According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[DBT]

If will is free, an act of will should be able to change whatever is changeable. Sadly, nothing within a deterministic system is able to altered through an act of will. As will, mind, thought and action (like everything else) is set by how the system must necessarily evolve (being deterministic), will does not have special exemption, and will cannot be free.

 

[pood]

So many names being slung around! Einstein! Lincoln! Tolstoy! Popper! The list goes on!

What is this, an unending appeal to authority?

I don’t care what any of these worthies said,

Pre-determined is NOT the same as determined.

I think the greatest painting of the 20th century is Guernica. To suggest it was pre-determined by the Big Bang is an absurdity. How could the Big Bang paint Guernica?

Yes, the painting was determined — by Picasso.

 

[pood]

Wrong: Given antecedents x, y, and z, I will necessarily choose A.

Right: Necessarily, given antecedents x, y, and z, and I will (but not must!) choose A.

The former is a modal fallacy.

Given a certain set of antecedents I will choose something based on those antecedents. Given different antecedents, I might choose something else.

So?

 

[Jarhyn]

Wrong: Given antecedents x, y, and z, I will necessarily choose A.

Right: Necessarily, given antecedents x, y, and z, and I will (but not must!) choose A.

The former is a modal fallacy.

Given a certain set of antecedents I will choose something based on those antecedents. Given different antecedents, I might choose something else.

So?

In fact, the given-ness of X, Y, and Z, and thus the admission that they could be not-given unto some arbitrary "I", is exactly why A is NOT metaphysically 'necessary' to the set of arbitrary "I" objects.

 

[pood]

Yesterday I skipped dinner, so today I am having a big breakfast.

Or, yesterday I had a big dinner, so this morning I am skipping breakfast.

And? What is the big metaphysical problem here?

 

[pood]

I am trying to imagine how Picasso was somehow “forced” or “compelled” by the Big Bang to paint Guernica the way he did. What if he resisted? Would causal determinism require that he paint the bull’s head with the eyes basically both on the same side, one eye below the horns and the other below one ear. No!” Picasso cries, as causal determinism forces his hand,

 

[Jarhyn]

I am trying to imagine how Picasso was somehow “forced” or “compelled” by the Big Bang to paint Guernica the way he did. What if he resisted? Would causal determinism require that he paint the bull’s head with the eyes basically both on the same side, one eye below the horns and the other below one ear. No!” Picasso cries, as causal determinism forces his hand,

I do have to admit, actually getting to meet Bruce online has been fun; actually accessing those who publish the articles that I argue about from my... I would say "armchair" but I'm in a bike at the moment...

Well, it actually feels good to understand that the authorities quoted at me really are making those same fundamental mistakes as the folks who quote them, and their authority has been just as hollow as I first suspected.

It's strange, because I actually had this conversation about the difference between libertarian free will and compatibilist free will with my own birth father just a few days ago.

He, like so many others, believed that his fundamental power to have freedom at all instantly accords him the power to be the person he wishes he was.

It took some 5 hours of explaining to him that it is NOT that simple: that change of the sort that he claims he is capable of comes with the VERY steep price of the enduring pain and guilt that is the basic driver of human learning and growth; that there is physically no way to "change" for him that does not involve pain.

He seemed entirely intractable, even indignant, that he was being asked to make himself suffer, and deeply questioned the necessity of it. He made out the whole time as if he had done nothing wrong, when he has spent his whole life deferring the guilt that actually makes people better.

Having freedoms based on your particle type does not mean those freedoms are actualized. It takes hard work, and I can absolutely understand why people would just pretend they can change instantly and satisfyingly, or that they can't change at all, rather than to accept the terrifying reality that you could actually be the villain of your story, and that reform means change means PAIN and HURTING.

Freedom is, as much, the power to say "that will hurt, and I will do it anyway because 'Out is Through'."

Thats what the compatibilist asks of you: to hurt and suffer forever because life is pain and as a wise person once said: "anyone who says different is trying to sell you something".

 

[Politesse]

It's strange, for me as a social scientist, how the same person who readily agrees to our conclusions, maybe even uses anthropological theories as scaffolding or justification for their own beliefs and arguments, will then turn around and question the basic assumption of the discipline that human behavior is predictable by the same measures that govern all natural study.

