Robert Sapolsky On Free Will

[Veritas6]

Hello, I was recently reading this perspective of neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky that free will doesn’t exist: “The decisions we make are a result of ‘prenatal environment, genes, and hormones, whether [our] parents were authoritative or egalitarian, whether [we] witnessed violence in childhood, when [we] had breakfast…’" He gave one example of having “gas pains” could make one “more selfish” when responding to a “moral issue”, but doesn’t elucidate on what this moral issue might be.

His argument just sounds mechanical and kinda silly to assume we will act a certain way because of biological stressors (without any conscious thought). He ends the article (linked below) with:
“If you were brought up in a culture that values reflection, introspection, and critical thinking about your own thinking, one that questions whether you are being rational or if you are rationalizing, then you’re training your cortex to be a better assessor of what’s going on in your limbic system [a region of the brain that influences behavior, but isn’t engaged in conscious thought]. When you’re being asked to think about the meaning of your intuitions before you act on them, maybe along the way you decide your intuitions are destructive or make no sense at all. And then you don’t act on them” (emphasis mine).

But isn’t that a definition of free will? I don’t think anyone believes we have “perfect” free will, but instead that we are conditioned by our desires. In the end we have the choice to respond a certain way in a situation, but we’re never perfectly free. We don’t author our desires, but we do have the choice to follow what God has commanded, even if we would prefer to follow our own desires. Dr. Sapolsky’s argument seems like refuting a wrong-headed definition of what “free” will really means.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbqwjx/you-have-no-free-will

 

[po18guy]

I wonder why he decided to write the article…?

He had a choice of whether or not to write the article, correct? Hmmmm…

 

[Finn]

I agree with your assessment. Seem as if he built a strawman to pick apart.

 

[Veritas6]

Many opponents to this free will definition state that we “free will believers” claim we are authors of our thoughts: “making free decisions, unconstrained by what the brain is doing”. This doesn’t sense to me because the soul and the brain are one entity. We have an immaterial intellect to think consciously, influenced by stressors, but not forced to act as a result of stressors.

“Effort and resisting temptation are products of a wealth of natural factors: blood glucose levels, the socioeconomic status of the family, a concussive head injury (or absence thereof), sleep quality, prenatal environment, etc.”

More evidence that we are influenced by external stimuli (specifically biological), but none that prove we are determined to act a certain way simply because of our genetic & environmental makeup.

I suppose this “unconstrained” free will idea is debunked when relying on biology and the environment, but no one really takes this idea seriously anyway.

 

[niceatheist]

He’s hardly the first to question the existence of Free Will. A fair portion of at least early Protestants all but rejected the notion.

For neurobiology the issue has turned out to be quite complex. A lot of the decisions we think we consciously make are in fact driven by subconscious and even physiological processes. I think we do have free will, just not as much as we like to think we do.

 

[FredBloggs]

Unless one assumes that are brains are somehow influenced by an external soul or some such (which is unproved, and currently unprovable), then I fail to see how any degree of free will can exist.

If our decisions emanate from our brain, and our brains work by means of electro-chemical reactions and interactions, then by definition, according to our best scientific knowledge, our behaviour is entirely deterministic. Some people cite “quantum uncertainty,” but at best that would give a degree of randomness in our decisions; there’s still no place for dualistic free will.

Belief in free will is wishful-thinking. It feels like we have free will, and it’s comforting to believe we have free will. But I’m not aware of any objective evidence that it exists.

 

[niceatheist]

So far as I know, no one asserts that neurology makes free will impossible. What the research thus far indicates that a lot of our decisions occur at a level that we’re not conscious of, though they may appear to our awareness as being conscious decisions. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have free will, say, when we decide to buy a new car or convert to a new faith. I suspect even creatures of much lesser neural capacity like cats and dogs, exhibit some decision making ability.

 

[Veritas6]

We have the ability to consciously choose different options we desire. I can give into my alcohol addiction or I can not. Even if I’m biological hardwired to drink alcohol to feel normal, I can still choose to end it and seek treatment. I have good reasons for doing so, I’m not being forced to continue this cycle like a robot.

 

[niceatheist]

We have the ability to consciously choose different options we desire. I can give into my alcohol addiction or I can not. Even if I’m biological hardwired to drink alcohol to feel normal, I can still choose to end it and seek treatment. I have good reasons for doing so, I’m not being forced to continue this cycle like a robot.

It’s a lot more difficult than that. Take opioid addictions. Basically opiods reprogram the neurotransmitters in the brain, with significant and usually permanent effects. Yes, you can beat such addictions, but it takes a lot of support. Free will is usually not enough to overcome the addiction in most individuals.

 

[Veritas6]

Yes, it takes more than free will to beat biological changes made in our brains, but we have the ability to choose to seek treatment instead of remaining addicted.

 

[niceatheist]

Yes, it takes more than free will to beat biological changes made in our brains, but we have the ability to choose to seek treatment instead of remaining addicted.

I think some are, and some aren’t. Sadly, I view these kinds of addictions as being as much a brain disease as anything else. Will alone almost never works. It needs a lot of support.

 

[FredBloggs]

We have the ability to consciously choose different options we desire.

It certainly feels that way. But then, some people feel that they’re telepathic, or that they’re the reborn emperor of 12th century Japan. Should we just accept everything that we feel to be so?

I’m not being forced to continue this cycle like a robot.

That’s the error that proponents of free will make - they assume that the absence of free will means that they’re trapped in a body that behaves deterministically, while their consciousness looks on, helpless.

