On Life and Free Will

From the interview:

I think if there was no free will, and all actions were predetermined, I think in general randomness wouldn't exist, that is to say, repetition would settle in and be obvious among our species as a whole. 

In a deterministic reality there would indeed be no randomness.

However, what if the reality was so utterly impossibly complex that randomness seemed to exist?    That is, we could not tell that ultimately (at the lowest level ... say below the quarks) reality is deterministic.

I don't think Dr. Sapolsky makes an argument for determinism.  The premise being put forward is that our behavior is governed by causality.  That view has become popular among pharmacological psychologists; altering brain chemistry alters behavior.  However, that approach seems to overlook that altering brain chemistry results in a loss of personality and individuality.

We live in an inanimate universe that is governed by causality.  The physical forms of life come into being through a series of causes that can be easily observed and traced. Life must interact with the inanimate universe according to the rules of causality governing the inanimate universe.  So causality influencing behavior is not a particularly insightful conclusion.  Yes, free will can certainly be confined by the extraordinary limitations imposed by the causal universe.

Not surprising the presentation raises the issue of crime.  Are bad things simply the result of causality?  Do we really make choices and exercise will when committing a crime?  While emotionally appealing, that approach is intellectually dishonest because of its emotional appeal.  Why not apply the same questions to philanthropy?  If what we consider 'bad' is the result of causality to somehow diminish responsibility, then, what we consider 'good' is also the result of causality and should not be an expectation.

The emotive argument that life is pain and we should strive to minimize pain is nonsense.  That leads to an unacceptable logical conclusion that death removes pain; therefore, when someone experiences pain the compassionate thing to do is kill them.  And a lack of free will absolves us of any responsibility for that conclusion.

Free will is not about behavior.  To me, free will is about purpose and intent.  Dr. Sapolsky recognizes that in his discussion.  I submit that free will is influenced more by personality and individuality.  Behavior involves interactions with the inanimate universe that is governed by causality, so the observing the influence of causality on behavior is unremarkable.  Loss of personality and individuality through pharmacological manipulation is a loss of free will.  

I contend that understanding human behavior will not provide useful insight into the nature of free will.

I don't think Dr. Sapolsky makes an argument for determinism.

If reality is based purely on cause and effect then reality is deterministic.   By definition.

Dr. Sapolsky's opinion, based on his research, is that free will is simply behavior we have not yet reduced to cause & effect.   That is, he is intimately aware of the many factors that determine human behavior and the consistent pattern of causality leads him to expect that he will never see anything but causality.

That said, Sapolsky was not making an argument for determinism, he was opining.

... that approach is intellectually dishonest because of its emotional appeal

You ascribe an intent to deceive where I see none whatsoever.   Having read and observed Dr. Sapolsky for years, the man is the quintessential scientist.   His agenda is to discover as much truth about reality (in and around his specialty) as he can and provide this insight to his students.

The emotive argument that life is pain and we should strive to minimize pain is nonsense.  That leads to an unacceptable logical conclusion that death removes pain; therefore, when someone experiences pain the compassionate thing to do is kill them.  And a lack of free will absolves us of any responsibility for that conclusion.

First, you cannot take one factor and generalize a behavioral truth.   The avoidance of pain is one of many factors.   Second, there is no claim that behavior is based purely on logic (arguably the opposite).   So your logical reasoning is rather inconsistent with the science that Sapolsky is providing.

Free will is not about behavior.  To me, free will is about purpose and intent.  

In particular, free will = the ability of spontaneous intent.

If reality is based purely on cause and effect then reality is deterministic.   By definition.

But that idea is dependent upon a single cause.  A single cause would result in a predetermined outcome.  An outcome can be traced back to a single first cause but that does not provide insight about other factors that could have easily been selected as first cause.  When confronted with several factors that have potential to become first cause, the outcome would be the result of choice.

That said, Sapolsky was not making an argument for determinism, he was opining.

Within that context, Dr. Sapolsky's opinion does not provide support for the idea of determinism.  That, too, is an opinion, mine.  How does that advance discussion of the topic?

You ascribe an intent to deceive where I see none whatsoever.   Having read and observed Dr. Sapolsky for years, the man is the quintessential scientist.   His agenda is to discover as much truth about reality (in and around his specialty) as he can and provide this insight to his students.

Quite the contrary.  I believe that emotive conclusions presented as intuitively obvious are unintentionally intellectually dishonest.  For emotive conclusions, ipso isn't necessarily facto.

First, you cannot take one factor and generalize a behavioral truth.   The avoidance of pain is one of many factors.   Second, there is no claim that behavior is based purely on logic (arguably the opposite).   So your logical reasoning is rather inconsistent with the science that Sapolsky is providing.

Hence the opined conclusion that a causal purpose would be to minimize pain has not been intellectually derived.  Causality naturally results in a logical outcome; a first cause cannot result in an irrational or illogical outcome.  Assuming that behavior governed by causality is the basis for human action, including moral action, then it follows that a conclusion that killing people minimizes pain would be causally logical.  

In particular, free will = the ability of spontaneous intent.

Yes.  But isn't the spontaneous intent to make choices among factors that have potential to be first cause?  A specific outcome can be traced to a specific first cause.  But does that provide any insight about competition between factors to become first cause?

But that idea is dependent upon a single cause.  A single cause would result in a predetermined outcome.  An outcome can be traced back to a single first cause but that does not provide insight about other factors that could have easily been selected as first cause.  When confronted with several factors that have potential to become first cause, the outcome would be the result of choice.

Why is the first cause necessarily a sentient choice?

Within that context, Dr. Sapolsky's opinion does not provide support for the idea of determinism. 

He opined and give some of his reasons.   Sam Harris did as well.   This is a discussion, not a scientific theory.

I believe that emotive conclusions presented as intuitively obvious are unintentionally intellectually dishonest.

I am pretty confident that if you asked Dr. Harris or Dr. Sapolsky if they thought the lack of free will was intuitively obvious to people they would state that indeed it is the opposite - that free will is presumed and intuitively obvious to most everyone.   That considering the possibility that our reality is deterministic and that we really do not have free will is counter-intuitive.

Hence the opined conclusion that a causal purpose would be to minimize pain has not been intellectually derived. 

This is extraordinarily complex science.   There just is no single factor to most everything here and both Harris and Sapolsky would be happy to note that their respective fields of neuroscience and neuroendocrinology are replete with unknowns (but also, interestingly, full of very interesting knowns).      But to suggest that these men are just speaking out of casual opinion / emotion rather than an opinion based on considerable research is both unfair and odd.   Why would you presume they are not reflecting that which they have learned in their careers??

But isn't the spontaneous intent to make choices among factors that have potential to be first cause? 

That is possible.   (For all that matters.)   Note also that if there is spontaneous intent then we have free will and reality is not deterministic.

A specific outcome can be traced to a specific first cause.  But does that provide any insight about competition between factors to become first cause?

This repeated focus by you on first cause was not discussed in this video.   I am not sure that either Harris or Sapolsky has said much, if anything, publically on the possibility of a first cause. 

This is extraordinarily complex science.   There just is no single factor to most everything here and both Harris and Sapolsky would be happy to note that their respective fields of neuroscience and neuroendocrinology are replete with unknowns (but also, interestingly, full of very interesting knowns).      But to suggest that these men are just speaking out of casual opinion / emotion rather than an opinion based on considerable research is both unfair and odd.   Why would you presume they are not reflecting that which they have learned in their careers??

