4 ms·

Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

12 points by samizdis 3y ago

sys32768 3y ago
So one scientist studies against his will for decades to conclude that nobody has free will. Scientific Calvinism?
- rhelz 3y ago
  I'm glad you brought up the calvinism angle. The first book ever written in America which the Europeans took seriously is Johnathan Edward's book 'Freedom of the Will' (which argued there is no such thing.) It was just the next step in an already ages-long battle. The battle has been translated--along with almost all our explanations of anything--from a theological to a scientific key. But it's the same battle, and is still a theological battle: Scientific results are one thing, but interpreting what those results mean to the human mind is inevitably a hermeneutical, not a scientific, enterprise.
atcalan 3y ago
We have free will; it is just very expensive, as it should be. Decisions get made 500ms before we are aware of them, and overriding those decisions causes stress.
- snapcaster 3y ago
  Your source for that 500ms fact has been debunked but mostly agree with your conclusion
proc0 3y ago
Freewill is a semantic discussion. It either exists or it doesn't depending on what exactly we're talking about. That said, it is tangential to moral and ethical considerations. For example, we consider animals to be controlled by their instincts, having no freewill of their own (Sapolsky's argument describes this), therefore we absolve them of any wrongdoing. A shark is not to be blamed for biting someone's leg. What are the implications for applying this perspective on humans? Freewill deniers will often empathize with people who steal and hurt others precisely because they believe they had no choice... so what about brutal dictators that kill millions? Are they to be absolved of their wrongdoings because there is no freewill? What happens to accountability in a world without freewill? These moral questions are important and depend on freewill, and because it's ultimately a semantic argument, it's better to define it in a way that takes into account the fact that some people are consciously making decisions, despite the fact that they were "destined" to do so.
- burnished 3y ago
  What 'freewill deniers' are you talking about? Feels like you're making something up to be upset about (or to be fair, reading things some one wrote for that purpose). Because the position you are describing is incoherent. Frankly, it sounds like you misunderstood a conversation about socioeconomic factors in violent crime
  - proc0 3y ago
    That was probably the wrong term to use. I just mean people who don't think freewill exists. If I misunderstood something feel free to correct me. My specific contention is how exactly you can hold someone accountable if freewill does not exist, because that necessarily means they had no choice. On what grounds are they being held responsible? Assuming they should be.
    - burnished 3y ago
      Yes, I think you have. Got a couple rhetorical questions for you What is the purpose of holding some one accountable? Why do we not punish people if something bad happens and they could not reasonably have done anything to prevent the outcome? The reason I'm asking is I'm under the impression you have a couple key things sort of mixed up together. Maybe another angle is to try answering the inverse of your own questions, I think you'll see free will doesn't really factor in much. Not just playing devil's advocate either, I am personally pretty sure free will is an illusion. Happy to explore the topic further too.
      - proc0 3y ago
        > What is the purpose of holding some one accountable? People have the capacity to process information, simulate the future, and act according to that intent. in other words, my definition of freewill is precisely the information processing the brain does which results in actions and beliefs. Accountability is a mechanism for groups of people to correct this process, in which ever way they agreed is the correct direction. Accountability isn't just to punish bad people... bad people hold their own accountable for doing what many would consider morally correct. So perhaps it's a way to align the thinking of groups of people. > Why do we not punish people if something bad happens and they could not reasonably have done anything to prevent the outcome? Because without intent, we can rest assured it's not a pattern, and instead an accident. In current society, accidental damages are more likely to be forgiven. I'm a computationalist, so to me freewill is a computation that in practice is attributed to the individual with the brain. If that computation results in horrible actions i.e., murder, we hold the person accountable because we do not want those kinds of decisions in society. I understand this is compatibilism so my main argument against absolute determinists is that if you say there is no such thing as freewill it implies that this computation is not taking place in your brain but as a shared computation between the individual, the environment, and the rest of the universe. It's diluting where and how the information processing is taking place, and as a result it becomes possible to justify horrible actions.
DrStormyDaniels 3y ago
It it surprising that science, which is the theory of impersonal necessity, should find individual agency a rather inconceivable thing?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
