2023-10-18, 08:45 PM
There is a new and interesting article on free will research. This in the LA Times, at https://www.latimes.com/science/story/20...mined-book .
This article is mainly to cover a new and innovative study of (supposed) free will, that claims to prove it doesn't exist. This is Robert Sapolsky’s latest book, called “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will” at https://www.latimes.com/science/story/20...mined-book. He may present a troublesome advocacy of the totally materialist No Free Will belief system.
It's interesting that according to his book a moment of illumination in Sapolsky's early life molded and created his lifelong pursuit of scientific proof that there is no free will, and no real God.
Apparently a quasi-religious experience leading to absolute faith-based conviction of the key idea - essentially a fundamentalist doctrinal closed-mindedness. It seems to me probably an emotional rejection of his faith-based orthodox Jewish upbringing.
This seems to be a quasi-religious illumination experience leading to absolute faith-based conviction of the key idea.
Presumably Sapolsky (and Caruso and his ilk) ignore the scientific research work that has in fact demonstrated free will, and also ignore the obvious severe problem that in his theory human consciousness is one and the same as the collective complex deterministic physical interactions of neurons in the brain, which then runs full into the well-known Hard Problem of consciousness, in addition of course to colliding with the very large body of paranormal empirical evidence for the ultimate independence of mind from the physical brain and body. Evidence of the dualist model where when in body immaterial spirit strongly interacts with brain neurons and at least partially determines their mutual interactions. Of course Sapolsky totally ignores that little insight into the problem.
It's interesting that in the end Sapolsky leaves a hint that he is flummoxed by something a little like the Hard Problem, where he is convinced that an immaterial moral dimension or property does in fact exist, even though it is an artifact of the consciousness he claims is completely deterministic and material.
This article is mainly to cover a new and innovative study of (supposed) free will, that claims to prove it doesn't exist. This is Robert Sapolsky’s latest book, called “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will” at https://www.latimes.com/science/story/20...mined-book. He may present a troublesome advocacy of the totally materialist No Free Will belief system.
Quote:"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."
It's interesting that according to his book a moment of illumination in Sapolsky's early life molded and created his lifelong pursuit of scientific proof that there is no free will, and no real God.
Apparently a quasi-religious experience leading to absolute faith-based conviction of the key idea - essentially a fundamentalist doctrinal closed-mindedness. It seems to me probably an emotional rejection of his faith-based orthodox Jewish upbringing.
Quote:"While grappling with questions of faith and identity, he was struck by an epiphany that kept him awake until dawn and reshaped his future: God is not real, there is no free will, and we primates are pretty much on our own."
This seems to be a quasi-religious illumination experience leading to absolute faith-based conviction of the key idea.
Quote:"(Sapolsky's previous book prepared the ground) by breaking down the neurochemical influences that contribute to human behaviors, analyzing the milliseconds to centuries preceding, say, the pulling of a trigger or the suggestive touch on an arm.
“Determined” goes a step further. If (as the book claims) it’s impossible for any single neuron or any single brain to act without influence from factors beyond its control, Sapolsky argues, there can be no logical room for free will."
..................................
"...when (for example) you reach for that pen, Sapolsky says, 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."
..................................
“Who we are and what we do is ultimately the result of factors beyond our control and because of this we are never morally responsible for our actions in the sense that would make us truly deserving of praise and blame, punishment and reward,” said Gregg Caruso, a philosopher at SUNY Corning who read early drafts of "Determined". “I am in agreement with Sapolsky that life without belief in free will is not only possible but preferable.”
Presumably Sapolsky (and Caruso and his ilk) ignore the scientific research work that has in fact demonstrated free will, and also ignore the obvious severe problem that in his theory human consciousness is one and the same as the collective complex deterministic physical interactions of neurons in the brain, which then runs full into the well-known Hard Problem of consciousness, in addition of course to colliding with the very large body of paranormal empirical evidence for the ultimate independence of mind from the physical brain and body. Evidence of the dualist model where when in body immaterial spirit strongly interacts with brain neurons and at least partially determines their mutual interactions. Of course Sapolsky totally ignores that little insight into the problem.
It's interesting that in the end Sapolsky leaves a hint that he is flummoxed by something a little like the Hard Problem, where he is convinced that an immaterial moral dimension or property does in fact exist, even though it is an artifact of the consciousness he claims is completely deterministic and material.
Quote:"We are machines, Sapolsky argues, exceptional in our ability to perceive our own experiences and feel emotions about them. It is pointless to hate a machine for its failures.
There is only one last thread he can’t resolve.
“It is logically indefensible, ludicrous, meaningless to believe that something ‘good’ can happen to a machine,” he writes. “Nonetheless, I am certain that it is good if people feel less pain and more happiness.”"