Another scientist telling us we have no free will

BidenPresident said:
Sapolsky sums up his position:

You cannot decide all the sensory stimuli in your environment, your hormone levels this morning, whether something traumatic happened to you in the past, the socioeconomic status of your parents, your fetal environment, your genes, whether your ancestors were farmers or herders. … we are nothing more or less than the cumulative biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control, that has brought us to any moment.

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determined-a-science-of-life-without-free-will/

Hard to take this stuff seriously. Why write a book? What forced you to write it?!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link:
"Surprisingly, in a book about free will, Sapolsky offers no definition of it (or, for that matter, determinism—or even moral responsibility!). He writes, “What is free will? Groan… I’ll do my best to mitigate the drag of this” (14). Although he does not present a full definition proper, it is clear that he holds that free will requires the falsity of determinism—by definition (not as a result of argumentation):

[To establish free will] how me a neuron being a causeless cause in this total sense. …Show me a neuron (or brain) whose generation of a behavior is independent of the sum of its biological past, and for the purposes of this book, you’ve demonstrated free will. (15)​
"

Agreed to a large degree that human beings are a product of their genes and experiences. However, as the link points out, there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence or non-existence of free will, regardless of how little or how much free will would be part of every individual.

Since science can't even create life, I'm happy to await further research on the subject.
 
ZenMode said:
Not having free will doesn't absolve people of responsibility for their actions. Whatever it was (nature/nurture) that made your spouse into a cheater is irrelevant because she's still a cheater. What a lack of free will (if you truly accept the fact that we don't free will, as I do) really means is that you don't have the same anger, hatred or desire for retribution etc that you would otherwise have.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur. Without free will there is no choice. Without free will then people, like animals, only react to stimuli based upon their genetics and experiences.

Without free will then violent humans should be put down like violent pit bulls. All those people violently rioting in DC? If there's no free will, then line them up at the edge of a hole and put them out of their misery.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Everything in our lives is a series of choices. The choice to go right rather than left can impact our entire lives. The decision to delay 5 minutes before starting a commute may put is in that intersection that kills us, or may keep us from being in it.

Choices made every split second of our lives determine what we are and how we live.

Some blowhard trying to sell a book is irrelevant. We are indeed creatures of free will who shape our own destiny. Other factors influence choices we make, but it is the decisions that shape our lives.
Click to expand...
^^^
Chose to be a wife-beating dumbass.
 
ZenMode said:
Not having free will doesn't absolve people of responsibility for their actions. Whatever it was (nature/nurture) that made your spouse into a cheater is irrelevant because she's still a cheater. What a lack of free will (if you truly accept the fact that we don't free will, as I do) really means is that you don't have the same anger, hatred or desire for retribution etc that you would otherwise have.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense

If you do not believe individuals can freely make choices, then you cannot hold accountable the spouse that cheats on you, the teenager who steals from you, or the petty criminal who sticks a shiv in you.

The difference between humans and the determinism of Newtonian physics, is that we are capable of self-legislating laws, norms, values for ourselves that we should follow. That is powerful source of our free will.

Analects of Confucius, Chapter XVI-10:

Confucius said, “There are nine things upon which a gentleman focuses his attention: in regard to using his eyes, he is anxious to see clearly; when listening, he focuses on being discerning; in his countenance, he is anxious to be amiable; in his demeanor, he focuses on being reverent; in his speech, he focuses on being dutiful; in his actions, he focuses on being respectful; when in doubt, he focuses on asking questions; when angry, he focuses on thinking about the the difficulties he may cause others ; and when he sees gain to be had, he focuses upon righteousness
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
That doesn't make any sense

If you do not believe individuals can freely make choices, then you cannot hold accountable the spouse that cheats on you, the teenager who steals from you, or the petty criminal who sticks a shiv in you.

The difference between humans and the determinism of Newtonian physics, is that we are capable of self-legislating laws, norms, values for ourselves that we should follow. That is powerful source of our free will.
Click to expand...

What part doesn't make sense? If there's a pit bull loose in your neighborhood and attacking people, do you let it continue because it isn't perceived as having free will? I don't know if Jeffrey Dahmer was a diagnosed psychopath but if he was, which would mean there was some genetic characteristic that makes him kill people without remorse, would you not lock him up?
 
ZenMode said:
What part doesn't make sense? If there's a pit bull loose in your neighborhood and attacking people, do you let it continue because it isn't perceived as having free will? I don't know if Jeffrey Dahmer was a diagnosed psychopath but if he was, which would mean there was some genetic characteristic that makes him kill people without remorse, would you not lock him up?
Click to expand...

We are not talking about pit bulls or psychologically disturbed serial killers.

There is no better proof of freedom of choice than the ability of humans to rationally stipulate and self-legislate their own values, norms, and codes of conduct.
 
Cypress said:
We are not talking about pit bulls or psychologically disturbed serial killers.

There is no better proof of freedom of choice than the ability of humans to rationally stipulate and self-legislate their own values, norms, and codes of conduct.
Click to expand...

My point is that a dangerous person/animal, free will or not, is still a dangerous person/animal and can be held accountable.

