Well, if actions do not necessarilly trump the heart...then is the heart even something that you control? You say it's something deep down inside a person. It sounds to me like the goodness of a person's heart is dependent upon fortune rather than how a person acts. It sounds to me like the heart is intrinsically attached to a person. If so, should a person be judged for it if they cannot control it?

I don't think a person should be judged by inclinations. I think everyone has different gradient of evil vs good in their heart. It's not black & white - there isn't a group of evil people and a group of good people. We are spread across a spectrum of good vs evil. Some people are at the extremes of the spectrum, but most of us lie somewhere in the middle. We all have a bit of evil in us imo. What's important is how they control it imo. And the only way to control it, is by overcoming it with actions.

I agree with you, except for the conclusion. I bolded the claim, that 'we' are observers of what our brain does.

That brings us to the question: What is me? Is me my complete body? Is it my brain? Is it the 'software' that runs my brain? Or is me only some subroutines - let's call them consciousness. I personally tend to define myself in the area brain/software running in the brain. So my body is more a mech, that executes my commands. Obviously the mental state in me/in my brain is measurable first, before my body moves. So, I can agree to all what you say, and keep to the notion of the free will, as the brain is me.

I read you so, that you define 'me' as the consciousness. That's also valid. But even in that case it doesn't disprove free will. You may run on autopilot the most time, but you decided to do so. I clearly can decide to do some routine-stuff without thinking about it or concentrating on it although I could do it without concentration.

Damn, I was expecting a reply to my question... tonight we have cauliflower and broccoli for dinner, and I hate both equally.... I want to know how I should die xD

That's not really what I was trying to say though. A person could behave contrarily to his heart for a time so as to appear different than his nature, but that would be temporary cloaking. A person could also behave contrarily to his heart and have that mold him via side-effects (like is the case for undercover cops).

Yes, you actions can mold your heart, but in the end the deepest core of your heart will always stay the same. Think Darth Vader. So in essence, no, the heart is not something you can control. Rather it's your identity, your deepest inclinations and desires.

Nothing here I disagree with.

Yeah, you could say that. In which case evil would be external to the person, not inherent, basically something they can shake off. Not so in all cases imho.

^Just noticed this post thanks to your recent one.

That was not aimed at you, but rather Player1x3 :P

As for your cauliflower vs broccoli dilemma, I suspect something subconsciously will decide your final choice.

Which subsconscious thing? both taste awfully. The only difference is that one is green and the other is white, and in the are you racist topic I passed some online tests that Kasz posted and the result was that I'm not racist xD

On the other hand does that mean that if you had to choose between your mother or your father, you'll be able to do it? That sounds.... I have no words for it! (unless there is a legitimate reason for it, of course).

I'm pretty sure we can find someone that wouldn't be able to choose between his parents.

Or since we have some older people here, someone that couldn't choose between his kids.

If forced to decide who to save, letting the dice decide could also be considered the most profitable decision since you won't give one of them lesser value (in their eyes).

...Or maybe calling it the "least unprofitable" option would be better suited.

But you could have written:

 A kid goes to the store and is faced with two options: Buying some candy for at least 50 cent or a Coke for one dollar.

And now the question is:

What was your profit for choosing the first option?

I'd like to know because I want profits too.

I think the idea behind the "profit" thing is simply that your decisions are based on what you *think* is profitable. From there one would simply argue that even decisions with stupid outcomes were based on what were perceived as smart ideas.

But "profit" isn't even relevant. What is relevant is that some underlying principle was satisfied, meaning there was motive based on traits you had no say in being a part of your personality. For some it could be "profit" for others is it could be avoidance of pain, or maybe even pain itself (there are many altruistic religions that advocate taking on the pain of others). So for some people "profit" isn't the motivator as that wouldn't apply to altruistic people. But altruistic people are still governed by a preference for altruistic decisions, meaning their fate is still generally decided.

Not that I even believe in this argument, but I think this is what people are missing when they say cases where people don't "profit" prove the deterministic argument wrong.

The profit was to be able to buy candy the next day as well, which, to this kid, was a more valuable profit than having something with more taste once.

@robzo_ Indeed. I mainly use the word "profit" because I don't know a better suited word.