According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[peacegirl]

This I believe, by Will Durant.

I find I agree with some of this.

It is apparent that his views on free will and determinism were more nuanced than you or your author seem to think.

As previously noted, I think that after wading through all your author’s elliptical pomposity and verbosity, and his idiosyncratic terminology, his stance on free will and determinism was basically … compatibilist.

As, it seems, was Durant’s.

He was torn because he loved Spinoza, who was a determinist. but could not get past the implications, so he turned back to believing in free will, even though his logic was faulty.

p, 37. Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of good and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around quite a bit, but he did not know how to slay the fiery dragon (the great impasse of blame), so he pretended it wasn’t even there. He stated, “We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when seen in total perspective,” and he rejected the principle of an eye for an eye. Will Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s philosophy, although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He also went in and looked around very thoroughly, and he too saw the fiery dragon, but unlike Spinoza, he made no pretense of its nonexistence. He just didn’t know how to overcome the beast but refused to agree with what common sense told him to deny.

The implications really need no further clarification as to why free will is in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other philosophers, ever discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free because they never unlocked the second door, which led to my discovery. The belief in free will was compelled to remain in power until the present time because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was true, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon, which seemed like an impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnston didn’t want to get into this matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond the vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so difficult to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated? Since the modern world of science was playing havoc with religion, it needed a boost, and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote his book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written in his book, “Man Stands Alone.” Both tried to answer the question: “Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is right? Huxley said, “No, there isn’t,” but Morrison’s arguments were mathematically sound, and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil. It went something like this:

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I calls it like I sees it.

On determinism and free will it is the same old stuff tat been debated for centuries. Yawn.

Of interest to those who specialize in philosophy. As has been shown determinism itself is a wide subject with numerous variations and definitions.

No it does not have many definitions that change the meaning. Determinism and free will are opposites. You can say one plus two is three or two plus one is three, but it doesn't change the fact that when you have two things and add one more, or one thing and add two more, it equals three. We either could have done otherwise, or we could not have done otherwise. We cannot have both. I am emphasizing that the author was referring to determinism in human decision-making. He showed where the problem arises when the word "cause" is employed. This IS the elephant in the room that no argument for or against determinism could ever reconcile. Due to his slight tweaking of the definition to make it more reflective of reality, doing of one's own accord (what many compatibilists call free will but does not meet the qualifications of "could have done otherwise" used by philosophers), and the fact that will is not free because we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, brings together both schools of thought in a harmonious manner, where everyone benefits.

My impression remains he went through a number of sources and then synthesized his book. Dilettantism. Some of it pseudoscience.

Dilettantism refers to
engaging in an art, activity, or subject casually for pleasure, often as a superficial "dabbler," but it can also mean being a devoted amateur or connoisseur, with the connotation shifting from a positive love of arts (original meaning) to a negative, superficial approach (later meaning). It's about shallow interest or superficial involvement, contrasting with deep professional study, though some defend its fun, non-monetary pursuit of interests

He didn’t dabble Steve. He was a deep thinker and would never have made these claims if he wasn’t sure of his proof.

 

[pood]

As has been noted repeatedly, the opposite of determinism is indeterminism.

 

[peacegirl]

This entire debate goes back to moral responsibility, which is why it is one of the most difficult and longstanding discussions in philosophy. Where philosophers are stuck i(regardless of what side they're on) is that they are missing the other half of the equation, which shows that the corollary to no free will, when applied on a global scale, will not decrease responsibility; it will increase it exponentially. Lessans provides the blueprint as to how this Great Transition can actually take place. Every once in a while, a revolutionary discovery or invention comes along that changes the way we live. This discovery is one of those times, but if no one cares to listen, they are just delaying the very life they want for themselves. This short video discusses the different types of determinism (all having the same basic meaning; could not have done otherwise) and why the discussion persists. After all, the belief in free will is at the heart of how our civilization is run. How in the world can we not hold people morally responsible for a crime they were "free" not to commit if they didn't want to? It would be like handing over the reins for people to do whatever they wanted without any fear of consequences. This is the elephant in the room that the author reconciled. It really behooves people to listen rather than insist that the author had nothing of value to offer.