A belief in free will is the belief that there is an "I" that exists outside of our stream of thought and that "I" is wanting or wants, feeling our feelings, intending our intentions, thinking our thoughts, etc. "I" is the thing that is weighing options and making decisions. The problem is, there is no "I" in our brain. There's no separate self sitting behind our eyes that exists outside of our stream of thought/consciousness. All that exists is our thoughts that we don't control and don't author. We ARE that stream.

You don't know what your next thought is going to be because your next thought comes from a level of your brain over which you have no control or visibility. Thoughts are just appearing in consciousness constantly, but you don't know what the next one will be until it appears in consciousness. You can't think your next thought before you think it, but those thoughts determine everything you do. They determine your goals you set and when you think you met them. They'll determine what job you take. Who you marry...they determine basically everything that makes you you.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
My point is that a dangerous person/animal, free will or not, is still a dangerous person/animal and can be held accountable.

A belief in free will is the belief that there is an "I" that exists outside of our stream of thought and that "I" is wanting or wants, feeling our feelings, intending our intentions, thinking our thoughts, etc. "I" is the thing that is weighing options and making decisions. The problem is, there is no "I" in our brain. There's no separate self sitting behind our eyes that exists outside of our stream of thought/consciousness. All that exists is our thoughts that we don't control and don't author.

You don't know what your next thought is going to be because your next thought comes from a level of your brain over which you have no control or visibility. Thoughts are just appearing in consciousness constantly, but you don't know what the next one will be until it appears in consciousness. You can't think your next thought before you think it, but those thoughts determine everything you do. They determine your goals you set and when you think you met them. They'll determine what job you take. Who you marry...they determine basically everything that makes you you.
Click to expand...

Our feelings come and go outside of our control. Separating reality from fantasy is within our abilities should we choose to accomplish it.
 
You have the ability to use your will to resist Evil....if you have not even managed to learn this during this life then fuck you.
 
Cypress said:
There is no better proof of freedom of choice than the ability of humans to rationally stipulate and self-legislate their own values, norms, and codes of conduct.
Click to expand...

How is the bolded part proof rather than an assumption?
It is the existence of the very things you've mentioned that's being challenged.

We could perceive the existence of all of that,
and the very perception could be merely a random reaction to stimuli--cause and effect, not free will.

We already know that we hold people responsible as if they do have free will,
but doing even that can't be proven to be free will either.

I don't pretend to know for certain that free will doesn't exist,
and I obviously wouldn't even know where to start
if I were to try to prove it.

I'm inclined to believe that free will doesn't exist, however,
but I would have no idea how to live in a world where free will wasn't assumed.

If the universe and all that occurs within it are in fact the mere random confluence of sub-atomic particles,
those collisions are to this point forcing me to interact with people as if free will exists.

This frustration contributes, perhaps, to the predisposition toward nihilism that I'm routinely accused of having.
 
ZenMode said:
My point is that a dangerous person/animal, free will or not, is still a dangerous person/animal and can be held accountable.

A belief in free will is the belief that there is an "I" that exists outside of our stream of thought and that "I" is wanting or wants, feeling our feelings, intending our intentions, thinking our thoughts, etc. "I" is the thing that is weighing options and making decisions. The problem is, there is no "I" in our brain. There's no separate self sitting behind our eyes that exists outside of our stream of thought/consciousness. All that exists is our thoughts that we don't control and don't author. We ARE that stream.

You don't know what your next thought is going to be because your next thought comes from a level of your brain over which you have no control or visibility. Thoughts are just appearing in consciousness constantly, but you don't know what the next one will be until it appears in consciousness. You can't think your next thought before you think it, but those thoughts determine everything you do. They determine your goals you set and when you think you met them. They'll determine what job you take. Who you marry...they determine basically everything that makes you you.
Click to expand...

That's a different question about the nature of conciousness.

The question here is whether the individual human is capable of free choice.

The fact that you taught your kids standards of moral conduct, standards of etiquette, standards of decorum means you believe in free choice.

Otherwise, what was the point of teaching them? None of it should have mattered if everything is fixed and determined from the day of birth
 
NiftyNiblick said:
How is the bolded part proof rather than an assumption?
It is the existence of the very things you've mentioned that's being challenged.

We could perceive the existence of all of that,
and the very perception could be merely a random reaction to stimuli--cause and effect, not free will.

We already know that we hold people responsible as if they do have free will,
but doing even that can't be proven to be free will either.

I don't pretend to know for certain that free will doesn't exist,
and I obviously wouldn't even know where to start
if I were to try to prove it.

I'm inclined to believe that free will doesn't exist, however,
but I would have no idea how to live in a world where free will wasn't assumed.

If the universe and all that occurs within it are in fact the mere random confluence of sub-atomic particles,
those collisions are to this point forcing me to interact with people as if free will exists.

This frustration contributes, perhaps, to the predisposition toward nihilism that I'm routinely accused of having.
Click to expand...
My two cents....

One of the biggest misconceptions about science is that it can prove anything.

Subatomic particles are subject to the laws of physics.

The fact that we self-legislate for ourselves standards of conduct and moral code we should follow is outside the boundaries of Newtonian mechanics and the Schroedinger equation.

I think freedom of choice is self evident to us simply through the application of practical wisdom. Though cannot prove it to you with particle accelerators or mass spectrometers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top