According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[bilby]

I don't quite grasp why you feel a hard determinist would be so obsessed with choice in the first place. Why would they?

I don't feel that a hard determinist would be obsessed with choice.

A hard determinist by definition doesn't believe choice to exist.

So your post makes no sense. Because a hard determinist would not have considered their "choice" to believe consequential. If the world is important to the hard determinist, it isn't because of any woo-driven fascination with "choices".

Huh? What in my post do you imagine depends on any kind of fascination with "choices" (woo-driven or not) on the part of determinists?

 

[Politesse]

Maybe I just have no idea what you're on about. Why would a determinist put any stock at all in choice, or claim to have "chosen" their position?

Fundamental to the idea that determinism would be a useful concept is the assumption that we can choose it.

This sentence just makes no sense at all.

 

[bilby]

Maybe I just have no idea what you're on about. Why would a determinist put any stock at all in choice, or claim to have "chosen" their position?

Fundamental to the idea that determinism would be a useful concept is the assumption that we can choose it.

This sentence just makes no sense at all.

I'm saying that, if we can't choose determinism, then it's a useless idea - because whether or not we believe it is outside our control, and what we do with that belief is, similarly outside our control.

And if we can choose it, then it's false.

So it's either useless because it's true; Or useless, because it's not true.

 

[DBT]

It makes no difference either way. The structure, mechanisms and processes of a brain are not regulated by 'free will,' nor does it generate free will. You don't choose what goes on in your brain.

Yes, it makes a difference because there is a process in the brain, an algorithm, that sorts wills, other algorithms, based on where they came from. Occasionally there is a process that can force the execution of those wills anyway.

Not so. The processes happening in the brain are not separate from the deterministic events of the world and how the system evolves. You appear to be invoking an independent agent within the system. which is not how it works....nor does it relate to compatibilism.

You may as well invoke divine agency.

.

I don't choose EVERYTHING that goes on in my brain, but I am my brain and my brain does have influence on itself; my whole brain represents a massively recursively connected system, so of course it chooses it's future states according to its present state. There is only one state any given location will chose, but there are an infinite number of locations all choosing something different according to the natural, fixed rules by which the past chooses the future.

You don't choose anything. You are whatever the brain is doing. The brain generates conscious activity in the form of self-awareness, feelings, thoughts, decisions, actions. What you think and do is brain activity, how you think, what you think, what you do is a process of cognition, not free will.

 

[DBT]

Hard determinists like Coyne and DBT and the guy DBT quoted get determinism mixed up with fatalism and pre-determinism, as explained here.

Not so.


Once more, determinism is defined the same way. The dispute lies not in the definition of determinism, but the compatibilist definition of free will.

Incompatibilists do not argue over the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is essentially the same, but the compatibilist definition of free will, which for the given reasons is insufficient to prove its proposition, the reality of free will.

Marvin Edwards, for example;

''Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch.

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' Marvin Edwards.

This does not come from a 'hard determinist'

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford


Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

 

[Jarhyn]

The processes happening in the brain are not separate from the deterministic events of the world and how the system evolves

So you deny that the universe locally real then?

Because this bit of your post constitutes a rejection that reality is "locally real". The processes in my brain are separate from the processes in alpha centauri which have not even happened yet within my reference frame. Those events do not influence me AT ALL in this moment. There is relative separation and this is the basic idea of the principle of locality.

The very fact of attenuation of force at distance informs this.

Let's actually deconstruct the operation of a switch to understand what is meant by "inconsequential".

Let's look at a moderately energetic particle from alpha centauri. This particle is going to hit a circuit, and is going to hit it squarely on a trace.

When the particle hits this metallic trace, it will add charge on the trace, and this system, let's say, is a nuclear launch system. This particle hits the trace but in this system, the button doesn't just close one circuit; it closes three. Only if A AND B AND C will the circuit detect activity.

The button activator circuit we could say encodes a "consciousness of A AND B AND C".

So, the particle hits A... And nothing happens, because the threshold wasn't reached.

In fact the system features the physical reality that the only influence allowed over the system by its physical properties is the influence coming from the soldier physically depressing it.

Clearly some deterministic events are separated from others. The events in your head are separated from the events across town... Hence why you do not have any consciousness involving the events across town in any regards. The events in my head are separated from the events I your head. Locality separates the events happening all over the universe in this way.