karmakaze 3y ago
I was hoping to find compelling reasoning--perhaps it's just the article and the book's better. > What the student experiences as a decision to grab the pen is preceded by a jumble of competing impulses beyond his or her conscious control. Maybe their pique is heightened because they skipped lunch; maybe they're subconsciously triggered by the professor's resemblance to an irritating relative. > [...] All of those influences subtly nudge behavior in predictable ways. > So many factors beyond your conscious awareness brought you to that pen that it's hard to say how much you "chose" to pick it up at all. Not very compelling at all. The most one could say is that we are not certain to have free will, not that we certainly do not. A better way is to be pragmatic and do what we can, rather than try to decide who's at fault and punish them to our satisfaction--see Norway's system[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway
P_I_Staker 3y ago
It's really interesting how we reconstruct our perspective when it's a human. If a bear were to kill a child we'd use the fact that they have no free will to summarily shoot it without a trial. On the other hand, if it's a person, we use their lack of free will to absolve them of responsibility; or at least that's what we instinctively assume should result from their lack of free will. I notice this seems to be what people are defending against when it comes to denying free will, but it seems like the opposite should follow. We should think that no free will means that it doesn't matter; just shoot it and be done. Yet we assume it must mean people will somehow get a "no free will pass". Of course, there's a simple explanation that people don't like the idea of just being along for the ride. If we are punished and rewarded based on nothing, it leads to despair, similar to thinking of death with no afterlife. Obviously, if we dismiss the person's rights for not having free will, we're also dismissing our own. That weakness aside, I just find it fascinating that the exact same reasoning is used to come to opposite conclusions. If any vegans are here they might notice something. Bears have no rights, people have max. So perhaps we just need to improve bear rights. You could argue that when a bear eats people (in a really "bad bear" way), we should just fence it in somewhere and toss it some trash; sure it might not be happy, but it deserves the same mercy as people.
Merrill 3y ago
Higher animals, including humans, seem to have free will in the sense that they can imagine alternative futures, choose among them, and plan their motions accordingly. This is essential to being able to efficiently forage or hunt for food. In humans this leads to our well developed ability to fantasize, which is the core of our ability to think abstractly and believe in our consciousness.
I_Am_Nous 3y ago
I feel like this leans too heavily into determinism. If we have no free will, and everything is predetermined based on previous states, then how many of these previous states do we need to know before we can determine the future? The argument feels very weak regardless. Of course current actions are affected by previous actions, but just because they were affected doesn't mean they were determined by the previous actions, so it seems wrong to argue against free will via causal chains. I don't suddenly lose my agency to choose something just because someone can figure out a plausible reason for me having made that choice. "We are all just causally linked flesh machines and nothing else, prove me wrong" feels like the opposite side of the "philosophy zombie" concept. One posits we have no choice, one posits there is nothing "making" choices, and both are much better relegated to thought experiments to prod people into thinking about how to make an argument against it. With that in mind, the article says: >Sapolsky, who describes himself as "majorly averse to interpersonal conflict,"..."I'm really, really, really trying not to sound like a combative jerk in the book," he said. "I deal with human complexities by going and living in a tent. So yeah, I'm not up for a lot of brawls about this." This book and idea seem like a window into a philosopher's life where he just tells you what he believes, explains a bit, but isn't going to defend his idea much because he's just sharing the idea, not trying to authoritatively state he "solved free will" or some similar ludicrous statement.
aradox66 3y ago
Is there any definition of free will that is compatible with the scientific a priori of material causality? Isn't this outside the realm of the empirical?
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  >Isn't this outside the realm of the empirical? I believe you are correct, and this is why it's so difficult to discuss outside of thought experiments. I only have the experience of the view from behind my eyes and can read the best interpretations/autobiographies of what a philosopher believes, but that doesn't mean I'll come to the same conclusions as my experience is different than theirs was. I brought up the concept of Philosophy Zombies in another comment because it's a similar "unprovable" claim that can have plausible arguments that don't lead to someone changing their mind about the concept. Deterministic automatons with no free will sound a lot like a more complicated Philosophy Zombie.

