According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[southernhybrid]

6 months and 300 posts in... am I still the only person who has actually read this book?

I'm not sure if I have that one on my kindle, but the two books that I enjoyed and agree with are "The Nonsense of Free Will" and
"The Cruelty of Freewill" by Richard Oerton. I read them both several years ago. They are probably easier reads compared to the one in the OP, but there are numerous science writers who have written books explaining why we don't have free will. I think I have read part of a book entitled "Behave", which may be by the same author. It gives a good argument as to why we don't have control over our behavior, or at least not much of our behavior.

It's not that psychopathic criminals should be kept out of prison, as society must be protected from these folks, but as you know, considering your volunteer work, our prisons are often if not usually terrible places, often full of guards who commit crimes and sometimes run by gangs, along with horrible conditions, awful food etc. At least many if most of them are, based on numerous articles I've read after large news papers have done intensive investigations of various prisons.

So, at least we could make our prisons more humane places, considering that criminals don't have free will and psychopathy is a disorder of the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex. Not all, but some of the worst criminals suffer from psychopathy, including many white collar criminals. I've read books on psychopathy as well. Just don't test me on them. With all the pain meds I've had to take over the past several years, along with my aging brain, I don't always remember enough details to write them out.

I haven't read the entire thread. Have you said what your opinion is of the book mentioned in the OP?

 

[Politesse]

6 months and 300 posts in... am I still the only person who has actually read this book?

I'm not sure if I have that one on my kindle, but the two books that I enjoyed and agree with are "The Nonsense of Free Will" and
"The Cruelty of Freewill" by Richard Oerton. I read them both several years ago. They are probably easier reads compared to the one in the OP, but there are numerous science writers who have written books explaining why we don't have free will. I think I have read part of a book entitled "Behave", which may be by the same author. It gives a good argument as to why we don't have control over our behavior, or at least not much of our behavior.

It's not that psychopathic criminals should be kept out of prison, as society must be protected from these folks, but as you know, considering your volunteer work, our prisons are often if not usually terrible places, often full of guards who commit crimes and sometimes run by gangs, along with horrible conditions, awful food etc. At least many if most of them are, based on numerous articles I've read after large news papers have done intensive investigations of various prisons.

So, at least we could make our prisons more humane places, considering that criminals don't have free will and psychopathy is a disorder of the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex. Not all, but some of the worst criminals suffer from psychopathy, including many white collar criminals. I've read books on psychopathy as well. Just don't test me on them. With all the pain meds I've had to take over the past several years, along with my aging brain, I don't always remember enough details to write them out.

I haven't read the entire thread. Have you said what your opinion is of the book mentioned in the OP?

I only finished it recently. It was alright. Very much written for a popular audience, and I find Sapolsky's conversational tone a bit irritating at multiple points. But I already sort of agreed with his broader point, of course, and I don't find the presentation of it unreasonable, just brief and a bit overly colloquial.

 

[DBT]

function is a matter of neural architecture

And neural architecture contains the contingent switches that switch on IF something happens and switch OFF if something else happens. It WILL switch on and it WILL switch off. This is about the encoded will. Are you just blind to the existence of contingent mechanisms and how this comes back to the "will" of "free will"?

 

[DBT]

function is a matter of neural architecture

And neural architecture contains the contingent switches that switch on IF something happens and switch OFF if something else happens. It WILL switch on and it WILL switch off. This is about the encoded will. Are you just blind to the existence of contingent mechanisms and how this comes back to the "will" of "free will"?

Neural architecture has nothing to do with free will. Functionality is not free will.

Basically;



Why I Have No Free Will

''I have no free will, and it’s great.

My brain is what controls my behaviour. It is, like all matter, composed entirely of chemicals. It is extraordinarily complicated, with many many working parts, all interconnected in a fiendish and as-yet unfathomed pattern. No matter how complicated a thing is, however, it remains true that at any given instant in time, it is in a particular state. The chemicals are joined in particular combinations, and energy and matter are moving around in particular directions.

Some stimulus comes into my brain from outside. It is sensed by my senses and the signal is sent to my brain. That signal interacts with my brain, changes the physical and chemical state of my brain, and the result is some behaviour from me. My body follows what my brain instructs it to do. Where was the free will? There wasn’t any.

Someone tells a joke. I hear the joke. The sounds of the joke come into my brains through my ears, and are translated into electro-chemical activity. The language parts of my brain recognise what the words I hear mean. The joke relies on my understanding that the sound of "big ears" can mean both large ears, and the name of the fictional character Noddy’s best friend. I already know this, from previous life experience, and so I am able to get the joke*. My brain registers the humour of the joke, and I laugh. I do not decide to laugh consciously. The stimulus got a response: my laughter.