And this locality, the fact that things may be MORE or LESS influential with regards to other specific events is the reason why some elements or situations may more or less "responsible" to some outcome with respect to involvement (or even apparent future involvement) in activating some contingent mechanism.

As it is the events far enough beyond the cosmic microwave background won't matter at all, will matter absolutely 0 even gravitationally speaking, and will continue to do so for all time until our light come either shines upon it or it rips away to forever be on the far side of a horizon.

 

[Politesse]

I'm saying that, if we can't choose determinism, then it's a useless idea - because whether or not we believe it is outside our control, and what we do with that belief is, similarly outside our control.

So "usefulness" can only come from engaging in the delusion of "choice", according to you? Why is it "useful" to believe in a fantasy? "Control", likewise, can only be a product of choice?

 

[pood]

Hard determinists like Coyne and DBT and the guy DBT quoted get determinism mixed up with fatalism and pre-determinism, as explained here.

Not so.


Once more, determinism is defined the same way. The dispute lies not in the definition of determinism, but the compatibilist definition of free will.

Incompatibilists do not argue over the compatibilist definition of determinism, which is essentially the same, but the compatibilist definition of free will, which for the given reasons is insufficient to prove its proposition, the reality of free will.

Marvin Edwards, for example;

''Determinism means that events will proceed naturally (as if "fixed as a matter of natural law") and reliably ("without deviation").

However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects of natural forces, like volcanoes and tidal waves or a meteor hitting the Earth. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of biological organisms that transform their environments, like tree seedlings changing bare land into a forest. Determinism cannot exclude the effects of deliberate choices, like when the chef prepares me the salad that I chose for lunch.

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' Marvin Edwards.

This does not come from a 'hard determinist'

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford


Determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action. In other words, it is never true that people could have decided or acted otherwise than they actually did.''

Yes, you quoted these in the other two threads from last year, and they’re as wrong now as they were then. And I don’t care what sort of authority they come from. Those authorities are wrong in their definitions of determinism.

”The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism …” Full stop. That’s wrong. Determinism does not govern anything. What we call “determinism” is a description, not a prescription, of how some things go. (Not quantum things — and the world, I’d note, is in fact entirely quantum. But QM is not necessary for compatibilism to be true.) You yourself agreed, in this very thread, that the “laws” of nature “govern“ nothing.

In the other threads, I gave you my definition of determinism: “Events (approximatley) reliably follow causes.“ IOW, Hume’s “constant conjunction.” That’s it. That is determinism. It entails nothing about free will, however that is defined. You keep saying there is a universally agreed upon definition of determinism. There is not, any more than there is a universally agreed upon definition of free will. That’s a fact. Every time you quote a so-called definition of determinism, it’s really a definition of HARD determinism, which is not the same thing as determinism.

 

[pood]

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' Marvin Edwards.

This does not come from a 'hard determinist'

You’re right, it doesn’t. But perhaps you will recall, in those threads from last year, I disagreed with Marvin’s statement. I don’t know how many times I have to say this — and you don’t have to agree with me, of course, but it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge my saying it, and proceed from there, recognizing that although Marvin and I broadly agree, we may disagree on certain details — I do not recognize any modal cateogry called ”causal necessity.” I only recognize the well-articulated modal category of logical necessity.

And. since we can conceive alternatives to our choices that do not bring about a logical contradiction, it follows that none of our choices are ever necessary.

 

[DBT]

The processes happening in the brain are not separate from the deterministic events of the world and how the system evolves

So you deny that the universe locally real then?

Where does that come from? It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

How do you jump from brain agency to 'locally real?'

It makes no sense.

Because this bit of your post constitutes a rejection that reality is "locally real". The processes in my brain are separate from the processes in alpha centauri which have not even happened yet within my reference frame. Those events do not influence me AT ALL in this moment. There is relative separation and this is the basic idea of the principle of locality.

The very fact of attenuation of force at distance informs this.

Let's actually deconstruct the operation of a switch to understand what is meant by "inconsequential".

Let's look at a moderately energetic particle from alpha centauri. This particle is going to hit a circuit, and is going to hit it squarely on a trace.

When the particle hits this metallic trace, it will add charge on the trace, and this system, let's say, is a nuclear launch system. This particle hits the trace but in this system, the button doesn't just close one circuit; it closes three. Only if A AND B AND C will the circuit detect activity.

