Determined by Sapolsky - Attempting to Prove we Have No Free Will (1 Viewer)

[The Duff Man]

Curious if anyone has read this.

It is HEAVY on brain science, I have had to reread a bunch of it as a lay person to figure out some of the points he is making.

His belief is that free will does not exist. His stated goal of the book is to get the reader to believe that we have A LOT LESS free will than we think.

About 2/3rds of the way through and I have to say, he has me convinced in the latter.

I come from a large family that has struggled to overcome generational trauma. I have been able to, and I spend a lot of time contemplating….why?

The more I research and ponder that question the more it feels like it wasn’t ME, a variety of factors conspired to assist me in thinking and acting the way I do. Very differently than those I grew up with.

A fascinating subject, and I am eager to see what else they learn in the near future about how our brain works. Neuroscience has come a long way recently.

 

[beer 30]

You had me up to "heavy on brain science".

Do we have less free will then we imagine? Yea I'd buy into that. Do we have no free will? Not on board with that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If there's one thing that I can say with 100% certainty that I experience, it is the act of contemplation and choice-making. Logically, it should take mountains and mountains of platinum-quality evidence to make me change my mind about this. It should be easier to convince you that vision and hearing don't exist than it should be to convince that you free will doesn't exist.

In other words, this is one of those philosophical debates that I feel free to tune out, because one side just appears to be flatly wrong on the level of observable reality.

(If determinism is true, how come nobody experiences life this way? For example, we all know that about 1/10 or so of the population lacks an internal monologue. They know that, and they can tell you that. But nobody ever self-reports that they are an automaton who is just along for the ride, trapped inside a body that is doing stuff by itself. There are billions and billions of data points who self-report as having free will, and approximately zero data points self-reporting otherwise.)

 

[Leroy Hoard]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

 

[The Duff Man]

If there's one thing that I can say with 100% certainty that I experience, it is the act of contemplation and choice-making. Logically, it should take mountains and mountains of platinum-quality evidence to make me change my mind about this. It should be easier to convince you that vision and hearing don't exist than it should be to convince that you free will doesn't exist.

In other words, this is one of those philosophical debates that I feel free to tune out, because one side just appears to be flatly wrong on the level of observable reality.

(If determinism is true, how come nobody experiences life this way? For example, we all know that about 1/10 or so of the population lacks an internal monologue. They know that, and they can tell you that. But nobody ever self-reports that they are an automaton who is just along for the ride, trapped inside a body that is doing stuff by itself. There are billions and billions of data points who self-report as having free will, and approximately zero data points self-reporting otherwise.)

There is a lot that he writes about to tackle these arguments but the one that I tend to agree with goes something like this:

Take 1000 YOUs (multiverse?)
With the same ancestors
Born into the same cultures
Having experienced the same thing in the womb
With the same genetic makeup
With the same parenting
With the same upbringing and experiences
Remove random universal chaos, their lives have been identical

Put a decision in front of them. Do these 1000 beings have the free will to choose differently from each other? If it is a decision of contemplation and choice making he asserts the answer is no.

It is not so much that we are automations, it is that the sum of us (my words not his) dictate the decisions we make, not free will.

 

[tymarsas]

This topic is pretty fascinating to me. I have this book on my reading list, but haven't read it yet. I'm sure that it is way over my head anyway.

Due to the recent advances in AI, I've started to wonder whether we are just organic AI. Neural networks are inspired by our own brains. Are our decisions simply the sum of all the input we've received over our lifetimes? Is there something that drives our decisions other than our brain?

I think it is an interesting thing to think about, but it's really not going to change my outlook on life one way or the other. I assume we have free will and I will continue to exercise it as i always have. If we don't, then there is nothing I can change anyway.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I read his book "A Primate's Memoir" about 10 years ago and loved it but came away thinking the author is perhaps a bit pretentious. I feel like I learned more about field biologists than I learned about baboons. I read about this one a while back and can't bring myself to invest in it but will take another look.

 

[belljr]

My daughter had a philosophy or some type class her first semester and touched on this topic. Was very interesting as she partially thinks we are pre determined how our life goes or something like that

 

[The Gator]

*Sam Harris enters chat*

 

[Eephus]

Sapolsky takes a lot of the fun out of fantasy football drafts

 

[Mister CIA]

If memory serves, this one usually plays out with two sides arguing unrelated points.

 

[foxco]

Be tough to convince there's no free will, but I appreciate any thread with a Rush song reference, so carry on.

