According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[BSilvEsq]

As to randomness it is science not just engineering. QM is based on the fact at the quantum scale we can only predict statically. A wave function is a probability distribution.

Yeah, predicting quantum raindrops would be a trick. Fortunately for the prediction business, raindrops are massive objects that largely adhere to Newtonian mechanics.

Here is my question: Does Newtonian mechanics dictate what I will eat for dinner tonight, what time I will go to sleep, when I will awaken, what I will do tomorrow, what road I will travel, when I will die?

I believe Newtonian mechanics does dictate all of the above at its core. But, that would mean that my future is inexorably fixed -- as in fatalism, predetermined, etc. To my small mind, that also would mean that I lack Free Will to determine what to eat this evening. [And, before the detractors chime in, there is no modal fallacy in play if the presumption of Newtonian mechanics is that the future events are inexorably fixed by antecedent events].

If the answer is no, I can see how I might have Free Will. If the answer is no, that also leads to a truly chaotic state of affairs -- and not simply as a matter of prediction, but also as a matter of actuality. That, however, begs the question of how Free Will can exist in an universe in which human thought is indeterministic, random, and chaotic.

It seems to me that true Free Will (i.e., the Libertarian variation, and not the version that simply states that any unpredictable future decision is free) cannot exits unless we view humans as, somehow, divorced from nature and imbued with superhuman abilities. It is very spiritual and almost religious -- with a scientific fig leaf.

Science is descriptive not prescriptive.

Quantum, Newtonian, or relativistic mechanics do not dictate behavior. They define a model that in an experiment that predicts results.

You have to be careful to avoid conflating a deterministic math function in Newtonian mechanics such as speed = distance/time with philosophical Determinism applied to the universe.

I understand and agree that "science is descriptive and not prescriptive." That is a very short and concise way to say it. That also is what I mean when I say that science is a paradigm.

As I said in another post, I misspoke when I asked whether Newtonian mechanics dictates certain action.

I understand that a description of something, in and of itself, does not dictate anything. Thus, when one uses the term Authoritarianism to describe the form of government in a country, it would be wrong to ask if authoritarianism dictates the behavior of the citizens.

It would, however, be appropriate ask if the person whose style of ruling is described as authoritarianism dictates the behavior of the citizens.

Thus, and as I stated in my other post, I should have asked whether the behavior of the universe that is sought to be described by Newtonian mechanics dictates certain action.

I also understand that Newtonian mechanics, which I also understand to be described as Newtonian Determinism, does not necessarily equate to the philosophical notion of Determinism (or Causal Determinism), which posits that all action in the universe is caused by antecedent action -- so much so that it would be appropriate to say that the paradigm of determinism posits that all activity is "predetermined: by antecedent activity.

As explained by Karl Popper:

“The metaphysical doctrine of determinism simply asserts that all events in this world are fixed, or unalterable, or predetermined. It does not assert that they are known to anybody, or predictable by scientific means. But it asserts that the future is as little changeable as is the past. Everybody knows what we mean when we say that the past cannot be changed. It is in precisely the same sense that the future cannot be changed, according to metaphysical determinism.”

So, to rephrase my post to which you have replied (and for which I thank you for your considered response:

Here is my question: Does the activity of the universe that is sought to be described by Newtonian mechanics dictate what I will eat for dinner tonight, what time I will go to sleep, when I will awaken, what I will do tomorrow, what road I will travel, when I will die?

As best I understand it, there are some physicists who say that Newtonian mechanics does describe an activity of the universe that dictates all of the above. If that extreme interpretation of Newton's description of the operation of the universe is accurate, that would mean that my future is inexorably fixed -- as in fatalism, predetermined, etc. To my small mind, that also would mean that I lack Free Will to determine what to eat this evening. [And, before the detractors chime in, there is no modal fallacy in play if the presumption of Newtonian mechanics is that future events are inexorably fixed by antecedent events].

If the answer is no, I can see how I might have Free Will. If the answer is no, that also leads to a truly chaotic state of affairs -- and not simply as a matter of prediction, but also as a matter of actuality. That, however, begs the question of how Free Will can exist in an universe in which human thought is indeterministic, random, and chaotic.