The button activator circuit we could say encodes a "consciousness of A AND B AND C".

So, the particle hits A... And nothing happens, because the threshold wasn't reached.

In fact the system features the physical reality that the only influence allowed over the system by its physical properties is the influence coming from the soldier physically depressing it.

Clearly some deterministic events are separated from others. The events in your head are separated from the events across town... Hence why you do not have any consciousness involving the events across town in any regards. The events in my head are separated from the events I your head. Locality separates the events happening all over the universe in this way.

And this locality, the fact that things may be MORE or LESS influential with regards to other specific events is the reason why some elements or situations may more or less "responsible" to some outcome with respect to involvement (or even apparent future involvement) in activating some contingent mechanism.

As it is the events far enough beyond the cosmic microwave background won't matter at all, will matter absolutely 0 even gravitationally speaking, and will continue to do so for all time until our light come either shines upon it or it rips away to forever be on the far side of a horizon.

That's a load of Poly Waffle.

This much is not difficult: the state of the brain in any given instance in time determines output in terms of experience, thought and response.

This is a process of cognition, the sum total activity of neural networks and motor response, not free will.

In terms of the above, if you can, try to explain the following;

1 - The role of genes in relation to free will.
2 - Neural processing of information in relation to free will.
3 - Chemical changes to the brain in relation to free will. (accounting for observed changes in perception, personality, and behaviour)
4 - Pathological changes in the brain in relation to free will (altered perceptions, personality, and behaviour)
5 - Environmental conditioning in relation to free will.

 

[DBT]

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' Marvin Edwards.

This does not come from a 'hard determinist'

You’re right, it doesn’t. But perhaps you will recall, in those threads from last year, I disagreed with Marvin’s statement. I don’t know how many times I have to say this — and you don’t have to agree with me, of course, but it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge my saying it, and proceed from there, recognizing that although Marvin and I broadly agree, we may disagree on certain details — I do not recognize any modal cateogry called ”causal necessity.” I only recognize the well-articulated modal category of logical necessity.

And. since we can conceive alternatives to our choices that do not bring about a logical contradiction, it follows that none of our choices are ever necessary.

What you happen to disagree with has no bearing on how determinism is defined.

Determinism as it is defined in philosophy does not permit deviations, or alternate choices.

This is not a matter of a compatibilist definition of determinism or an incompatibilist definition of determinism, but simply how determinism is defined in philosophy and science.

And this is the standard definition of determinism, the very same definition both sides of the debate use;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford.

Where, given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

That is determinism as it is defined. As it is defined, there can be no alternate decisions or actions in any given instance in time.

Which is not to say you can't do something that you couldn't do a moment ago....as the system deterministically evolves from past to present and future conditions of the system, as it must necessarily do.

Marvin Edwards has the fundamentals of determinism right, the contention lies not in the definition of determinism, which is standard, but how free will is being defined by compatibilists.

 

[Jarhyn]

Where does that come from? It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

How do you jump from brain agency to 'locally real?'

It makes no sense.

The fact that you don't see what sense Local Realism makes, despite the fact I laid it out clearly and Pood DID understand means that you are deep in Dunning-Kruger.

I can't send someone into the cave to fish you out. I told you how it related, and you failed to understand.

The problem is that your brain appears incapable of processing two abstractions at the same time. Alas, this is the very wall that many aspiring computer scientists hit that relegates them instead to script writing.

The processes in my brain are separate from the processes in alpha centauri which have not even happened yet within my reference frame. Those events do not influence me AT ALL in this moment. There is relative separation and this is the basic idea of the principle of locality.

The relative separation of causal influence has everything to do with this, because it is the basis for the concept of "responsibility".

With local reality comes local responsibility. You can't get reality as we see it without responsibility.

Ironically the universe not being locally real would imply an erosion of responsibility, insofar as you could always say " it's not my fault; its just a random happenstance out of anyone's control".

Indeed while some events from alpha centauri may allow that distant body to subtly tug on our own, this influence does not impact the function of switch based information systems in the least. Local Realism in fact creates a situation where your actions over there will not impact me over here until some time after you have made those actions, and my actions will not impact yours either for exactly the same period of time.

I think you really need to understand a LOT more about relativity, locality, etc. Before you make assertions about freedom and wills.