 

[Mister CIA]

*Sam Harris enters chat*

If I'm doing this correctly here is 2+ hours of Sam Harris conversations (with paywall removed) on the topic of free will. https://samharris.org/episode/SE53166F6F0

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If there's one thing that I can say with 100% certainty that I experience, it is the act of contemplation and choice-making. Logically, it should take mountains and mountains of platinum-quality evidence to make me change my mind about this. It should be easier to convince you that vision and hearing don't exist than it should be to convince that you free will doesn't exist.

In other words, this is one of those philosophical debates that I feel free to tune out, because one side just appears to be flatly wrong on the level of observable reality.

(If determinism is true, how come nobody experiences life this way? For example, we all know that about 1/10 or so of the population lacks an internal monologue. They know that, and they can tell you that. But nobody ever self-reports that they are an automaton who is just along for the ride, trapped inside a body that is doing stuff by itself. There are billions and billions of data points who self-report as having free will, and approximately zero data points self-reporting otherwise.)

I feel the same way.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If there's one thing that I can say with 100% certainty that I experience, it is the act of contemplation and choice-making. Logically, it should take mountains and mountains of platinum-quality evidence to make me change my mind about this. It should be easier to convince you that vision and hearing don't exist than it should be to convince that you free will doesn't exist.

In other words, this is one of those philosophical debates that I feel free to tune out, because one side just appears to be flatly wrong on the level of observable reality.

(If determinism is true, how come nobody experiences life this way? For example, we all know that about 1/10 or so of the population lacks an internal monologue. They know that, and they can tell you that. But nobody ever self-reports that they are an automaton who is just along for the ride, trapped inside a body that is doing stuff by itself. There are billions and billions of data points who self-report as having free will, and approximately zero data points self-reporting otherwise.)

There is a lot that he writes about to tackle these arguments but the one that I tend to agree with goes something like this:

Take 1000 YOUs (multiverse?)
With the same ancestors
Born into the same cultures
Having experienced the same thing in the womb
With the same genetic makeup
With the same parenting
With the same upbringing and experiences
Remove random universal chaos, their lives have been identical

Put a decision in front of them. Do these 1000 beings have the free will to choose differently from each other? If it is a decision of contemplation and choice making he asserts the answer is no.

It is not so much that we are automations, it is that the sum of us (my words not his) dictate the decisions we make, not free will.

I actually think the multiverse theory may be the only thing more absurd than the notion we don't have free will, but I think if you had the ability to erase the last 3 seconds of my memory and asked me the same question 1000 times, there would be many different answers.

 

[kupcho1]

Take 1000 YOUs (multiverse?)
With the same ancestors
Born into the same cultures
Having experienced the same thing in the womb
With the same genetic makeup
With the same parenting
With the same upbringing and experiences
Remove random universal chaos, their lives have been identical

Put a decision in front of them. Do these 1000 beings have the free will to choose differently from each other? If it is a decision of contemplation and choice making he asserts the answer is no.

This is nonsense. If you create 1000 identical persons (having removed any random chance in what they've experienced), it would be incredible if they DID NOT make the same choices.
And having 1000 identical persons make the same choice doesn't obviate free will. Why would it?

 

[Runkle]

If there's one thing that I can say with 100% certainty that I experience, it is the act of contemplation and choice-making. Logically, it should take mountains and mountains of platinum-quality evidence to make me change my mind about this. It should be easier to convince you that vision and hearing don't exist than it should be to convince that you free will doesn't exist.

In other words, this is one of those philosophical debates that I feel free to tune out, because one side just appears to be flatly wrong on the level of observable reality.

(If determinism is true, how come nobody experiences life this way? For example, we all know that about 1/10 or so of the population lacks an internal monologue. They know that, and they can tell you that. But nobody ever self-reports that they are an automaton who is just along for the ride, trapped inside a body that is doing stuff by itself. There are billions and billions of data points who self-report as having free will, and approximately zero data points self-reporting otherwise.)

There is a lot that he writes about to tackle these arguments but the one that I tend to agree with goes something like this:

Take 1000 YOUs (multiverse?)
With the same ancestors
Born into the same cultures
Having experienced the same thing in the womb
With the same genetic makeup
With the same parenting
With the same upbringing and experiences
Remove random universal chaos, their lives have been identical

Put a decision in front of them. Do these 1000 beings have the free will to choose differently from each other? If it is a decision of contemplation and choice making he asserts the answer is no.