It seems to me that true Free Will (i.e., the Libertarian variation, and not the version that simply states that any unpredictable future decision is free) cannot exits unless we view humans as, somehow, divorced from nature and imbued with superhuman abilities. It is very spiritual and almost religious -- with a scientific fig leaf.

 

[BSilvEsq]

My philosophical view i if determinism means all things down to the atoms and states in our brains are
predetermined causal chains then there is no free will. All choices by us humans are predetermined.

That is a concise statement of what I have been saying in far more words, and what I understand Popper, James, and others to be saying about the philosophical paradigm of Determinism.

Of course, we lack sufficient understanding of our brains to know if our brains actually operate that way -- but they could.

 

[Jarhyn]

It would, however, be appropriate ask if the person whose style of ruling is described as authoritarianism dictates the behavior of the citizens

Only the ones who choose to "let their past define them" rather than in the present taking umbridge of what they find of their own state and doing those things necessary to transform that state.

What you seem to miss is that the laws of physics are such that they can themselves be found expressing pretty much any other thing that might be thought of as a law.

When the one dictate that the dictator has is "be as you are and act as you will with whatever concept of freedom allows you to do so", that's hardly a dictate, is it? I fact it seems to me to be quite the inverse, a direct exposure of the fact that you have freedoms.

Yesterday only matters to the extent of things that remain here, now, today.

 

[Elixir]

My philosophical view i if determinism means all things down to the atoms and states in our brains are
predetermined causal chains then there is no free will. All choices by us humans are predetermined.

I have a problem with that.
What constitutes a pre-determination, and who or what is doing the determining? Is there some entity somewhere sitting around saying “Elixir is going to step on a horse turd in 20 minutes, for it hath been determined”? If no entity has made such a determination, then WTF IS a determination?
If “pre determination” means that no matter how much free will you have, no matter how much free will you exercise, there will only be one future, then it matters not in the least whether free will is an illusion or a “reality”; FAPP the fact that free will is an experience, is sufficient to validate its existence.

 

[pood]

Of course there is only one future (putting aside, as mentioned earlier, stuff like the quantum multiverse, to which we have no access anyway).

And?

How does that invalidate free will?

 

[Elixir]

Of course there is only one future (putting aside, as mentioned earlier, stuff like the quantum multiverse, to which we have no access anyway).

And?

How does that invalidate free will?

It doesn’t. It obviates the entire question; free will and lack of free will both result in the same - the ONLY - outcome.
So go ahead and subscribe to one or the other, if only one option suits your fancy. Your choice, your free will. Unless it isn’t.
The multiverse would be (IMHO) a desperate attempt to create a surmise wherein free will alters the otherwise fact that free will can exist all you like, and still have zero effect upon the future.

 

[pood]

Of course there is only one future (putting aside, as mentioned earlier, stuff like the quantum multiverse, to which we have no access anyway).

And?

How does that invalidate free will?

It doesn’t. It obviates the entire question; free will and lack of free will both result in the same - the ONLY - outcome.

Exactly!

So wtf are we talking about?

 

[Elixir]

So wtf are we talking about?

The price of will!

Is will free, or do we have to pay?
If we have to pay, what is the cost?
Where do the proceeds go?
If it’s free, is there an unlimited supply?
Can people simply take more than their share, or are there repercussions for that?

So many questions, and inquiring minds want to know!

 

[BSilvEsq]

My philosophical view i if determinism means all things down to the atoms and states in our brains are
predetermined causal chains then there is no free will. All choices by us humans are predetermined.

I have a problem with that.
What constitutes a pre-determination, and who or what is doing the determining? Is there some entity somewhere sitting around saying “Elixir is going to step on a horse turd in 20 minutes, for it hath been determined”? If no entity has made such a determination, then WTF IS a determination?
If “pre determination” means that no matter how much free will you have, no matter how much free will you exercise, there will only be one future, then it matters not in the least whether free will is an illusion or a “reality”; FAPP the fact that free will is an experience, is sufficient to validate its existence.