So, is Dr. Sapolsky expressing opinion or hypothesis?  Does it matter?  Both opinion and hypothesis can be intellectually challenged.  Dr. Sapolsky discussed the subject from both professional experience and his personal feelings about the subject.  Dr. Sapolsky points out his own internal conflicts concerning causality/behavior and does present information based upon his feelings rather than observation.

I am not attempting to discuss Dr. Sapolsky; I am attempting to address Dr. Sapolsky's thoughts on the subject of causality and behavior.  And pointing out that Dr. Sapolsky mixes personal experience and personal feelings in his discussion doesn't alter that both can be intellectually challenged.  I do not question Dr. Sapolsky's credentials but credentials are not a substitute for intellectual scrutiny.

This repeated focus by you on first cause was not discussed in this video.   I am not sure that either Harris or Sapolsky has said much, if anything, publically on the possibility of a first cause. 

It's the topic of the video.  Dr. Sapolsky presents his professional experience that behavior is the result of causality.  Dr. Sapolsky then raises the question of free will in the context of causal behavior and expresses his feelings concerning that apparent contradiction.

But the discussion of free will is based upon an a priori assumption that free will is the result of behavior.  My counterpoint is that free will precedes behavior.

Dr. Sapolsky presents his experience that a behavioral outcome can be traced to an initial cause, a first cause.  I am pointing out that deductive analysis of behavioral outcome to initial cause does not provide insight into other factors that compete to become the initial cause.  When confronted with many factors competing to become the initial cause for a chain of behavioral events, that process begins with a choice.

I am making a counterpoint contention that understanding behavior isn't that informative concerning the nature of free will.  In vastly over simplified terms, free will is the initial cause for a behavioral outcome.

So, is Dr. Sapolsky expressing opinion or hypothesis?  Does it matter?  Both opinion and hypothesis can be intellectually challenged. 

No doubt this is hypothesis given he is speaking here as a scientist.   As for if it matters, you have to answer that ... I did not take us down this path.

Dr. Sapolsky discussed the subject from both professional experience and his personal feelings about the subject.  Dr. Sapolsky points out his own internal conflicts concerning causality/behavior and does present information based upon his feelings rather than observation.

I am not going to psychoanalyze the man.

And pointing out that Dr. Sapolsky mixes personal experience and personal feelings in his discussion doesn't alter that both can be intellectually challenged.  I do not question Dr. Sapolsky's credentials but credentials are not a substitute for intellectual scrutiny.

Why are you dwelling on this Nerm?   I have no interest debating factors about Dr. Sapolsky as a person or as a professional.  This seed is not about him but rather about what he and Harris were discussing.

It's the topic of the video. 

No, first cause is NOT the topic of the video.

But the discussion of free will is based upon an a priori assumption that free will is the result of behavior.  My counterpoint is that free will precedes behavior.

I do not know where you are finding this.   Free will is a mode of behavior.   If we have the ability to spontaneously choose (rather than simply act on a strict causal chain) then that is free will.  The origin of said free will is unknown and neither speaker thinks free will exists (in their learned professional opinions).

Dr. Sapolsky presents his experience that a behavioral outcome can be traced to an initial cause, a first cause.  I am pointing out that deductive analysis of behavioral outcome to initial cause does not provide insight into other factors that compete to become the initial cause.  When confronted with many factors competing to become the initial cause for a chain of behavioral events, that process begins with a choice.

You are repeating yourself.   I am not going to comment on first cause stuff anymore in this seed.   It is not the topic and I have no interested in going down this tangent (at least not here).

I am making a counterpoint contention that understanding behavior isn't that informative concerning the nature of free will.  In vastly over simplified terms, free will is the initial cause for a behavioral outcome.

Free will, if it exists, is a mode of behavior.   If free will exists then we are all free to spontaneously choose.   If not, our choices are all mechanical (determined) even thought it seems as though we have free will.

I do not know where you are finding this.   Free will is a mode of behavior.   If we have the ability to spontaneously choose (rather than simply act on a strict causal chain) then that is free will.  The origin of said free will is unknown and neither speaker thinks free will exists (in their learned professional opinions).

I am contending that free will is not a mode of behavior.  My counterpoint is that free will is an initiator of behavior but is not, itself, a behavior.

A mode of behavior is not a behavior.  Mode describes the nature of behavior.   

The difference in our position is that free will, if it exists, is an enabler for certain types of behavior.   Instead of enabler you think it is the initiator.    

A mode of behavior is not a behavior.  Mode describes the nature of behavior.   

And I am contending that free will is not a mode of behavior.  

The difference in our position is that free will, if it exists, is an enabler for certain types of behavior.   Instead of enabler you think it is the initiator.

Controlling behavior typically involves restricting choices.  Behavioral studies typically are premised upon observing a subject making choices from a limited, controlled set of choices.  So, it seems apparent that choice precedes behavior and is, likely, not part of the mode of behavior.

Choice may establish the conditions for a causal chain of events we observe as behavior.  But choice, itself, is not a behavior.  That's why we have a market economy based upon consumer choice.  

So, it seems apparent that choice precedes behavior and is, likely, not part of the mode of behavior.  ...  But choice, itself, is not a behavior. 

Choice is a behavior too.   I am no longer interested in playing semantics Nerm.

Choice is a behavior too.   I am no longer interested in playing semantics Nerm.

Well, an ad hominem mischaracterization is one way of conceding the point.

Not only was that not even remotely ad hominem, it also does not concede a point but rather states disagreement.  

indeed it is the opposite - that free will is presumed and intuitively obvious to most everyone.

It would seem obvious to those who have gotten past their childhood indoctrination, which often was the first exposure to "emotive conclusions presented as intuitively obvious" and were often intentionally dishonest.

When I hear "spontaneous intent" it makes me imagine the first time our ancient ancestors likely encountered a new threat, say a new kind of carnivore, where some "spontaneously" chose to run while others may have chosen to hide or fight, and through the outcome of that encounter, the genes of those who made the least effective method of survival lost and were possibly snipped out of our genetic evolution while those who made the better spontaneous choice survived and passed on those traits to the next generation increasing their odds of survival.

So while I believe free will does exist and that there is no God that knows exactly how any one human will react in any given situation, I also believe our spontaneous choices are limited by our inherited genes as well as environment and childhood indoctrination, which often play a part in our likes and dislikes and how each individual chooses to solve the problems they encounter, which in some small way, with enough data, can be somewhat predictable. I would liken it to counting cards when playing blackjack. While someone who counts cards can't tell you exactly what card will be flipped next, they can push the odds in their favor by keeping track of the traits of the cards they've already seen, giving them increased odds of knowing when to bet heavy and when to bet the minimum.

I also believe our spontaneous choices are limited by our inherited genes as well as environment and childhood indoctrination ...

Indeed, our choices are limited by genetic factors (which can be traced all the way back to the behavioral traits that helped our ancestors avoid extinction, our environment, and to immediate factors such as if we are hungry, tired or (in general) based on immediate brain chemistry.

Studies have shown that people are generally less likely to be generous if they are hungry.  Now what does the feeling of hunger have to do with making a parole decision?   Well, it is better for the prisoner to have a satiated parole board.   And this is but one of countless factors that influence our choices.   We do not consciously consider all these factors when making a decision - these factors do, however, influence the final decision.