A few minutes later, I hear the same person tell the same joke to someone else. This time, I don’t laugh. I don’t laugh because I have heard the joke before. My brain has been chemically altered by the first telling, and now the sounds I hear are interacting with a different brain.''

 

[Jarhyn]

Neural architecture has nothing to do with free will. Functionality is not free will

Free will is an aspect of functionality no matter how much you will choose to deny it.

It's right there in the reality of "contingent mechanisms of function" and the reality of viable targets of response.

'I have no free will, and it’s great

Cool story bro.

 

[DBT]

Neural architecture has nothing to do with free will. Functionality is not free will

Free will is an aspect of functionality no matter how much you will choose to deny it.

Clearly - for the reasons given, a non-chosen condition of the brain generates behavioural output be it adaptive, maladaptive, habits, rituals, beliefs, absurdities, etc - it's not. Asserting that it is doesn't make it so.

Sorry if that's difficult to take on board.

It's right there in the reality of "contingent mechanisms of function" and the reality of viable targets of response.

'I have no free will, and it’s great

Cool story bro.

Perhaps you can consider what it tells you, take it to heart and drop your illusions?

 

[Jarhyn]

Clearly - for the reasons given, a non-chosen condition of the brain generates behavioural output be it adaptive, maladaptive, habits, rituals, beliefs, absurdities, etc - it's not

This begs the question yet again that it can be or wasn't chosen.

As has been discussed, MANY actual states of the brain ARE chosen, the process needed to be engaged for the individual to choose them has been discussed, and it has been discussed as nauseum how state machines control themselves.

The contingent mechanism can be directed at itself. This is in many aspects the very heart of recursive processes.

Your contributions to this topic are "the foolishness that professes itself wise".

 

[pood]

So, at least we could make our prisons more humane places, …

But that would require us choosing to do so, and we are told by hard determinists that we can choose absolutely nothing, so I guess shitty prisons exist by way of a secular version of Calvinistic predestination.

 

[DBT]

Clearly - for the reasons given, a non-chosen condition of the brain generates behavioural output be it adaptive, maladaptive, habits, rituals, beliefs, absurdities, etc - it's not

This begs the question yet again that it can be or wasn't chosen.

It raises the question. And the answer depends on the nature of the system that has the means to generate a wide range of behaviours

As has been discussed, MANY actual states of the brain ARE chosen, the process needed to be engaged for the individual to choose them has been discussed, and it has been discussed as nauseum how state machines control themselves.

Selection happens all the time, the brain does it, other animals do it, computers do it (as with brains) are able to select from a set of options according to a set of criteria, but because the means and mechanism and function of selection has everything to do with neural architecture, state and condition and function, the process of selection has nothing to do with free will.

The idea of free will tells us nothing about how the system works or how it behaves.

The contingent mechanism can be directed at itself. This is in many aspects the very heart of recursive processes.

Your contributions to this topic are "the foolishness that professes itself wise".

Nah, its the loser who in the absence of a rational rebuttal turns to insults as a means of appearing relevant. That, sadly, is the position you have put yourself into,

 

[Jarhyn]

It raises the question

No, begs.

neural architecture, state and condition and function, the process of selection has nothing to do with free will.

Begging the question again of whether 'neural state, condition, function' is "choosing".

Selection happens all the time, the brain does it, other animals do it, computers do it (as with brains) are able to select from a set of options according to a set of criteria

And that is called "choice between degrees of freedom within the system according to a will", also known as "acting with free will as an agent".

Thanks for playing, maybe you can enjoy a copy of the home game.

 

[DBT]

It raises the question

No, begs.

Begging the question is the fallacy of a circular argument. You were raising a question.

neural architecture, state and condition and function, the process of selection has nothing to do with free will.

Begging the question again of whether 'neural state, condition, function' is "choosing".

The issue of whether decisions are a matter of choice comes down to the nature of the system and the world.

If there is only one possible outcome in any given instance of decision making because the system is deterministic, there was never a possibility of taking an alternate option, therefore the decision was never a real choice. Choices require the actual possibility of taking an alternate option (not merely the impression), while determinism permits no deviations.

Selection happens all the time, the brain does it, other animals do it, computers do it (as with brains) are able to select from a set of options according to a set of criteria

And that is called "choice between degrees of freedom within the system according to a will", also known as "acting with free will as an agent".

Thanks for playing, maybe you can enjoy a copy of the home game.

The terms and conditions of determinism - as pointed out, and as you, yourself define it - events within a deterministic system means that the process of selection is both inevitable and fixed by antecedents, the past states of the system setting the events of the present and future states of the system.

Sorry that this upsets you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Begging the question is the fallacy of a circular argument. You were raising a question.

