According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[DBT]

The issue here is the validity of the Compatibilist argument for free will. That free will - as they define it - is indeed compatible with determinism, just as they themselves define determinism.

See, @BSilvEsq, right here he is claiming (in his own very DBT way) that compatibilist definitions of determinism do not support compatibilist definitions of free will, when the whole thing I've been trying to show you is that YES, people ARE conflating radical fatalism and determinism and YES it is a problem.

PLEASE help us disabuse him of that notion.

You miss the point. That it doesn't work in any way you look at it.

OK, let's call it radical fatalism. So it is the compatibilist who claims that free will as they define it to be, is compatible with radical fatalism.

Are you arguing for compatibilism? Are you happy with that?

Or are you arguing for Libertarian free will?

Your position is far from being clear.

 

[Jarhyn]

So it is the compatibilist who claims that free will as they define it to be, is compatible with radical fatalism

NO!

See Bruce? This is what I mean.

Straighten this guy out.

We do NOT proclaim free will to be compatible with radical fatalism. We do not believe in radical fatalism. We think that concept is straight garbage and wrong.

We proclaim it instead to be compatible with mathematical determinism -- perfectly reliable causation.

Perfectly reliable causation, determinism, does not imply radical fatalism.

 

[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.

I'm not the one espousing confusion as to whether rocks or camels or humans have minds. "Mind" is your concept here, defend it if you can. And if all you can come up with is "well isn't it obvious?", than what you have isn't even technically speaking a philosophy, as you've never thought it through systematically.

What I said is that it is obvious that humans, camels and other animals behave in certain ways in response to the environment, and rocks do not. That is the difference between them. I am not interested in propounding a theory of mind. No one knows how minds supervene on brains or whether it is in fact the other way around — that brains supervene on minds.

 

[pood]

The ‘mind” is an abstract concept. The brain is a physical fact (if physicalism is true).

I can tell the difference between a rock and a camel because a camel responds to its environment in various ways to maintain its life. The rock just sits there oblivious to the world.

 

[Politesse]

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.

I'm not the one espousing confusion as to whether rocks or camels or humans have minds. "Mind" is your concept here, defend it if you can. And if all you can come up with is "well isn't it obvious?", than what you have isn't even technically speaking a philosophy, as you've never thought it through systematically.

What I said is that it is obvious that humans, camels and other animals behave in certain ways in response to the environment, and rocks do not. That is the difference between them. I am not interested in propounding a theory of mind. No one knows how minds supervene on brains or whether it is in fact the other way around — that brains supervene on minds.

We absolutely know that brains supervene on minds, if by a mind you mean some kind of conscious thought process. This is actually what the bulk of Sapolsky's book is about. Yeah, yeah, I know, the idea that one might actually read the book that the thread is about is ludicrous, simply ludicrous, but believe it or not, I did.

 

[pood]

Camels, humans and every other animal have brains. They act on antecedent circumstances to maintain their lives. When my pigeon friend Brownie hopped up on the park table to share chicken with me he evaluated his circumstances, decided I was trustworthy, and shared food with me. I decided to share food with him because I liked him.

Free will on both our parts.

 

[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.

I'm not the one espousing confusion as to whether rocks or camels or humans have minds. "Mind" is your concept here, defend it if you can. And if all you can come up with is "well isn't it obvious?", than what you have isn't even technically speaking a philosophy, as you've never thought it through systematically.

What I said is that it is obvious that humans, camels and other animals behave in certain ways in response to the environment, and rocks do not. That is the difference between them. I am not interested in propounding a theory of mind. No one knows how minds supervene on brains or whether it is in fact the other way around — that brains supervene on minds.

We absolutely know that brains supervene on minds, if by a mind you mean some kind of conscious thought process. This is actually what the bulk of Sapolsky's book is about. Yeah, yeah, I know, the idea that one might actually read the book that the thread is about is ludicrous, simply ludicrous, but believe it or not, I did.

Uh, the standard idea is that minds supervene on brains. Maybe you misspoke?

Oh, and good for you for reading his book.

 

[Politesse]

Camels, humans and every other animal have brains. They act on antecedent circumstances to maintain their lives. When my pigeon friend Brownie hopped up on the park table to share chicken with me he evaluated his circumstances, decided I was trustworthy, and shared food with me. I decided to share food with him because I liked him.

Free will on both our parts.

What is a brain?

I ask not because I don't know, but because you seem to be ascribing mystical powers to what is, at its most basic function, a processing center for sensory input whose use and outputs are complex but not beyond our ability to observe and predict. And one which we have gotten to know quite a lot better in the past twenty years following the decoding of the connectome.

 

[Politesse]

Uh, the standard idea is that minds supervene on brains. Maybe you misspoke?

Sorry, yes.