If we have free will, it certainly is limited.   Free will, if it exists, is the ability to make spontaneous conscious choices but these choices are still limited and influenced by factors beyond our conscious control.

So while I believe free will does exist and that there is no God that knows exactly how any one human will react in any given situation, I also believe our spontaneous choices are limited by our inherited genes as well as environment and childhood indoctrination, which often play a part in our likes and dislikes and how each individual chooses to solve the problems they encounter, which in some small way, with enough data, can be somewhat predictable. I would liken it to counting cards when playing blackjack. While someone who counts cards can't tell you exactly what card will be flipped next, they can push the odds in their favor by keeping track of the traits of the cards they've already seen, giving them increased odds of knowing when to bet heavy and when to bet the minimum.

Free will is incompatible with a controlling God.

Humans exhibit the three broad types of behavioral response to threats: hide, fight, or flee.  Building shelters and barricades is a hide behavior.  Hunting is a fight behavior.  And running away is a flee behavior.  Which of those human behaviors has become dominant through natural selection?

It's possible to intellectually test the idea with a thought experiment.  Let's establish a controlled hypothetical situation and examine the possibilities.  An individual is hiking along a stream located in a grassland prairie.  A lightning strike close by sparks a small grass fire.  The individual can engage in hide behavior by wading into the stream and waiting for the fire to pass.  The individual can engage in fight behavior by wetting a shirt and trying to beat out the fire.  The individual can engage in flee behavior by running away.  Each choice of behavior offers equal chance of successful outcome.

How would it be possible to determine if an observed behavioral outcome was the result of causality or the result of choice? 

Free will is incompatible with a controlling God.

Free will is incompatible with a deterministic reality.   A knowable reality is necessarily deterministic.   Thus if it is possible to know the future (knowable reality), free will is impossible.

Free will is incompatible with a deterministic reality.   A knowable reality is necessarily deterministic.   Thus if it is possible to know the future (knowable reality), free will is impossible.

If it is possible to know the future (knowable reality), is it possible to change the future before that future comes into being?

We can know with absolute certainty, years in advance, that an asteroid will strike the Earth.  Is that knowable future impossible to change?

If it is possible to know the future (knowable reality), is it possible to change the future before that future comes into being?

Not necessarily.   Knowing what will happen does not necessarily mean an entity can effect change.   Also, even if there is no entity that knows the future, if the future is knowable then free will is impossible.

We can know with absolute certainty, years in advance, that an asteroid will strike the Earth.  Is that knowable future impossible to change?

A knowable future means everything is knowable.   I am not talking about partial knowledge (able to predict with certainty select things) but rather the existence of a full causal chain covering all events.

A knowable future means everything is knowable.   I am not talking about partial knowledge (able to predict with certainty select things) but rather the existence of a full causal chain covering all events.

So, a deterministic reality would mean the future is predictable with certainty.  The behavior of the inanimate portion of reality is predictable with certainty therefore the inanimate exists in a deterministic reality.  Everything about the inanimate portion of reality is knowable including the future.

However, free will renders the future unpredictable which means reality cannot be deterministic.  Is the behavior of the animate portion of reality as predictable as the behavior of the inanimate?

The distinction between the two is the difference between inanimate and animate.  Free will is a characteristic of the animate but not of the inanimate.

So, a deterministic reality would mean the future is predictable with certainty. 

A deterministic reality would mean the future is potentially predictable with certainty.   There might not be any sentient entity capable of acquiring and processing the required knowledge even though it would be available.

However, free will renders the future unpredictable which means reality cannot be deterministic.  

If there is free will then reality is not deterministic.

Is the behavior of the animate portion of reality as predictable as the behavior of the inanimate?

If there is free will then the behavior of entities possessing free will will be far less predictable than that of the inanimate.

Free will is a characteristic of the animate but not of the inanimate.

Indeed.   Was that in question?   (Although I would use the word 'sentient' rather than 'animate'.)

Having read and observed Dr. Sapolsky for years,[. . . .] the man is the quintessential scientist.   His agenda is to discover as much truth about reality (in and around his specialty) as he can and provide this insight to his students.

Tig, what are you 'exercising' here? I mean you do realize there is no way for Nerm_L, to properly address any element about the professor that is beyond the scope of the video above? The fact that you imply you have "experiences" with Dr. Sapolsky, instantly places the bulk of us at a disadvantage. 

Now to the question:

1. What experiences over the course of your life is your biological nature utilizing which bring you to the immediate defense of Dr Sapolsky's?
2. Nerm_L, can not display any harm or harshness of attitude toward Dr. Sapolsky, unless he bases it on what is 'known' in the video above?

So based on 1 and 2, can we assume life is like "frames" which change for each of us an infinite number of times through-out a single day? The result being - if we all know the same amount about Dr. Sapolsky work, we must all come to the same conclusion as you? ("The man is a quintessential scientist.")

I mean you do realize there is no way for Nerm_L, to properly address any element about the professor that is beyond the scope of the video above?

So what do you suggest I do, not add any information to the discussion?   

The fact that you imply you have "experiences" with Dr. Sapolsky, instantly places the bulk of us at a disadvantage. 

There are plenty of ways for Nerm and anyone else to go beyond the scope of the video.   Dr. Sapolsky is all over the web in many forms.   Again, you translate my adding information into the discussion into playing some kind of advantage.   To what end?

What experiences over the course of your life is your biological nature utilizing which bring you to the immediate defense of Dr Sapolsky's

Be more specific.    My 'so called' defense of Dr. Sapolsky is weighing in with what I know of his agenda and that knowledge is a result of studying what he has been teaching.

Nerm_L, can not display any harm or harshness of attitude toward Dr. Sapolsky, unless he bases it on what is 'known' in the video above?

Again, what is with these meta complaints?   To what end?

So based on 1 and 2, can we assume life is like "frames" which change for each of us an infinite number of times through-out a single day?

You probably can assume that regardless of any other factors.   You expressed a perception.   Personally, I think reality is continuous (not based on discrete frames).   But you certainly can imagine reality in terms of discrete frames for the purpose of analysis (or comfort).

The result being - if we all know the same amount about Dr. Sapolsky work, we must all come to the same conclusion as you? ("The man is a quintessential scientist.")

So basically your entire post is nothing more than a veiled personal attack.    Offer something other than passive aggression.

I am not attacking you. Indeed, I have no interest in attacking you and I weighed even the approach I took to use as an opener. I used it because it fit the circumstances. Let me be clear once and for all: Nothing on this thread that I have written is delivered to offend you or anyone else. I am trying to get at the subject matter. If even in an unorthodox manner.

I am utilizing the subject matter in the video. Dr. Sapolsky's whole approach to this discussion is to peel away at the layers of how life is interwoven; determined. (I think so. I have not refreshed my memory with a second visit to the video this morning.)

You wrote:

My 'so called' defense of Dr. Sapolsky is weighing in with what I know of his agenda and that knowledge is a result of studying what he has been teaching.

We have none of this! All we have is a ten-minute stretch of video where he is speaking to the camera in a soft, reflective voice. I think it would be appropriate if you stayed to a discussion of the points in the video (what's known to all). By delivering this video, it is implied that you wanted us to discuss this 'block' from the 'vault' of Dr. Sapolsky's thoughts.