It is not so much that we are automations, it is that the sum of us (my words not his) dictate the decisions we make, not free will.

I actually think the multiverse theory may be the only thing more absurd than the notion we don't have free will, but I think if you had the ability to erase the last 3 seconds of my memory and asked me the same question 1000 times, there would be many different answers.

Multiverse Theory is inherently frightening and truly terrible to contemplate. On every level it seems awful and I'd rather philosophers and scientists spend their time actively disproving it as any kind of possibility. If it does exist, well, screw all of this, I'm out.

Also, "give me the exact same parameters and identical stimulus a thousand times and you'll get a thousand different responses", sounds like every girl I've ever dated.

 

[kupcho1]

Multiverse Theory is inherently frightening and truly terrible to contemplate. On every level it seems awful and I'd rather philosophers and scientists spend their time actively disproving it as any kind of possibility. If it does exist, well, screw all of this, I'm out.

And you just created another multiverse, one where you're "in"
Well done

 

[Leroy Hoard]

If memory serves, this one usually plays out with two sides arguing unrelated points.

But did they learn to do that or were they just born that way?

 

[The Duff Man]

I see that I shouldn’t have used the M word

There was also an interesting chapter on how hormones and other things influence our decisions.

Such as, we are more likely to judge something as morally wrong if we SMELL something that is disgusting. And the whole “you aren’t yourself when you’re hungry, have a Snickers” thing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I see that I shouldn’t have used the M word

There was also an interesting chapter on how hormones and other things influence our decisions.

Such as, we are more likely to judge something as morally wrong if we SMELL something that is disgusting. And the whole “you aren’t yourself when you’re hungry, have a Snickers” thing.

To be clear, I don't deny that our thoughts, mood, and behavior are affected by chemicals. Testosterone is known to cause more aggression and risk-taking. Alcohol is known to lower inhibitions. Etc.

But at the end of the day, I'm the one who decides whether to confront another driver when he cuts me off in traffic. I'm the one who decides whether to send that drunken email to my boss at night. My preferences might change based on my blood sugar level, but I can always choose to do something other than what I did.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Like a lot of philosophy, this concept walks the line between fascinating and ridiculous. But I can't decide which it is.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Pragmatically speaking, why should the potential absence of free will matter?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Pragmatically speaking, why should the potential absence of free will matter?

It would potentially impact the notion of the responsibility of the individual in society and in turn affect our perceptions of justice and rewards. If nothing is really due to your failing or your achievement, then how do you punish or reward anyone fairly?

Of course some might argue that pragmatically, you still need some semblance of order in society, so that question isn’t so important, but it does fly in the face of ideas of natural rights and the enlightenment that have shaped so much of the western world that we know.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I think that is relatively easy to argue that all living organisms, including humans are essentially systems responding to incentives and punishments based on the present moment, their prior experiences and their expectation of the future. Does that mean that there is “no” free will? I suppose it would depend on how much information you have. If I know everything that has occurred, is occurring, and will occur, then free will could look like an illusion. But until someone can predict with certainty what any individual will do, I don’t know how you can say with absolute certainty that there is no free will. Whether I am going to eat something I shouldn’t late tonight will depend on a number of factors, many of which could be identified, but will I definitely respond to the situation in a 100% predictable way? I doubt it. I will make a judgment based on whatever factors present themselves at the time. After I made the decision, it may be relatively easy to explain the reasons and even to argue that it is inevitable. But most things seem inevitable after they happen. If you can look at any moment in time from any perspective in time and space and prove that the same decision would be made every time, then that might negate free will. But I don’t think that anyone could do that, even if you can make compelling arguments about the elements that cause each of our decisions. There is always going to be a unique cluster of events and stimuli at any point in time that will create the decision in question.

I say this as someone who doesn’t really care if there is free will or not and someone who generally believes that our behaviors are heavily influenced by something other than an “I” construct. But it still doesn’t make sense to me to completely rule out the notion of free will.

I guess it also depends on what you mean by free will. Can any of us do anything we want with absolutely no level of predictability? Probably not. But does that mean that there isn’t some element of a decision-making process that cannot be predicted? I don’t think so.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I think everyone is at least a little bit different. With some people you know what they will say or do before they say or do it. With others you could read their minds and still not know because they change it at the last second.

