According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[peacegirl]

But some things are utterly impossible. Being able to turn a dog into a human being is one of them.

What makes that impossible?

Dogs and human beings share a fundamental biochemistry, and have very similar genetic makeup; I could see turning a dog into a human being pointless (we have an easier and mkre fun way to make as many humans as we want); It would be unethical; It would be difficult and expensive.

But impossible? Why? What would be the obstacle to our doing it?

I don't think it's possible to turn a dog's brain into a human brain (that's just my opinion), but it would make for a cool horror movie.

 

[bilby]

But some things are utterly impossible. Being able to turn a dog into a human being is one of them.

What makes that impossible?

Dogs and human beings share a fundamental biochemistry, and have very similar genetic makeup; I could see turning a dog into a human being pointless (we have an easier and mkre fun way to make as many humans as we want); It would be unethical; It would be difficult and expensive.

But impossible? Why? What would be the obstacle to our doing it?

I don't think it's possible to turn a dog's brain into a human brain (that's just my opinion), but it would make for a cool horror movie.

Yeah, what you think is not of any interest to me, and does not even attempt to address my question.

I am asking you what, in physics, or chemistry, or logic, or mathematics, prevents this from being possible?

Why is it impossible? It's not because of anything you think, or don't think.

 

[DBT]

As it is the state and condition of a brain - neural architecture, inputs, memory function - that produces thought and action, including will, the notion of free will has no merit. We have thought, we can act, we have will, but it is not free will.

 

[peacegirl]

But some things are utterly impossible. Being able to turn a dog into a human being is one of them.

What makes that impossible?

Dogs and human beings share a fundamental biochemistry, and have very similar genetic makeup; I could see turning a dog into a human being pointless (we have an easier and mkre fun way to make as many humans as we want); It would be unethical; It would be difficult and expensive.

But impossible? Why? What would be the obstacle to our doing it?

I don't think it's possible to turn a dog's brain into a human brain (that's just my opinion), but it would make for a cool horror movie.

Yeah, what you think is not of any interest to me, and does not even attempt to address my question.

I am asking you what, in physics, or chemistry, or logic, or mathematics, prevents this from being possible?

Why is it impossible? It's not because of anything you think, or don't think.

I'm ot under an interrogation. I already said it's my opinion that physics, chemistry, logic, or mathematics cannot change what (I believe) is impossible to what is possible.

 

[peacegirl]

As it is the state and condition of a brain - neural architecture, inputs, memory function - that produces thought and action, including will, the notion of free will has no merit. We have thought, we can act, we have will, but it is not free will.

Right.

https://www.sciencesnail.com/philos...t-free-will-freedom-of-choice-but-not-of-will

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm ot under an interrogation. I already said it's my opinion that physics, chemistry, logic, or mathematics cannot change what (I believe) is impossible to what is possible.

So now not even just an argument from incredulity, but an argument from incrdulity reinforced with blind faith contravening all evidence.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm ot under an interrogation. I already said it's my opinion that physics, chemistry, logic, or mathematics cannot change what (I believe) is impossible to what is possible.

So now not even just an argument from incredulity, but an argument from incrdulity reinforced with blind faith contravening all evidence.

It is the exact opposite. Incredulity is good if it is based on problems with proof. And free will has no proof.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm ot under an interrogation. I already said it's my opinion that physics, chemistry, logic, or mathematics cannot change what (I believe) is impossible to what is possible.

So now not even just an argument from incredulity, but an argument from incrdulity reinforced with blind faith contravening all evidence.

It is the exact opposite. Incredulity is good if it is based on problems with proof. And free will has no proof.

You just said that no facts, neither logical facts, nor brute physical facts, could ever change your opinion and beliefs.

This is the very definition of a position of faith rather than reason.

Regardless, you are asking to prove a positive brute fact. First, brute facts cannot prove anything, they can only disprove things; second, we have already sufficiently demonstrated the fact of compatibilist free will via the demonstration of relative autonomy, in the same way as Darwin demonstrated the facts of evolution.