My approach to asking about a shift to a defensive posture, is solely based on something Dr. Salpolsky stated in the video about - a litany of occurrences which build up science of behavior.

Finally, I do not want to spend my time here on the defensive. However, since this topic is about 'everything' which brings me, us, to make comment, even the words I, we, string together - I, you, we, are inclusive examples too. In my opinion.

We have none of this

Then use Google and do whatever research you wish.

I think it would be appropriate if you stayed to a discussion of the points in the video (what's known to all).

You think it 'appropriate' that I not bring additional information into the discussion?   

Well I think that is an absurd restriction to impose.   Try imposing that elsewhere.   Go to another article and tell the author that it is inappropriate to bring in any facts or opinions that are not presented in the article.

If the subject matter is as 'severe' as you stated up above. Then, being a quick-study may be time-consuming and not conducive to this discussion.

Why are you so defensive, Tig? Why? We are relatively two or three comments in and you are telling me to buzz off? Where am I being unreasonable? I truly don't understand what is happening right now.

Cease the meta.   Discuss the topic or at least something near the topic.   

Yes sir! I will reorient and center and come back with a reply. @3.1.10 and @3.1.11 are quite helpful. Sir.

Question: I am curious of one thing in the video which comes in early on: Why does Dr. S, think it is relevant to his talk to mention "a magical 'humonculous' man in our minds"? How does that fit into this?

Why does Dr. S, think it is relevant to his talk to mention "a magical 'humonculous' man in our minds"? How does that fit into this?

That is how he chose (in this interview) to describe the concept of 'free will'.   Free will could not be part of our physical brain lest it be governed by the laws of physics and thus be deterministic.   It has to be something else.   

Scaling back humanity to biological functioning (no spirit input) with only pain impulses to do the steering seems to leave a whole lot of human activity/ites unaccounted for.

Frankly, there is a undeniable undercurrent in this talk by Dr. S. He is deliberately removing God, spirituality, and an ability to choose a path in life for oneself through focusing on biological determinants. He even cancels out purpose for life. So there mankind is suspended in air - purposeless.

Having classified human activities as solely biological functioning beings, I am left wondering why we need big brains which allow us to magnify our surroundings for an obvious meaningless existence.

In my opinion, describing the sum of the human race in terms of natural selection solely leaves a great deal of information flooding the zones of our mind, and yet not tacked down!

He is deliberately removing God, spirituality, and an ability to choose a path in life for oneself through focusing on biological determinants.

I really doubt that.   He is an agnostic atheist but, unlike Dawkins, Harris, et. al. Sapolsky seems to have little interest in discussion theistic views.

I am left wondering why we need big brains which allow us to magnify our surroundings for an obvious meaningless existence.

Our brains clearly gave us a survival advantage.   You presume there must be meaning established by a greater sentient power.   It is that presumption that triggers your concern.   I, for example, am entirely unconcerned with meaning as you define it and find plenty of meaning in life.

In my opinion, describing the sum of the human race in terms of natural selection solely leaves a great deal of information flooding the zones of our mind, and yet not tacked down!

No way to know what you mean to say here.

I really doubt that.   He is an agnostic atheist but, unlike Dawkins, Harris, et. al. Sapolsky seems to have little interest in discussion theistic views.

"a magical 'humonculous' man in our minds"?

Taking time out to make a negative comparison of what he calls, 'a man in our minds is medieval thinking,' and a positive comparison of an atheistic style of life where one can make moral decisions based on hard determinism without resulting to the former is ignoring theology?

I think Dr. S. included this deliberately.

I am left wondering why we need big brains which allow us to magnify our surroundings for an obvious meaningless existence.

Our brains clearly gave us a survival advantage.   You presume there must be meaning established by a greater sentient power.   It is that presumption that triggers your concern.   I, for example, am entirely unconcerned with meaning as you define it and find plenty of meaning in life.

I presume no such thing except what I wrote. If life for humans with bigger brains is meant to be meaningless; we can behave like the multiplicity of beasts of the field!

Dr. S. is not certain there is meaning to our existence. How are you finding it? And if you find meaning to life: would you call that 'purpose'? Ddn't you stay that life is purpose-less somewhere above?

In my opinion, describing the sum of the human race in terms of natural selection solely leaves a great deal of information flooding the zones of our mind, and yet not tacked down!

No way to know what you mean to say here.

It means we have gone beyond the basics of life and "enhanced" our natural states of existence with a myriad of materials, resources, behaviors, and more!

You should spend less time trying to find ways to be offended by this unassuming scientist and more time considering what he has to offer.   This is a brilliant, knowledgeable researcher and educator who does not seem to have an agenda other than to learn and to teach.

IMO of course after having read and listened to the man for years.

I presume no such thing except what I wrote

Yes and what you wrote presumes life has meaning.   

Are you actually going to claim that you do not presume life has meaning and that you do not presume that the source of this meaning is from a greater sentient power?   

You presume that very thing and pretty much everyone on this site knows it.   So ...

If life for humans with bigger brains is meant to be meaningless; we can behave like the multiplicity of beasts of the field!

Why is it then that atheists are not all running amok?   I for one have no desire to behave poorly, to take advantage of others, etc.  Why is that?

Dr. S. is not certain there is meaning to our existence. How are you finding it? And if you find meaning to life: would you call that 'purpose'? Ddn't you stay that life is purpose-less somewhere above?

The religious view of life having meaning requires a source god.   That is, there must be some greater power that knows why we were created and knows the grand plan.   My take is that there likely is no such entity, no great plan.   Meaning, in the religious sense, is meaningless.   So my suggestion is to find meaning in life itself.   Appreciate what we have.   Help other people - especially the next generation of growing minds.   We are all, quite likely, fortunate to have only this one single life span.   That is most likely it.   My advice is to use it wisely and do not put one's hopes in the stories of an afterlife dreamed up by ancient men and perpetuated by the hopeful.

If he is as unassuming as you say; and yet he takes time to assert, 'there are no non-biological agents as determinants in human behavior,' why did he fail to realize that believers (in God) would find his statement tantamount to an assertion that 'there is no God.' (Gnostic-atheism.) To wit, the automatic question is: 1. How does he know that?

That said, I can here to have a discussion about something said in the video, not to get into a confrontation with you over Dr. S.! It is not that serious to me. Yet, if I have a question I will use my freedom to ask and hopefully get something (at the least) of a relevant answer.

How does he know that?

Why do you presume that he was expressing truth rather than his conclusion?   

Yes and what you wrote presumes life has meaning.    Are you actually going to claim that you do not presume life has meaning and that you do not presume that the source of this meaning is from a greater sentient power? You presume that very thing and pretty much everyone on this site knows it.

Okay. Are you reading my motivations now? That's personal. You don't like that here, remember that. I am discussing what is in the video. I am not the issue here. Generally speaking, most people and I would imagine that includes some (or many) atheists can believe life has purpose and purposes (apart from God or any god).

I am not bringing out your atheism; why make my Christianity the issue?

Why do you ignore his assertion? You should be asking Dr. S. to prove it - that God does not exist!

Nothing to read.   You routinely declare your belief in the biblical God and that meaning of life comes from same.   If you consider that personal then you should not be so free with your positions.