I was raising the question, you were begging the question. Keep up.

If there is only one possible outcome in any given instance of decision making because the system is deterministic, there was never a possibility of taking an alternate option

This is, yet again, the fact that the "possibility" is related not to what does happen but by what degrees of freedom, what contingency existed, to decide the outcome.

You are ridiculous in denying that Marvin May order the stake and Marvin May order the salad are not questions of what Marvin does, but simple descriptions of facts about the steak and the salad.

Your constant self-victimization with the modal fallacy is still droll.

 

[DBT]

Begging the question is the fallacy of a circular argument. You were raising a question.

I was raising the question, you were begging the question. Keep up.

Nah, a means of defense based on your lack of understanding of both determinism and incompatibilism. Before you try to invoke the circular argument fallacy, you should at least try to grasp the implications of your own definition of determinism. After all this time, I don't expect that to happen.

If there is only one possible outcome in any given instance of decision making because the system is deterministic, there was never a possibility of taking an alternate option

This is, yet again, the fact that the "possibility" is related not to what does happen but by what degrees of freedom, what contingency existed, to decide the outcome.

There is no freedom to select an alternate option or action within a deterministic system. Not according to me, but the nature of determinism as it is defined, including the definition you gave.

You can't have it both ways, you can't have a system where past conditions determine current conditions, which determine future states of the system....yet you have the ability to select any option at any given time.

You are ridiculous in denying that Marvin May order the stake and Marvin May order the salad are not questions of what Marvin does, but simple descriptions of facts about the steak and the salad.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Have you been drinking?

Your constant self-victimization with the modal fallacy is still droll.

Is your frustration and anger getting the better of you? That's how it looks.

Why are you so emotional about this issue? Why so snarky and bitchy about it?

The notion of free will tells us nothing about human behaviour doesn't change who you are, how you think or what you do.

Chill out, your brain is a rational system, you don't need free will to think and act.

Again.

It shouldn't be hard to understand. This is not something I came up with.

Take note and consider the issue with an open mind.

''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems! - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

Quote;
''The Soon et al paper jumps right into the middle of these issues. It shows us how limited, even misleading, our introspections are. According to the authors, many seconds before we are aware that we have made a decision, we have -- or at least, our brain has! All of the data of cognitive neuroscience are pushing us to replace the idea of mind-body duality, which is so intuitive, with the idea that mental processes are brain processes. But these results on the neural processes underlying free decisions rub our noses in it! One can assimilate findings about color vision or motor control being brain functions a lot more easily than findings about consciously experienced "free will" being a brain function, and hence physically determined and not free at all!''

 

[Jarhyn]

Nah, a means of defense based on your lack of understanding of both determinism and incompatibilism

You can't even BE a compatibilist without understanding determinism, and you haven't yet offered any sort of reasoned rebuttal, just argumentum ad dictum.

The notion of free will tells us nothing about human behaviour doesn't change who you are, how you think or what you do

It clearly does: there are meaningful ways I can change my own state. So what that it is according to my own past state? It's still MY past state that the change accorded to.

That is integral to the logic of how I am, how I think, and ultimately what I do.

My acceptance that my internal moment may be changed by my internal moments allows me to more adequately and carefully plan our which changes are to be transitory and which are to be permanent (see also "an object in motion..." For discussions on "material moment").

As discussed by other posters here, this works better for those who do this than not-doing does for those who don't.

This adds steps to the logic, adds a planning phase, adds more oversight to those plans, and ultimately allows the catching of bad behavior before it happens, the abrogation of wills best kept constrained, in addition to the planning to keep wills free of constraint that keep my own personal meta-goal satisfied and "in service"

 

[steve_bank]

Gift link to NYT article.

This was an interesting read, but I disagree completely with his reasoning. If this was actually the case, humans would be no different from animals which live on instinct. I firmly believe that we have something within us that makes us separate from typical animals; call it a “soul” or whatever you want.

There are statements of his views in one paragraph that I absolutely reject:

There are major implications, he notes: Absent free will, no one should be held responsible for their behavior, good or bad. Dr. Sapolsky sees this as “liberating” for most people, for whom “life has been about being blamed and punished and deprived and ignored for things they have no control over.”

If this is the case, we have no basis for punishment of criminal behavior. I suspect that when it comes to his personal life, he would expect anyone who harmed him to be punished for that behavior.

I have to digress. Human history from the earliest records show us to be more like screeching, aggressive, violent, feces flinging chimps.

Free will is open to debate. There is no way to prove exp experimentally that we have an idealized free will that is not subect to prior conditions and ex[erience.


You gointo a store and choose between b;ack and white socks. It is a free choice in that no one is telling you or compelling you to choose one o the other. Why choose back or white? Thatl;eads back to your ex]erinces going back to when you are born, IMO.