 

[DBT]

So it is the compatibilist who claims that free will as they define it to be, is compatible with radical fatalism

NO!

See Bruce? This is what I mean.

Straighten this guy out.

We do NOT proclaim free will to be compatible with radical fatalism. We do not believe in radical fatalism. We think that concept is straight garbage and wrong.

We proclaim it instead to be compatible with mathematical determinism -- perfectly reliable causation.

Perfectly reliable causation, determinism, does not imply radical fatalism.

Again, your emotional response misses the point.

I said that Compatibilists give their definition of determinism.

I made no mention of radical fatalism.

You and your side invoked the term ''radical fatalism''.....presumably in relation to how Compatibilists define determinism....otherwise what is the point of saying it?

That you invoke the term radical fatalism in relation to compatibilism (which is what I am discussing) implies that you are essentially saying that how Compatibilists define determinism is an example of radical fatalism.

If not, why even mention it? Why bring it up?

What do you think the compatibilist definition of determinism implies? It is essentially the same as the definition you gave.

 

[pood]

I was a bit annoyed when Brownie would grab chicken off my fork that I was raising to my mouth, but I loved him so there is that.

 

[pood]

Uh, the standard idea is that minds supervene on brains. Maybe you misspoke?

Sorry, yes.

I deny that we absolutely know that minds supervene on brains rather than the other way around. See my thread on analytiic idealism and Kastrup.

 

[DBT]

Camels, humans and every other animal have brains. They act on antecedent circumstances to maintain their lives. When my pigeon friend Brownie hopped up on the park table to share chicken with me he evaluated his circumstances, decided I was trustworthy, and shared food with me. I decided to share food with him because I liked him.
Free will on both our parts.

If determinism is true, conscious will is as determined or fixed by antecedents as the related actions, the need or want arises and the related action follows.

Anything that is fixed by antecedents is not free, including will. Will has no regulatory control. It has no realizable options in any given circumstance. The system, if deterministic, evolves without deviation, as determined.

That, as defined, is the nature of determinism. Calling it radical fatalism changes nothing.

If you want to use the term radical fatalism, then you could say that Compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with radical fatalism.

 

[DBT]

Uh, the standard idea is that minds supervene on brains. Maybe you misspoke?

Sorry, yes.

I deny that we absolutely know that minds supervene on brains rather than the other way around. See my thread on analytiic idealism and Kastrup.

The evidence supports the brain as the generator of mind. That it is the brain that acquires and processes information (memory function, etc) and generates conscious activity. That mind is a reflection of the state of the brain.

 

[pood]

If you want to use the term radical fatalism, then you could say that Compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with radical fatalism.

Yes, I do say that, as previously noted. Because if the ancient Greek Idle Argument is true, our choices help make it true.

The argument was that everything is fated to be and no one could do anything about it. This was mythologically embodied by the three sisters of fate.

But as noted, if you accept this argument, you could decide to just sit on your ass and do nothing, because what is the point of doing anything?

But the very choice to do that makes the future be what it will be.

 

[pood]

This entire line of reasoning always trades on the false idea that free will requires that you be able to change something.

 

[pood]

Uh, the standard idea is that minds supervene on brains. Maybe you misspoke?

Sorry, yes.

I deny that we absolutely know that minds supervene on brains rather than the other way around. See my thread on analytiic idealism and Kastrup.

The evidence supports the brain as the generator of mind. That it is the brain that acquires and processes information (memory function, etc) and generates conscious activity. That mind is a reflection of the state of the brain.

Not if metaphysical idealism is true, and the question is open between that and metaphysical materialism. There is currently no way to decide between the two.

 

[DBT]

If you want to use the term radical fatalism, then you could say that Compatibilists argue that free will is compatible with radical fatalism.

Yes, I do say that, as previously noted. Because if the ancient Greek Idle Argument is true, our choices help make it true.

That implies that 'our choices' work independently of how the system evolves (given determinism, without deviation), that somehow 'our choices' make a difference to the course of events....which contradicts the terms and conditions of the very definition of determinism that compatibilists use.

The argument was that everything is fated to be and no one could do anything about it. This was mythologically embodied by the three sisters of fate.

Well, that is essentially how determinism is defined. Including Compatibilism's, which does not permit alternate actions.

So if alternate actions cannot happen, the implications are.......

But as noted, if you accept this argument, you could decide to just sit on your ass and do nothing, because what is the point of doing anything?

But the very choice to do that makes the future be what it will be.

Given determinism, you act according to your condition, your needs and wants, your circumstances, your life experience, your proclivities.

 

[pood]

Analytic idealism

 

[pood]

Given determinism, you act according to your condition, your needs and wants, your circumstances, your life experience, your proclivities.

And? So? What else should I act upon?