The fact is that the entire discussion of the topic from before Turing did his work needs to be flushed down the toilet and restarted because of bronze-age artifacts like the nonsense statement "the ability to do otherwise".

 

[pood]

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' Marvin Edwards.

This does not come from a 'hard determinist'

You’re right, it doesn’t. But perhaps you will recall, in those threads from last year, I disagreed with Marvin’s statement. I don’t know how many times I have to say this — and you don’t have to agree with me, of course, but it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge my saying it, and proceed from there, recognizing that although Marvin and I broadly agree, we may disagree on certain details — I do not recognize any modal cateogry called ”causal necessity.” I only recognize the well-articulated modal category of logical necessity.

And. since we can conceive alternatives to our choices that do not bring about a logical contradiction, it follows that none of our choices are ever necessary.

What you happen to disagree with has no bearing on how determinism is defined.

Determinism as it is defined in philosophy does not permit deviations, or alternate choices.

This is not a matter of a compatibilist definition of determinism or an incompatibilist definition of determinism, but simply how determinism is defined in philosophy and science.

And this is the standard definition of determinism, the very same definition both sides of the debate use;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford.

Where, given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

That is determinism as it is defined. As it is defined, there can be no alternate decisions or actions in any given instance in time.

Which is not to say you can't do something that you couldn't do a moment ago....as the system deterministically evolves from past to present and future conditions of the system, as it must necessarily do.

Marvin Edwards has the fundamentals of determinism right, the contention lies not in the definition of determinism, which is standard, but how free will is being defined by compatibilists.

No, DBT, there is NOT a universal definition of determinism. You are repeating the same LOADED definitions of HARD determinism — pre-defined to support your chosen outcome. MY definition — and it was David Hume’s definition, too — is simply “constant conjuction.” If you want to wage a war of experts, I’ll take Hume over the Stanford Encylopedia any day,

But there is no need for such a war, because it’s just silly, and objectively false, to say that everyone in the whole wide world has the exact same definition of determinism as you do, except for .,. me. Pure nonsense.

 

[pood]

How Life Evolved the Power to Choose

Here is exactly the point I made in the other threads — there are selective pressures for the evolution of complex brains because brainy creatures like ourselves are NOT rocks rolling down hills or simple ogranisms responding instinctively to stiumuli. If hard determinism were true, brains would be useless -- there’d be no selective pressure for organs that can choose. Note that the credentials of the author are every bit as good as Sapolsky’s.

 

[DBT]

All of these events, including my choices, were causally necessary from any prior point in time. And they all proceeded without deviation from the Big Bang to this moment.'' Marvin Edwards.

This does not come from a 'hard determinist'

You’re right, it doesn’t. But perhaps you will recall, in those threads from last year, I disagreed with Marvin’s statement. I don’t know how many times I have to say this — and you don’t have to agree with me, of course, but it would be nice if you would at least acknowledge my saying it, and proceed from there, recognizing that although Marvin and I broadly agree, we may disagree on certain details — I do not recognize any modal cateogry called ”causal necessity.” I only recognize the well-articulated modal category of logical necessity.

And. since we can conceive alternatives to our choices that do not bring about a logical contradiction, it follows that none of our choices are ever necessary.

What you happen to disagree with has no bearing on how determinism is defined.

Determinism as it is defined in philosophy does not permit deviations, or alternate choices.

This is not a matter of a compatibilist definition of determinism or an incompatibilist definition of determinism, but simply how determinism is defined in philosophy and science.

And this is the standard definition of determinism, the very same definition both sides of the debate use;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. - Stanford.

Where, given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

That is determinism as it is defined. As it is defined, there can be no alternate decisions or actions in any given instance in time.

Which is not to say you can't do something that you couldn't do a moment ago....as the system deterministically evolves from past to present and future conditions of the system, as it must necessarily do.

Marvin Edwards has the fundamentals of determinism right, the contention lies not in the definition of determinism, which is standard, but how free will is being defined by compatibilists.

No, DBT, there is NOT a universal definition of determinism. You are repeating the same LOADED definitions of HARD determinism — pre-defined to support your chosen outcome. MY definition — and it was David Hume’s definition, too — is simply “constant conjuction.” If you want to wage a war of experts, I’ll take Hume over the Stanford Encylopedia any day,

But there is no need for such a war, because it’s just silly, and objectively false, to say that everyone in the whole wide world has the exact same definition of determinism as you do, except for .,. me. Pure nonsense.

