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.