4 ms·

If there ever was a Western Philosophical mind-disease then it would be the idea that you monorail your whole entire—absolutely all of it—personal philosophy by

If there ever was a Western Philosophical mind-disease then it would be the idea that you monorail your whole entire—absolutely all of it—personal philosophy by believing in one single thing. - Do you like Buddhist mindfulness? Well then you must necessarily commit yourself to the idea that people should be happy doormats for other people and for their circumstances - Do you believe that sociological factors are a thing? Well then you must necessarily think that poor people and other “poor people” have no agency and are only a victim of circumstances (conservative rebuke) - Do you believe in Science (waves hands)? Well then you necessarily commit yourself to a certain kind of Determinism that me and a cackle^W gaggle of scientists (who aren’t philosophers) find to be Obvious Doing biology while factoring in Free Will sounds nonsensical. So don’t do it. But what you do outside of biology (on your free time)? Well, that’s something different. I think Chomsky said something like this about the Free Will debate: if Free Will isn’t real then debating it won’t matter, per definition. Unless you are fine with the discourse devolving into “I am making these moral arguments because I am compelled to by circumstance”, in which case everything you are saying is—by your own admission—vacuous.

rvbissell 3y ago
> a cackle of scientists a gaggle, perhaps?
mgh2 3y ago
Maybe not theoretically, but practically it matters what you think of it: https://medium.com/p/4fecf8095812 https://medium.com/p/4fecf8095812
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Ever wondered why the 1% define the status quo? Why we idolize and follow their dogmas? The premise is Idealistic nonsense.
visarga 3y ago
Free will is a confusing term. If you mean in the sense of physical indeterminism and supremacy of will over nature, it probably doesn't exist. But if you mean "taking decisions for your own reasons" it's another thing, perfectly ok to exist. People mix the physical sense with the psychological sense of "free will", making a salad of the whole debate. If they made it clear what they mean probably there would be much less to disagree about.
- dmillar 3y ago
  This is perhaps why many frame this debate around what free will is: "free will is an illusion" vs "free will does not exist." It bends away from fatalism. The science and theory behind determinism seems plausible to me, nonetheless I feel like I can make decisions in my life. That's what matters, and that's what will keep society from unraveling were this to be truly realized by the masses.
paulrudy 3y ago
Love this take, and I agree. Where do you think this monorail proclivity comes from (assuming it wasn't "predetermined")? My hand-wavy first guess is an interwoven legacy of patriarchy, trauma, and power structures including theological ones that reflected and reinforced it. Or maybe it's just that we tend to grab shiny things, just like crows and monkeys, and a sense of singular certainty just seems particularly shiny.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think it is a fairly universal human desire to seek understanding of the world and make sense of it. Accurate modeling of the world and how it works confers safety and power and comparative advantage. This is why philiosophers and religionists have ask the question "why?" Even (especially) children like predictable rules.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > I think it is a fairly universal human desire to seek understanding of the world and make sense of it. Not remotely universal, and not even related to the desire to seek an understanding of the world. Everyone has an intuition about “free will”; for most people it’s whatever, a given. But then a small minority has a totalizing idea because X means that Free Will is impossible. Then they start this campaign to “disabuse” everyone of that intuition. There’s very little desire to learn there—people who have the “free will” intuition already “understand”; likewise with the Determinism people. Everyone is certain about the way things are.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think we might just disagree. As far as we can determine, humans have tried to understand and predict how things work. How and when game migrates. What causes plants to grow, and how we can induce it. What makes a good growing season. We are naturally causal detectives, connecting the idea that eating prevents hunger, or that clothes provide comfort. Sure, not everyone may care about esoteric questions like the origin of the cosmos, but nobody is free from seeking to understand causality. The former is an offshoot of the later.
robwwilliams 3y ago
Great comments. My short version: Watching yet another neuroscientist driving boldly off a 3 meter board into an empty pool. The most impressive SPLAT was that of Sir John Eccles—-with his incredible idea of “critically poised neurons” that were sensitive detectors to quantum signals from the spirit world. The original post does a great job of dissecting the many problems of Sapolsky’s arguments and his lack of dealing with definitions of words he would like to debunk. Read Daniel Dennett instead of Sapolsky. Thanks, I love the Chomsky meta-critique above. Sapolsky’s book cover should include be a DALL-E rendering of Alfred E. Neuman and Napoleon discussing “their” battle plans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman
alecst 3y ago
How does this have anything to do with Sapolsky's argument that free will doesn't exist? What does mindfulness have to do with being a doormat? Why are scientists not philosophers? Why doesn't biology have anything to do with free will?
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > How does this have anything to do with Sapolsky's argument that free will doesn't exist? It doesn’t per se because I stated that the debate itself is irrelevant (see Chomsky’s point). > What does mindfulness have to do with being a doormat? This is an unrelated example. > Why are scientists not philosophers? They haven’t been philosophers for more than a hundred years. > Why doesn't biology have anything to do with free will? Biology is the study of life.

