Free will is an illusive term which is difficult to define. This piece will attempt to clarify definitions and deal with the fallout of certain conclusions.
Triggered anger and revenge directed toward a man who chopped off my hand is evidence of a belief in the fairness of retaliation, and therefore a belief in will.
Correctly, Sam infers that belief in willful behavior doesn't prove anything about the actual causes of the attack.
If I were a chemistry set construction, a machine, an isolated system in a skin bag, just protons grouped into atoms, atoms grouped into proteins, proteins grouped into cells, cells grouped into tissues, tissues grouped into bodily structures and organs, and organs/structures grouped into my body...
...then this might be a straight-forward situation, and Sam might be right, identifying chemistry and mechanical probabilistic causation instead of a soul's longing.
I don't have a soul in me. I am not a body. That's backwards from the way I intuit the nature of human reality.
Rather, I am a soul. For a while, I'm using a body. Most of material stuff, like brains and body and stuff, is empty space. Even a diamond, is like 99.9999% space.
I don't know anything. I infer, imagine, intuit, and make what I hope are educated reasonable guesses.
So I will listen to Dennett and Sam and other such thinkers. I continue to guess that I've got something of a realistic map of reality. Even then, I judge that all words in any language may miss the mark of perfect absolute truth and I require myself to attempt to learn better, toward the beautiful, the good, and the true.
I've listened to a few interviews and lectures by Iain McGilchrist since your comment, and he provides a welcome counter-voice for these topics. I've definitely felt the temptation to narrow my scope in the same ways that a lot of the aforementioned scientists seem to do and McGilchrist appears to represent the antithesis. Thanks for your thoughts on my citations and keeping me on my toes. It's much appreciated!
I must say, looking into "Sapo," that he is just lucky, if ignorance is bliss, that he stopped seriously seeking truth within and without, at the age of 14.
To me, being one of small but old brain, he seems to belong with Dennett's tribe.
I'm sorry. I found it funny. Sapolski, bardzo piękne ładne imię (very beautiful nice name), is a sort of joke to Mexican kids. They shout, "¡Sapo!" when someone says the right answer by guessing, like saying "dumb luck."
Don't worry, you're safe. My mom said if I had half a brain I'd be dangerous. So there, you're perfectly safe.
Be thinking re next time:
As I ponder the Gordian knots of puzzlement, as I sink into the quicksand whirlpool of my thoughts, imagine this: a little bubble floats up up up and pops. That's when you hear me holler, "Help!"
More please. Expand on whatever you're going to expand on. It's all good. Sapo wasn't so much wrong as just incomplete.
"There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreampt of in your philosophy ."
I'm quite curious to know what it is about Sapolsky, or "Sapo" as you prefer, which makes you think he's small minded, albeit knowledgeable. Certainly he doesn't lend too much credence to the possibility of ideas beyond the scope of science (IE divinity) but I like that he is at least conscious of the interdisciplinary view required in order not to become wayyy too narrow in scope, like, as I understand, BF Skinner was (thinking nuture is all there is).
I'll definitely be sure to develop these ideas. I really appreciate the continued support and extra questions to ponder!
To be fair, Sapolski doesn't seem to be willfully ignorant. He seems sincere in his convictions. I think he thinks he's right. Still, he jumps to conclusions that are only partially conclusive, incomplete.
For my part, call me a believer in "willism," I have no absolute certainty to offer, just what I feel is a preponderance of the evidence. I see that many people around me are the "go along to get along" type. I see that people often conform their thoughts and opinions to others as if this was what common sense is all about. I'm not like that.
So yes, I see that people often behave AS IF they had no free will, no sense of themselves as a unique human being.
I've also seen people alter their behavior based on chemistry, like drinking, drugs and such.
There is no fool-proof explanation that determines, once and for all, as I seem to be, at least partially responsible, at least most of the time, for the things I "will" to do or not do, say or not say. If you were a stage hypnotist, you would not want me on your stage, I would ruin the act.
There is really only one small flaw, one small mistake say, in the explanations Sapolski offers. Weak reasoning by association.
"People say" or "scientists tell us" or even "studies indicate" are not proof, not even good evidence, that some opinion is true, is the case. Now the details of the experiment, or the methods of the study, that might be a different story.
Take neurotransmiters for example. Let's say my brain apparently produces "X" when I am in love. So you inject me with X, and I tend to be very friendly and nice to the people around me.
Can I jump to the conclusion that X is love? Or causes love? Or overrides any will power I might have?
I think any of those conclusions would be on thin ice, regardless of how many people agree with such an opinion.
I hope you forgive me. I love to hear myself talk. Sort of a talk-aholic. I hope I've answered your question.
Non-trivial inquiry:
At the same time, I must insist you continue, by all means, that you follow your own train of thought, ask your own questions, and so on. Don't you dare let me douse your Promethean fire.
Mind you, Love, I actually don't know anything with certainty. Don't take anything I say seriously. In fact, you might as well start laughing right now.
Welcome to my mind. Lots of dust. Endless echoes. Disorderly heaps of questions piled up in the corners. My memory palace is dimmly lit.
I'm trying to think about my willful (?) decision to think about this. Look between 2 mirrors facing each other. Like that.
I think I decided (?) to care. I'm calling on my reason. Just because. I imagine I can use my imagination. I have a feeling intuition might help.
I decided, a few decades ago, by my reckoning, that guys like Daniel Dennett, Ray Kurzweil, Yuval Harari, and especially guys like Edward Bernays, B. F. Skinner, Cecil Rhodes, Jeremy Bentham, Francis Galton, are, let's say, filled to the brim with Bovine Stercus.
Zombies? Automatons?
While I find hypnosis stage shows to be a sad statement about the masses of sheeple in this world, I think it demonstrates a common flaw, a weakness, not a fundamental characteristic of human nature. Is that just me?
I ask if it is reasonable to conclude, with only second hand circumstancial evidence, that we got will enough to pilot our own ship of life. I think so. I intuit so. I imagine so.
On the flip side of this question, it seems to be an obvious fallacy to imagine that I am a robot, that I'm not actually at the helm of this situatuon I call my life.
I now continue to call on my potentials to continue to
Wake up
Wise up
Grow up
Show up
and I continue to purposely remember the opportunity for a future by emoting sheer gratitude for life's present and future gifts.
I'd say I'm going to be willfully stubborn about it.
I'm convinced life is great, and that I'm fully in charge of my life.
For example, I willfully thank you for your good work, and ask that you please continue.
Leon,
Re: Sam's
thought experiment:
Triggered anger and revenge directed toward a man who chopped off my hand is evidence of a belief in the fairness of retaliation, and therefore a belief in will.
Correctly, Sam infers that belief in willful behavior doesn't prove anything about the actual causes of the attack.
If I were a chemistry set construction, a machine, an isolated system in a skin bag, just protons grouped into atoms, atoms grouped into proteins, proteins grouped into cells, cells grouped into tissues, tissues grouped into bodily structures and organs, and organs/structures grouped into my body...
...then this might be a straight-forward situation, and Sam might be right, identifying chemistry and mechanical probabilistic causation instead of a soul's longing.
I don't have a soul in me. I am not a body. That's backwards from the way I intuit the nature of human reality.
Rather, I am a soul. For a while, I'm using a body. Most of material stuff, like brains and body and stuff, is empty space. Even a diamond, is like 99.9999% space.
I don't know anything. I infer, imagine, intuit, and make what I hope are educated reasonable guesses.
So I will listen to Dennett and Sam and other such thinkers. I continue to guess that I've got something of a realistic map of reality. Even then, I judge that all words in any language may miss the mark of perfect absolute truth and I require myself to attempt to learn better, toward the beautiful, the good, and the true.
I find your input helpful.
Thank you.
mark spark
.
PS
Questions might help.
How do you know whether a study or experiment has proven anything?
What if differrnts studies conclude very different things?
How do you sort that out?
What forms of dialectic dialogue have you considered?
Instead of debate form, perhaps a parallel set of paths as in "6 thinking hats" a la Edward de Bono?
Would it be useful to compare and contrast the implications of "free will" vs "agency"?
Have you considered the philosophy and or psychology of Iain McGilchrist's work.
See
https://youtu.be/hgAdBjXCj5I?si=TTwuRU6OBT2vyz9I
mark spark
Mark
I've listened to a few interviews and lectures by Iain McGilchrist since your comment, and he provides a welcome counter-voice for these topics. I've definitely felt the temptation to narrow my scope in the same ways that a lot of the aforementioned scientists seem to do and McGilchrist appears to represent the antithesis. Thanks for your thoughts on my citations and keeping me on my toes. It's much appreciated!
Leon
Leon,
Ouch.
I must say, looking into "Sapo," that he is just lucky, if ignorance is bliss, that he stopped seriously seeking truth within and without, at the age of 14.
To me, being one of small but old brain, he seems to belong with Dennett's tribe.
I'm sorry. I found it funny. Sapolski, bardzo piękne ładne imię (very beautiful nice name), is a sort of joke to Mexican kids. They shout, "¡Sapo!" when someone says the right answer by guessing, like saying "dumb luck."
