Scientist says humans have no free will

[Votto]

Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will

You may think you chose to read this, but Stanford scientist Robert Sapolsky would disagree. He says virtually all human behavior is beyond our conscious control.

www.latimes.com

Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, and killed or castrated sufferers to prevent them from passing tainted blood to a new generation.

Today we know epilepsy is a disease. By and large, it’s accepted that a person who causes a fatal traffic accident while in the grip of a seizure should not be charged with murder.

That’s good, says Stanford University neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky. That’s progress. But there’s still a long way to go.

After more than 40 years studying humans and other primates, Sapolsky has reached the conclusion that virtually all human behavior is as far beyond our conscious control as the convulsions of a seizure, the division of cells or the beating of our hearts.

Where to begin? Let's begin with the statement in the article that "Virtually all human behavior is as far beyond our conscious control as the convulsions of a seizure." Does this not negate his entire premise? Either there is free will or there is not. You can't include the word "virtually". It is either yes or no, so which is it?

It is my belief that this question is based on the premise of their being a God or not. If there is no God, then man is just a mechanism, that is, the product of the material world, thus only being effected by the material world. Man becomes nothing more than just a glorified primate, whose behavior consists of urges he or she has not control over.

These same secular types will also say there is no good or evil. How could there be if we are powerless to control our own actions?

In a way, the human secularist is forced into this view because it is the only view possible for a Godless existence.

Of course, Trump is evil and so is MAGA, but outside of that, evil simply does not exist.

 

[jwoodie]

What separates humans from other animals is the ability to control our instinctive responses.

 

[Woodznutz]

If we don't have free will how come I have free will?

 

[dblack]

Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will

You may think you chose to read this, but Stanford scientist Robert Sapolsky would disagree. He says virtually all human behavior is beyond our conscious control.

www.latimes.com

Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, and killed or castrated sufferers to prevent them from passing tainted blood to a new generation.

Today we know epilepsy is a disease. By and large, it’s accepted that a person who causes a fatal traffic accident while in the grip of a seizure should not be charged with murder.

That’s good, says Stanford University neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky. That’s progress. But there’s still a long way to go.

After more than 40 years studying humans and other primates, Sapolsky has reached the conclusion that virtually all human behavior is as far beyond our conscious control as the convulsions of a seizure, the division of cells or the beating of our hearts.

Where to begin? Let's begin with the statement in the article that "Virtually all human behavior is as far beyond our conscious control as the convulsions of a seizure." Does this not negate his entire premise? Either there is free will or there is not. You can't include the word "virtually". It is either yes or no, so which is it?

It is my belief that this question is based on the premise of their being a God or not. If there is no God, then man is just a mechanism, that is, the product of the material world, thus only being effected by the material world. Man becomes nothing more than just a glorified primate, whose behavior consists of urges he or she has not control over.

These same secular types will also say there is no good or evil. How could there be if we are powerless to control our own actions?

In a way, the human secularist is forced into this view because it is the only view possible for a Godless existence.

Of course, Trump is evil and so is MAGA, but outside of that, evil simply does not exist.

We need a coherent definition of free will before we can discuss it.

 

[pknopp]

What separates humans from other animals is the ability to control our instinctive responses.

Animals can do that also.

 

[Woodznutz]

Animals can do that also.

Animals make choices based on instinct and experience that relate directly to their survival. Man is different in that we can create choices that have nothing to do with our survival, and often harm us, out of thin air, and for no good reason.

 

[dblack]

We need a coherent definition of free will before we can discuss it.

Does it mean free from cause and effect?

Or just that one's decisions aren't dictated by others?

 

[pknopp]

Animals make choices based on instinct and experience that relate directly to their survival.

Which means they can also control their instinctive responses. That's all I replied to.

 

[1srelluc]

Ivy League lite clap-trap.

 

[BackAgain]

Scientist says humans have no free will​

President Potato doesn’t.

But that presupposes that he is human.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What separates humans from other animals is the ability to control our instinctive responses.

R2-D2 Dindu

This nutty professor is a bitter misfit who has chosen to get even with the normal people who rejected him by imagining that they are all merely programmed robots.

 

[dblack]

What separates humans from other animals is the ability to control our instinctive responses.

So, would you say that free will is the ability to use conscious thought, rather than instinct?

 

[dblack]

We need a coherent definition of free will before we can discuss it.

Seriously. Everyone thinks they know what "free will" means, but most have never really thought about it.

 

[MarathonMike]

So, would you say that free will is the ability to use conscious thought, rather than instinct?

I think that is close. To me, free will is using conscious thought to question and analyze ALL that is presented to you.

 

[Woodznutz]

To me free will is just doing what you want to do.

 

[Woodznutz]

Seriously. Everyone thinks they know what "free will" means, but most have never really thought about it.

If you have free will you probably don't have to think about it, like if you're never hungry you don't have to think about food very much.

 

[Votto]

If we don't have free will how come I have free will?

A better question is, why do human beings get all bent out of shape over losing something that does not really exist, which is their free will?

 

[Votto]

We need a coherent definition of free will before we can discuss it.

I don't think the scientist gave it much thought either.

 

[dblack]

I don't think the scientist gave it much thought either.

Agreed.

There are really two questions that get mixed up, and maybe shouldn't be. On one hand is the question of determinism, the basic notion of cause and effect. The other, the question of moral accountability. The presumption is usually that if reality is deterministic, we can't hold people accountable for their decisions because it wasn't up to them, that it wasn't their fault.

I don't think it makes sense to tie these to ideas together. I happen to believe that reality is, ultimately, deterministic. Causes have effects, and the exact same set of causes will always create the same effects. But that's often characterized as the suggestion that, if you knew the entire, exact state of the universe at any given time, you could perfectly predict what would happen next.

But that characterization is flawed. Primarily because it's not possible to know the exact state of the entire universe, much less calculate what will happen next. I'm not saying we don't currently have the technology and that someday, someone might. I'm saying it's logically impossible. Stephen Wolfram proves this rigorously with his concept of Computational Irreducibility. The basic idea being that any system capable of representing the entire state of the universe, and calculating outcomes, would, by necessity, be as big and complex, and as slow, as the universe itself. So, the fastest, most efficient way to see what will happen next is to watch it happen.

People often use determinism to claim the future is "pre-determined", but that's a misleading phrase. The conceit is that it's all set in stone and that there's no way to do anything differently. It's more accurate to say that reality is "determined": it follows the laws of cause and effect, but it hasn't happened yet. Since there's no way to calculate what will happen next (physically, or logically), we can in no way tell what the future holds. It's happening all around us. We are part of the happening and we can influence the future, every bit as much as we could if determinism didn't hold.

I'm going to stop bloviating now, but it seems that the next question to tackle is the question of moral accountability. In particular - what does it mean to say that something is someone's "fault"??

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

To me free will is just doing what you want to do.

Free Will Enabled Intelligent Self-Design