 

[Zow]

*Sam Harris enters chat*

Wait, is that B.F. Skinner's music I hear?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I think that is relatively easy to argue that all living organisms, including humans are essentially systems responding to incentives and punishments based on the present moment, their prior experiences and their expectation of the future. Does that mean that there is “no” free will? I suppose it would depend on how much information you have. If I know everything that has occurred, is occurring, and will occur, then free will could look like an illusion. But until someone can predict with certainty what any individual will do, I don’t know how you can say with absolute certainty that there is no free will. Whether I am going to eat something I shouldn’t late tonight will depend on a number of factors, many of which could be identified, but will I definitely respond to the situation in a 100% predictable way? I doubt it. I will make a judgment based on whatever factors present themselves at the time. After I made the decision, it may be relatively easy to explain the reasons and even to argue that it is inevitable. But most things seem inevitable after they happen. If you can look at any moment in time from any perspective in time and space and prove that the same decision would be made every time, then that might negate free will. But I don’t think that anyone could do that, even if you can make compelling arguments about the elements that cause each of our decisions. There is always going to be a unique cluster of events and stimuli at any point in time that will create the decision in question.

I say this as someone who doesn’t really care if there is free will or not and someone who generally believes that our behaviors are heavily influenced by something other than an “I” construct. But it still doesn’t make sense to me to completely rule out the notion of free will.

I guess it also depends on what you mean by free will. Can any of us do anything we want with absolutely no level of predictability? Probably not. But does that mean that there isn’t some element of a decision-making process that cannot be predicted? I don’t think so.

Update:

I didn’t eat anything else last night. (Probably too tired from writing all those words)

 

[pecorino]

Newcomb’s Paradox is a fun, intriguing game-theoretic treatment of the question of freewill and you don’t even need to read a whole book. (BTW, I’m with Ivan K though a touch less intransigent.)

Newcomb's paradox - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm a noob on this.

But I land pretty firmly on "in your life's story, "fate" is a terrible writer".

I think we have much more control than we may think.

 

[Ilov80s]

Curious if anyone has read this.

It is HEAVY on brain science, I have had to reread a bunch of it as a lay person to figure out some of the points he is making.

His belief is that free will does not exist. His stated goal of the book is to get the reader to believe that we have A LOT LESS free will than we think.

About 2/3rds of the way through and I have to say, he has me convinced in the latter.

I come from a large family that has struggled to overcome generational trauma. I have been able to, and I spend a lot of time contemplating….why?

The more I research and ponder that question the more it feels like it wasn’t ME, a variety of factors conspired to assist me in thinking and acting the way I do. Very differently than those I grew up with.

A fascinating subject, and I am eager to see what else they learn in the near future about how our brain works. Neuroscience has come a long way recently.

Interesting. I would probably enjoy this. It's a position I've made here several times. As a teacher and just as a person getting older, I really feel like most decisions people make they do without any real thought process- they just are compelled to behave that way. So many times I see kids or teens do something obviously dumb and when confronted about it they admit it's dumb but are unable to explain why they did it. Then adults say kids are compulsive or their brains aren't fully developed, etc. Then I often see those same adults (or myself) make irrational decisions that go against their best interest or their stated beliefs/values. Now usually adults are a little slicker than kids and come up with all these ways to rationalize their behavior after the fact. I do believe we can change and do have some freewill but far far less than we think and we have to work hard to access it.

and to what Ivan said, it's not being automaton. It's more like the feelings and impulses you have don't come from a rational place and far more often than not, they win out over rational thought or rational thought doesn't even get a chance to enter the chat. One simple example we all have likely experienced is being infatuated/ in love with a person who know isn't good for us. Even after having lots and lots of time to think about it and determine the person is going to cause us pain and suffering, we often still can't stop ourselves from wanting to be with them, sending them late night messages, even humiliating ourselves for their attention. Now you could say that's a choice and I suppose it is but when you are flooded with powerful hormones and impulses, it's not very easy to make decisions. Like putting someone who is stupid drunk behind the wheel of a car and then questioning why they got into a crash. Also people regularly don't even understand what they value. This is a Malcolm Gladwell thing I think but consistently when people are asked to evaluate what they are looking for in a partner, the qualities they indicate don't match the people they will choose as potential partners when put through a speed dating exercise. Similar to say devout Christians who steal, lie, cheat on their spouses. We often don't even really understand ourselves, we construct false identities of who we wish we were or who we think society wants us to be to hide the things we actually think and do. Then think of the most extreme cases: pyromanaics, nymphomaniacs, kleptomaniacs, chronic drug users, etc. People who have to fight tooth and nail just to behave in a way that doesn't cause them extreme harm and cause misery for themselves and everyone they love.