rvbissell 3y ago

> a cackle of scientists a gaggle, perhaps?

mgh2 3y ago

Maybe not theoretically, but practically it matters what you think of it: https://medium.com/p/4fecf8095812 https://medium.com/p/4fecf8095812

avgcorrection 3y ago
> Ever wondered why the 1% define the status quo? Why we idolize and follow their dogmas? The premise is Idealistic nonsense.

visarga 3y ago

Free will is a confusing term. If you mean in the sense of physical indeterminism and supremacy of will over nature, it probably doesn't exist. But if you mean "taking decisions for your own reasons" it's another thing, perfectly ok to exist. People mix the physical sense with the psychological sense of "free will", making a salad of the whole debate. If they made it clear what they mean probably there would be much less to disagree about.

dmillar 3y ago
This is perhaps why many frame this debate around what free will is: "free will is an illusion" vs "free will does not exist." It bends away from fatalism. The science and theory behind determinism seems plausible to me, nonetheless I feel like I can make decisions in my life. That's what matters, and that's what will keep society from unraveling were this to be truly realized by the masses.

paulrudy 3y ago

Love this take, and I agree. Where do you think this monorail proclivity comes from (assuming it wasn't "predetermined")? My hand-wavy first guess is an interwoven legacy of patriarchy, trauma, and power structures including theological ones that reflected and reinforced it. Or maybe it's just that we tend to grab shiny things, just like crows and monkeys, and a sense of singular certainty just seems particularly shiny.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think it is a fairly universal human desire to seek understanding of the world and make sense of it. Accurate modeling of the world and how it works confers safety and power and comparative advantage. This is why philiosophers and religionists have ask the question "why?" Even (especially) children like predictable rules.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > I think it is a fairly universal human desire to seek understanding of the world and make sense of it. Not remotely universal, and not even related to the desire to seek an understanding of the world. Everyone has an intuition about “free will”; for most people it’s whatever, a given. But then a small minority has a totalizing idea because X means that Free Will is impossible. Then they start this campaign to “disabuse” everyone of that intuition. There’s very little desire to learn there—people who have the “free will” intuition already “understand”; likewise with the Determinism people. Everyone is certain about the way things are.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think we might just disagree. As far as we can determine, humans have tried to understand and predict how things work. How and when game migrates. What causes plants to grow, and how we can induce it. What makes a good growing season. We are naturally causal detectives, connecting the idea that eating prevents hunger, or that clothes provide comfort. Sure, not everyone may care about esoteric questions like the origin of the cosmos, but nobody is free from seeking to understand causality. The former is an offshoot of the later.

robwwilliams 3y ago

Great comments. My short version: Watching yet another neuroscientist driving boldly off a 3 meter board into an empty pool. The most impressive SPLAT was that of Sir John Eccles—-with his incredible idea of “critically poised neurons” that were sensitive detectors to quantum signals from the spirit world. The original post does a great job of dissecting the many problems of Sapolsky’s arguments and his lack of dealing with definitions of words he would like to debunk. Read Daniel Dennett instead of Sapolsky. Thanks, I love the Chomsky meta-critique above. Sapolsky’s book cover should include be a DALL-E rendering of Alfred E. Neuman and Napoleon discussing “their” battle plans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman

alecst 3y ago

How does this have anything to do with Sapolsky's argument that free will doesn't exist? What does mindfulness have to do with being a doormat? Why are scientists not philosophers? Why doesn't biology have anything to do with free will?

avgcorrection 3y ago
> How does this have anything to do with Sapolsky's argument that free will doesn't exist? It doesn’t per se because I stated that the debate itself is irrelevant (see Chomsky’s point). > What does mindfulness have to do with being a doormat? This is an unrelated example. > Why are scientists not philosophers? They haven’t been philosophers for more than a hundred years. > Why doesn't biology have anything to do with free will? Biology is the study of life.