I have commented on what you wrote.   I have noted what you have written.   If I am wrong then correct me.   Do you not believe in the biblical God?   Do you not hold that the biblical God is what gives meaning to life?

Cut the bullshit CB.   I am tired of your petty games.

Why is it then that atheists are not all running amok?   I for one have no desire to behave poorly, to take advantage of others, etc.  Why is that?

It does not suit your purpose/s. Elsewise as Dr. S. states its obvious that if nothing matters to you - including pain - you would live as if there was no tomorrow! For how could you know there would be a tomorrow for yourself? Or, do you think you would 'settle down,' and assume your life would be 'full,' to seventy or eighty years?

By the way, the very act of settling down assumes there is a reason (purpose) to doing so.

You should be asking Dr. S. to prove it - that God does not exist!

Final warning.  Cease the trolling.

You're wrong. That's all.

It does not suit your purpose/

But that does not follow from the logic.   Clearly one does not need a God to impart meaning to life to ensure we behave well.

You're wrong. That's all.

I am wrong that you believe in the biblical God?

I am wrong that you hold that meaning comes from the biblical God?

The religious view of life having meaning requires a source god.   That is, there must be some greater power that knows why we were created and knows the grand plan.   My take is that there likely is no such entity, no great plan.   Meaning, in the religious sense, is meaningless.   So my suggestion is to find meaning in life itself.   Appreciate what we have.   Help other people - especially the next generation of growing minds.   We are all, quite likely, fortunate to have only this one single life span.   That is most likely it.   My advice is to use it wisely and do not put one's hopes in the stories of an afterlife dreamed up by ancient men and perpetuated by the hopeful.

As this discussion is heading into a religious theme, I am tempted to not reply to it. However, I will make an exception this time to say that a purpose in life —whatever its foundation- is a purpose or purposes to the holder no matter the person.

I am not trolling. I go on record refuting your accusation.

As this discussion is heading into a religious theme, ...

Then cease talking about the meaning of life.

However, I will make an exception this time to say that a purpose in life —whatever its cause - is a purpose or purposes to the holder no matter the person.

Good.   That is basically saying:  to each his own.   Good enough.   This tangent is now closed.

Clearly one does not need a God to impart meaning to life to ensure we behave well.

Who is talking about God overly much? Not me. I only mentioned God in the sense that Dr. S. did so poignantly in his ten minute video above.

If reality is based purely on cause and effect then reality is deterministic.

Spinoza would agree as do I.

How does Dr. Sapolsky explain his education? Based upon some necessity, Nature simply depicted him to be one with a desire and set of circumstances which lead to scientific study? We do have a word for this: Talent.

How does Dr. Sapolsky explain his education?  Based upon some necessity, Nature simply depicted him to be one with a desire and set of circumstances which lead to scientific study?

If reality is deterministic then yes, that is exactly what would have happened.   But even in a non-deterministic reality, we all will have capabilities and attitudes as a result of circumstances.   Everything from genetics to environment to nutrition.

We do have a word for this: Talent

Your point?

Dr. John Lennox, someone I believe you are familiar with, has stated:

Why does the pot of water boil? It boils because a heat source is applied to water and energy is released. It boils because I want a pot of tea.

The quote is about more than one cause which produces an effect.

"Talent" is one of many words people invented to describe a human activity for which one is capable to excel. "Blessed, is another way of doing son in some religious environments. In the video, it seems Dr. S, is searching for a way to discuss old human activity/ities with newer words. In my opinion.

Cause and effect are not being challenged.   Effects are the result of causes.

"Talent" is one of many words people invented to describe a human activity for which one is capable to excel. "Blessed, is another way of doing son in some religious environments. In the video, it seems Dr. S, is searching for a way to discuss old human activity/ities with newer words. In my opinion.

Well my opinion is that the speakers are offering far more than merely using different words to discuss talent.   To try to diminish the areas of research represented by these individuals and the content they provided in just this short video to just using fancy words to describe a simple concept is ... remarkable.

just this short video

Is all that has been provided here.

No kidding CB.   The seeded video provides the topic.    I did not include via link every imaginable source of information relevant to this topic.   You are free to use Google, etc. to support some relevant point you wish to make.    

Anyone who is confused about free will and biology needs to consider the known effects of hormones on the moods of females during their reproductive years and post reproductive years.

How can there be free will if our thinking is influenced by the level of hormones present according to the week of our monthly menstrual cycle?

womansday

2. Follicular

How the follicular phase makes you feel

In this week, your   estrogen and testosterone levels   begin to build again. Increased hormonal activity means you may have a heightened sense of smell, along with clearer thinking and better coordination. Many women, in fact, report feeling their best at this time of the month — physically and mentally. "You'd be likely to do better with a final exam if you're in school, or a presentation if you're at work," Dr. Danzier says. You may also experience an increase in sex drive during this phase.

According to   Lauri Grossman , chair of the Department of Medicine and Humanistic Studies at the American Medical College of Homeopathy,"Women also experience positive sensations such as relief, release, euphoria, new beginning, invigoration, connection with nature, creative energy, exhilaration,   increased sex drive   and more intense orgasms."

How to feel your best during this phase

Consider brainstorming or problem-solving during this phase, as well as doing things that capitalizing on your creative energy. Be social and go out with friends!

3. Ovulation

This is the phase where you can   get pregnant . During the ovulation phase,   Luteinizing hormone (LH)   surges from the pituitary gland, triggering ovulation about 24 to 36 hours later. Your ovary will then release a mature egg that travels towards the uterus in search of a sperm. According to   Heathline , you'll begin to ovulate right in the middle of your menstrual cycle, which is around day 14 if you have a 28-day cycle. It lasts about 24 hours, and if the egg isn't fertilized it will die.

How the ovulation phase makes you feel

Estrogen and testosterone rise to peak levels, boosting the effects of the follicular phase. "Women feel more energy, more sex drive, and often they notice more cervical mucus," Dr. Danzier explains. "The chemistry of your body is preparing for reproduction, so it makes sense that chemically you start feeling more inclined to have sex."

It is certainly clear that many, many, factors determine the path of an individual life. What is confusing me about this discussion is an assertion all we are is programmed into us in some way, and we have nothing to do with it (just play it out). (And yet, I keep reading contrary statements which say we do have some control of our choices from the same people.)

What is confusing me about this discussion is an assertion all we are is programmed into us in some way, and we have nothing to do with it (just play it out).

A deterministic reality is not the same as programming.   Programming indicates sentient intent.   Determinism simply means pure cause & effect.   Programming goes further than just determinism.

And yet, I keep reading contrary statements which say we do have some control of our choices from the same people.

You should be specific and cite examples.   Your comment is so vague there is no possible follow up comment.

You should be specific and cite examples.   Your comment is so vague there is no possible follow up comment.

I think you would remember your train of discussions.

1.@ 3.1.7 seeder   TᵢG

Choice is a behavior too. 

You are leaving a door open to free-will existing as something other than biology. Why, not simply shut it as Dr. S. has done?

I have no basis on which to preclude the possibility.   Further, I do not believe Dr. Sapolsky is claiming that free will is impossible;  he stated his belief that it will never be found but do not presume he is declaring it scientifically impossible.   That is not how scientists operate.

What is confusing me about this discussion is an assertion all we are is programmed into us in some way, and we have nothing to do with it (just play it out).