12 points by samizdis 3y ago

sys32768 3y ago

So one scientist studies against his will for decades to conclude that nobody has free will. Scientific Calvinism?

rhelz 3y ago
I'm glad you brought up the calvinism angle. The first book ever written in America which the Europeans took seriously is Johnathan Edward's book 'Freedom of the Will' (which argued there is no such thing.) It was just the next step in an already ages-long battle. The battle has been translated--along with almost all our explanations of anything--from a theological to a scientific key. But it's the same battle, and is still a theological battle: Scientific results are one thing, but interpreting what those results mean to the human mind is inevitably a hermeneutical, not a scientific, enterprise.

atcalan 3y ago

We have free will; it is just very expensive, as it should be. Decisions get made 500ms before we are aware of them, and overriding those decisions causes stress.

snapcaster 3y ago
Your source for that 500ms fact has been debunked but mostly agree with your conclusion

proc0 3y ago

Freewill is a semantic discussion. It either exists or it doesn't depending on what exactly we're talking about. That said, it is tangential to moral and ethical considerations. For example, we consider animals to be controlled by their instincts, having no freewill of their own (Sapolsky's argument describes this), therefore we absolve them of any wrongdoing. A shark is not to be blamed for biting someone's leg. What are the implications for applying this perspective on humans? Freewill deniers will often empathize with people who steal and hurt others precisely because they believe they had no choice... so what about brutal dictators that kill millions? Are they to be absolved of their wrongdoings because there is no freewill? What happens to accountability in a world without freewill? These moral questions are important and depend on freewill, and because it's ultimately a semantic argument, it's better to define it in a way that takes into account the fact that some people are consciously making decisions, despite the fact that they were "destined" to do so.

burnished 3y ago
What 'freewill deniers' are you talking about? Feels like you're making something up to be upset about (or to be fair, reading things some one wrote for that purpose). Because the position you are describing is incoherent. Frankly, it sounds like you misunderstood a conversation about socioeconomic factors in violent crime
- proc0 3y ago
  That was probably the wrong term to use. I just mean people who don't think freewill exists. If I misunderstood something feel free to correct me. My specific contention is how exactly you can hold someone accountable if freewill does not exist, because that necessarily means they had no choice. On what grounds are they being held responsible? Assuming they should be.
  - burnished 3y ago
    Yes, I think you have. Got a couple rhetorical questions for you What is the purpose of holding some one accountable? Why do we not punish people if something bad happens and they could not reasonably have done anything to prevent the outcome? The reason I'm asking is I'm under the impression you have a couple key things sort of mixed up together. Maybe another angle is to try answering the inverse of your own questions, I think you'll see free will doesn't really factor in much. Not just playing devil's advocate either, I am personally pretty sure free will is an illusion. Happy to explore the topic further too.
    - proc0 3y ago
      > What is the purpose of holding some one accountable? People have the capacity to process information, simulate the future, and act according to that intent. in other words, my definition of freewill is precisely the information processing the brain does which results in actions and beliefs. Accountability is a mechanism for groups of people to correct this process, in which ever way they agreed is the correct direction. Accountability isn't just to punish bad people... bad people hold their own accountable for doing what many would consider morally correct. So perhaps it's a way to align the thinking of groups of people. > Why do we not punish people if something bad happens and they could not reasonably have done anything to prevent the outcome? Because without intent, we can rest assured it's not a pattern, and instead an accident. In current society, accidental damages are more likely to be forgiven. I'm a computationalist, so to me freewill is a computation that in practice is attributed to the individual with the brain. If that computation results in horrible actions i.e., murder, we hold the person accountable because we do not want those kinds of decisions in society. I understand this is compatibilism so my main argument against absolute determinists is that if you say there is no such thing as freewill it implies that this computation is not taking place in your brain but as a shared computation between the individual, the environment, and the rest of the universe. It's diluting where and how the information processing is taking place, and as a result it becomes possible to justify horrible actions.