Here in Seattle the prevailing view has bcome no oe is resp[onsible for acons and choices, a least among our progreesive politicans. An adult does not choose to do drugs, he or she is afflcted by a disease beyond their control.

Soul is a catch all phrase for our cunnulative eperiences, feelings, and expererinces.

American blacks coined the terms 'soul food' and 'soul music'. Black ethnic food and musc tha feeds the collective black soul and identity. Feelings.

Who is to say elphants have no soul?

I watched a show about an animal reserve that took in circus and zoo elephants. A younger elephant was brought in in and when put in a barredisolation cage an older elephant and the new elephant bent bars trying to make physical contact. when released into the open area thyoung elephant and the old female boded and were inseparable.

After some research they found the old female had befriended te orphaned younger elephant in a circus as i remember. They remembered each other and apparently had feelings for each other.

The idea we are difert than any other crotters comes from Genesis, at east in our Chrtian domnated culture.

There is avideo dating back to the 80s of Snow Monkees in Ja[an. Somweone doiung a documntary hapenpd t be aroud when Snow Monlees discovered the pleasire of hot springs in the winte. and filmed. After a while they were swimng aroud and grooming each oht and just hanging out. Put wine glasses in thir hands and they could be Europeans in a hot tub.

 

[DBT]

Nah, a means of defense based on your lack of understanding of both determinism and incompatibilism

You can't even BE a compatibilist without understanding determinism, and you haven't yet offered any sort of reasoned rebuttal, just argumentum ad dictum.

The notion of free will tells us nothing about human behaviour doesn't change who you are, how you think or what you do

It clearly does: there are meaningful ways I can change my own state. So what that it is according to my own past state? It's still MY past state that the change accorded to.

Nah, one's state is constantly changing in response to events in the external world and the brain, the latter happening below the threshold of conscious awareness, which is generated by the state of the system as it responds, grows older, lesions, tangles, chemical imbalances, etc.

The term 'free will' says nothing about a persons genetic makeup, culture, family influence, language, life experiences and the countless elements that make us who we are and how we think and act'

Your simplistic 'we can change ourselves' takes virtually none of this into account. Just asserting 'we can change ourselves' while ignoring how the process of change happens is not an argument for free will or compatibilism

That is integral to the logic of how I am, how I think, and ultimately what I do.

Sure, and you didn't orchestrate your own genetic makeup, where you were born, your family, culture, formative experiences....you know, all the things that make you who you are.

My acceptance that my internal moment may be changed by my internal moments allows me to more adequately and carefully plan our which changes are to be transitory and which are to be permanent (see also "an object in motion..." For discussions on "material moment").

Incompatibilism doesn't mean that we can't think, feel, plan, imagine, decide or act, just that none of these abilities has anything whatsoever to do with the notion of free will.

A brain with the necessary capacity can do these things because it has the neural architecture that enables these abilities, not free will.

If everyone has 'free will' and one student is a math wiz while another can barely do basic arithmetic the difference has everything to do elements other than the notion of free will.

As discussed by other posters here, this works better for those who do this than not-doing does for those who don't.

This adds steps to the logic, adds a planning phase, adds more oversight to those plans, and ultimately allows the catching of bad behavior before it happens, the abrogation of wills best kept constrained, in addition to the planning to keep wills free of constraint that keep my own personal meta-goal satisfied and "in service"

''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems! - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nah, one's state is constantly changing in response to events in the external world and the brain

So, themselves. The brain is them therefore they exert change upon themselves and thus can decide on themselves themselves...

That this goes past you every time is some dubious miracle of unawareness.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm not that impressed by the whole free will issue. If we have free will, great. If we don't have free will, we have the illusion of free will that's strong enough to allow us to live as though we have free will, because the ultimate causes of our behavior are imperceptible to us. So what?

 

[pood]

Sure, and you didn't orchestrate your own genetic makeup, where you were born, your family, culture, formative experiences....you know, all the things that make you who you are.

I know we’ve probably exhausted our exchanges, but I still remain curious why you stuff straw like this. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the compatibilist denies none of the above. The only modification I would add is that those aren’t the ONLY things that make you who you are — stuff that is happening right now can also contribute. The idea that we can proceed from this to the conclusion that I didn’t actually choose to have eggs for breakfast this morning is the big elephant of a non sequitur in the room.

 

[DBT]

Re, GenesisNemsis, it spills out into ideology and religion, 'our God given free will' to choose or reject God, to choose good or evil. In law, how we treat what may be damaged people, those who literally cannot feel empathy or understand the consequences of their actions, and so on.....with some, the very idea of free will takes on the tone of a religion, an emotional attachment to an ideal.