too much, for somebody who doesn't want to engage in a philosophical discussion about a philosophical topic in the philosophy forum. I think making the same step again and again is the better metaphor. In my opinion, the problem is that people stick to some out-of-date ideological meaning of 'free will', that is not rooted in our daily use of the concept of free will. Of course, I fully accept your experience of free will. But obviously, instead of trying to reflect on this experience, people take, unreflected, some metaphysical, or theological meaning of the idea of free will. In your case, it leads to a (partial) denial of determinism (you say the future is essentially open, don't you?). In @iNow's case it leads to a complete denial of free will. The idea you have in common is that determinism and free will are contradictory, so one of them has to go.

A concept of "freedom" that does not apply: in your conception of "freedom" nothing is free, and so it is a useless category. So when somebody praises your wood works (I do), you react "Nothing to praise, I blindly followed the commands of my body. And if my body commands me to kill you, I would do it, I could not do otherwise, I have no say in what I do. Do not blame me, it was my body". Don't you see that such a concept of free will is useless? That it has nothing to do with the daily use of the idea of free will? I did not realise that earth's climate has intentions and knowledge, and acts according them. I do not understand why you would like to stick to an old-fashioned and useless metaphysical conception, deny its existence (this is at least the part I can agree with), and then think you have denied every (including more useful!) other possible conceptions of what we mean when we say that we did something of our own free will.

Is the Aristotle method of the four elements any use in sending space probes to Mars? @studiot: why are you still asking such stupid questions? Did you pick up anything I wrote about philosophy in this (and other) threads?

False dichotomy. When you know that there are many philosophers who are compatibilists, then you should know that determinism and freedom of the will are not a priori contradictory. But one should not take a useless definition, that in the questions in which free will or not play an important role, does not help at all: things like blaming, praising, guilt, punishment etc. Sticking to an old-fashioned definition, based on metaphysical assumptions, coming forth from a Christian background, and is not coherent, just makes no sense.

Ohm's law for a capacitor??? Are you really designing microprocessors? Not my topic, but capacitors build up voltage until it is the same as the voltage in the circuit. Then it behaves just like a insulator, so the current stops (unless you overload it...) As the capacities you mention, the 4.7 μF is slightly bigger, so it would take a tiny bit longer before the current ceases.

I found your reaction in this thread: I agree, but I am wondering why you do not apply the same way of thinking in how you see free will. If I would use the same argumentation scheme as you do with free will, you should have said "Neurons cannot do analysis. the brain is made of neurons. Conclusion we cannot do analysis". 'Free will' only makes sense when they form mental phenomena like intentions, believes, decisions, and actions. As we are able to do analysis, we have these mental phenomena, arising from the complex connections between neurons. Defining 'free will' in terms of these mental phenomena makes sense. Defining in terms of neurons doesn't.

Is a wave function a physical object, that can collapse? I like your description, except this 'split photon'. Photons can't be split. And just imagine how the two half photons find together after the split, carefully avoiding the 'dark zones' on the detection screen...

No philosophy here. Neither science. Just a list of crackpot ideas, completely detached from reality and the discussion in this thread.

Can be: I am not a native English speaker. But in philosophical discussions, 'coercion' is the most used word. Do not use rhetorical questions in philosophical discussions, except when it is perfectly clear that it was meant as such. Some are definitely better than others. Reread my definition: Often we cannot. And as my intentions can be inconsistent (see my reaction to Giordief), and I may not be sure about what I really believe in, so no, it often will not be the case that I can act in such a way that all of my intention and believes are fulfilled. But once I made decision, then it can becomes quite clear: can I act according my decision, or does somebody intentionally block my action?