I have presented a theory of relative autonomy to discuss, explain, and account for those facts.

While I can demonstrate the mathematical and metaphysical soundness of this theory of relative autonomy, everyone and their sister knows that this only makes it valid as a hypothesis. It has only passed the first logical test.

Science works on this hypothesis by throwing a set of attempted counter-examples at the hypothesis and seeing if it will be countered by data. This tests whether the proposed physics matches the available "brute" physics, which itself stands as a hidden "physical" axiom capable of rendering disproof through counter-example.

One issue here is that we do have here some "brute facts of relative autonomy" which can be observed, and which HAVE been observed.

The issue here is that fatalism isn't even logically valid: it fails to even be recognized as a reasonable hypothesis.

Compatibilism is both recognizable as a reasonable hypothesis because it's metaphysics are complete under the basic axioms of ZFC-, and it is a valid theory insofar as it does not conflict with any observed evidence, and it is the most valid interpretation because it does not assume new or unnecessary axioms or principles of operation (particularly ones which "trivialize" the rest when applied) but is instead constructed from preexisting observations and theories of physics and material action.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm ot under an interrogation. I already said it's my opinion that physics, chemistry, logic, or mathematics cannot change what (I believe) is impossible to what is possible.

So now not even just an argument from incredulity, but an argument from incrdulity reinforced with blind faith contravening all evidence.

It is the exact opposite. Incredulity is good if it is based on problems with proof. And free will has no proof.

You just said that no facts, neither logical facts, nor brute physical facts, could ever change your opinion and beliefs.

This is the very definition of a position of faith rather than reason.

There are facts. Maybe I wasn't clear. Having no free will is not a matter of opinion.

Regardless, you are asking to prove a positive brute fact. First, brute facts cannot prove anything, they can only disprove things; second, we have already sufficiently demonstrated the fact of compatibilist free will via the demonstration of relative autonomy, in the same way as Darwin demonstrated the facts of evolution.

Brute facts don't prove anything? So one plus one is not two because it's just a brute fact? As far as relative autonomy, this does not even relate. I don't have free will but I do have autonomy in that I make my own decisions.

I have presented a theory of relative autonomy to discuss, explain, and account for those facts.

But your premise is off. You are, once again, conflating terms of autonomy with free will. This has to do with your lack of understanding of what I mean by determinism. How can there be any communication if you are refuting a definition that I don't hold and doesn't apply?

While I can demonstrate the mathematical and metaphysical soundness of this theory of relative autonomy, everyone and their sister knows that this only makes it valid as a hypothesis. It has only passed the first logical test.

Science works on this hypothesis by throwing a set of attempted counter-examples at the hypothesis and seeing if it will be countered by data. This tests whether the proposed physics matches the available "brute" physics, which itself stands as a hidden "physical" axiom capable of rendering disproof through counter-example.

One issue here is that we do have here some "brute facts of relative autonomy" which can be observed, and which HAVE been observed.

The issue here is that fatalism isn't even logically valid: it fails to even be recognized as a reasonable hypothesis.

You keep bringing up fatalism, which is not what the determinism I am discussing has anything to do with. This is not predeterminism or throwing up your arms because it's already been written.

Compatibilism is both recognizable as a reasonable hypothesis because it's metaphysics are complete under the basic axioms of ZFC-, and it is a valid theory insofar as it does not conflict with any observed evidence,

But it does, by definition.

and it is the most valid interpretation because it does not assume new or unnecessary axioms or principles of operation (particularly ones which "trivialize" the rest when applied) but is instead constructed from preexisting observations and theories of physics and material action.

There are no preexisting observations that tell us free will and no free will are not contradictory terms. It is not surprising how we are all subject, if not on guard, to illogical thought when it goes against the grain of our deeply held beliefs.

