Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.
 |
I’ve noticed recently quite a bit of talk about Free Will, seemingly driven by Robert Saplosky¹.
Back in the day, when I could listen to Sam Harris without vomiting, Free Will became one of his pet subjects. Even when I liked Sam, I could never understand what the hell he was saying, but my naïve B.C. Self (Before Covid) didn’t think too much of it.
Let’s start by listening to Sapolsky, in his own words. Or just read the summary.
This clip is from 2021 with Andrew Huberman.
But he has been doing the rounds again recently for example here he is with David Pakman last month.
Do We Have Free Will? | Robert Sapolsky & Andrew Huberman
Summary:
Absence of Free Will: The neurobiological stance presented is that humans do not possess any free will. This perspective is based on the argument that our choices and behaviors are the result of numerous factors that are beyond our conscious control. These factors range from immediate sensory environments and hormonal levels to long-term influences like cultural background and genetic predispositions.
Interconnected Influences: The argument emphasizes the interconnectedness of various biological and environmental factors. It suggests that behaviors are influenced by a complex interplay of genetics, brain chemistry, personal history, and cultural environment. The intricacy and integration of these factors leave little room for the concept of free will as an independent entity in human decision-making.
Domino Effect and Intervention: Sapolsky addresses the idea of the domino effect in human behavior, questioning whether awareness of these influences allows for any intervention in this deterministic process. The answer provided is negative, suggesting that while change is possible, it's not a result of self-directed, conscious choice, but rather a response to external factors and circumstances.
Change Through Circumstance: It's argued that while individuals can't change themselves due to the absence of free will, they can be changed by their circumstances. This view holds that learning and behavioral changes are possible, but they are the result of environmental influences rather than self-initiated actions.
Conservation of Neurobiology: The discussion highlights the conservation of neurobiological mechanisms across species, suggesting that the same fundamental processes underpinning learning and response to stimuli in simpler organisms are at work in humans.
Optimism and Change: Despite the deterministic view, Sapolsky suggests that understanding the possibility of change within a mechanistic framework can lead to optimism. This knowledge can make individuals more receptive to positive influences and more resilient against discouragement, indirectly facilitating a change in behavior and outlook.
Conclusion on Human Endeavor: Finally, Sapolsky concludes that striving to be better human beings is still a worthwhile endeavor. This is because the understanding of neurobiological mechanisms and the potential for change can influence how individuals respond to the world, leading to more positive and hopeful engagement with life's challenges.
A lot of people will believe this “neurobiological” BS. Why not, it lets them off the hook.
So much human cruelty could be avoided if we really embraced this idea. Every person whose ever done something bad is on some level just unlucky and still worthy of love and every good thing we’ve ever done isn’t something we need to take credit for as being better but something to be grateful for because of the good luck of having the right combo of genes and environment. - @ataraxia7439
Now let’s look at Daniel Natal’s short and incisive critique of this lunacy.
The War Against Free Will
Scientific Viewpoint: Stanford University neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, after studying human and primate behavior for over 40 years, suggests that human behavior is largely beyond conscious control. He compares involuntary actions like the convulsions during a seizure, cell division, or heartbeats to human behavior, implying that much of what we do is not under our conscious control.
Ethical Implications: Natal delves into the ethical ramifications of this viewpoint. He argues that ethics and the concept of moral agency are founded on the premise of free will — the belief that individuals have the choice and control over their actions. If free will doesn't exist, this could fundamentally alter our understanding of morality, responsibility, and personal change.
Debate on Vice and Disease: Natal touches on the debate about classifying certain behaviors or conditions (like alcoholism or sexual orientations) as diseases rather than vices. This classification could imply that individuals are powerless to change these aspects, removing a sense of personal responsibility or moral agency.
Societal and Cultural Perspective: The discussion extends to how these concepts are applied in societal and cultural contexts, such as in discussions about crime, violence, and social movements. Natal points out how some arguments may inadvertently remove agency from certain groups or individuals, leading to a deterministic view of behavior.
Freedom and Vice: Lastly, Natal argues that viewing humans as devoid of free will can lead to a perspective where individuals are seen as incapable of escaping their vices and therefore never truly free. This ties back to the idea of moral agency and the capacity for self-improvement and change.
Natal is right when he says “…see what they’re doing here…”
Indeed, something is happening here, they are doing something.
Removing Free Will, removes Agency which removes Sovereignty².
While Agency is the capacity to act independently and make free choices, Sovereignty is having ultimate authority and control over one's own life, body, and decisions.
Diminish one, you diminish the other.
Diminishing Agency increases Dependence (on The State).
Who knows what Sapolsky thinks is going on here. Maybe he truly believes all this and is simply being used as a useful idiot tool and given as much airtime as possible.
It’s interesting to watch how people are being shepherded into new “alt” and “non-mainstream” silo’s only for the social engineering to happen there. The social engineering is far more effective this way as it immediately comes with an air of believability and credibility as it’s “not mainstream”.
It’s smart and sneaky and plenty of people will fall for it.
Another thought.
How it is that on the one hand I have no free will and no agency, but on the other hand the world will boil up and vaporize unless I use the right type of straw?
The same Great Narrative creators are pushing both paradigms on me.
This is Doublethink³.
Doublethink erodes a person's ability to think critically.
It serves other functions, including the creation of Cognitive Dissonance and Confusion.
These can be mined for Conformity, Compliance and Dependency⁴.
It’s a long game of seeding ideas that they are playing.
They dial it up and down over time, as they spray more and more of these ideas into the skies of or minds.
Seeing what they are up to makes it easier to protect ourselves and help others see it too.
I’ll leave you with the one and only George Carlin talking about how we are expected to save the planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment