We have no free will, according to a scientist.

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 ... s5pT7cEH_M

“No free will” sounds a bit extreme to me. I’ve always believed that we had some degree of free will but, at this point, much less than I thought when I was younger.

My lack of religiosity certainly seemed to be something outside of my control. I started questioning the existence of God when I was 5 or 6, if not younger, and often wished that I could be “normal” like my friends and family. Of course, that changed with time and research. My natural inclination is one of skepticism. Some people appear to be naturally inclined to believe in God, aliens, magic, etc. and can’t understand those who don’t feel similarly although it can work both ways, obviously. Eventually, it gets to be too exhausting fighting against one’s natural inclination all the time although, for a few years, I was planning on continuing the fight indefinitely.

People who commit acts of terrorism in the name of religion are indoctrinated cult members. They certainly don’t have as much free will as many would like to think which is unsettling.

People tend to feel more at ease when they think they have complete control over their lives and that atrocities are committed by evil people - not those whose background and biology led to certain beliefs and characteristics. If people realized that, they’d have to realize that, under the right circumstances, they might’ve engaged in the same, horrific behavior themselves.

While some may disagree with the scientist or find his theory objectionable, we should forgive him on the basis that according to his own theory he had no choice in saying these things.

". . . According to A scientist."

A minority opinion, to be sure.

I'd like a second opinion from B scientist.

I think Arthur Schopenhauer was right: "You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want."

I have no idea how people believe in free will, for what it's supposed to describe colloquially (true libertarian "I could have done otherwise"), when I think about it.

Your whole life is a dance with time and environment. You are precisely who you are at any given moment and what you feel like you should do should be exactly the same - at that moment - no matter how many times you rewind that moment because you'd be making the decision from PRECISELY THE SAME STATE. How much of 'us' is firmwear (nature) vs. environment (nurture) isn't even relevant to this because the amber we're frozen in is the progress of time and causation, a good analogy is one of those X/Y cartesian graphs you would have studied in algebra where a function f(x) only has one solution for each x coordinate when our X axis is time.

The only thing that sort of makes sense to me is when an admitted compatibilist says that what we care about is execution of agency and whether that person's doing what they want to do, regardless of whether they have any say over what they want or why they want it (at some given point in early childhood we sort of just own that as us) - fine but, that is NOT at all the same as saying that at time A I had choices A,B,C,D, and E and I made choice E but I COULD HAVE chosen decision A, B, etc. - I completely disagree with that because there's no causal basis, it makes no sense.

I believe we have at least some free will even if we live in very hard circumstances. I mean there must be some free will or what is the meaning of life and morality at all?

I mean that if there is no free will at all then we may all just die because life is utterly and completely pointless. There is simply no point to anything without at least some free will.

Are you telling me that prisoners who are incarcerated in very strict solitary confinement don't have at least some free will? Or that very poor people living on the streets and are about to die from starvation and serious illness don't at least have some free will to improve their situation?

If these people above don't have free will at all then there is simply no thing as free will and maybe their future has been decided by circumstance.

I found these websites useful:

https://johnrmiles.com/does-free-will-really-exist/

https://www.bbc.com/reel/playlist/free-will

https://medium.com/the-infinite-univers ... 27f8fcfb53

Free will is free. You just have to pay shipping and handling.

The article mentioned that this opinion is a minority opinion and the author delayed writing about his opinion on the subject, for many years, as he felt that it would cause trouble to do so.

I liked the part of the article that said even if we hypothetically could confirm we have no free will, it would be wise to act as if we do, for the societal good, if nothing else.

Feeling as though one's actions do not have any effect on the world, can have an immobilizing effect on an individual, where they become paralysed by the thought of nothing being in their control and the question of "why bother choosing an action in response to one's environment if one has no free will in any case"?

I am personally skeptical about this opinion. Sure, there is a lot less control being rooted in one's physical body and brain than one might theorize, but that doesn't mean people cannot make any consequential choices.

Why does life need to have meaning? Maybe it just is.

I think that what we consider morality is encoded in our genes. Moral behavior is beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint, not that there isn’t a socialized component, too.

Everything you said is true.

Everything is the universe is governed by physics, chemisty and biology, therefore there is no probably no objective morality or free will.

This means that if someone kills every human on earth and he is the last person remaining on the Earth then there will no one to punish him for the killing because there is no such thing as free will really.

Think the scientist is looking at things from a rather blinkered approach. The conclusions do indeed point this way when one ignores the wider picture.

I think there is objective morality. The vast majority of cultures have similar notions about what’s right or wrong when it comes to the big stuff. Most people think murder is wrong. Most people think helping people in their community is a good thing. Most people believe in taking care of their children. All of these things are beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. I think such traits would be more likely to be passed on.

As far as free will goes, I think it’s complex. I suspect we have much less than most people would be comfortable with.

---

Of Course, There is No Literal Free Will;

As We Surely Don't Control Our Heart

Beats Unless We Develop A Bio-Feedback

That Way Through Meditative Activities;

True, One Example of Relative Free Will;

Here's Another:

The Child Who Cannot Speak Until Age 4, Yet in 122 Months of Flowing Effort,
Writing A 12.2 MiLLioN Word Free Verse EPiC Longest Form Poem at Age 63.

The Child Also Assessed as the Weakest And Strangest Fish in the Aquarium

Even in His Forties As Well; Yet Leg Pressing 1540 Pounds at 63; And Pictured

With Thousands of the Most Beautiful Dancing Women Close to The Beach

For 6 Whole Years Leading The
Dance at the Largest Metro Hall

Assessed as 'The Party Doesn't

Start Until i Arrive,' By The Bouncers

At the Front Door, All the Way till Close to
Age 60, Until Covid-19 Shut The Dance Hall

Down and

my Wife

Won't Let
me Go Back

Cause She's Afraid

Someone Drunk Will
Scratch Up Our New
SUV and Perhaps me on the Road too;

True, Yet the Public Dance Masked continued on Once
Assessed as a Dizzy Fly So Uncoordinated Before;

True, Just a Little less than 6,000 Miles Shy of

Dancing the Distance Around the Equator in

Public Stores and the Such For 18,960 Miles Now
in 122 Months of Effort With Longest Form Poetry...

Being Defined By Labels Others Give Us With

Expectations of Our Failure; And Suggesting

YOU Have NO Control Over YOUR Life is A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy for Failure Indeed.

i Don't Doubt That the Author of the Study Who Suggests Humans Have no Free Will

Is Lacking

in Higher Abilities

For Relative Free Will;

It's Typical for Folks

More Restricted to

Left Brain Thinking Processes for Real...

i Suggest the Work of Iain McGilchrist Who is

Obviously Running on 'Two Cylinders' instead of Mostly Just 'one;'

And In This Case Study, Two Cylinders is Far Beyond Empirical Measure;

Yet Effective

Results of

What Cannot Be
Measured Within

Will Indeed Be
Empirically Measured

On the Inside Out.

One Case Study is
Enough Responsibility for me, hehe..

---

Then why are there so many bad and selfish people in the world if morality is completely objective?

Many ancient cultures were also cruel and cannibalistic so are you telling me that morality is completely objective? It can't be completely objective.