I understand your difficulty with the word "determine" in the context of activity that results from nature and not any deliberative mental activity. That may be because the word "determine" has multiple meanings, and none perfectly fit the atomistic and natural concept being discussed. Synonyms for "determine" include "control" and "regulate." Not sure if they help you get over the "entity" issue identified in your post. Alternatively, we might use the term "destined," but that describes the result and not the process.

Rather than "Determinism," I like to prefer to call the paradigm "Causal Determinism" -- meaning the determining factor is simply antecedent causes, and not anyone or anything that deliberately, consciously, or purposefully decides what those causes are or shall be. But, I suppose that still leaves you thinking it needs to be about some entity. What about "Causal Regulation" or "Causal Controllism"?

Plainly, we do not think of a rock as having Free Will -- at least most if us do not do so. A rock will sit still unless and until something acts upon it and causes it to move. That something may be as simple as gravitational force (not to suggest that gravity is a simple concept), gravitational force combined with wind or rain, a bolt of lightning striking the rock, a tree falling on the rock, a horse kicking the rock, or a person picking up the rock, among other things. An earthquake is another example of a causal force of the rock's movement. In none of those circumstances do we consider the rock to have made any decision to move.

The same is true of a toy creature, which is constructed well enough for it to have very flexible movement. That movement will occur only through outside forces, because the toy is an inanimate object that we do not consider to have Free Will.

By contrast, most humans consider themselves to have Free Will in the sense that they believe that their getting up out of bed in the morning is personal and deliberative decision unconstrained by natural forces of which they do not know (leaving aside the fact that they may need to get up to go to work in order to earn funds to pay for food to survive). An earthquake could push a person out of bed, but that is not the sort of thing we are talking about.

For the most part, humans feel as if they are making decisions throughout their lives. The fact of that feeling, however, does not make it so. I can have a very vivid dream in which I feel as though I am flying. All the while, however, I am tucked snuggly in my bed, and I am not moving at all. The feeling of flight is not true flight. Or, think of the movie the Matirx. In the Matrix, people have seemingly rich lives in which they do all sorts of things and even make all sorts of decisions. In reality, however, they are prisoners in a pod, being fed a dream state that has the feel of reality.

In the Matrix, Elixer stepping on a horse turd is determined by some entity.

If Elixer's brain is a part of the natural world, and Elixer is a very well constructed toy (and by constructed, I simply mean that his form has come together through acts of nature that are not, in any way, deliberative or conscious -- like the wind and ocean shaping the beach -- then Elixer stepping on a horse turn would not be the result of the exercise of any Free Will, but simply the result of antecedent activity that regulates or controls Elixer's movement.

As I understand Steve's comment, he is saying that Elixer's stepping on a horse turd would be regulated or controlled entirely by antecedent extrinsic forces and not by any deliberative decision of Elixer if the atoms that comprise Elixer's brain are regulated and controlled in the same way that a rock or well constructed toy are regulated and controlled. Moreover, if that regulation or control is the cause of all activity in the universe, such that every instance of activity is the inexorable result of antecedent activity, it is fair to say that all activity (following some initial cause) is pre-determined or, without using a word that has the baggage of a possible entity, pre-destined, or simply unavoidable in advance of occurring. That is what is meant by the word "Determinism" as used in philosophy. As Karl Popper explained:

“The metaphysical doctrine of determinism simply asserts that all events in this world are fixed, or unalterable, or predetermined. It does not assert that they are known to anybody, or predictable by scientific means. But it asserts that the future is as little changeable as is the past. Everybody knows what we mean when we say that the past cannot be changed. It is in precisely the same sense that the future cannot be changed, according to metaphysical determinism.”

Lastly, turning to the point that

If “pre determination” means that no matter how much free will you have, no matter how much free will you exercise, there will only be one future, then it matters not in the least whether free will is an illusion or a “reality”; FAPP the fact that free will is an experience, is sufficient to validate its existence.

As a practical matter, I agree with that statement. But, that is no reason to cut off philosophical inquiry into the subject. Or, maybe it is.