We do get to make choices but there are almost an infinite number of choices we make each day and we often are in a sort of autopilot given to our first impuleses and emotions.

 

[WVU Alum]

If there is no free will then how can there be consent? And if there is no consent…

 

[massraider]

Update:

I didn’t eat anything else last night. (Probably too tired from writing all those words)

That's not the reason. It was predetermined.

 

[AAABatteries]

I know little on the topic and my first instinct was like Term, what does it matter?

But ignoring that couldn’t you actually setup an experiment which proves we have free will? I’m ripping this off from a Big Bang Theory episode where Sheldon takes a DnD die and just assigns his actions to the roll of the die. Obviously, you can’t do that all day with every decision but the idea seems simple to me and kind of shoots down the idea that we don’t have free will. Maybe I’m missing something about the argument.

 

[Juxtatarot]

It's one of things that you can argue either way and there is no right answer.

 

[Ilov80s]

If there is no free will then how can there be consent? And if there is no consent…

I think we all agree people have will. The question here is more of how much of it is actually free from the influence of our own hormones and external factors such as previous trauma, family dynamics, social circle, etc. Whether someone agree to do something with someone because they were animalistically charged up to do so or because that person reminded them of their parent or because they objectively felt this person met all the proper characteristics of a safe partner, doesn't really matter. They still made a willing decision. How free was it from external and uncontrollable internal factors, I guess that's the debate.

 

[Ilov80s]

I know little on the topic and my first instinct was like Term, what does it matter?

But ignoring that couldn’t you actually setup an experiment which proves we have free will? I’m ripping this off from a Big Bang Theory episode where Sheldon takes a DnD die and just assigns his actions to the roll of the die. Obviously, you can’t do that all day with every decision but the idea seems simple to me and kind of shoots down the idea that we don’t have free will. Maybe I’m missing something about the argument.

So you are saying because he is allowing the dice to randomly determine his decisions, it proves that he can control his actions and that there is not set path for him?

 

[AAABatteries]

I know little on the topic and my first instinct was like Term, what does it matter?

But ignoring that couldn’t you actually setup an experiment which proves we have free will? I’m ripping this off from a Big Bang Theory episode where Sheldon takes a DnD die and just assigns his actions to the roll of the die. Obviously, you can’t do that all day with every decision but the idea seems simple to me and kind of shoots down the idea that we don’t have free will. Maybe I’m missing something about the argument.

So you are saying because he is allowing the dice to randomly determine his decisions, it proves that he can control his actions and that there is not set path for him?

Yes. In the multiverse example I’m assuming your typical random dice distribution across the 1,000 rolls. Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding the premise but while he’s not directly deciding you basically introduce an unknown variable which he follows.

 

[Ilov80s]

I know little on the topic and my first instinct was like Term, what does it matter?

But ignoring that couldn’t you actually setup an experiment which proves we have free will? I’m ripping this off from a Big Bang Theory episode where Sheldon takes a DnD die and just assigns his actions to the roll of the die. Obviously, you can’t do that all day with every decision but the idea seems simple to me and kind of shoots down the idea that we don’t have free will. Maybe I’m missing something about the argument.

So you are saying because he is allowing the dice to randomly determine his decisions, it proves that he can control his actions and that there is not set path for him?

Yes. In the multiverse example I’m assuming your typical random dice distribution across the 1,000 rolls. Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding the premise but while he’s not directly deciding you basically introduce an unknown variable which he follows.

Would you follow that if the dice said to quit your job or tell your wife you want a divorce or set your neighbors house on fire or relocate your family to Warsaw or become a vegan or start training for a triathlon or convert to Judaism? If so, does that prove or disprove free will?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Newcomb’s Paradox is a fun, intriguing game-theoretic treatment of the question of freewill and you don’t even need to read a whole book. (BTW, I’m with Ivan K though a touch less intransigent.)

Newcomb's paradox - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Ted Chiang has a story that is based on this, or it least very similar

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Curious if anyone has read this.

It is HEAVY on brain science, I have had to reread a bunch of it as a lay person to figure out some of the points he is making.

His belief is that free will does not exist. His stated goal of the book is to get the reader to believe that we have A LOT LESS free will than we think.

