According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[pood]

Moreover, when a hypothesis or theory is falsified, it does not make either false. That is the problem with falsificationism.

 

[Jarhyn]

Are you suggesting that you subscribe to only one theory of "time"

No; and you'll have to forgive me here if I am bad at saying it because it is a hard sort of error to explain...

"Time" is just a special name we give to a dimension of change on a system when we want to consider it "across" that dimension, ostensibly in a "functional" rather than "relational" way.

I'm saying that when I say "at such and such time" I am really meaning "at such and such place". So when you say "without regard to time" I just kind of chuckle and hear "without regard to location", or more "without regard to context"

Likewise when I see "f(x)=2x", I also see time there, right there, as "the dimension of x".

We can instead have time, here, in terms of something else, namely the same function in terms of y, g( y )=y/2; this happens because there happens to be a symmetry between multiplication and division.

This is also why I treat much more abstract things that don't really organize well into any sort of space that I understand well myself in some even more general way that still carries this property namely the property of pertaining to context.

Even the structure of operations on numbers here presents a context for the truth, a "position" (really "context") where it is true, but where, outside that "position", it is not, and often this is called The Domain. Sometimes in math, things are said to be true "only of positive integers", or the like

Hopefully you will see that the property we are discussing of "necessitation" only walks to the very edge of that "position" where the truth holds, and no further, regardless of whether you call that "position" time, or "height" or "rotational velocity" or "the set of reals".

You can say that some thing is necessarily true according to some axioms, but we disprove bad axioms by stating something, holding the other axioms we have tested the snot out of, and seeing if contradictions start popping up.

The problem is that those functional relationships are right there still expressed across whatever visualization you want to put on the "context", and even when the context can't be visualized easily at all.

So when you say "eternal", in order to actually remove the context that is "time as we experience it", you can only discuss things that are true across that whole dimension of variance. The one thing that happens to be true across that whole dimension is the unifying field equation for physics "here".

No matter how far you run from the concrete physical world, there will always be a "time", a set containing you somehow, and not merely one but an infinitude.

So, from my perspective the only "truly and utterly eternal thing" is noncontradiction, because this is the only thing shared under all possible worlds.

This is why I keep discussing contextlessness instead of "eternalness"; they are the same thing using a more general view of time.

 

[pood]

I thought I read you were an editor. If not, I retract the modifier.

“As an editor, I am confident that you know that the following two statements are materially different:”

I was an editor and a writer on newspapers and other venues for many years. And I, as an editor, am telling you that the above sentence does not mean what you intended it to mean. What you wanted to say was:

“I am confident that you, as an editor, know that the following two statements are materially different.”

Your original statement, as it stands, implies that YOU are an editor. In your statement, the clause “As an editor” is modifying the personal pronoun “I”. So you are calling yourself an editor when I presume you were referring to me. That is why your first clause is a misplaced modifier.

 

[pood]

Sorry for being such a grammar Nazi.

 

[BSilvEsq]

You are 100% correct. Thank you for that explanation. It is much appreciated. And I do not perceived your point to be pedantic in the least.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Sorry for being such a grammar Nazi.

It is one of the few things you have posted on this thread that I both understand and truly appreciate.

I am referring to your correction of my poor grammar, and not your referring to yourself as a grammar Nazi.

 

[bilby]

The only person who can claim to be a true grammar Nazi was Bernhard Stempfle.

Multiple authors and eyewitnesses, such as Konrad Heiden and Nazi "apostate" Otto Strasser, report that not only did Stempfle correct the galley proofs of Mein Kampf, but that he indeed copy-edited certain passages.

This, however, may be an example of the "No True Scotsman Grammar Nazi" fallacy.

 

[DBT]

But given the nature of the system as it is defined, you just can't do otherwise. What you do, you must will necessarily do.

FTFY.

Suddenly, no problem. I will what I will; The only alternative would be insanity.

I would say the "necessarily" part also needs struck.

I see that you are still having trouble with the basics.

He isn’t. You are.

Here's a primer. I hope it helps, but expect that it won't.

It doesn’t, because it’s BS.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Except there are no deterministic systems in the sense you describe, because of QM. If you could rewind the history of the universe to the start and replay it, you would not get the same result. But that is irrelevant to compatibilism.

Necessity
Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.

As discussed to the point of tears, this is a straightforward modal fallacy which involves modal collapse, the idea that today I picked Coke instead of Pepsi is on the same logical footing as all triangles have three sides. It’s logical nonsense.

The universe and its history is only one way. You claim it must be that way. I say science and logic shows it is just IS that way, not that it MUST be that way. You cannot show otherwise and you have the burden of proof to do so.

Modal fallacy? If there is, compatibilism is based on a modal fallacy, which is another reason to reject compatibilism.

The basics?

I am not making up my own terms and conditions, not in relation to how compatibilism defined determinism or how it defines free will.

None of the given terms and conditions are something I invoke.

They are standard definitions of determinism, necessity, free will as compatibilists define it to be.

I merely point to the point at which the compatibilist argument for free will fails.

Your 'modal fallacy' defense has no merit.

Or if you like, you can apply it to compatibilism, that would be a better fit.

 

[DBT]

if Compatibilist free will were defined to mean "that which is compatible with determinism [whatever determinism might mean]" the definition would be a mere tautology and fail to advance the debate.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that "the debate" is about determinism. It's not. It's about what we mean by free will and moral responsibility.