How are we not programmed by our biology from conception, by our parents from birth, by our teachers throughout our adolescence, and by our society throughout our lives?  

And (as you know) our biology is based on our evolution.   Indeed, the more aggressive males were the ones who passed on their genes.   There are a lot of less than admirable traits that come from our hunter / gatherer days (and after) affect modern decisions.    

The decision to go to war, for example, is almost certainly not a pure act of reason but rather influenced by ancient genetic factors of which the decision makers and supporters are not even consciously aware.

Indeed, the more aggressive males were the ones who passed on their genes.

I enjoy watching BBC nature shows.  The courtship rituals of many animals require that the male prove his worthiness of passing on his genetics through nest building or elaborate courting rituals.  These tend to be pair bonding animals where both parents share responsibility for the offspring.

In other animals, (tournament species) the males fight to the point of death so they can inseminate a female and disappear.

Humans are somewhere in between.  Thanks to modern DNA testing, we are discovering more about basic human behavior than some people probably want to know or acknowledge.

evolution-institute “We are not a classic pair-bonded species. We are not a polygamous, tournament species either…. What we are, officially, … is a tragically confused species.”  (Robert Sapolsky)

I love it when I can exchange thoughts with a fellow behavioral biology aficionado.   

Just found a video about pair bonding & tournament species.

and this lecture is fascinating and will either answer some questions about freewill or maybe create more questions about freewill.

I love it when I can exchange thoughts with a fellow behavioral biology aficionado. 

I am eternally grateful to you for sharing Sapolsky's lectures with me.  I only wish that everyone would watch the series.

I agree, if only people would spend more time considering the findings of science (modern research of reality) and less time trying to rationalize the writings of ancient men with agendas.

I did not write that we are not programmed to any number of degrees. I wrote:

What is confusing me about this discussion is an assertion all we are is programmed into us in some way, and we have nothing to do with it (just play it out).

There is no evidence of anything contributing to our choices other than our physical brains, body and our environment.   Until something else is discovered, there is no basis to assume otherwise.

If reality is deterministic (this is not known to be true) then we are extremely complex automatons who are self aware.   What is confusing about that?

What is confusing me about this discussion is an assertion all we are is programmed into us in some way, and we have nothing to do with it (just play it out).

But you are okay with believing there is a god that has everything single thing programmed out according to its "divine plan"?

Now I am confused why you can accept a god programming everything from beginning to end but cannot accept nature programming individuals.

Look. I am not going to belabor this point of what qualifies as evidence between you, me, and another. All I will say is that in this world of billions of people and untold number of animals there are a myriad of 'hits and misses' (a priori)  aspects in life. For my part, I am done with that aspect of discussion.

If reality is deterministic (this is not known to be true) then we are extremely complex automatons who are self aware.   What is confusing about that?

I won't be able to do this hypothetical. So, no confusion.

Okay, where did I explicitly state God has everything planned out? I don't remember putting that down here.

Okay, where did I explicitly state God has everything planned out? I don't remember putting that down here.

I seem to remember this from past discussions, but I readily admit that it might not have been you because I have had way too many exchanges with people online to remember it all.

If you do believe your God has a divine plan, then everything has to be programmed or the plan will fail.  This concept seems to be comforting to some people.  They believe that their options, the choices they make from the options allotted to them, and everything that happens to them is controlled by their God and has a divine purpose.

If you follow the Christian god and the Christian Bible, then Yahweh is the beginning and the end and has a divine plan that cannot be altered because a divine plan is a perfect plan and why would a perfect plan be altered?  Therefore, everything has a purpose and must fulfill that purpose according to the divine plan or else the divine plan is not perfect.

Basically, according to the Christian belief system,  the only reason that you and I are engaging in this exchange is because it is part of Yahweh's divine plan.

If there is a sect of Christianity that does not believe in the divine plan, then I am not acquainted with it, but that is not surprising considering there are over 30,000 sects of Christianity that have differing viewpoints on what is and is not acceptable to their one true god.

Well, my dear mocowgirl, it was not in this discussion. Because I am more than: A noun, a verb, and God through Jesus Christ.

I judge this article has being on two-treks as confirmed by Dr. S, in the video:

1. On one hand, it is a positive discussion of hard determinism in nature.
2. On the other-hand, it is denying spiritual and moral "free-will."

Add to this - in the process it creates new contradictions for persons who firmly hold:

1. The universe is a range of random activities.
2. There are no absolutes.

The universe is a range of random activities.

Reality could indeed be non-directed (different than random) dynamics.   It may just be nothing more than that which comprises forces and matter interacting with itself in the ways we observe and whose patterns we call the rules of physics.   It might also be directed.   While from what we can observe, reality appears to be not be directed, there still could be a 'director' waaay in the background.

There are no absolutes.

I do not see where this comes from.   Where was this argued?

On the other-hand, it is denying spiritual and moral "free-will."

What is 'spiritual' free will?   What is 'moral' free will?   How are these relevant distinctions from free will in general?

Reality could indeed be non-directed (different than random) dynamics.

Please clarify your use of this meaning, or a meaning for non-directed where it does not intersect with random.

Random means there is no order.   Non-directed allows for order.   Directed means order through sentient control.

Reality is not random based on our observations.   The question is if it is directed or simply non-directed.

There are no absolutes. I do not see where this comes from.   Where was this argued?

On the other-hand, [Dr. S.] is denying spiritual and moral "free-will." What is 'spiritual' free will?   What is 'moral' free will?   How are these relevant distinctions from free will in general?

1. Hard-determinism is an absolute denial of free-will, yes?

2. Dr. S. asserts there are no non-biological agents as determinants in human behavior. Yet, arguably people live believing it is so. Thus, producing outcomes based on their beliefs—whatsoever that is.

Odd how you quote my questions and then proceed to not answer them.

Hard-determinism is an absolute denial of free-will, yes?

Yes

Dr. S. asserts there are no non-biological agents as determinants in human behavior. Yet, arguably people live believing it is so. Thus, producing outcomes based on their beliefs—whatsoever that is.

His position is that free will is likely to be that which lies in areas we cannot currently explain.   He doubts there is free will.   And yes, most everyone conducts their lives as though we all have free will.   What confuses you about this?

Does the scientific community accept that our universe is random? Or ordered? In addition, is evolution random or 'ordered'?

Odd how you quote my questions and then proceed to not answer them.

"Where was this argued?" —Is your question.

"Hard-determinism is an absolute denial of free-will, yes? Is my answer to you for  which you responded, "Yes." 

 Dr. S, is arguing hard-determinism. Yes? No? Maybe?

Then, what is odd?! Your question has been answered! Dr. S. is arguing hard-determinism is an absolute, in my opinion.

Dr. S., in the video above asserts that . . . "all free will is, is biology that has not been discovered yet."

Does the scientific community accept that our universe is random? Or ordered? In addition, is evolution random or 'ordered'?

I am confident that the scientific community is 100% in agreement that reality is ordered.   If not, they would be very strange scientists.   You will find scientists who view the strange world of particle physics as a likely source for purely random dynamics (if that is true), but science in general is most definitely considered ordered.   If there were no order, there would be no science.

In addition, is evolution random or 'ordered'?