 

[Jarhyn]

So one plus one is not two because it's just a brute fact

You REALLY need to read at least the first part of the book "Foundations of Mathematics" by Ian Stewart.

No, one plus one is NOT two "due to brute fact".

In fact, one of the reasons I am pointing you to Foundations of Mathematics is specifically to discuss what does prove 1+1=2, under what contexts, and in what way.

I don't have free will but I do have autonomy in that I make my own decisions

"You making your own decisions" IS you having free will under compatibilism.

To be responsible IS to have free will with respect to some decision. To have free will with respect to some decision IS to be responsible. To have autonomy in some action is to be responsible. To be responsible is to have relative autonomy.

These are words that mean the same things but which pertain to different logical contexts/applications.

You are, once again, conflating terms of autonomy with free will

Equating, not conflating.

And it's up to you to demonstrate the insufficiency of autonomy in the demonstration of free will. Which you have not done.

 

[peacegirl]

So one plus one is not two because it's just a brute fact

You REALLY need to read at least the first part of the book "Foundations of Mathematics" by Ian Stewart.

No, one plus one is NOT two "due to brute fact".

In fact, one of the reasons I am pointing you to Foundations of Mathematics is specifically to discuss what does prove 1+1=2, under what contexts, and in what way.

Look, if you want to argue that one apple plus one apple equals three apples, then we have absolutely no basis for communication. Zilch. If you believe my "now" could be in a different dimension than your "now," we have no basis for communication. You can believe whatever you want, but we will never see eye to eye because I believe one plus one equals two and that we live in the same dimension, which the author's observations and reasoning support.

I don't have free will but I do have autonomy in that I make my own decisions

"You making your own decisions" IS you having free will under compatibilism.

But that is not free will, Jaryn. That's what I'm trying to tell you. That kind of free will is not even being disputed, but it's not the free will that philosophers are referring to when they discuss free will versus determinism (i.e., could do otherwise or could not do otherwise).

To be responsible IS to have free will with respect to some decision. To have free will with respect to some decision IS to be responsible. To have autonomy in some action is to be responsible. To be responsible is to have relative autonomy.

I'm not denying that if someone acts on a decision, he is not responsible for that act. To say that he had the autonomy or free will (nothing external pressured him) to do what he did is fine if clarified. The problem is that having this kind of autonomy does not grant him the free will to choose what he considers to be worse in comparison. So, if he chose something that society considered wrong, but he considered to be right under his circumstances, the question arises: Could he have chosen otherwise? If you are a determinist, the answer would be no because that would mean he had the free will to choose either/or at that moment, without any compulsion to choose one or the other, which is false. I know this poses a problem, for how can we not hold people to account? Fortunately, these two schools of thought can be reconciled in such a way that the elimination of war and crime is possible, but only if people listen before telling me it's impossible.

These are words that mean the same things but which pertain to different logical contexts/applications.

You are, once again, conflating terms of autonomy with free will

Equating, not conflating.

And it's up to you to demonstrate the insufficiency of autonomy in the demonstration of free will. Which you have not done.

I have explained and explained. I posted the first chapter of my book. You obviously read nothing. That is unfortunate because determinism or no free will is proven to be true and free will false, but this does not mean that we are not responsible. In fact, responsibility increases with this knowledge, not decreases. Isn't that what we all want?

