According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[Politesse]

What is this "mind" you are referring to, that is not subject to exactly the same sort of descriptive predictability of a falling rock?

 

[pood]

Brownie loved chicken, so I’d always share a quarter chicken with him.

 

[pood]

What is this "mind" you are referring to, that is not subject to exactly the same sort of descriptive predictability of a falling rock?

A mind can assess deterministically generated options and choose among them. A falling rock cannot cuz it has no mind.

How hard is this?

 

[Politesse]

What is this "mind" you are referring to, that is not subject to exactly the same sort of descriptive predictability of a falling rock?

A mind can assess deterministically generated options and choose among them. A falling rock cannot cuz it has no mind.

How hard is this?

I asked what it is, not what magical qualities you ascribe to it. If you do not know what a mind is, how do you know that a rock does not have one?

 

[pood]

Actually, not sure if Brownie was a him or a her or trans. Not so easy to tell bird gender.

 

[pood]

What is this "mind" you are referring to, that is not subject to exactly the same sort of descriptive predictability of a falling rock?

A mind can assess deterministically generated options and choose among them. A falling rock cannot cuz it has no mind.

How hard is this?

I asked what it is, not what magical qualities you ascribe to it. If you do not know what a mind is, how do you know that a rock does not have one?

Maybe a rock has a mind. Doesn’t behave like it, though. How do you assess possessors of mind except through behavior?

And I don’t ascribe magical qualities to mind. Where you got that I’ve no idea. Seems like you just want to be argumentative.

 

[BSilvEsq]

@BSilvEsq

I think that you are introducing the term 'radical fatalism' as a means of dismissal. Like it's something undesirable.

Compatibilists call it ''determinism'' and they give their definition of it.

And here again. Please disabuse him of this foolish notion.

No DBT, we keep saying and you keep ignoring or pretending that we don't, that what YOU call determinism, is actually "radical fatalism" and not determinism, and that nothing about what we call/define as determinism actually implies the jump into it.

I repeat, Bruce, that he is an incompatibilist who maintains that radical fatalism is proven under the mechanical/mathematical definition of determinism, that determinism Imploes radical fatalism.

I really REALLY hope that one of his authority figures with whom he agrees can be enough to tell him that we are right about the philosophical difference between radical fatalism and determinism.

He even repeatedly denies the clear regulatory control created in an automatic event of behavioral modification.

This is why I keepaintaoning your responsibility as a writer on the topic to separate your language from "determinism," so that these conflations do not happen.

LOOK at the mess you have created along with others in not distinguishing these two concepts clearly!

I believe I already have responded to a similar post of your within the past hour.

The so-called "mess" results from the polysemantic nature of the terms "Determinism," "Free Will" and "Compatibilism." Rather than continue to talk past DBT, it would be helpful if you would simply acknowledge that the two of you are using these words in different senses.

I do not read DBT to claim that the word "Determinism" is based on science, math or physics. In fact, I read DBT to have stated multiple times that he is simply accepting the definition posited by historical philosophers, who you have pointed out to have developed the parameters of their paradigm long before the advent of quantum theory, and who, therefore, were not talking about a modern form of scientific probabilistic determinism that is informed (rightly or wrongly) by quantum theory. As I understand the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism, it is, in fact, fatalistic -- not in the sense of there being a god or spirit that deliberately determines the future, but in the Laplacian manner of there being a certain future based on antecedent events. As such, I understand, and agree with DBT, that the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism (which you call Radical Fatalism) is incompatible with the existence of pure Libertarian Free Will. And, again, I note that nobody is claiming that the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism is representative of reality. The argument is simply based on accepting the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism as a foundational premise of a hypothetical syllogism.

I also read DBT to have no qualms with your contention that a modern scientific version if Determinism that is informed (rightly or wrongly) by quantum theory is not necessarily incompatible with a modern version of Free Will that is something less than pure Libertarian Free Will.