About 2/3rds of the way through and I have to say, he has me convinced in the latter.

I come from a large family that has struggled to overcome generational trauma. I have been able to, and I spend a lot of time contemplating….why?

The more I research and ponder that question the more it feels like it wasn’t ME, a variety of factors conspired to assist me in thinking and acting the way I do. Very differently than those I grew up with.

A fascinating subject, and I am eager to see what else they learn in the near future about how our brain works. Neuroscience has come a long way recently.

. It's more like the feelings and impulses you have don't come from a rational place and far more often than not, they win out over rational thought or rational thought doesn't even get a chance to enter the chat. One simple example we all have likely experienced is being infatuated/ in love with a person who know isn't good for us. Even after having lots and lots of time to think about it and determine the person is going to cause us pain and suffering, we often still can't stop ourselves from wanting to be with them, sending them late night messages, even humiliating ourselves for their attention. Now you could say that's a choice and I suppose it is but when you are flooded with powerful hormones and impulses, it's not very easy to make decisions.

It depends on what you mean by rational. I think that people who make choices that seem “irrational” in the moment are actually making choices that are rational based on their own life experiences and the incentive structure that has been created for them. Ultimately, I think that it’s really hard for living organisms to do things that are not beneficial to them. Survival and reproduction is kind of the fundamental blueprint for all living things. So someone may chase something that we can all see they will never get, but achieving that or obtaining that approval is probably similar to things that they did growing up and their psycho-neuro-biological system learned that they were likely to lead to some kind of a pleasurable outcome. It’s easy to get into examples with reclusive fathers or overbearing mothers, but why shouldn’t that extend to everything that shapes you as you are developing. And then those patterns became ingrained and reactions become automatic, but they seem rational to that system that has developed.

Didn’t quite mean to go off on such a tangent like that, but I do think that these questions of personal identity and the self and what it really means to be “you” are important for understanding what free will means operationally.

 

[AAABatteries]

I know little on the topic and my first instinct was like Term, what does it matter?

But ignoring that couldn’t you actually setup an experiment which proves we have free will? I’m ripping this off from a Big Bang Theory episode where Sheldon takes a DnD die and just assigns his actions to the roll of the die. Obviously, you can’t do that all day with every decision but the idea seems simple to me and kind of shoots down the idea that we don’t have free will. Maybe I’m missing something about the argument.

So you are saying because he is allowing the dice to randomly determine his decisions, it proves that he can control his actions and that there is not set path for him?

Yes. In the multiverse example I’m assuming your typical random dice distribution across the 1,000 rolls. Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding the premise but while he’s not directly deciding you basically introduce an unknown variable which he follows.

Would you follow that if the dice said to quit your job or tell your wife you want a divorce or set your neighbors house on fire or relocate your family to Warsaw or become a vegan or start training for a triathlon or convert to Judaism? If so, does that prove or disprove free will?

Not sure free will is only about big things. If I decide I want tater tots versus fries or onion rings I may be exercising free will.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I know little on the topic and my first instinct was like Term, what does it matter?

But ignoring that couldn’t you actually setup an experiment which proves we have free will? I’m ripping this off from a Big Bang Theory episode where Sheldon takes a DnD die and just assigns his actions to the roll of the die. Obviously, you can’t do that all day with every decision but the idea seems simple to me and kind of shoots down the idea that we don’t have free will. Maybe I’m missing something about the argument.

So you are saying because he is allowing the dice to randomly determine his decisions, it proves that he can control his actions and that there is not set path for him?

Yes. In the multiverse example I’m assuming your typical random dice distribution across the 1,000 rolls. Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding the premise but while he’s not directly deciding you basically introduce an unknown variable which he follows.

Would you follow that if the dice said to quit your job or tell your wife you want a divorce or set your neighbors house on fire or relocate your family to Warsaw or become a vegan or start training for a triathlon or convert to Judaism? If so, does that prove or disprove free will?

Not sure free will is only about big things. If I decide I want tater tots versus fries or onion rings I may be exercising free will.

We know you just order them all, so that’s not free will

 

[Terminalxylem]

I'm a noob on this.

But I land pretty firmly on "in your life's story, "fate" is a terrible writer".

I think we have much more control than we may think.

I agree that relying on fate to get where you want to be is a bad idea.

But I believe we have less control than we think.

Our difference is particularly surprising, considering our religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

 

[The Duff Man]

A few things that are covered well in the book:

Lack of free will doesn’t mean the decision is not being made. It just means that your brain is going to make the decision it was conditioned to make.

