Robert Sapolsky, Paul Bloom, and Lucy Allais debate whether free will exists and what this would mean for punishment and morality.The deny free will, and are strong determinists.
0:33 [Host] So, Robert, um, do do you do you see your position as being driven by a defense of materialism or physicalism? Is that what is motivating you? That there's just no no alternative. you can't give any account of free will and therefore uh because you can't give an account of free will within the uh within the scientific framework uh you think that we have to then deny free willI believe that this is just wrong as a matter of our scientific knowledge. There are no such completely deterministic matrices.[Sapolsky] basically I think by now the extent of scientific knowledge is such that it forms this matrix of explanation and that within that matrix um it is a purely materialistic one and every attempt to find free will lurking in there requires some sort of violation of show we know these matrices work. In that regard, I completely agree with Lucy um that trying to make sense of human behavior by going down to bosons is absurd.
If you think I am wrong, tell me when did science prove determinism? Who wrote the paper? Who did the experiment? Who got the Nobel Prize? Why isn't this in textbooks?
Sapolsky just babbles gibberish when asked this question:
Isn't there still the question of well you presumably have made a decision uh at some level to take part in this debate. you you uh wrote a book trying to convince people of uh the idea that we should see free will as an illusion. And you were presumably doing that because you wanted to change their minds. But what was the point if they couldn't change their minds in the first place?Sapolsky is probably the leading academic opponent of free will, and he is a crackpot.
What utility is there in not believing in free will?
ReplyDeleteSo many scientists seem to be striving desperately to assert how there is no free will, so there must be some value to making this assertion.
I would postulate the desire not to believe in free will stems from a deep seated fear of accountability and sense of guilt, perhaps connected to past unethical conduct. So much of what super determinism revolves around is the child like desire to claim that they did nothing wrong since they couldn't actually stop themselves from eating the cookies. They can't be held accountable or be punished because they HAD to eat the cookies, since they had no actual free will to exert any control over themselves. Since the beginning of the universe, they were SUPPOSED to eat the cookies as it could have been no other way.
In response to this, I would say that if they have no agency, they aren't actually aware either, as mere meat robots they even admit awareness is just an illusion, they're just complicated chemistry following predetermined reactions, and thus chopping off their heads for eating the cookies right before dinner should be fine, since they aren't even really self aware. There is also no morality... as they often like to claim, so any hesitation on moral grounds also isn't an issue, as there is nothing inherently wrong or evil about cutting a pile of carbon atoms in the structure of cells apart. I would also add that if their crime of cookie eating was inevitable, so was their execution since the person who chopped their heads off also had no ability to stop themselves from their predestined profession as a headsman.
It takes an interesting kind of stupid to subscribe to the relevance and dignity of human life in order to garner sympathy for human suffering, and request funding to pay for 'important research', while at the same time be promoting a mindless existence free of morality, agency, or consequence. It reminds me of people who have been ruthless and destructive in pursuit of their billions deciding late in life to tell other people they shouldn't have things...while not giving up any of their fortunes. Sort of like tech billionaires claiming they want post scarcity (for everybody else) while somehow magically maintaining their personal wealth.
I always believe what people do far more than what they say,
as it is the most accurate method to separate the gold from the bullshit.
Yes, people act as if they believe in free will, even if they say they do not. So there is a good question about why they say they have no free will. -Roger
ReplyDelete