 

[DBT]

I am trying to imagine how Picasso was somehow “forced” or “compelled” by the Big Bang to paint Guernica the way he did. What if he resisted? Would causal determinism require that he paint the bull’s head with the eyes basically both on the same side, one eye below the horns and the other below one ear. No!” Picasso cries, as causal determinism forces his hand,

Determinism is not force. Nobody is forced to act against their will. Just that will, thought, action, mental capacity, skill, etc - if the world is deterministic as compatibilists define it to be - are shaped and formed by processes that precede the formation of will and are not subject to our will or wish.

I'm sure that there are some who would wish to paint like Picasso, be a genius, or play tennis like a Pro, but unfortunately don't have the inherent ability.

We can act according to our will, and if so determined, must act according to our will....but our will was formed even before we became conscious of it.

 

[DBT]

Wrong: Given antecedents x, y, and z, I will necessarily choose A.

Right: Necessarily, given antecedents x, y, and z, and I will (but not must!) choose A.

The former is a modal fallacy.

Given a certain set of antecedents I will choose something based on those antecedents. Given different antecedents, I might choose something else.

So?

Given the terms of the Compatibilist definition of determinism, it is the antecedents that determine the course of all events within the system as it evolves from past to present and future states without deviation.

That is how determinism is defined. Just as you supported constant conjunction, where event A is always followed by event B.

 

[Jarhyn]

antecedents that determine the course of all events within the system as it evolves from past to present and future states without deviation.

... *So long as the antecedents were what they were*

The antecedents are different elsewhere in every other finite patch of the same I finite field.

Clearly there is deviation *across the initial conditions*, already.

That's enough deviation to lend sense to "alternatives".

 

[pood]

I am trying to imagine how Picasso was somehow “forced” or “compelled” by the Big Bang to paint Guernica the way he did. What if he resisted? Would causal determinism require that he paint the bull’s head with the eyes basically both on the same side, one eye below the horns and the other below one ear. No!” Picasso cries, as causal determinism forces his hand,

Determinism is not force. Nobody is forced to act against their will.

Exactly. So we have free will.

 

[pood]

So our will is shaped by antecedents. So what? What else is it supposed to be shaped by? What is the big controversy?

 

[steve_bank]

It's strange, for me as a social scientist, how the same person who readily agrees to our conclusions, maybe even uses anthropological theories as scaffolding or justification for their own beliefs and arguments, will then turn around and question the basic assumption of the discipline that human behavior is predictable by the same measures that govern all natural study.

If I read you right I call that critical thinking. Question the basis of your own reasoning and the reasoning of others you use.

It helps in keeping from falling into a rigid kind of thinking.

Human reasoning, problem solving and drawing conclusions do not always fit into a neat and tidy Aristotelian linear logic.

A famous quote about genius and madness is, "There is no great genius without some touch of madness," which is attributed to Aristotle. Other variations include Seneca's saying, "There is no genius without a touch of madness", and Marilyn Monroe's line, "Madness is genius".

Don't know where I heard this.

'Genius is the abliity to hold two opposites as true at the same time'

I was a professional problem solver and conclusion finder, s to speak.

Social science is called a soft science compared to a hard science line physics.

 

[steve_bank]

Colloquially free will to people means the freedom to choose between a Ford or Toyota as one pleases. Self volition. I can get in my car and drive anywhere for any reason when I feel like it.

You might say in a practical and political sense we have free will. But we are all conditioned from birth.

If you choose a Ford instead of a Toyota you are exercising uncoerced free will.

But why you choose a Ford is complicated. Advertising aka propaganda for example. As an adult you are subject to years of adverting by auto companies starting when you started watching TV as a kid..

Nothing profound. Marketing uses psychology and sociology to figure out how to subconsciously affect choice. It is why businesses are obsessed with massive amounts of personal net data.

Simple word association.

If I say cola soda the odds are you will think Pepsi or Cokee even if you do not drink soda.

I do not think free will exists as a kind of disembodied unconditioned mind.

We all grow up with the idea that murder is wrong. When somehow decides to and plans murder is that free will?

Is it free will when a kid or adult who immersed in violent video games and movies shoots somebody?

Rather than free will and determinism as abstractions how does it play out in reality. Concrete examples.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Mathematics and Metaphysics are not one in the same, and your assertion that they are the same does not make them so

Mathematics is the mechanics about physics.

Determinism is a concept under mathematics.