Then you are engaging on a debate to define only half of the two things claimed to be compatible with one another.

Determinism/indeterminism is not the contentious issue in this dispute because, for compatibilists, the deterministic/indeterministic nature of the universe is irrelevant.

I don't normally like resorting to posting quotations in support of my argument but in light of your stubborn intransigence:

  Compatibilism

Compatibilists believe that freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

To repeat, this dispute is about competing conceptions of free will.

Your wiki source is hardly authoritative,

Ok. Perhaps you can help me. Can you supply any quote that contradicts the above. Can you provide anything that supports your view that compatibilist free will does depend on metaphysics (i.e. support for your belief that any formulation of compatibilist free will must include a definition of the specific determinism it claims to be compatible with).

Since you're the one making the positive claim I think this is a reasonable request.

Given determinism, all events and actions are freely performed or carried out as determined as the system evolves. If determined, there are no impediments. You get up in the morning and go about your daily activities, as determined, feeling free and unimpeded in your activity.

But given the nature of the system as it is defined, you just can't do otherwise. What you do, you must necessarily do.

I've no idea why you posted this. Your comment doesn't address/contradict anything in the post you're responding to.

It relates to how the compatibilist definition of free will relates to how determinism is defined

Oh, I see. It was just another of your standard responses.

As the subject matter is free will, with some arguing for compatibilism, where the subject happens to be incredibly repetitive, my standard response is relevant.

And considering the thread title and the nature and function of the brain as the sole agent of thought and response, I would say that Sapolsky is right, free will does not exist.

Not in relation to the brain, not in relation to determinism or indeterminism.

We have will, but for the given reasons, it is not free will.


On the neurology of morals
Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.

 

[DBT]

An eyeroll emoji won't help save compatibilism.

 

[Jarhyn]

necessity

Hun, I made a whole post about the necessity and "time". I strongly encourage you to try reading and understanding it, because it exposes your idea of necessity as "childish and naive", on the same level as the way Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles treats the word "dimension".

This is, yet again, why I keep urging you to study some math or science or anything that will help you think at least "strictly" enough to read that post on the more general idea of "time" and why putting something in a block doesn't make the "time" go away.

 

[pood]

Modal fallacy? If there is, compatibilism is based on a modal fallacy, which is another reason to reject compatibilism.

How is compatibilism based on a modal fallacy?

I do not think you know what a modal fallacy is, no matter how many times I explain it.

 

[pood]

An eyeroll emoji won't help save compatibilism.

Quoting bullshit links won’t save hard determinism.

 

[pood]

And considering the thread title and the nature and function of the brain as the sole agent of thought and response, …

Bingo! Compatibilism!

Indeed, the brain is the sole agent of thought and response, which is why the Big Bang does not design buildings, compose symphonies or write novels. Brains do that.

 

[pood]

I’ve been away for several days so I guess I have to slog through this thread to catch up on the latest. I doubt I’ll be surprised by anything new.

 

[Jarhyn]

I’ve been away for several days so I guess I have to slog through this thread to catch up on the latest. I doubt I’ll be surprised by anything new.

I mean, I do want to say there's been some discussion about what various parties here mean by "time" and why I use "time" and "position" and "context" in such interchangable ways.

The result is that it's kind of like position and momentum and how the more you know of one, the less you know of the other.

In fact, because this is a discussion about context (position) and (something measured over time), I think it might be a reflection of exactly the same idea.

 

[steve_bank]

Jaryn has made a timely remark in the context of the discussion.

The human momentum of the thread would take a lot of energy to change.

Physics and math as metaphor abound.

 

[DBT]

necessity

Hun, I made a whole post about the necessity and "time". I strongly encourage you to try reading and understanding it, because it exposes your idea of necessity as "childish and naive", on the same level as the way Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles treats the word "dimension".

Like most of your posts on this subject, your post just demonstrated your lack of understanding of the implications of determinism. What's worse, even as you yourself define it to be.

That is the sad part. But wait, there's more. Not only that, but how the compatibilist definition of free will tries to circumvent the very conditions of their definition of determinism.

Being an ideology, practically a religion, I don't see any hope of that changing.

This is, yet again, why I keep urging you to study some math or science or anything that will help you think at least "strictly" enough to read that post on the more general idea of "time" and why putting something in a block doesn't make the "time" go away.

Time has nothing to do with it. Math has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is free will as it is defined; Compatibilist, Libertarian, in Law, etc

So there it is, you still can't grasp that Compatibilism is not about math. Or the implications of how determinism is defined, which has nothing to do with maths.

I strongly urge you to take a course in basic logic.

Oh, and a hint: computers are not conscious, as you claimed, nor do they have free will.

 

[DBT]

Modal fallacy? If there is, compatibilism is based on a modal fallacy, which is another reason to reject compatibilism.

How is compatibilism based on a modal fallacy?

I do not think you know what a modal fallacy is, no matter how many times I explain it.

You tell me, you are the one who invokes the modal fallacy defence. I just stick to the given definitions, how compatibilists define determinism and how they define free will.

I don't dispute their definition of determinism, but merely point out that their definition of free will is flawed. That it is flawed because it does not account for how will is generated by a brain in the context of a deterministic system (just as it is defined).

So where exactly is this so called modal fallacy? It's not enough to keep invoking it, you need to explain this presumed modal fallacy in relation to incompatibilism.