One thing that keeps me open-minded about free will is that, yeah my actions may be the result of natural processes, but I also have the ability to reflect upon those actions so that my responses change the next time. But, then again I would probably defend the idea of free will even irrationally. In my opinion even if I don’t have free will I still have to live like I do.
Edit: I just googled Behave citations and one of the first things to pop up was someone claiming he has bad sources. But, I didn’t investigate that person’s claims either. So, be skeptical I guess.
So you can see why I might vehmently disagree with people like Saplosky who attemt to reduce us to mere machines. How depressing, which is ironic, since Saplosky's Stanford lecture on depression really started me on the road out of my depression.
Is addiction a disease or a moral failure? Is depression a chemical imbalance or is it your own fault, maybe just “exercise and smile more”?
Questions of that nature are fair but simply being against a researcher or author because they have a viewpoint different your own is entirely what’s wrong with so much of discourse today.
No, I think Robert Sapolsky's focus is too narrow and materialistic, ignoring almost everything that makes us human. In the story of the seven blind men and the elephant, Robert Sapolsky is the blind scientist that feels the trunk and proclaims the elephant is a snake. Robert Sapolsky's science is flawed. If human behavior can be explained by chemicals then why do we need his colleagues in other departments at Stanford, such as the psychologists?
My point was he was doing what he does to make money Malcolm Gladwell style and I thought there was nothing wrong with that but that was a reason why I didn't take him seriouly.
The idea that consciousness is 5th fundamental force sounds great but doesn’t make any sense.
Everything in universe is interaction of particles in force fields. We have mathematical definitions for them in standard model of physics.
And consciousness is what we experience in our brains as a model of reality. It’s a much more complex emergent concept arising from how neurons are wired together to process input -> output signals. Consciousness boils down to signal processing. Which down the stack of atoms and subatomic particle requires the fundamental forces.
Very different things. Put in a different way, they are fundamental because they explain everything in observable universe.
That being said, I respect your right to believe.
- Max Planck
That's a magical concept as well. A theory like mine. Time will tell. I only wish I was around when they figure it out.
Most don’t even believe any other animals other than humans can be conscious. Or that computers can be conscious.
My personal take on this is that the question itself is meaningless because we cannot define "free will" in any coherent way that is actually testable. It all boils down to defining what "conscious" and "self" mean, which are themselves very fuzzy concepts that elude clear definitions. My solution to all this is to just stop wasting time on it, since I don't think there are any practical implications to it (and if there's no free will - whatever that means in practice - then my opinion is itself predetermined in any case).
In a perfect simulation, there is absolutely no way to escape it. A simulation is essentially like a virtual machine running some opcodes. There is absolutely no way to escape it unless the programmer is shit at implementing the opcodes with buffer overflows.
If we cannot computationally reduce, we have no option than to let the simulation play out. So far our universe is not computationally reducible. I.e we cannot compute where subatomic particles will be faster than letting them actually play out.
Whether we have free will or not doesn’t matter. If we cannot computationally reduce, person B cannot compute ahead what person A will do with absolute certainty.
To compute the future, we need to simulate every subatomic particle in universe faster than the the natural speed of universe with fewer particles. That itself is impossible.
We can approximate, yes! But not absolute certainty.
So we have no free will because universe is deterministic. But we also have free will because we need a universe sized computer to know what will happen and the only way to do that is to let the universe play it out. We cannot do that faster than the universe if we are inside the universe.
We are in a simulation. But it does not matter because it makes no difference if we are in a simulation or not.
God exists, but God also doesn’t exist. If God is non-interfering then it absolutely doesn’t matter.
a) extremely passionate about the idea that we have no free will
b) loves the paychecks that arrive after appearing on podcasts and selling books
c) is compelled to do all these things because he has no free will
edit: formating, code blocks don't work anymore?
Sound depressing, but that gives us incredible freedom to investigate causes of human misery and correct them.