 

[peacegirl]

As has been noted repeatedly, the opposite of determinism is indeterminism.

Absolutely false. You are like a kid who will not give up the belief in Santa, no matter what his parents tell him.

 

[steve_bank]

The book to me appears to be a rehash of debates sprinkled with a little pseudoscience, ad a clam about evil. Amateur philosophy.

L Ron Hubbard was successful at it. Dianetics followed by Scientology. He started out as a hack scifi writer Scientology is global and is banned in some places.

L. Ron Hubbard (Lafayette Ronald Hubbard) was a prolific American pulp fiction writer, famous for his early career in science fiction and fantasy before founding Scientology, a controversial new religion based on his pseudoscientific book Dianetics. He wrote extensively across genres, from adventure and westerns to sci-fi and romance, gaining fame in the 1930s-40s pulp magazines before his focus shifted to Dianetics (1950) and then Scientology (1952). His science fiction often explored themes that later appeared in Scientology, with notable works including Battlefield Earth and the Mission Earth series, and he's known for creating the Writers of the Future Contest.

From a brief look free will, determinism, and compatibilism are in psychology. The issues have behavioral implications.

Philosophy is not what it was up through the 19th century. A ,lot of it classified as under philosophy are now independent disciplines. Broadly hard and soft sciences. Psychology partly based in experiment

Your father appears to have been dwelling in the 18th -19th centuries

Behavioural sciences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Behavioural science is the branch of science concerned with theorizing on, categorizing, and judging human behaviour.[1] It sits in the interstice between fields such as psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, behavioral biology, behavioral genetics and social science. While the term can technically be applied to the study of behaviour amongst all living organisms, it is nearly always used with reference to humans as the primary target of investigation (though animals may be studied in some instances, e.g. invasive techniques).[2]

Freewill vs Determinism In Psychology

The free will vs determinism debate has far-reaching implications for psychology, ethics, and our broader understanding of human behavior. Below are key

www.simplypsychology.org

Many psychologists take an interactionist or compatibilist approach as a resolution. This acknowledges that multiple factors determine behavior, but these factors interact in complex ways (so simple determinism from a single cause is insufficient).

Interactionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In micro-sociology, interactionism is a theoretical perspective that sees social behavior as an interactive product of the individual and the situation.[1] In other words, it derives social processes (such as conflict, cooperation, identity formation) from social interaction,[2] whereby subjectively held meanings are integral to explaining or understanding social behavior.[3]

This perspective studies the ways in which individuals shape, and are shaped by, society through their interactions. Interactionism thus argues that the individual is an active and conscious piece of the social-context system, rather than merely a passive object in their environment.[4] It believes interactions to be guided by meanings that are attached to the self, to others with whom each individual interacts, and to situations of interaction; all of which are altered in interaction themselves.[3] In this sense, interactionism may stand in contrast to studies of socialization, insofar as interactionism conceives individuals to influence groups at least as much as groups influence individuals.[5]

De4abtg proofs and existence of free will and determinism is old news.

Thinking has evolved.

Starting from scratch it would 6ake me some time to get my7 arms around it, beyond wiki pages.

 

[pood]

As has been noted repeatedly, the opposite of determinism is indeterminism.

Absolutely false. You are like a kid who will not give up the belief in Santa, no matter what his parents tell him.

Talking to the mirror again?

 

[pood]

Actually, the proper analogy is that your father was Santa, and you are a firm believer in Santa. Santa comes down the chimney bringing a book loaded with bullshit and you believe all of it without even understanding it because it comes from Santa.

 

[peacegirl]

The book to me appears to be a rehash of debates sprinkled with a little pseudoscience, ad a clam about evil. Amateur philosophy.

L Ron Hubbard was successful at it. Dianetics followed by Scientology. He started out as a hack scifi writer Scientology is global and is banned in some places.