Evolution is ordered.   It is a process that selects variants (exceptions ... what people would call 'random' in the vernacular) based on the reproductive advantage / disadvantage of the variant.   Note that the variation is not simply biological - it is variation in environment too.

"Where was this argued?" —Is your question.

You did not read this too?:

TiG @6.1 ☞ What is 'spiritual' free will?   What is 'moral' free will?   How are these relevant distinctions from free will in general?

Three questions.  You quoted them.

Dr. S., in the video above asserts that . . . "all free will is, is biology that has not been discovered yet."

compare with

TiG @6.4 ☞  His position is that free will is likely to be that which lies in areas we cannot currently explain.   He doubts there is free will.   

Be back later. Drawing a blank! It's really hot here, and I refuse to use the air conditioner today! Going to get something cool to drink and relax a spell.

I am pretty sure I mean randomness in nature. That is, natural selection and chance. The thinking used by some to make casual statements like humanity is not a "special creation."

If there were no order, there would be no science.

Of course, I agree. Science depends on consistency.

Note: Incidentally, this is a weak attempt by me to pick this portion of the discussion up again; I botched it the other day. It may not need 'stirring,' but we're see if anything else is needed.

I am pretty sure I mean randomness in nature. That is, natural selection and chance. The thinking used by some to make casual statements like humanity is not a "special creation."

If we focus on evolution then the mutations (errors) that occur in genetic copying are considered 'random' (for the purposes at hand).   Same with the environmental variations.   This will not appear (necessarily) as randomness from the perspective of a physicist.

If we focus on evolution then the mutations (errors) that occur in genetic copying are considered 'random' (for the purposes at hand).   Same with the environmental variations. 

It is not knowing which leads to what we label, "Chance." Because we have to have a way to distinguish a thing from another thing in order to have others understand it.

Likewise, we use words like "free-will" to mean that which we have some limited spatial (and moral) control over in our individual life standing opposite of that which is determined.

It is not knowing which leads to what we label, "Chance."

I agree.   

Likewise, we use words like "free-will" to mean that which we have some limited spatial (and moral) control over in our individual life standing opposite of that which is determined.

Perceived free will is very different from genuine free will.   Where do you see genuine free will?   Not perceived free will, but down and dirty absolute free will where we can spontaneously deviate from the causal chain?

Perceived free will is very different from genuine free will.   Where do you see genuine free will?   Not perceived free will, but down and dirty absolute free will where we can spontaneously deviate from the causal chain?

One quick thought: At the point of pain. Pain is stimulus meant to get a reaction. For example: When we are faced with a morning back-ache a set of factors are available to effectively deal with its stark pain. We can freely choose to act or permit the pain (coupled with its severity) alleviate itself over time.

It seems as though we freely act.   That does not mean it is so. 

I get that, too. Many 'layers' of activities are taking place all the time. One could ask if determinism matters at the upper echelon where we live.

Our reactions are sufficient (or insufficient)  enough to the activities we do. Anyway, nice discussion. Seems it has gone about as far as it can for now.

I haven't devoted much thought to this subject in the past, so I'm not very well versed in it, but doesn't the question of a determined future vs. a non-determined future ultimately boil down to whether or not genuine randomness exists in nature?

If the possibility of blind choice, or a blind happening is possible (and I'll argue that it is), then even if free will doesn't exist for biological organisms, can't we still end up with a non-deterministic future?

Here's what I mean by blind choice: If i put a bunch of little blocks in a bag, each with something different written on them (representing different options, courses of action, whatever), and I reach in and choose one, then the outcome is random. I guess I'm still choosing to make a selection, but the selection is blind. There's nothing for biology to use in determining a choice. If the block I randomly grabbed is used to make a decision, then hasn't randomness just intervened to make the future non-deterministic?

It's like flipping a coin to decide between two options. A decision is going to be made, a course of action will be chosen, but the future was unknowable at the time of the coin toss. Biology is irrelevant to that particular kind of outcome, isn't it?

So even if biology, experience, and environment completely determine people's choices, and free will really is just an illusion, the future can still be unknowable and undetermined simply because of randomness in nature, right? 

but doesn't the question of a determined future vs. a non-determined future ultimately boil down to whether or not genuine randomness exists in nature?

Consider a reality in which there is no sentient creator, no agent that created everything, no agent directing traffic.   Is it possible that such a reality could be entirely cause & effect with an order (i.e.  the substance of existence interacts in specific ways)?   What I just described matches what we observe in our reality.    Our reality is certainly not purely random because we can see order, we see patterns which predictably repeat.   Water always (under normal environmental conditions) turns into its solid form at 32 degrees, etc.

If the possibility of blind choice, or a blind happening is possible (and I'll argue that it is), then even if free will doesn't exist for biological organisms, can't we still end up with a non-deterministic future?

All we need for a non-deterministic reality is to have a smidgen (technical term) of genuine randomness.   That existential dice roll means that an effect can occur without a corresponding cause.   Non-deterministic.   The more this occurs the more the lack of non-determinism will manifest and be detectable.

Here's what I mean by blind choice: If i put a bunch of little blocks in a bag, each with something different written on them (representing different options, courses of action, whatever), and I reach in and choose one, then the outcome is random. I guess I'm still choosing to make a selection, but the selection is blind.

Your selection was random only from your perception.   The position of each block was not necessarily random (the positions are likely the effects of causes).   Your exact hand movement down to the tiniest micro movements was likely based on causes.   The question is if there was any randomness at a very low level.   Is there randomness at the particle level that could indirectly leak randomness up into the aggregate - the level of reality that we occupy - what we call our intuitive reality?

Biology is irrelevant to that particular kind of outcome, isn't it?

Not when a biological agent is doing the flipping.   Also at play of course is the environment (which includes the physicality of the coin).    Same as above, when we break things down into body movements, muscles, bones, molecules, atoms, particles, ... where do we find the genuine randomness?    Lots of complexity and the inability for us to predict, but where is the randomness?   ( Software engineers work with what we call pseudo-randomness.   It is algorithmically simulated randomness.   It is not really random but it sufficiently approximates randomness for our purposes. )

So even if biology, experience, and environment completely determine people's choices, and free will really is just an illusion, the future can still be unknowable and undetermined simply because of randomness in nature, right? 

Even with no randomness, the future can be unknowable due to complexity.    With randomness reality is technically non-deterministic unless we somehow can isolate portions of reality that cannot possibly be affected (even indirectly) by the randomness.   Does not seem likely to me.   So I would agree that given randomness we have an unknowable, undetermined reality.

The argumentum ad absurdum here is that all events since the Big Bang are determined by previous events. Nothing is random. We simply don't know enough to be see clearly how events unroll. Chaos does not exist; only ignorance.

We (whoever "we" may be) will not soon have adequate knowledge for understanding the detailed unrolling of the universe.

So we will live in a universe that appears chaotic, at the least. Weather forecasters will invoke the butterfly for a very long time to come.

----------------

We know that we are influenced by many agents: internal, external, physical, chemical, hormonal, bacterial, ..... We even know that we do not know the extent (breadth or depth) of these agents.

So?

Sapolsky finds a risk of despair in knowing that we do not know the extent to which we are puppets to strangers. I don't see that, at all.

Let us discover ourselves. That adventure should keep us occupied for the next few millennia. We take another compass reading then.

The argumentum ad absurdum here is that all events since the Big Bang are determined by previous events.

