According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[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.

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.

The contemplation of an option is not the same as having a realizable option. If determinism is true, what happens must happen as determined, not chosen. Where the decision that is made is necessarily made and not chosen. Which means that it is a decision, but not a choice.

For it to be a choice would require the possibility of any option to be taken at any point in time, but that's not how determinism is defined.

You want to stick to your definition (which technically is correct), but it is confusing to people who are not familiar with this subject. No one is claiming that there is any other possibility than the decision that was made. I thought I made that very clear.

I have no need to stick to anything. Compatibilists give a definition of determinism that does not permit alternate actions, therefore choice is not possible. Decisions are made, but according to the given terms of how determinism works, they are not choices.

For instance;

''Of course, it feels to us, when contemplating our own futures, that there are many different possible ways our lives might go—many possible choices to be made. But if determinism is true, then this is an illusion. In reality, there is only one way that things could go, it’s just that we can’t see what that is because of our limited knowledge. Consider the figure below. Each junction in the figure below represents a decision I make and let’s suppose that some (much larger) decision tree like this could represent all of the possible ways my life could go. At any point in time, when contemplating what to do, it seems that I can conceive of my life going many different possible ways. Suppose that A represents one series of choices and B another. Suppose, further, that A represents what I actually do (looking backwards over my life from the future). Although from this point in time it seems that I could also have made the series of choices represented in B, if determinism is true then this is false. That is, if A is what ends up happening, then A is the only thing that ever could have happened. If it hasn’t yet hit you how determinism conflicts with our sense of our own possibilities in life, think about that for a second.''

 

[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.

The contemplation of an option is not the same as having a realizable option. If determinism is true, what happens must happen as determined, not chosen. Where the decision that is made is necessarily made and not chosen. Which means that it is a decision, but not a choice.

For it to be a choice would require the possibility of any option to be taken at any point in time, but that's not how determinism is defined.

You want to stick to your definition (which technically is correct), but it is confusing to people who are not familiar with this subject. No one is claiming that there is any other possibility than the decision that was made. I thought I made that very clear.

I have no need to stick to anything. Compatibilists give a definition of determinism that does not permit alternate actions, therefore choice is not possible. Decisions are made, but according to the given terms of how determinism works, they are not choices.

For instance;

''Of course, it feels to us, when contemplating our own futures, that there are many different possible ways our lives might go—many possible choices to be made. But if determinism is true, then this is an illusion. In reality, there is only one way that things could go, it’s just that we can’t see what that is because of our limited knowledge. Consider the figure below. Each junction in the figure below represents a decision I make and let’s suppose that some (much larger) decision tree like this could represent all of the possible ways my life could go. At any point in time, when contemplating what to do, it seems that I can conceive of my life going many different possible ways. Suppose that A represents one series of choices and B another. Suppose, further, that A represents what I actually do (looking backwards over my life from the future). Although from this point in time it seems that I could also have made the series of choices represented in B, if determinism is true then this is false. That is, if A is what ends up happening, then A is the only thing that ever could have happened. If it hasn’t yet hit you how determinism conflicts with our sense of our own possibilities in life, think about that for a second.''

I like your diagram, very cool. The only difference is the way I am trying to explain why determinism is true and free will is false. The reason I'm doing that is to bring up the author's two-sided equation, which is the key to this discovery. We do not have free will because there is no other option (except in imagination) other than the option made at any given moment. I've also explained that the word choice is misleading, even though it is used by many to mean they were not persuaded by outside forces to make their decision. But determinism is more than making decisions. It is every single movement we make, which is away from a feeling of dissatisfaction, which compels us to move to greater satisfaction, or we would never move off the spot we are on, which would be death. Example: I'm uncomfortable right now because my leg has fallen asleep, so I'm going to change positions to a more comfortable position, which does not require hemming and hawing or weighing options as to whether I should stay uncomfortable or move. I just move naturally. This is the movement of life itself. There is no free will anywhere to be found. It's a realistic mirage. We are on the same page; I am just explaining it a little differently because it allows me to bring up the other principle in this equation, which leads to the discovery. I have been trying to show for eons how these two principles come together, but I've had no success, only because people don't want to be duped. They're afraid of even considering that the author could be right because it seems so outrageous for someone to make such an extraordinary claim.

 

[peacegirl]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious. If we could choose otherwise, we could never prevent anyone from hurting others. Thankfully, they don't have a free choice, because under new conditions, they could never choose to hurt others with a first blow, which proves that determinism is true (if you can follow the reasoning) and free will is false. You won't explore this because you have already made up your mind that this author couldn't be right.

 

[peacegirl]

Wtf. You are not your husband. We are talking about one individual, YOU, being able to choose otherwise after you have already made your choice. Otherwise-ness is not even part of the discussion when it comes to someone else choosing otherwise. This is a red herring if I ever saw one.

Nope. The point is to demonstrate that one choice doesn't invalidate the still-extisting alternatives, and that alternatives exist as positions, and that even their non-existence in the current moment does not invalidate their existence as alternatives when considered, and when later chosen.