L. Ron Hubbard (Lafayette Ronald Hubbard) was a prolific American pulp fiction writer, famous for his early career in science fiction and fantasy before founding Scientology, a controversial new religion based on his pseudoscientific book Dianetics. He wrote extensively across genres, from adventure and westerns to sci-fi and romance, gaining fame in the 1930s-40s pulp magazines before his focus shifted to Dianetics (1950) and then Scientology (1952). His science fiction often explored themes that later appeared in Scientology, with notable works including Battlefield Earth and the Mission Earth series, and he's known for creating the Writers of the Future Contest.

From a brief look free will, determinism, and compatibilism are in psychology. The issues have behavioral implications.

Philosophy is not what it was up through the 19th century. A ,lot of it classified as under philosophy are now independent disciplines. Broadly hard and soft sciences. Psychology partly based in experiment

Your father appears to have been dwelling in the 18th -19th centuries

Behavioural sciences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Behavioural science is the branch of science concerned with theorizing on, categorizing, and judging human behaviour.[1] It sits in the interstice between fields such as psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, behavioral biology, behavioral genetics and social science. While the term can technically be applied to the study of behaviour amongst all living organisms, it is nearly always used with reference to humans as the primary target of investigation (though animals may be studied in some instances, e.g. invasive techniques).[2]

Freewill vs Determinism In Psychology

The free will vs determinism debate has far-reaching implications for psychology, ethics, and our broader understanding of human behavior. Below are key

www.simplypsychology.org

Many psychologists take an interactionist or compatibilist approach as a resolution. This acknowledges that multiple factors determine behavior, but these factors interact in complex ways (so simple determinism from a single cause is insufficient).

Interactionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't resolve anything. It just repackages the same old story.

In micro-sociology, interactionism is a theoretical perspective that sees social behavior as an interactive product of the individual and the situation.[1] In other words, it derives social processes (such as conflict, cooperation, identity formation) from social interaction,[2] whereby subjectively held meanings are integral to explaining or understanding social behavior.[3]

This perspective studies the ways in which individuals shape, and are shaped by, society through their interactions. Interactionism thus argues that the individual is an active and conscious piece of the social-context system, rather than merely a passive object in their environment.[4] It believes interactions to be guided by meanings that are attached to the self, to others with whom each individual interacts, and to situations of interaction; all of which are altered in interaction themselves.[3] In this sense, interactionism may stand in contrast to studies of socialization, insofar as interactionism conceives individuals to influence groups at least as much as groups influence individuals.[5]

De4abtg proofs and existence of free will and determinism is old news.

Thinking has evolved.

Actually it has not evolved. The only thing that has come into the picture is compatibilism, and that solves nothing. It only supports the status quo of holding people morally responsible because, according to them, they had the free will not to do what they did if they did not have a gun to their head, were not addicts, and had no OCD. This is their peculiar definition that does not actually reflect what is happening in reality at all.

Starting from scratch it would 6ake me some time to get my7 arms around it, beyond wiki pages.

It's humorous that people seem to know what this book is about when they know nothing. Wiki will not tell you anything more than the definitions that its been given. I can't go forward if people will not budge from their position, even temporarily, that free will exists, so I can show them why it doesn't, and why this belief is preventing the very thing we all long for: the end of war, crime, and poverty.

 

[peacegirl]

, the proper analogy is that your father was Santa, and you are a firm believer in Santa. Santa comes down the chimney bringing a book loaded with bullshit and you believe all of it without even understanding it because it comes from Santa.

Now you're just trying to get back at me (like the bully on the playground) because you don't like that you are being told you're not only wrong but wrong as wrong can be. No libertarianism, no compatibilism, no adequate determinism, no soft determinism, no indeterminism, just DETERMINISM.

 

[pood]

, the proper analogy is that your father was Santa, and you are a firm believer in Santa. Santa comes down the chimney bringing a book loaded with bullshit and you believe all of it without even understanding it because it comes from Santa.

Now you're just trying to get back at me (like the bully on the playground) because you don't like that you are being told you're not only wrong but wrong as wrong can be. No libertarianism, no compatibilism, no adequate determinism, no soft determinism, no indeterminism, just DETERMINISM.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

Your book has a common form with content. A literary genre.