Nobody has argued that reality IS deterministic.   

Sapolsky is currently convinced that behavior of biological entities is a function of their genetics, environment, and biochemistry and that there is no free will (i.e. consciousness is not spontaneous but rather a passive reaction).   

Further, he is not presenting an argument but rather presenting his findings and his conclusion.   That is, he is not arguing there is no free will as if this can be a conclusion of a sound deductive argument.  Sapolsky is a scientist, not a philosopher.   He offers his best explanation of that which he has researched.   His conclusion will change if he encounters evidence to the contrary.

I don't see how a line can be drawn. All the chemical, hormonal, etc processes that guide our behavior are governed by the laws of science, and therefore predictable... on condition of having all pertinent information. Which is getting better all the time... but still a very very long time away...

It seems to me that for a long time yet, we will be learning more and more about the multiple impingements on our thought processes. We will be able to take account of those impingements in drawing conclusions. We will constantly improve our predictions... but we will continue to cogitate...

Sapolsky seemed more troubled by "morality" than he ought. His "less pain" is a good, simple rule, independent of the portion of "free will" we may or may not bring.

What is the line that you see being drawn?    That there is likely no free will?

If we agree that we are under the control of all the processes that surround us from before birth, then we pretty much have to accept a much wider determinism along with it.

I don't see how one can draw a line separating the two. Either one implies the other.

But it seems kinda futile, since we can only, but inevitably, progress toward ever improving knowledge.

Our behavior could be entirely deterministic in a generally non-deterministic reality.   That is, given all factors comprising our behavior, we could be predictable even if the greater reality is not.

Perhaps such a cases could exist if created so... but I don't see how it could arise spontaneously.

What phenomenon would create a geographic limit like this?

All it takes is for a little randomness in reality.   For example, there may be randomness at the particle level.   This randomness has no effect at the macro level so by time we are at a scale that matters to biology there is, in effect, no randomness.

Yes. It will be another few millennia before we can tell the difference.

If ever.   As you note, we really do not know such details of reality.

we really do not know such details of reality.

One result is that we cannot distinguish between "real" free will and a well tricked-out simulacrum

True.   Our intuition screams to us that we have free will.   But our science suggests that we might be kidding ourselves.    

I suspect we have free will, much influenced in many directions by many processes of many kinds.

--------

I'm wondering...

A unicellular creature moves and feeds. At what point does "moving and feeding" become "hunting"?

We can build ever-more-complex pairs and then sets, explaining how a creature transforms a need into the resources required to fill it. Yay - complex life!

At some point our little critter becomes aware of two sources of food... and must decide. At first, the choice is random, necessarily. At some point li'l critter perceives a distinction between the desirabilities of the food. The choice is no longer random.

For a zillion generations, li'l crtter's kids learn to make ever-more-complex decisions, using ever-more-complex stimuli.

Et... nous voici!

At what point did li'l critter become "intelligent"? Ever?

To me, choosing is a function.   Inputs are processed (choosing) to produce a result (the choice).    This is true in the lowliest case to the most complex of moral choices.

Choosing range in a continuum and the designation of intelligence is largely relative to the human level of complexity.   That is, we get to decide what we consider to be 'intelligent' so naturally we will serve as a foundation.

That is, we get to decide what we consider to be 'intelligent' so naturally we will serve as a foundation.

Sure. But we aren't at all objective about it.
 - "Human" is a magical characteristic in every abortion debate, while "intelligent" is absent.
 - Even the smartest animals are not recognized.
 - ...

We know that our choices are irrational - hey! we elected Trump! - to the point of voluntarily refusing to accept blatant reality - climate!

We do not know how deeply our choices are irrational. We aren't sure that any part of "choice" is more rational than irrational.

What's "free will" during a MAGA rally?

We know that our choices are irrational - hey! we elected Trump!

The choosing function is not required to be rational.

The choosing function is not required to be rational.

If our choice is primarily a composite of the processes impinging on us, rather than "rational analysis", can our choices be labeled "free will"?

No they cannot be seen as free will under those circumstances.

To have free will we would need the ability to break free of the causal chain and actually introduce a spontaneous factor.

... and since we do not know the extent to which we are driven by all those processes... we cannot know whether we are free agents or robots...

I agree.   If we are in a deterministic reality we may have no way of knowing.   The illusion of free will might be something we can never get past.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the seed.

I have  been meaning to get back to this thread and the point on randomness. But events in my life have been intervening. I will see if I can do so sometime today!

"one of the things that's absolutely clear to me when you look at the biology behavior —human behavior— is there's no free will"

Sure there is. The ONLY thing that limits free will, is "Physical" laws made by Man, which is engrained in our heads even at birth !

So I guess going by that law thingy I expressed, Professor Sapolsky Is "Somewhat" correct more on the "Physical" part though. If there were no "Physical" laws, there would be nothing to follow but "Free Will" !

But then you have the criminal aspect, where they are capable of using more of their "Free will" than most, and don't care, which is definitely using "Free will" all on it's own. But now we are BACK in the "Physical" law thingy that has ben taught us over the years as to "Free" or "Not" !

Now that the natural side of this discussion has winded down, can we briefly turn to the spiritual side.

@6.1.15: Perceived free will is very different from genuine free will.   Where do you see genuine free will?   Not perceived free will, but down and dirty absolute free will where we can spontaneously deviate from the causal chain?

I am fully aware that you find no evidential evidence to discuss matters spiritually. So if you can not - then don't. If you decide you can: What do you make of the man, woman, boy, or girl who goes against his or her background, training, character traits, to pursue and suit up in character traits found in a book, say the New Testament which speaks of fruits of the Spirit? What does it say about free-will when say a criminal "changes his or her 'stripes'?

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” (Galatians 5:22)

Okay, in thinking about this over the weekend, a thought came to me about the natural order in this discussion. Dr. Sapolsky definitely states that it is his opinion there is no free will.

However, in his litany of behaviors that make-up men and women he seems to be describing the essences of individuals, not circumstances in which our essences play out against situations we face in life. For example: criminals in society are not destined to be so. There are many stories of two people brought into the world one way, raised up one way; and, one becomes a criminal (in service to selfish interests) and the other a priest (in service to others). These are two people facing the same destiny and choosing two different paths.

Although you have been dismayed when I offer information beyond an article proper, here is another case where a deeper understanding will help.

Dr. Sapolsky offers that one's behavior is a function of genetics, body state (your condition of being at the moment of a decision) and your environmental history .    Environment plays a major role in all of us.   The transcription factors responsible for regulating genes under very specific conditions are a function of our environment.   That is, external influences trigger different chain reactions which not only affect behavior at the moment, but also produce long-term (up to permanent) changes in an individual's biology (in particular our brain).

Two twins raised in different environments can have rather profound differences in behavior.   But behavior is also part of our inherited DNA so those twins would also have things in common.   Dr. Sapolsky (in his book: Behave ) notes a case of twins separated at birth (to different countries) —where one was brought up Jewish and the other Muslim— exhibited behaviors one might expect based on their environment history but also had core behaviors from inheritance.   One of his examples of this is that both twins had the quirk of flushing the toilet before they used it.   ( Inherited behaviors, by the way, can come from centuries of genetics and rooted back to the ecosystem of ancient ancestors.   This stuff gets wild. )