Don't worry, you're safe. My mom said if I had half a brain I'd be dangerous. So there, you're perfectly safe.
Be thinking re next time:
As I ponder the Gordian knots of puzzlement, as I sink into the quicksand whirlpool of my thoughts, imagine this: a little bubble floats up up up and pops. That's when you hear me holler, "Help!"
More please. Expand on whatever you're going to expand on. It's all good. Sapo wasn't so much wrong as just incomplete.
"There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreampt of in your philosophy ."
-Bill S., circa 1600
mark spark
.
Mark,
I'm quite curious to know what it is about Sapolsky, or "Sapo" as you prefer, which makes you think he's small minded, albeit knowledgeable. Certainly he doesn't lend too much credence to the possibility of ideas beyond the scope of science (IE divinity) but I like that he is at least conscious of the interdisciplinary view required in order not to become wayyy too narrow in scope, like, as I understand, BF Skinner was (thinking nuture is all there is).
I'll definitely be sure to develop these ideas. I really appreciate the continued support and extra questions to ponder!
Leon
Hi Leon,
To be fair, Sapolski doesn't seem to be willfully ignorant. He seems sincere in his convictions. I think he thinks he's right. Still, he jumps to conclusions that are only partially conclusive, incomplete.
For my part, call me a believer in "willism," I have no absolute certainty to offer, just what I feel is a preponderance of the evidence. I see that many people around me are the "go along to get along" type. I see that people often conform their thoughts and opinions to others as if this was what common sense is all about. I'm not like that.
So yes, I see that people often behave AS IF they had no free will, no sense of themselves as a unique human being.
I've also seen people alter their behavior based on chemistry, like drinking, drugs and such.
There is no fool-proof explanation that determines, once and for all, as I seem to be, at least partially responsible, at least most of the time, for the things I "will" to do or not do, say or not say. If you were a stage hypnotist, you would not want me on your stage, I would ruin the act.
There is really only one small flaw, one small mistake say, in the explanations Sapolski offers. Weak reasoning by association.
"People say" or "scientists tell us" or even "studies indicate" are not proof, not even good evidence, that some opinion is true, is the case. Now the details of the experiment, or the methods of the study, that might be a different story.
Take neurotransmiters for example. Let's say my brain apparently produces "X" when I am in love. So you inject me with X, and I tend to be very friendly and nice to the people around me.
Can I jump to the conclusion that X is love? Or causes love? Or overrides any will power I might have?
I think any of those conclusions would be on thin ice, regardless of how many people agree with such an opinion.
I hope you forgive me. I love to hear myself talk. Sort of a talk-aholic. I hope I've answered your question.
Non-trivial inquiry:
At the same time, I must insist you continue, by all means, that you follow your own train of thought, ask your own questions, and so on. Don't you dare let me douse your Promethean fire.
Godspeed Sir,
mark spark
.
Leon,
Mind you, Love, I actually don't know anything with certainty. Don't take anything I say seriously. In fact, you might as well start laughing right now.
Welcome to my mind. Lots of dust. Endless echoes. Disorderly heaps of questions piled up in the corners. My memory palace is dimmly lit.
I'm trying to think about my willful (?) decision to think about this. Look between 2 mirrors facing each other. Like that.
I think I decided (?) to care. I'm calling on my reason. Just because. I imagine I can use my imagination. I have a feeling intuition might help.
I decided, a few decades ago, by my reckoning, that guys like Daniel Dennett, Ray Kurzweil, Yuval Harari, and especially guys like Edward Bernays, B. F. Skinner, Cecil Rhodes, Jeremy Bentham, Francis Galton, are, let's say, filled to the brim with Bovine Stercus.
Zombies? Automatons?
While I find hypnosis stage shows to be a sad statement about the masses of sheeple in this world, I think it demonstrates a common flaw, a weakness, not a fundamental characteristic of human nature. Is that just me?
I ask if it is reasonable to conclude, with only second hand circumstancial evidence, that we got will enough to pilot our own ship of life. I think so. I intuit so. I imagine so.
On the flip side of this question, it seems to be an obvious fallacy to imagine that I am a robot, that I'm not actually at the helm of this situatuon I call my life.
I now continue to call on my potentials to continue to
Wake up
Wise up
Grow up
Show up
and I continue to purposely remember the opportunity for a future by emoting sheer gratitude for life's present and future gifts.
I'd say I'm going to be willfully stubborn about it.
I'm convinced life is great, and that I'm fully in charge of my life.
For example, I willfully thank you for your good work, and ask that you please continue.
a fan,
mark spark
.
I just tapped the heart icon.
Did an angel make me do it?
Leon, I'll get back to you.
mark spark
[ :-)
.