DrStormyDaniels 3y ago

It it surprising that science, which is the theory of impersonal necessity, should find individual agency a rather inconceivable thing?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

karmakaze 3y ago

I was hoping to find compelling reasoning--perhaps it's just the article and the book's better. > What the student experiences as a decision to grab the pen is preceded by a jumble of competing impulses beyond his or her conscious control. Maybe their pique is heightened because they skipped lunch; maybe they're subconsciously triggered by the professor's resemblance to an irritating relative. > [...] All of those influences subtly nudge behavior in predictable ways. > So many factors beyond your conscious awareness brought you to that pen that it's hard to say how much you "chose" to pick it up at all. Not very compelling at all. The most one could say is that we are not certain to have free will, not that we certainly do not. A better way is to be pragmatic and do what we can, rather than try to decide who's at fault and punish them to our satisfaction--see Norway's system[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway

P_I_Staker 3y ago

It's really interesting how we reconstruct our perspective when it's a human. If a bear were to kill a child we'd use the fact that they have no free will to summarily shoot it without a trial. On the other hand, if it's a person, we use their lack of free will to absolve them of responsibility; or at least that's what we instinctively assume should result from their lack of free will. I notice this seems to be what people are defending against when it comes to denying free will, but it seems like the opposite should follow. We should think that no free will means that it doesn't matter; just shoot it and be done. Yet we assume it must mean people will somehow get a "no free will pass". Of course, there's a simple explanation that people don't like the idea of just being along for the ride. If we are punished and rewarded based on nothing, it leads to despair, similar to thinking of death with no afterlife. Obviously, if we dismiss the person's rights for not having free will, we're also dismissing our own. That weakness aside, I just find it fascinating that the exact same reasoning is used to come to opposite conclusions. If any vegans are here they might notice something. Bears have no rights, people have max. So perhaps we just need to improve bear rights. You could argue that when a bear eats people (in a really "bad bear" way), we should just fence it in somewhere and toss it some trash; sure it might not be happy, but it deserves the same mercy as people.

Merrill 3y ago

Higher animals, including humans, seem to have free will in the sense that they can imagine alternative futures, choose among them, and plan their motions accordingly. This is essential to being able to efficiently forage or hunt for food. In humans this leads to our well developed ability to fantasize, which is the core of our ability to think abstractly and believe in our consciousness.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago

I feel like this leans too heavily into determinism. If we have no free will, and everything is predetermined based on previous states, then how many of these previous states do we need to know before we can determine the future? The argument feels very weak regardless. Of course current actions are affected by previous actions, but just because they were affected doesn't mean they were determined by the previous actions, so it seems wrong to argue against free will via causal chains. I don't suddenly lose my agency to choose something just because someone can figure out a plausible reason for me having made that choice. "We are all just causally linked flesh machines and nothing else, prove me wrong" feels like the opposite side of the "philosophy zombie" concept. One posits we have no choice, one posits there is nothing "making" choices, and both are much better relegated to thought experiments to prod people into thinking about how to make an argument against it. With that in mind, the article says: >Sapolsky, who describes himself as "majorly averse to interpersonal conflict,"..."I'm really, really, really trying not to sound like a combative jerk in the book," he said. "I deal with human complexities by going and living in a tent. So yeah, I'm not up for a lot of brawls about this." This book and idea seem like a window into a philosopher's life where he just tells you what he believes, explains a bit, but isn't going to defend his idea much because he's just sharing the idea, not trying to authoritatively state he "solved free will" or some similar ludicrous statement.

aradox66 3y ago

Is there any definition of free will that is compatible with the scientific a priori of material causality? Isn't this outside the realm of the empirical?

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
>Isn't this outside the realm of the empirical? I believe you are correct, and this is why it's so difficult to discuss outside of thought experiments. I only have the experience of the view from behind my eyes and can read the best interpretations/autobiographies of what a philosopher believes, but that doesn't mean I'll come to the same conclusions as my experience is different than theirs was. I brought up the concept of Philosophy Zombies in another comment because it's a similar "unprovable" claim that can have plausible arguments that don't lead to someone changing their mind about the concept. Deterministic automatons with no free will sound a lot like a more complicated Philosophy Zombie.