Another attack on free will

Just happened across this article on the Sapolsky book by Scientific American columnist, John Horgan (via a visit to The Daily Grail):

https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/free-...ky-paradox

Here’s my point: If Sapolsky rejects free will because of rational deliberation, then he demonstrates that he possesses free will. If he rejects free will because he is prone to depression, then we can reject his stance as subjective and unscientific. Again, free will wins either way.

And here's another of Horgan's articles on Free Will (bearing in mind that Horgan is, himself, a materialist/atheist).

https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/my-sl...-free-will

Why do smart people persist in claiming that Libet disproved free will? Some smart people, I suspect, feel smarter when they attack beliefs that give others comfort, such as free will and God. Adamant free-will deniers tend to be adamant atheists.

Just happened across this article on the Sapolsky book by Scientific American columnist, John Horgan (via a visit to The Daily Grail):

https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/free-...ky-paradox

.........................................

Horgan:

"Here’s my point: If Sapolsky rejects free will because of rational deliberation, then he demonstrates that he possesses free will. If he rejects free will because he is prone to depression, then we can reject his stance as subjective and unscientific. Again, free will wins either way."

I don't think that essay by John Horgan and that particular point are a very good response to Sapolsky. To paraphrase my remarks in post #5, I would think that in response to such a criticism Sapolsky would simply point out that from his assumed completely materialistic and deterministic neuroscientific stance on consciousness, the mind and consciousness are one and the same as all the multitudinous neurological brain events (actions and interactions of neurons and synapses) constituting what the brain does. All of the conscious subjective experiences and willings and apparently free decisions of the decider are just the ultimately deterministic mechanical results of the ultimately predictable interactions of immense numbers of atoms in motion, and therefore are just a coincidence. So no free will, in fact really there is no "will" at all. It's all just an illusion according to Sapolsky.

As I stated then, the proper response to Sapolsky should be that the problem with his position is his totally materialistic and deterministic assumption that the mind and consciousness is simply "what the physical brain does" with all its billions of neurons and synapses. There are many strong reasons why this is invalid, and therefore his no free will position is also false.

As I stated then, the proper response to Sapolsky should be that the problem with his position is his totally materialistic and deterministic assumption that the mind and consciousness is simply "what the physical brain does" with all its billions of neurons and synapses. There are many strong reasons why this is invalid, and therefore his no free will position is also false.

Indeed, I think we are both saying the same thing if you look back at my post too. Determinism relies upon that assumption is that mind and brain are identical. I think that most of us here would disagree. The reason I posted the Horgan articles is to illustrate that even among materialists there is disagreement on Free Will.

Indeed, I think we are both saying the same thing if you look back at my post too. Determinism relies upon that assumption is that mind and brain are identical. I think that most of us here would disagree. The reason I posted the Horgan articles is to illustrate that even among materialists there is disagreement on Free Will.

Yeah Helen Steward offers a materialist account of free will.

I have her book but only read a bit here and there since it seems to me materialists have a problem of their own making in their treatment of consciousness and causality, two hard problems I don't think they have a real solution for.

Or arguably four hard problems if you specify consciousness has Rational, Subjective, and Aboutness mental aspects and add Causation as needing explanations for the mental and non-mental...though as per my first post in this thread I would say there's likely no such thing as non-mental causation.