List of writing genres - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Encyclopedic novel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The encyclopedic novel is a genre of complex literary fiction which incorporates elements across a wide range of scientific, academic, and literary subjects.

Frankenstein was a mix of pseudoscience, fiction, and philosophical commentary.

Was Edgar Rice Boroughs on your father's bookshelf?

 

[WAB]

Peacegirl

Your book has a common form with content. A literary genre.

List of writing genres - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Encyclopedic novel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The encyclopedic novel is a genre of complex literary fiction which incorporates elements across a wide range of scientific, academic, and literary subjects.

Frankenstein was a mix of pseudoscience, fiction, and philosophical commentary.

Was Edgar Rice Boroughs on your father's bookshelf?

Mary Shelley was well aware that there was no real science in her book. She was married to the poet, Shelley, who helped her along with it, an outspoken atheist who was well versed in the actual science of the day.

 

[bilby]

The book to me appears to be a rehash of debates sprinkled with a little pseudoscience

A closer look would show that these "debates" are mostly with fictional interlocutors, who ask the softest of questions, and then respond to the answers with gushing praise for the genius that the easy answers allegedly reveal.

It's easy to win a debate against your own sock-puppet. It's a lot less easy to convince anyone other than yourself and your immediate family that doing so is somehow laudable, valuable, or important.

 

[peacegirl]

The book to me appears to be a rehash of debates sprinkled with a little pseudoscience

A closer look would show that these "debates" are mostly with fictional interlocutors, who ask the softest of questions, and then respond to the answers with gushing praise for the genius that the easy answers allegedly reveal.

It's easy to win a debate against your own sock-puppet. It's a lot less easy to convince anyone other than yourself and your immediate family that doing so is somehow laudable, valuable, or important.

This has nothing to do with wanting to win an argument.

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe Peacegirl was predestined to fight a lifelong battle she can never win

She thinks she has a choice but does not. No more choice tthan the Earth has a choice to orbit the Sun.

 

[peacegirl]

Maybe Peacegirl was predestined to fight a lifelong battle she can never win

She thinks she has a choice but does not. No more choice tthan the Earth has a choice to orbit the Sun.

I don't have to necessarily fight this battle (a modal fallacy) if I don't want to, but I want to, which makes anything other than what I'm doing at this very moment an impossibility. Later, I could change my mind and have others fight the good fight (I don't call it a fight; those are your words). Each moment offers a new set of conditions, allowing for a different response in my movement from here to there or from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction.

 

[steve_bank]

No more choice than Moon has to orbit the Earth and the Sun to shine..

Your body and brain are made of inanimate dumb unconscious things we call atoms. just like a rock.

Your brain has no choice to be in the state it is any more than a rock has a choice to be in the state it is in.

Wow, a revolutionary new idea, think I'll write a book.

 

[peacegirl]

No more choice than Moon has to orbit the Earth and the Sun to shine..

Your body and brain are made of inanimate dumb unconscious things we call atoms. just like a rock.

Your brain has no choice to be in the state it is any more than a rock has a choice to be in the state it is in.

Wow, a revolutionary new idea, think I'll write a book.

Your sarcasm is an effort to provoke me. If you had a true interest, you would have shown a little bit of curiosity by asking relevant questions, but you haven't. I cannot waste my energy on responding to you anymore if your posts are of the same quality.

 

[steve_bank]

All of those you do battle with here are very curious people.

After all I have seen on the forum and elsewhere if had no sense of ethics I would be writing pseudoscience pseudophilosopy and religious books. A huge market,

Ever hear of Marjoe Gortner? Look him up. Raised as kid as a bogus preacher phenom by con artist parents.

When he grew up he wrote an expose and made a documentary on the fraud in the Christian commute. He made a lot of money as a preacher. The film is online.

I read his book in the early 70s. I learned a lot frorm it about relgio and people.

Or as PT Barnum alhedly said, there is a sucker born every minute.