You have attempted to define determinism as what is really radical fatalism and personally, I won't really abide it.

You are writing about Newtonian Determinism, which does fall within the province of physics, which is driven by mathematics. No dispute there.
Determinism (or Causal Determinism) also is the name given to a metaphysical (or philosophical) paradigm (or concept) that is not driven by math or physics, and which is a thought experiment that predates Newton and earlier physicists who may have articulated similar formulations.

I am not attempting to define the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism (or Causal Determinism) in any manner other than it is articulated by philosophers (including philosophers of science) -- as my quotation of Karl Popper demonstrates.

As far as you lack of willingness to abide the fact that the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism (as contrasted with Newtonian Determinism) produces consequences that you characterize as "radical fatalism" is exactly the point I have been making. Once one accepts that consequence of the truth of the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism, it follows that Free Will cannot exist within that paradigm, and Compatibilism is, therefore, illogical within that paradigm. Again, to quote William James, who also was writing about the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism, and not Newtonian physics:

“The issue . . . is a perfectly sharp one, which no eulogistic terminology can smear over or wipe out. The truth must lie with one side or the other, and its lying with one side makes the other false.”

If you wish to spread this claim about radical fatalism, and that the universe is radically fatalistic, be my guest, but please quit lying and pretending this has anything to do with any concept "determinism" that can be expressed in some rigorous way.

I have not asserted that the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism (or Causal Determinism) truly, entirely, and perfectly describes the actual state of the universe, and I defy you to quote my saying so. Rather, as stated above (and elsewhere), I am just exploring the logical consequences of the truth of the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism (or Causal Determinism) in order to test the validity of the assertion of Compatibilism (which also is a metaphysical paradigm) that some form of Free Will can exist in a universe that is truly, entirely, and perfectly deterministic.

I do happen to believe that the universe is truly, entirely, and perfectly deterministic, but that is neither here nor there for purposes of testing the validity of Compatibilism. Again, I do not claim my belief to accurately describe the state of the universe. Like any belief about the ultimate nature of the universe, there is no way to prove or falsify the belief, which can be held only on faith (unless and until it is no longer held). What I cannot respect is any claim by anyone of certainty about the ultimate nature of the universe, which is beyond the abilities of human beings to know on account of the combined limitations of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems, the observer effect, and other human and inherent limitations of empirical observation, which acknowledge the theoretical impossibility of obtaining a certain, complete, and precise understanding of the universe — at least from within the universe.

Even at a more mundane level, I believe many things to be true that I lack sufficient evidence to know to be true. I am confident that the same is true of you and everyone else. When you take a drink of tea, you do so under the belief that it is not poisoned. It may be poisoned, in which case your belief will not only fail to correlate with reality, but you will become sick or even die. If your belief is correct, there will be no such consequence (unless, perhaps, you are allergic to tea). Either way, the fact of your belief, including the strength of your conviction, does not alter the fact of the tea being poisoned or not poisoned -- at least not in a universe in which having a belief does not cause the thing that is believed to become a reality.

If you cannot express your "metaphysics" as math, it has no value for me or anyone else, it's just so much PFFFT.

If your willingness to consider something to be of value is limited to the issue of whether it can be expressed as math, I feel sad for you. That sounds like the way a computer operates. Long before Albert Einstein expressed the Theory of Relativity in mathematical terms, he theorized and philosophized that the universe worked that way. Philosophy (which includes logic) also is a valuable tool for testing the validity (but not the truth) of assertions and arguments.

Notably, Albert Einstein also believed that "“Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions.”



That is the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism, which cannot be proved or falsified -- not by math or otherwise. Instead, it must be accepted or rejected on faith, with respect to which Thomas Aquinas famously wrote: "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without it, no explanation is possible."

If you wish to dismiss that as PFFFT, that is your prerogative, but it is extremely disrespectful.

Also, if you truly believe my post is PFFFT, you will not reply -- at least not if you have Free Will. I know I am done with this discourse -- either because I am compelled to be done or because I choose to be so if I have Free Will. Stay Well.

 

[steve_bank]

Mathematical and in physical systems 'deterministic' simply means for example if you have three variables given any two the third is completely defined.

speed = distance/time. Given speed and distance time is deterministically defined.

The other broad category is probabilistic.

Not the same meaning as philosophical determinism which has multiple defintions.