As for the repeated assertion that the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism suffers from a modal fallacy, I repeat that a fallacy can occur only in the process of moving from a premise to a conclusion. A foundational premise cannot suffer from a fallacy. A modal fallacy also arises from conflating or disregarding the difference between something that is possible and something that is necessary. In that respect, it would be a modal fallacy to argue from the foundational premise that X is possible to the conclusion that X is necessary. But, the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism does not simply posit as a foundational premise that the future occurrence of any given X is possible or even probable -- as does the modern scientific version of Determinism. Rather, the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism posits as a foundational premise that the future occurrence of any given X is necessary. In that paradigm, the modal fallacy is to assert as a conclusion that the future of some given X is merely possible or probable, when the foundational premise compels the conclusion that any given X is necessary. Therein lies the delta between the ramifications of the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism and the modern scientific version.

For the avoidance of any further doubt, and as I believe DBT has stated quite plainly, Compatibilism is logically incoherent if it posits that the existence of Libertarian Free Will can be harmonized with what you call Radical Fatalism. I suppose we can disagree about whether the historical record bears out the fact that the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism is what you label Radical Determinism. I submit that is precisely what Popper states, and I view Popper to be an authoritative source of the definition of the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism. Again -- neither I, DBT, nor Popper are talking about the modern scientific version of Determinism that is informed (rightly or wrongly) by quantum theory, which is not the same as the historically developed philosophical version of Determinism.

 

[Politesse]

Maybe a rock has a mind. Doesn’t behave like it, though. How do you assess possessors of mind except through behavior?

If you cannot describe what a mind is, or how we can describe it through empirical observation, then the "mind", along with the "freedom" and "will" it supposedly commands, are beyond the domain of the sciences, and my original point stands. Determinism and free will are an apples-to-angels comparison. I'm talking neuroscience and you are talking Bible stories. We will not be able to close the gap, and that's fine if you enjoy the imaginative exercise, but lets not pretend these worldviews are "compatible". They are not.

 

[pood]

Maybe a rock has a mind. Doesn’t behave like it, though. How do you assess possessors of mind except through behavior?

If you cannot describe what a mind is, or how we can describe it through empirical observation, then the "mind", along with the "freedom" and "will" it supposedly commands, are beyond the domain of the sciences, and my original point stands. Determinism and free will are an apples-to-angels comparison. I'm talking neuroscuence and you are talking Bible stories. We will not be able to close the gap, and that's fine if you enjoy the imaginative exercise, but lets not pretend these worldviews are "compatible". They are not.

Bible stories.

I am talking empirical reality. I can observe that living things respond to their environment and rocks do not. Have you not noticed this?

What do you think neuroscience proves? That I am a meat robot of the Big Bang? How did you arrive at that stupid conclusion?

I never claimed to know what the mind is, exactly, and if you have read other threads I have started or posted in, you will find that I think it is an open question whether physicalism or idealism obtains, or perhaps some other option.

Determinism, broadly speaking (because the world actually appears to be quantum indeterministic) and free will are compatible for reasons I have given.

It is not a “bible story” that I can do what I want insofar as I am not balked by external forces. That is an empirical fact.

 

[pood]

Here is a nice bible story.

I didn’t really mean to sleep with your wife, but the Big Bang (AKA God) made me do it.

 

[Politesse]

Bible stories.

I am talking empirical reality. I can observe that living things respond to their environment and rocks do not. Have you not noticed this?

I have, in fact. I'm not the one confusing the matter by talking about "minds", I understand the processes that emerge as animal behavior perfectly well, and none of them require a metaphysical element in their explanation. But since you do, are you claiming that camels have minds? Wills? Free wills?

What do you think neuroscience proves? That I am a meat robot of the Big Bang? How did you arrive at that stupid conclusion?

I have no idea what a "meat robot" is, or how how one would function, but I do know that human beings are made of the same material stuff that has been present since the "Big Bang" event, yes, and that the same constants of material interaction have defined the processes of material and energetic change that since that time. I see no reason to conclude that humans or their bodies are not subject to those same constants, whether or not you are correct about the existence of a "mind".