All we know about the brain suggests that it is a physical organ performing physical (deterministic) actions. So if someone wants to claim that we have dualistic free will then they need to either:

1. Explain why the laws of physics don’t apply to the brain
2. Explain where free will comes from, if not from within our physical bodies.

 

[Veritas6]

It certainly feels that way. But then, some people feel that they’re telepathic, or that they’re the reborn emperor of 12th century Japan. Should we just accept everything that we feel to be so?

What evidence do you have that “feeling” like we have free will means we don’t have free will? I’m not promoting the idea free will is random, uncaused thoughts, “violating” laws of physics. Our caused thoughts/desires influences our decisions.

That’s the error that proponents of free will make - they assume that the absence of free will means that they’re trapped in a body that behaves deterministically, while their consciousness looks on, helpless.

So how does consciousness play into our absence of free will? If I can consciously choose over several options, it doesn’t seem to follow I’m not free to choose.

Free will is to have the capacity to choose. I have the capacity for multiple choices, and those choices are made based on our knowledge and desires. If our knowledge and desires are exactly the same, why would we expect our choice to be different if we repeated it multiple times? What makes it free will is that it’s my knowedge and my desires which influence the decision. The decision comes from principles intrinsic to me. I’m not being moved about like a puppet.

 

[meltzerboy2]

If you’re a Freudian (and I am not), you have no conscious choice without the powerful influence of the unconscious mind. And a Jungian might assume your personal unconscious mind is, in turn, determined by the collective unconscious. In either case, free will is not really free, but neither is it only or primarily biologically driven.

 

[Vico]

…

Luke 18

26 And they that heard it said: Who then can be saved? 27 He said to them: The things that are impossible with men are possible with God.

Some Catholic dogmas of faith (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott):

1. There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will.
2. There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will.
3. For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God ( gratia elevans ) is absolutely necessary.
4. Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation.

 

[po18guy]

Good thing that neither Sigmund nor Karl promise me anything beyond this life!

 

[FredBloggs]

What evidence do you have that “feeling” like we have free will means we don’t have free will?

Seriously? You’re asking me to prove a negative?

But I’ll answer. No evidence at all. Other than that our current best thinking about the universe provides no way for free will to exist. If we have free will, then it’s just as likely that the tree in my garden has free will.

I’m not promoting the idea free will is random, uncaused thoughts, “violating” laws of physics.

Of course not. My point was that those who cite “quantum this, that or the other” as the argument against determinism haven’t thought about it.

Our caused thoughts/desires influences our decisions.

And where do our thoughts come from? From the lumps of meat in our head, or from somewhere else? If the former, please explain why the aforementioned lumps of meat are exempt from the laws of physics. If the latter, please explain where those thoughts originate and how they influence the lumps of meat in our head? Please explain what our consciousness is and where it resides.

So how does consciousness play into our absence of free will? If I can consciously choose over several options, it doesn’t seem to follow I’m not free to choose.

I think my point is that you can’t consciously choose. You just feel like you can. Wesrock’s quote doesn’t change any of that.

 

[Veritas6]

But I’ll answer. No evidence at all. Other than that our current best thinking about the universe provides no way for free will to exist. If we have free will, then it’s just as likely that the tree in my garden has free will.

What is your definition of free will? You won’t find physical evidence for free will, soul, or intellect/mind. It’s very odd humans have “felt” moral responsibility for millennia…

And where do our thoughts come from? From the lumps of meat in our head, or from somewhere else? If the former, please explain why the aforementioned lumps of meat are exempt from the laws of physics. If the latter, please explain where those thoughts originate and how they influence the lumps of meat in our head? Please explain what our consciousness is and where it resides.

It doesn’t follow that if our thoughts originate from our brains it violates physics. Our souls are one with our brain/body, conscious awareness is most likely a physical manifestation, but the mind/intellect is from the soul. Our thoughts/desires originate from ourselves; we’re not breaking laws of physics. Our mind is definitely malleable because it’s influenced by our culture, environment, and genes; but it doesn’t follow that we have no control of our thoughts if they originate within us and/or outside of us.

 

[FredBloggs]

What is your definition of free will?

Dualistic free will is where, if you could go back in time to a decision point, where everything in the universe is exactly the same as it was the first time, you could make a different decision.

You won’t find physical evidence for free will, soul, or intellect/mind.

I completely agree.

It’s very odd humans have “felt” moral responsibility for millennia…

Not really. I’m not denying that feelings are real and have value, I’m cautioning against assuming what one feels can be safely called reality.

It doesn’t follow that if our thoughts originate from our brains it violates physics.

Not at all. But it does follow that if those thoughts are non-deterministic and non-random, then we need an explanation for where that non-determinism, non-randomness comes from.

Our souls are one with our brain/body, conscious awareness is most likely a physical manifestation, but the mind/intellect is from the soul.

And this is where the problem lies. “Our soul does it” is not an explanation. It’s just vague hand-waving, allowing us to hold on to our ideals of free will etc. without any evidence at all that it exists. Nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of a soul. Where does it reside? How does it interact with our physical selves?

Our thoughts/desires originate from ourselves; we’re not breaking laws of physics. Our mind is definitely malleable because it’s influenced by our culture, environment, and genes; but it doesn’t follow that we have no control of our thoughts if they originate within us and/or outside of us.

Actually, that’s precisely what follows, in the absence of any testable evidence for where free will comes from.

 

[otjm]

Another brilliant idiot has decided to get his 5 minutes of fame…