As we begin to understand the knowledge of our true nature, what is revealed is something amazing to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident but that it was part of the harmonious operation called the mankind system and was compelled to come into existence by the very nature of life itself as part of our development. Once specific facts are understood, it will also be no accident that every form of evil will be compelled to take leave of this earth. Humanity has been gravitating at a mathematical rate, and in an unconscious manner, toward this Golden Age when the seeds of hatred and the domination of man over man become relics of our collective past. It never dawned on the theologians and philosophers that man’s choice of what he considered better for himself, even though it may have been evil when judged by others, came about in direct obedience to his nature or the will of God, who had reasons we were not supposed to understand until now. Many prophets foresaw the coming of this new world but didn’t know the exact time frame or from which direction peace would finally make its appearance. However, they were confident that when it arrived, it would change our world as we know it. Now the prophecies, conjectures, and philosophies are no longer necessary, for this long-awaited Golden Age that we have been looking forward to with prayers, hope, and great anticipation has arrived at last. This discovery I will soon make known to you reveals the infinite wisdom guiding this universe, which is not only that long sought standard and touchstone of truth and reality but also that elixir of alchemy, for with it the baser metals of human nature are going to be magically transmuted into the pure gold of genuine happiness for every individual on this planet and for all generations to come. Please be perfectly honest, who can object to relinquishing the belief in free will when the key to the decline and fall of all misery and unhappiness lies behind the door of determinism?

 

[bilby]

But some things are utterly impossible. Being able to turn a dog into a human being is one of them.

What makes that impossible?

Dogs and human beings share a fundamental biochemistry, and have very similar genetic makeup; I could see turning a dog into a human being pointless (we have an easier and mkre fun way to make as many humans as we want); It would be unethical; It would be difficult and expensive.

But impossible? Why? What would be the obstacle to our doing it?

I don't think it's possible to turn a dog's brain into a human brain (that's just my opinion), but it would make for a cool horror movie.

Yeah, what you think is not of any interest to me, and does not even attempt to address my question.

I am asking you what, in physics, or chemistry, or logic, or mathematics, prevents this from being possible?

Why is it impossible? It's not because of anything you think, or don't think.

I'm ot under an interrogation.

Translation: I cannot defend my claim.

If you can't or won't defend your claims, any intelligent observer must conclude that they are baseless.

That is how science works. Literally. The entire institution of scientific progress since the enlightenment is based on the principle that any claim csn and shoild be questioned, and that the claimant must either provide a consistent, logical and reasonable answer, or the claim declared baseless.

I already said it's my opinion that physics, chemistry, logic, or mathematics cannot change what (I believe) is impossible to what is possible.

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion (or anyone else's for that matter).

Opinions are like arseholes - Everyone's got one (and generally, they are full of shit).

If you are not prepared to submit your claims to interrogation, then you are not engaged in discussion, you are preaching. Which is prohibited at IIDB.

 

[peacegirl]

But some things are utterly impossible. Being able to turn a dog into a human being is one of them.

What makes that impossible?

Dogs and human beings share a fundamental biochemistry, and have very similar genetic makeup; I could see turning a dog into a human being pointless (we have an easier and mkre fun way to make as many humans as we want); It would be unethical; It would be difficult and expensive.

But impossible? Why? What would be the obstacle to our doing it?

I don't think it's possible to turn a dog's brain into a human brain (that's just my opinion), but it would make for a cool horror movie.

Yeah, what you think is not of any interest to me, and does not even attempt to address my question.

I am asking you what, in physics, or chemistry, or logic, or mathematics, prevents this from being possible?

Why is it impossible? It's not because of anything you think, or don't think.

I'm ot under an interrogation.

Translation: I cannot defend my claim.

If you can't or won't defend your claims, any intelligent observer must conclude that they are baseless.

That is how science works. Literally. The entire institution of scientific progress since the enlightenment is based on the principle that any claim csn and shoild be questioned, and that the claimant must either provide a consistent, logical and reasonable answer, or the claim declared baseless.

I already said it's my opinion that physics, chemistry, logic, or mathematics cannot change what (I believe) is impossible to what is possible.

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion (or anyone else's for that matter).

Opinions are like arseholes - Everyone's got one (and generally, they are full of shit).

That is true, and why I like that saying.

my opinion does not need an interrogation. I don't believe (and that's all you can say as well) that a dog's brain could be made into a human through physics, chemistry, or logic.

If you are not prepared to submit your claims to interrogation, then you are not engaged in discussion, you are preaching. Which is prohibited at IIDB.

But some things are utterly impossible. Being able to turn a dog into a human being is one of them.