I never claimed to know what the mind is, exactly, and if you have read other threads I have started or posted in, you will find that I think it is an open question whether physicalism or idealism obtains, or perhaps some other option.

Then we are speaking different languages. I feel no need to ascribe agency to a "mind" that I cannot explain, study, or revise my understanding of, nor do I think the social or medical sciences could ever have advanced to their current level of utility had they not distanced themselves from such radical philosophical claims.

Determinism, broadly speaking (because the world actually appears to be quantum indeterministic) and free will are compatible for reasons I have given.

It is not a “bible story” that I can do what I want insofar as I am not balked by external forces. That is an empirical fact.

External to what? And if it is an empirical fact, why can you present no empirical evidence for it, or even an empirical description of what you are describing? If there is even a possibility of an idealistic explanation - I assume you mean Plato's idealism, not just a gung-ho attitutde - then our perspectives on the universe are not compatible. I find Neo-Platonic philosophy interesting, and even useful in art and meditation, but I would never use mysticism to supplant or append scientific observations of human behavior.

 

[BSilvEsq]

What is this "mind" you are referring to, that is not subject to exactly the same sort of descriptive predictability of a falling rock?

I submit that the "mind" and the "will" are philosophical and theological concepts that have no place in any discussion of science, physics, math, biology, etc. Some folks loosely / carelessly refer to the brain as the mind, but they are different things. The brain is an organ (or, at least, a part) of the body of a person or other animal. The mind is a spiritual concept that some people argue to lie outside the body. Whatever theory if the mind one might subscribe to, however, it is best to leave that term out of scientific discussions, and talk about the brain. It avoids inadvertently picking up the philosophical and theological baggage associated with the mind.

The same is true of the "will." Outside of the realm of philosophy or theology, it is better to speak about a "decision" or, better yet, "brain function."

Once the linguistic baggage is removed from the conversation, the question boils down to whether the brain and/or brain function operates in a manner that is not truly, entirely, and perfectly determined in advance by antecedent activity of the universe or is more akin to quantum activity that is, at best, probabilistic (and not because of any hidden variable) and capable of activity that is, at least in some small way, independent of antecedent activity. Personally, my brain does not comprehend the possibility of activity that is free, in any way, from the constraints and compulsion of antecedent activity, but I do get that many folks have a different belief -- which they have developed freely or are compelled to have.

 

[pood]

Bible stories.

I am talking empirical reality. I can observe that living things respond to their environment and rocks do not. Have you not noticed this?

I have, in fact. I'm not the one confusing the matter by talking about "minds", I understand the processes that emerge as animal behavior perfectly well, and none of them require a metaphysical element in their explanation. But since you do, are you claiming that camels have minds? Wills? Free wills?

I never said a metaphysical element is required, whatever you (almost certainly erroneously) think that means. Of course camels have minds. As do all animals.

What do you think neuroscience proves? That I am a meat robot of the Big Bang? How did you arrive at that stupid conclusion?

I have no idea what a "meat robot" is, or how how one would function, but I do know that human beings are made of the same material stuff that has been present since the "Big Bang" event, yes, and that the same constants of material interaction have defined the processes of material and energetic change that since that time. I see no reason to conclude that humans or their bodies are not subject to those same constants, whether or not you are correct about the existence of a "mind".

So? Did I say otherwise?

I never claimed to know what the mind is, exactly, and if you have read other threads I have started or posted in, you will find that I think it is an open question whether physicalism or idealism obtains, or perhaps some other option.

Then we are speaking different languages. I feel no need to ascribe agency to a "mind" that I cannot explain, study, or revise my understanding of, nor do I think the social or medical sciences could ever have advanced to their current level of utility had they not distanced themselves from such radical philosophical claims.

So humans have no agency. Got it. We are all just meat robots of the Big Bang.

Determinism, broadly speaking (because the world actually appears to be quantum indeterministic) and free will are compatible for reasons I have given.

It is not a “bible story” that I can do what I want insofar as I am not balked by external forces. That is an empirical fact.