No one has ever said that alternatives don't exist when we are contemplating which option to take. When you talk about positions, though, you are making a claim that alternatives exist independent of the person contemplating them. That doesn't even make rational sense. Options are not things that exist as a position in physical space. You are correct in that just because an alternative was not chosen at one instant does not invalidate its existence as an alternative in the next instant, or when later chosen. But that isn't what we are talking about. You have, once again, shifted the goalposts.

For instance, I go up to the breakfast bar and choose bacon, of the alternatives. I eat the bacon.

Then I go up to the breakfast bar and pick eggs, and I eat those, too.

Then, I walk up and pick up some hash rowns, because why not, but instead I tuck them away to go so they will be an affordable option later.

But I don't grab a salad or a waffle; I don't want the salad and I don't want to wait for a waffle, and technically I would have to pick making a waffle, to make the waffle an alternative for myself, and I don't want to.

No. Determinism doesn't say you have to make a waffle. You're refuting something it doesn't say. It would be a modal fallacy. Why can't you even for a moment follow the definition I'm using, which is more accurate?

All the alternatives remained even after I made my choices, right until I chose to eat them, and then the alternatives vanish in a bit of deliciousness. Except the salad, because I'm rather unhealthy as an eater and don't care enough to do anything about that because something else will probably kill me way earlier.

You are conflating moments in time. You could change your mind at any time prior to making a decision. Determinism doesn't dictate what you must choose. You still get to make that decision. To repeat: you could change your mind a millisecond before you act. I've done that lots of times. That in itself does not change the movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. Obviously, at that moment, you got more satisfaction out of eating something delicious rather than sticking to your diet. Next moment, you may continue to rationalize why eating poorly doesn't matter, or you could dismiss that thought and say to yourself that you want to try to eat healthier to give yourself the chance to live longer. You get to pick.

I don't think you can tell me why man's will is not free

I couldn't tell you why man's will is not free because "man's will" is "free" with respect to having many options.

I won't lie to you and pretend it's not up to you and I and everyone else to work to make good decisions and figure out what good decisions are.

This is not about good or bad decisions. We could be making the worst decisions, but still have no free will. Conversely, we could be making the best decisions, but still have no free will. We are compelled to move in only one direction, not two. Weighing possibilities does not mean they are equal in value, especially when we are comparing differences in each that matter to us. They are all possibilities until one of them is picked after weighing the pros and cons of each option.

And to be clear, there's no "best decision" about what to want, even if there are known bad decisions. There is no "one" perfect way. There are a lot of mostly compatible ways, and then strictly incompatible ones.

Obviously there is no one perfect way because we have different heredities and different environments that lead to different options and different outcomes. There isn't even a perfect decision; only what we consider to be the best one given our particular circumstances.

That you are not free to create contradictions? But that would be silly and trivialize existence. There would be no rhyme or reason or sense or song. There would be no joy or love or hate or sadness; there would be and not be everything everywhere all at once. That doesn't sound like fun, it sounds like madness in infinite measure, and every madness that there was and wasn't.

Otherwise can be elsewhere. We can, and often do do otherwise as we did in the past. In fact, doing otherwise than we did in the past is entirely the point of a mind and choices and decisions and learning.

Maybe you will do otherwise this time and just not respond? That would surely be a way to get me to stop responding to you, to simply quit saying stupid shit and ceasing the Ion routine.

Your nasty responses are indicative that you are flustered because you don't have an answer. I have said countless times that we learn from the past. There is always an opportunity to do otherwise in the next instant. I am only talking about this instant after we make a decision. Once we act on it, it could not have been any other way.

 

[bilby]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

 

[bilby]

If we could choose otherwise, we could never prevent anyone from hurting others. Thankfully, they don't have a free choice, because under new conditions, they could never choose to hurt others with a first blow, which proves that determinism is true (if you can follow the reasoning) and free will is false. You won't explore this because you have already made up your mind that this author couldn't be right it's self contradictory nonsense that cannot be "explored" by a sane mind

FTFY

I have pointed out some of the worst failures in your argument below.

 

[bilby]

If we could choose otherwise, we could never prevent anyone from hurting others.

Non Sequitur.

Thankfully, they don't have a free choice,

Question begging.

because under new conditions,

Vague to the point of meaninglessness.

they could never choose to hurt others with a first blow,

Non Sequitur.

which proves

Factual error.

that determinism is true

Non Sequitur.

(if you can follow the reasoning)

Insult.

and free will is false.

Not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

[peacegirl]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

 

[pood]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

Yes, so named after you.

 

[steve_bank]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

Well yes, thata is what we have been saying since you first appeared here selling a nonsensical book..... with a link to Amazon.

 

[peacegirl]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

Well yes, thata is what we have been saying since you first appeared here selling a nonsensical book..... with a link to Amazon.