Come off it. What do you think determinism means?

That any old thing happen? That things can just go this way or that way depending on what you decide?

That when presented with a number of options you can take any one of them at any time?

You seem to be confusing determinism with Libertarian free will.

You appear to be trying to set your own terms and conditions in order to support your own idea of free will.

Which is not compatibilist, but Libertarian free will.


''Still others, most notably David Hume and some prominent contemporary social psychologists, believe they can have it both ways: accept determinism while also postulating a type of non-libertarian, straight-jacketed “free” will that still enables moral judgment [I put the “free” in quotation marks because the semantics are drained from the word].


This is the compatibilist view of free will (see here for an excellent article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). How is this supposed to work? First, we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes (and perhaps a dash of true chance). Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X. At this point, we should ascribe free will to all animals capable of experiencing desires (e.g., to eat, sleep, or mate). Yet, we don’t; and we tend not to judge non-human animals in moral terms. Exceptions occur, but are swiftly dismissed as errors of anthropomorphism.''

 

[DBT]

How Life Evolved the Power to Choose

Here is exactly the point I made in the other threads — there are selective pressures for the evolution of complex brains because brainy creatures like ourselves are NOT rocks rolling down hills or simple ogranisms responding instinctively to stiumuli. If hard determinism were true, brains would be useless -- there’d be no selective pressure for organs that can choose. Note that the credentials of the author are every bit as good as Sapolsky’s.

You are conflating decision making with choice. Again, decision making is not being questioned, just choice in relation to determinism.

As determinism does not permit alternate actions, the option that is taken is done necessarily.

''First, we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes (and perhaps a dash of true chance). Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X.''

 

[DBT]

Where does that come from? It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

How do you jump from brain agency to 'locally real?'

It makes no sense.

The fact that you don't see what sense Local Realism makes, despite the fact I laid it out clearly and Pood DID understand means that you are deep in Dunning-Kruger.

There you go, resorting to insults.

You have lost. A hint, if determinism is the reality of the world, the given conditions apply to all events. Where the system evolves, just as you said, without randomness or deviation.

Your ''local realism' is a Red Herring.

An argument where, failing to grasp the terms and conditions of determinism and its implications, you turn to slander.

. "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

 

[Jarhyn]

Where does that come from? It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

How do you jump from brain agency to 'locally real?'

It makes no sense.

The fact that you don't see what sense Local Realism makes, despite the fact I laid it out clearly and Pood DID understand means that you are deep in Dunning-Kruger.

There you go, resorting to insults.

You have lost. A hint, if determinism is the reality of the world, the given conditions apply to all events. Where the system evolves, just as you said, without randomness or deviation.

Your ''local realism' is a Red Herring.

An argument where, failing to grasp the terms and conditions of determinism and its implications, you turn to slander.

. "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

Randomness and deviation are not the creators of "free will".

Something is responsible because of what it is and has done and contingent mechanisms it contains.

I have explained why local Realism matters, and why it makes your statements laughably false about relative causal responsibility.

I explained this in detail, that "the ability to do otherwise" was never asked for by the compatibilist, but rather "the possibility to have done otherwise IF I had wanted to."

Not wanting to does not abrogate the truth of the counterfactual.

 

[pood]

Come off it. What do you think determinism means?

Just what I said it means, and what Hume said it means: “Constant conjuction.”

Please address that, and stop claiming that your definition of “determinism” is universal. It’s not even any definiition of determinism. It’s the definition of HARD determinism.

Conflating hard determinism with determism by definition is entirely question-begging.

Also, I skimmed through the psyhc today article you quoted, and spotted his error right away. Same old error you hard determinists always make when discussing compatibilism, the same one you’ve made endlessly despite being corrected endlessly.

 

[The AntiChris]

Conflating hard determinism with determism by definition is entirely question-begging.

My understanding is that the only difference between hard determinism and [soft] determinism is that the former entails a belief that determinism is incompatible with freedom (choice and freewill) whilst the latter entails a belief (for whatever reason) that notions of freedom (choice and free will) are compatible with determinism. They (hard and soft) are not normally considered to be different 'determinisms'.

Believers in libertarian free will are not determinists.