It isn’t “fate” as there is still a huge element of randomness in the universe. For example, a tornado hits one house but not another. Fate didn’t decide which house was hit and it wasn’t predetermined. But the author’s theory is that our response to this event would be.

You would need omnipotent power to understand how a given brain was created so just because you can’t predetermine what choice the brain will make doesn’t mean that the brain is free to make ANY choice.

A few people asked the “so what” question, I am just getting to this at the end of the book. But basically it looks like his advice is to tone down judgement of others and recognize that people are predisposed toward their actions, and so are you.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

He could stop trying to prove the whole free will thing.

 

[rockaction]

A few people asked the “so what” question, I am just getting to this at the end of the book. But basically it looks like his advice is to tone down judgement of others and recognize that people are predisposed toward their actions, and so are you.

Which gives the whole concept enormous sociopolitical importance. My answer to his immediate claim, if you represent it accurately, is that we might need to increase the judgment of others that commit certain acts so that we might drive them out of the gene pool.

It’s a really dangerous eugenicist slope that people might go down and I don’t think that determinists appreciate that quite enough. I read quite a bit about determinism and objective morality in my bunch of months gone, and I’m not sure that the ramifications were as deeply considered as they should be by people arguing for determinism/no objective morality. Now, that’s not to say to lie and say we have free will when we really don’t, or that there are universal, moral definitions and actions that exist outside of one’s self; it’s simply to point out that in the rush to proscription of certain judgments, people arguing the determinist/subjective line might not have considered carefully what other people might proscribe or do with the information if society were to drop the pretenses and accept the limited range of actions we are able to act upon.

It’s partially akin to and analogous to the Minority Report issue. If you knew that someone was going to act a certain way, would you stop it if you could? A lot of people would stop horrible things from being enacted, and that raises questions about freedom from others when you haven’t even done anything. Often these determinists/subjective morality men and women are saying that a person’s lack of control is a function of a predetermined brain chemistry or structure, and therefore this might absolve people of certain things that they do.

I don’t know. The concept of free will isn’t to be trifled with, and I think analytic philosophy (which this probably has roots in—that and neuropsychology or psychology) has limits that people can’t quite see. Science has limits. I find that especially analytic philosophy finds only what isn’t and never really what is when it comes to matters of the soul or intangible other things. It’s very materialist in its workings.

Anyway, enough of me.

 

[Ilov80s]

I know little on the topic and my first instinct was like Term, what does it matter?

But ignoring that couldn’t you actually setup an experiment which proves we have free will? I’m ripping this off from a Big Bang Theory episode where Sheldon takes a DnD die and just assigns his actions to the roll of the die. Obviously, you can’t do that all day with every decision but the idea seems simple to me and kind of shoots down the idea that we don’t have free will. Maybe I’m missing something about the argument.

So you are saying because he is allowing the dice to randomly determine his decisions, it proves that he can control his actions and that there is not set path for him?

Yes. In the multiverse example I’m assuming your typical random dice distribution across the 1,000 rolls. Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding the premise but while he’s not directly deciding you basically introduce an unknown variable which he follows.

Would you follow that if the dice said to quit your job or tell your wife you want a divorce or set your neighbors house on fire or relocate your family to Warsaw or become a vegan or start training for a triathlon or convert to Judaism? If so, does that prove or disprove free will?

Not sure free will is only about big things. If I decide I want tater tots versus fries or onion rings I may be exercising free will.

Of course but I’m saying for the dice experiment to be real, you also have to be willing to take it to the max at extreme conclusions- decisions that would actually change the outcome of your life. Tots vs onion rings doesn’t actually change the outcome of your life.

 

[Ilov80s]

Curious if anyone has read this.

It is HEAVY on brain science, I have had to reread a bunch of it as a lay person to figure out some of the points he is making.

His belief is that free will does not exist. His stated goal of the book is to get the reader to believe that we have A LOT LESS free will than we think.

About 2/3rds of the way through and I have to say, he has me convinced in the latter.

I come from a large family that has struggled to overcome generational trauma. I have been able to, and I spend a lot of time contemplating….why?

The more I research and ponder that question the more it feels like it wasn’t ME, a variety of factors conspired to assist me in thinking and acting the way I do. Very differently than those I grew up with.

A fascinating subject, and I am eager to see what else they learn in the near future about how our brain works. Neuroscience has come a long way recently.