This comes from someone who hasn't read a thing I posted, has no relevant questions, has no curiosity whatsoever, and has concluded that the claims must be false because it sounds too good to be true. To prove my point: According to the author, why is man's will not free? I have posted this so many times, my fingers hurt. If you can't answer it, you get a big fat F.

 

[pood]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

Well yes, thata is what we have been saying since you first appeared here selling a nonsensical book..... with a link to Amazon.

This comes from someone who hasn't read a thing I posted, has no relevant questions, has no curiosity whatsoever, and has concluded that the claims must be false because it sounds too good to be true. To prove my point: According to the author, why is man's will not free? I have posted this so many times, my fingers hurt. If you can't answer it, you get a big fat F.

No, we don’t conclude the claims must be false because they sound too good to be true. We conclude the claims are false because we DID read the chapters you posted and rightly concluded that the claims are rubbish.

 

[peacegirl]

If we could choose otherwise, we could never prevent anyone from hurting others.

Non Sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur. You just haven't followed the reasoning because I never got there.

Thankfully, they don't have a free choice,

Question begging.

Nope. It's not begging the question. No one has a free choice once a choice (i.e., decision) is made because it couldn't have been otherwise.

because under new conditions,

Vague to the point of meaninglessness.

Why are you breaking my posts up into bits and pieces where no one understands what you're responding to? Again, the new conditions are in Chapter Two, which I never got to. Of course, it's vague and meaningless. You never showed an ounce of interest in seeing what follows:

This knowledge was not previously available, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.

they could never choose to hurt others with a first blow,

Non Sequitur.

Bilby, please stop chopping up my posts.

which proves

Factual error.

No, he has proof.

that determinism is true

Non Sequitur.

No, the first three chapters follow in a step-by-step fashion.

(if you can follow the reasoning)

Insult.

Sorry, but you haven't followed the reasoning.

and free will is false.

Not in any way you can demonstrate.

OMG, of course he did. This is not a matter of opinion, bilby. But you don't have to be afraid of this truth. It's actually a good thing. God knew what he was doing.

 

[peacegirl]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

Well yes, thata is what we have been saying since you first appeared here selling a nonsensical book..... with a link to Amazon.

This comes from someone who hasn't read a thing I posted, has no relevant questions, has no curiosity whatsoever, and has concluded that the claims must be false because it sounds too good to be true. To prove my point: According to the author, why is man's will not free? I have posted this so many times, my fingers hurt. If you can't answer it, you get a big fat F.

No, we don’t conclude the claims must be false because they sound too good to be true. We conclude the claims are false because we DID read the chapters you posted and rightly concluded that the claims are rubbish.

Your modal fallacy is not the definition this author used, and you know it. Your other worlds where you believe another choice could be made IS a strawman of the worst kind because we aren't talking about another world, another time, or another place. Quantum mechanics (QM) doesn't save free will either, and indeterminism doesn't save free will at all. It just indicates we don't know the cause; it doesn't mean there isn't one or that the cause can't be determined eventually. You just want to believe that you wrote the novel, not the Big Bang. But you DID write the novel. This was your accomplishment, no one else's. No one is taking this away from you, not even determinism, so stop being so afraid of the truth.

 

[peacegirl]

the proof that we could not do otherwise is the reason we can prevent war and crime.

Well, we observe that we can't prevent either war or crime. So your proof fails.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

The word you are looking for is "facetious".

This thread should be renamed dumb and dumber!

Yes, so named after you.

 

[bilby]

... has concluded that the claims must be false because it sounds too good to be true.

It diesn't sound good at all. It sounds like the ramblings of an idiot.

 

[bilby]

It's not a non sequitur. You just haven't followed the reasoning because I never got there.

You can't get there from here. If you could, you would have by now.

Your effort at using a cliffhanger to sell your book has foundered on the disinterest of your audience in reading any further nonsensical tripe.

 

[bilby]

Why are you breaking my posts up into bits and pieces where no one understands what you're responding to?

Because that beats the crap out of scrolling through massive walls of text, all of which can be easily found by anyone who wants to go look.

Again, the new conditions are in Chapter Two, which I never got to.

And yet, you feel that the reason people don't know about them is because I broke up your posts that never got to them.

That's reasonable.

 

[bilby]

You never showed an ounce of interest in seeing what follows

Oh, I did; But that was long ago.

You have since presented vast volumes of text, none of which turned out to be interesting (except in the sense that seeing a train wreck is interesting).

That I have now lost interest in your father's ramblings is entirely your fault - if he had anything interesting to say, you should have posted that to begin with.

Life is too short; You had a chance to interest your audience, and you blew it. That's entirely on you (and is not compatible with your claimed knowledge of a secret that can change the world - you can't even change IIDB).

 

[bilby]

Bilby, please stop chopping up my posts.

Peacegirl, If you only post one error at a time, I will.

Your petulant demands that everyone should post only in the way you want them to is not compatible with the idea that you know how to change the world, either.

Most spolied little girls grow out of that futile attitude by the time they reach adulthood.

You are not the boss of me.