Another scientist telling us we have no free will

[evince]

I am frankly inclined to agree with this Sapolsky individual,
and have been, intuitively if not on a scientific level,
expressing similar beliefs for my entire adult life.

It does, after all, make more sense than most other theories.

It requires only cause and effect
without supernatural powers
as with everything else in science and the universe.

You live in a mind full of pessimism


It’s sad


You can’t imagine how mankind prospered


It’s weird way to live

To look at mankind and it’s history and then believe human choices mean nothing



How can people be so blind?

 

[ZenMode]

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

I mentioned it before, but a lack of free will doesn't mean that we don't learn. In fact, who we are is shaped by our genetics, with the rest the result of external influences like parents, friends, the law, etc. (aka nurture)

 

[BidenPresident]

I mentioned it before, but a lack of free will doesn't mean that we don't learn. In fact, who we are is shaped by our genetics, with the rest the result of external influences like parents, friends, the law, etc. (aka nurture)

What does genetics have to do with constructing social norms?

 

[ZenMode]

What does genetics have to do with constructing social norms?

Nothing that I can think of. Why?

 

[BidenPresident]

Nothing that I can think of, but who we are as individuals isn't limited to our views on social norms, right?

I must have lost the thread of the argument. What does that have to do with free will?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

How is the bolded part proof rather than an assumption?

The proof is in the pudding. Name another species on the planet which as the ability and choice of destroying not only the environment but most life on Earth?

Some animals can use tools, but those tools are specific in nature. A bird builds a nest or a beaver builds a dam, but neither of them can choose to repurpose those into something other than another nest or another dam. Humans can build a nest, turn it into a bonfire then use the ashes to use as warpaint to kill those in another nest and take it for themselves. Only humans have that ability to choose what to do.

 

[ZenMode]

The proof is in the pudding. Name another species on the planet which as the ability and choice of destroying not only the environment but most life on Earth?

Some animals can use tools, but those tools are specific in nature. A bird builds a nest or a beaver builds a dam, but neither of them can choose to repurpose those into something other than another nest or another dam. Humans can build a nest, turn it into a bonfire then use the ashes to use as warpaint to kill those in another nest and take it for themselves. Only humans have that ability to choose what to do.

Name another species of animal that has use of complex language that would allow them to truly understand the concepts you mentioned.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Name another species of animal that has use of complex language that would allow them to truly understand the concepts you mentioned.

There are none because all lack the mental capacity. It's human mental capacity that allows most of us to not only hold intelligent conversations but also to have free will.

To be clear; I do not believe all people have free will. Those who believe all people have free will are speaking from a religious POV, not a scientific one. Clearly there are people who are too mentally incapacitated, either too stupid or too irrational, to have free will. Our laws will hold them accountable, but our laws and healthcare system lack the ability to differentiate between those who have the capacity and those who do not.

It takes a rational, intelligent mind to have free will. Some people are closer to animals in their inability to make cogent decisions. Ergo, either their free will is limited or totally lacking. Some people can have it then lose it through mental disease or age. Where do you think you belong on that line, 'Mode?

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1728052658169061803

Let's post this again. When someone tells you that the Enlightenment thinkers they don't like are "counter-enlightenment", they are coping for the simple fact that reason is not sufficient, which is why the Enlightenment contains both sides, a reason side, and a "magic" side. It is both sides of Newton, his "scientific" AND his "alchemical" side. It is both sides of Descartes, the "cogito" side and his affiliations with Rosicrucians. Occultism and 18th century secret societies like Freemasonry are the "mystical" side of the Enlightenment, which is why they permeate the revolutions and are found so prominently among the Founding Fathers. The modern world, and especially America, cannot be understood without seeing these two aspects as the two sides of a single coin.

 

[IBDaMann]

Bold assertion.

That would be Darwin's theory of evolution for you.

 

[Into the Night]

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?!

No science here...move along...move along...

 

[Into the Night]

I am frankly inclined to agree with this Sapolsky individual,
and have been, intuitively if not on a scientific level,
expressing similar beliefs for my entire adult life.

It does, after all, make more sense than most other theories.

It requires only cause and effect
without supernatural powers
as with everything else in science and the universe.

Science is not religion.

 

[Into the Night]

I mentioned it before, but a lack of free will doesn't mean that we don't learn.

Yes it does.

In fact, who we are is shaped by our genetics, with the rest the result of external influences like parents, friends, the law, etc. (aka nurture)

Life is more than a gene.

 

[Into the Night]

Pffff. Old news.

The neurological functionality of our brain doesn't allow for free will.

Yes it does.

It's really only controversial because it impacts so many areas and people don't WANT to admit their decisions are out of their conscious control.

ALL decisions are by conscious control.

 

[Into the Night]

The proof is in the pudding. Name another species on the planet which as the ability and choice of destroying not only the environment but most life on Earth?

None.

Some animals can use tools, but those tools are specific in nature.

Just like a lot of our tools.

A bird builds a nest or a beaver builds a dam, but neither of them can choose to repurpose those into something other than another nest or another dam.

Neither a nest nor a dam is a tool, Sock.

Humans can build a nest, turn it into a bonfire

A bonfire is not a nest, Sock.

then use the ashes to use as warpaint to kill those in another nest and take it for themselves.

Apparently you aren't aware of theft among animals. It exists.

Only humans have that ability to choose what to do.

Nope. Animals do as well, at least on a limited basis.

 

[Into the Night]

There are none because all lack the mental capacity.

How do you know? Do you speak the language of all animals?

It's human mental capacity that allows most of us to not only hold intelligent conversations but also to have free will.

You are not having an intelligent conversation. Therefore, you have no free will by your own definition.

To be clear; I do not believe all people have free will.

All people have free will. Even prisoners.

Those who believe all people have free will are speaking from a religious POV, not a scientific one.

Neither religion nor science, Sock.

Clearly there are people who are too mentally incapacitated, either too stupid or too irrational, to have free will.

All people have free will. Even someone as mentally incapacitated as you are.

Our laws will hold them accountable, but our laws and healthcare system lack the ability to differentiate between those who have the capacity and those who do not.

All people have free will.

It takes a rational, intelligent mind to have free will.

All people have free will, even someone as irrational as you.

Some people are closer to animals in their inability to make cogent decisions.

Animals have free will as well.

Ergo, either their free will is limited or totally lacking.

All people have free will.

Some people can have it then lose it through mental disease or age.

Mental disease or age do not take away free will.

 

[IBDaMann]

Name another species of animal that has use of complex language that would allow them to truly understand the concepts you mentioned.

What if I were to submit "dolphins" and other "whales"?

 

[ZenMode]

What if I were to submit "dolphins" and other "whales"?

Obviously there is a range of complexities in language among animals. Prairie dogs are known to have very complex communication methods.... compared to many other animals. None of them are in the same universe as humans.

 

[ZenMode]

I must have lost the thread of the argument. What does that have to do with free will?

I don't know. You brought up social norms in this conversation:

Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
What does genetics have to do with constructing social norms?

 

[BidenPresident]

I don't know. You brought up social norms in this conversation:

Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
What does genetics have to do with constructing social norms?

Bye!