What makes that impossible?

Dogs and human beings share a fundamental biochemistry, and have very similar genetic makeup; I could see turning a dog into a human being pointless (we have an easier and mkre fun way to make as many humans as we want); It would be unethical; It would be difficult and expensive.

But impossible? Why? What would be the obstacle to our doing it?

I don't think it's possible to turn a dog's brain into a human brain (that's just my opinion), but it would make for a cool horror movie.

Yeah, what you think is not of any interest to me, and does not even attempt to address my question.

I am asking you what, in physics, or chemistry, or logic, or mathematics, prevents this from being possible?

Why is it impossible? It's not because of anything you think, or don't think.

I'm ot under an interrogation.

Translation: I cannot defend my claim.

If you can't or won't defend your claims, any intelligent observer must conclude that they are baseless.

That is how science works. Literally. The entire institution of scientific progress since the enlightenment is based on the principle that any claim csn and shoild be questioned, and that the claimant must either provide a consistent, logical and reasonable answer, or the claim declared baseless.

I agree.

I already said it's my opinion that physics, chemistry, logic, or mathematics cannot change what (I believe) is impossible to what is possible.

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion (or anyone else's for that matter).

Opinions are like arseholes - Everyone's got one (and generally, they are full of shit).

If you are not prepared to submit your claims to interrogation, then you are not engaged in discussion, you are preaching. Which is prohibited at IIDB.

I don't believe that a dog's brain can be turned into a human brain through physics, chemistry, logic, or technology. I made no claim, so I don't need to defend it, and I certainly wasn't preaching. It is just my opinion that there are limitations to what humans are capable of doing. Maybe I'm wrong. I could accept that. My question is: Why should I be interrogated over a simple opinion when I didn't make any claims? I didn't even bring this topic up.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem is that having this kind of autonomy does not grant him the free will to choose what he considers to be worse in comparison

Yes it does.

I even described how the use of chaotic and unrelated systems to feed information into a decision making element allows the abstract action of priority leveling and selection from a group specifically to investigate apparent suboptimal choices.

I made a series of very educational posts about "randomness" and adversarial game theory, and this was something I covered specifically concerning unmapped and/or unsolved game spaces, and play against adversarially "mapped" regions.

In the earlier portions of my life, Go was "incomplete" and "unsolved", though I don't know what the status of that game is; such choices, in Go, are well known to lead to uncounterable play, so finding branches people do not know and which you might want to explore is vital to strategy... And causing people to waste work checking branch scores causes them to be unable to play as deeply against you in the tree, especially when you don't know if you can prevent a control reversal.

The way such suboptimal outcomes happen in practice is by wrapping a locally suboptimal choice in a situationally optimal but globally suboptimal strategy, or some similar wrapping structure.

Optionally, you can also make choices according to different goal criterion than an opponent, and this will often prevent them from effectively answering your play, or even pursuing their goals (ala "playing to get the shape of a bird to appear", rather than "playing to have the largest share of territory at the end").

 

[peacegirl]

The problem is that having this kind of autonomy does not grant him the free will to choose what he considers to be worse in comparison

Yes it does.

I even described how the use of chaotic and unrelated systems to feed information into a decision making element allows the abstract action of priority leveling and selection from a group specifically to investigate apparent suboptimal choices.

I made a series of very educational posts about "randomness" and adversarial game theory, and this was something I covered specifically concerning unmapped and/or unsolved game spaces, and play against adversarially "mapped" regions.

In the earlier portions of my life, Go was "incomplete" and "unsolved", though I don't know what the status of that game is; such choices, in Go, are well known to lead to uncounterable play, so finding branches people do not know and which you might want to explore is vital to strategy... And causing people to waste work checking branch scores causes them to be unable to play as deeply against you in the tree, especially when you don't know if you can prevent a control reversal.

The way such suboptimal outcomes happen in practice is by wrapping a locally suboptimal choice in a situationally optimal but globally suboptimal strategy, or some similar wrapping structure.