Bsiv, as things go on the forum the debate here is pretty tame. Don't start crying foul.

 

[Jarhyn]

Determinism (or Causal Determinism) also is the name given to a metaphysical (or philosophical) paradigm

And I will repeat, I reject any attempt that you make to claim that philosophy that cannot be expressed in the language of math via logic based on observed structures and sets and so forth is in any way more than so much "PFFFT".

You can say "this green is very rocket today" too, and say that this is philosophy but that does not make it so.

I will, in fact, demand that you actually express what you mean, or to admit that you don't really mean anything, other than you want it to make sense.

I am not attempting to define the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism (or Causal Determinism) in any manner other than it is articulated by philosophers (including philosophers of science) -- as my quotation of Karl Popper demonstrates.

All you did is manage to argue you are not alone in trying to express a contradiction in terms as anything other than a contradiction.

I am just exploring the logical consequences of the truth of the metaphysical paradigm of Determinism (or Causal Determinism

Call it what it is then: Radical Fatalism.

The question I would pose to you is whether you believe the universe is deterministic, or radically fatalistic.

That sounds like the way a computer operates. Long before Albert Einstein expressed the Theory of Relativity in mathematical terms, he theorized and philosophized that the universe worked that way

No the was still doing math on it, he just didn't have the words to put that math into symbols and expressions. The actual mechanics of theorization are themselves math, the setting of boundary conditions and checking functions in a series of recombinations.

If your willingness to consider something to be of value is limited to the issue of whether it can be expressed as math, I feel sad for you. That sounds like the way a computer operates.

Haha... So, spoken like someone who knows nothing of the way a computer operates.

And I know, quite frankly, more intimately than most might ever want to, how computers operate.

The thing is... While the operation of a computer is an expression of math, it would be more accurate to consider the function of a computer to, instead, be absolutely emotional. It doesn't know why it operates, or why the impulses in it happen, it just reacts irresistibly to those impulses. It is, in a pure way, the description of the merest beast locked into a nature, and that nature is itself open to manipulation in a way that it cannot hope to direct or resist, as it has no mechanism with which to even "hope" or "dislike" it's own nature.

From my perspective, it is the hard determinist who believes he cannot change himself and has no power to decide for himself who he will be that is in fact most like the computer.

All of these things, even, can be expressed in math (although I would not go through the effort; may someone else throw their time away on that).

I will instead use the language of math to speak out plans for myself that will work because I have checked the math, and seek new ways to validate that my understanding is "understanding" using that mechanism.

I do happen to believe that the universe is truly, entirely, and perfectly deterministic, but that is neither here nor there for purposes of testing the validity of Compatibilism

Compatibilists, and this compatibilist, would argue that the universe would need to be at least fairly deterministic (not radically fatalistic, just deterministic) for free will to exist.

Even at a more mundane level, I believe many things to be true that I lack sufficient evidence to know to be true. I am confident that the same is true of you and everyone else.

Most people are mostly right most of the time.

You're wrong, however, right this moment.

I don't believe those things. I doubt them. You in fact came to one of the few places on the internet where you might actually find people who roundly eschew belief.

But ironically you also found one of the people here who seek to also find the truth that exists behind the inaccurate beliefs others have because most people ARE mostly right most of the time (and this IS one of the few things I genuinely "believe" as a good starting point in most investigations; some math requires picking a value).

People who look at the fundamentally sequential nature of how the universe unfolds, as if as a series of frames, each a transformation from the previous according to a rule of how locations transform according to the context presented to the rule, such as Sapolski, have successfully captured a concept of mathematical determinism: the determinism defined by the concepts of math where a state perfectly follows from a state, given a rule, for some system, so as to be capable of generating a "block film" viewable independently from the need for the rule that generated it.

That does not get you or anyone else to radical fatalism. It doesn't get you there, and it doesn't get Albert there, either, I'm afraid.

Here you are criticizing me for my belief like some Christian calling science a religion or whatever, when I am the one pointing out to you, rather, that you are going so far past "determinism" and what "the deterministic action of physics on fields" would imply that I will repeat that it rightly "radical fatalism" and not determinism.

I rightfully observe block-forming determinism.

I rightfully reject eschewing the mechanism of rendering the block once viewing it; the block is still necessarily a function of that rule, and even the block as viewed is a function of where you view it.