. It's more like the feelings and impulses you have don't come from a rational place and far more often than not, they win out over rational thought or rational thought doesn't even get a chance to enter the chat. One simple example we all have likely experienced is being infatuated/ in love with a person who know isn't good for us. Even after having lots and lots of time to think about it and determine the person is going to cause us pain and suffering, we often still can't stop ourselves from wanting to be with them, sending them late night messages, even humiliating ourselves for their attention. Now you could say that's a choice and I suppose it is but when you are flooded with powerful hormones and impulses, it's not very easy to make decisions.

It depends on what you mean by rational. I think that people who make choices that seem “irrational” in the moment are actually making choices that are rational based on their own life experiences and the incentive structure that has been created for them. Ultimately, I think that it’s really hard for living organisms to do things that are not beneficial to them. Survival and reproduction is kind of the fundamental blueprint for all living things. So someone may chase something that we can all see they will never get, but achieving that or obtaining that approval is probably similar to things that they did growing up and their psycho-neuro-biological system learned that they were likely to lead to some kind of a pleasurable outcome. It’s easy to get into examples with reclusive fathers or overbearing mothers, but why shouldn’t that extend to everything that shapes you as you are developing. And then those patterns became ingrained and reactions become automatic, but they seem rational to that system that has developed.

Didn’t quite mean to go off on such a tangent like that, but I do think that these questions of personal identity and the self and what it really means to be “you” are important for understanding what free will means operationally.

I think that sort of leans into what I’m saying perfectly. The daddy issues followed by a life of chasing after awful men who repeatedly damage them for example. Sure it may be a learned survival method because as a child that’s how they kept themselves safe or got attention from their father who they depended on. But now as an adult they find themselves stuck in a pattern of behavior and with impulses they don’t want but can’t stop. I’m dealing with that with my adopted daughter now. Had awful role models as a kid- especially male ones. She was also sexually assaulted. Now she’s 16. She has a boyfriend. He’s an ok guy but he’s now broken up with her 4 times. She says she doesn’t like him, knows it’s a toxic relationship that’s made her life worse, says he is a-hole and they don’t have anything really in common. But she’s obsessed with him and said he could text her at any time and she would go back to him because she just feels this overwhelming feeling that she wants him. Sure it’s her decision but it’s really being made by events and influences from years ago, not the present.

 

[massraider]

A few things that are covered well in the book:

Lack of free will doesn’t mean the decision is not being made. It just means that your brain is going to make the decision it was conditioned to make.

It isn’t “fate” as there is still a huge element of randomness in the universe. For example, a tornado hits one house but not another. Fate didn’t decide which house was hit and it wasn’t predetermined. But the author’s theory is that our response to this event would be.

You would need omnipotent power to understand how a given brain was created so just because you can’t predetermine what choice the brain will make doesn’t mean that the brain is free to make ANY choice.

A few people asked the “so what” question, I am just getting to this at the end of the book. But basically it looks like his advice is to tone down judgement of others and recognize that people are predisposed toward their actions, and so are you.

I think the phrase 'free will' isn't doing him any favors. Because what he is describing as lack of free will isn't how most people would describe that phrase.

I think that sort of leans into what I’m saying perfectly. The daddy issues followed by a life of chasing after awful men who repeatedly damage them for example. Sure it may be a learned survival method because as a child that’s how they kept themselves safe or got attention from their father who they depended on. But now as an adult they find themselves stuck in a pattern of behavior and with impulses they don’t want but can’t stop. I’m dealing with that with my adopted daughter now. Had awful role models as a kid- especially male ones. She was also sexually assaulted. Now she’s 16. She has a boyfriend. He’s an ok guy but he’s now broken up with her 4 times. She says she doesn’t like him, knows it’s a toxic relationship that’s made her life worse, says he is a-hole and they don’t have anything really in common. But she’s obsessed with him and said he could text her at any time and she would go back to him because she just feels this overwhelming feeling that she wants him. Sure it’s her decision but it’s really being made by events and influences from years ago, not the present.

And yet, some women break this cycle. Some people get fed up, at different points in their lives, and make changes. And people do it at different ages, for different reasons, with much different catalysts.

In general, I am not too impressed when people try and explain anything to do with the brain. Someone earlier said there was a lot of advances in neuroscience, I would like to learn more about that, but I am pretty skeptical generally about anyone explaining anything about personality traits. Too many exceptions.