External to what? And if it is an empirical fact, why can you present no empirical evidence for it, or even an empirical description of what you are describing? If there is even a possibility of an idealistic explanation - I assume you mean Plato's idealism, not just a gung-ho attitutde - then our perspectives on the universe are not compatible. I find Neo-Platonic philosophy interesting, and even useful in art and meditation, but I would never use mysticism to supplant or append scientific observations of human behavior.

No, I do not mean Plato.

External to what? Seriously?

I am perfectly able to keep my wallet if an agent external to me does not point a gun at me and rob me, thus depriving me of my will to keep my money.

Duh.

 

[pood]

Someone who can’t tell the difference between humans and camels on one side and rocks on the other has seriously fucked up metaphysics. And yes, it’s all metaphysics, of which science is a subset.

 

[bilby]

The difference between a rock and a human should be rather self-evident.

Yeah, some rocks are really old.

 

[bilby]

What is this "mind" you are referring to, that is not subject to exactly the same sort of descriptive predictability of a falling rock?

A mind is a set of complex and chaotic processes in a brain.

Even mindless processes lack the descriptive predictability of a falling rock, once they are complex enough to exhibit chaotic behaviour*.

There is a huge amount of evidence that a human brain (and hence its activity, part of which we call "mind") is chaotic, and therefore fundamentally unpredictable, not because it contains any non-deterministic parts, but because it is impossible in principle to know all of the inputs it uses (including its own 'initial state') to a sufficient degree of accuracy as to make more than a very vague forecast of its most plausible outputs.







* Chaotic behaviour is exhibited by a system when changes to the inputs too small to measure can lead to massive and obvious changes in outcome - the classic thought experiment here is the Butterfly Effect, which illustrates the chaotic nature of weather systems in the medium term.

 

[bilby]

I submit that the "mind" and the "will" are philosophical and theological concepts that have no place in any discussion of science, physics, math, biology, etc.

Unless, of course, we understand chaos theory, which is empirical, well established, and effectively eliminates your submission.

Some folks loosely / carelessly refer to the brain as the mind, but they are different things.

Indeed. Mind is what the brain does. The idea that the brain and the mind are the same is analogous to the idea that the car and the journey are the same thing.

It's a gross error.

As is "I don't understand this, therefkre nobody understand this"; Or "I don't understand this, therefore it is an eternally ineffable mystery that man should cease to attempt to resolve".

The same is true of the "will." Outside of the realm of philosophy or theology, it is better to speak about a "decision" or, better yet, "brain function."

Indeed. Lots of the words we need for these discussions have been (perhaps irreperably) tainted by theology and/or by wildly other erroneous philosophies. Which makes understanding hard, but not impossible.

 

[DBT]

Here is a nice bible story.

I didn’t really mean to sleep with your wife, but the Big Bang (AKA God) made me do it.

The personal slur aside... speaking in general, the events of the world, including your own nature and circumstances made you want to do it. Your will, your wants and needs made you want to do it, you felt a strong urge, so you act accordingly.

That is how compatibilists define free will, and it is wrong for the given reasons.

 

[bilby]

Once the linguistic baggage is removed from the conversation, the question boils down to whether the brain and/or brain function operates in a manner that is not truly, entirely, and perfectly determined in advance by antecedent activity of the universe or is more akin to quantum activity that is, at best, probabilistic (and not because of any hidden variable) and capable of activity that is, at least in some small way, independent of antecedent activity.

Well, it does if we don't know about chaos theory, yes.

But we probably should know about the central theories that apply in a field, before making bold dichotomous claims about that field.

"Deterministic" is widely assumed to imply "predictable". But any meteorologist can tell you that ain't so - and a weather system is significantly less complex than a living mammalian brain.

 

[pood]

Here is a nice bible story.

I didn’t really mean to sleep with your wife, but the Big Bang (AKA God) made me do it.

The personal slur aside... speaking in general, the events of the world, including your own nature and circumstances made you want to do it. Your will, your wants and needs made you want to do it, you felt a strong urge, so you act accordingly.

That is how compatibilists define free will, and it is wrong for the given reasons.

What personal slur?