Optionally, you can also make choices according to different goal criterion than an opponent, and this will often prevent them from effectively answering your play, or even pursuing their goals (ala "playing to get the shape of a bird to appear", rather than "playing to have the largest share of territory at the end").

This is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with having free will, the kind that is being discussed right here in this debate. All you are doing is explaining a particular strategy toward some end. Again, you are missing the point that after you make a strategic move in a game or anywhere else (whatever it happens to be), you could not not have made it. You keep bringing up autonomy and unsolved mysteries in adversarial game theory that are unrelated to the topic because having no free will does not prevent playing these strategic games. I don't know what your idea of determinism is, but it's not mine. I have said over and over that we have the freedom to make choices when they are unfettered by external constraints, but those choices were never free, once made, because no other choice would have been possible given the same antecedents that preceded that choice.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with having free will...

So then why did you bring it up? You keep making claims countered directly by evidence and argument and logic and then what, claim they didn't matter?

 

[peacegirl]

This is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with having free will...

So then why did you bring it up? You keep making claims countered directly by evidence and argument and logic and then what, claim they didn't matter?

Jaryn, I brought it up because I was trying to explain that what you believe constitutes free will is not free will, the kind under discussion. It's important to distinguish between "I did this of my own free will" (a colloquial expression that we all use, which means I did something because I wanted to) and having true freedom of the will (i.e., the ability to choose otherwise once a choice has been made). I claimed that man's will is not free; I posted a chapter that explained why this is so. I backed it up with evidence. You might not agree. If you don't, you don't have to respond to me or even read what I post. There are other people in this thread whose ideas may interest you more.

 

[DBT]

As it is the state and condition of a brain - neural architecture, inputs, memory function - that produces thought and action, including will, the notion of free will has no merit. We have thought, we can act, we have will, but it is not free will.

Right.

https://www.sciencesnail.com/philos...t-free-will-freedom-of-choice-but-not-of-will

Given determinism, choice is the wrong word. If determinism is true, decisions are not a matter of choice.

 

[peacegirl]

As it is the state and condition of a brain - neural architecture, inputs, memory function - that produces thought and action, including will, the notion of free will has no merit. We have thought, we can act, we have will, but it is not free will.

Right.

https://www.sciencesnail.com/philos...t-free-will-freedom-of-choice-but-not-of-will

Given determinism, choice is the wrong word. If determinism is true, decisions are not a matter of choice.

I think the word “choice” is fine to use if it’s understood to mean the ability to contemplate two or more options. I believe the confusion is in the feeling that if we are determined to do what we do. it doesn’t allow for our ability to make our own decisions at all. People may falsely interpret this to mean that a person is not a participant in his own destiny. It becomes a modal fallacy that says necessarily he MUST choose a certain thing, not he will, before the decision is even made, which Pood argues against.

It is true, though, that the word “choice” can be misleading because only one alternative is possible at any given moment, and once made, no other alternative would have been possible. This is because any other option that was considered would have been less preferable in comparison. Our nature dictates that we move away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, not less. I think the word “choice” can be used as long as it is not misinterpreted to mean we have more than one option. Definitions are a serious problem in this debate, causing more confusion than needs be.

 

[Jarhyn]

It turns into a modal fallacy that says necessarily you must choose a certain thing before it is even decided upon, which Pood argues against

There's nothing that prevents a person from choosing something before it must be decided on.

Humans actually prefer this sort of action specifically because it makes for more responsible, controlled, and smoothly executed decisions.

You MUST, for instance, do it this way when altering how a reflex would "default" a decision: if you don't decide it long in advance, you cannot do the things that actually make the decision effective.

That said, oftentimes we don't even make some choices until after they were decided otherwise: we might, for instance, find ourselves already having chosen one thing, saying "no, that's not right", putting the thing back, and choosing something else instead.

Other times... We pick both things.