The case against Free Will … does Free will exist ? / Neuroscience

I prepared a summary just to give you some context and introduce you to this topic:

Free will, in philosophy and science, is the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.

Philosophers have been debating fate vs. free will for centuries. Some believe that people’s lives and choices are predetermined, while others believe that humans are responsible for their own actions.

A person who is forced at gunpoint to do something, does so with considerably less free will than someone who does something voluntarily. Similarly, a person with a brain disorder that causes constant coughing lacks free will over their coughing, even though they likely retain free will in other ways.

Most of us are certain that we have free will, though what exactly this amounts to is much less certain. According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” If this is correct, then figuring out what free will is will be no small task indeed.

Most neuroscientists believe humans have at least some degree of free will. So do most philosophers and the vast majority of the general population. Free will is essential to how we see ourselves, fuelling the satisfaction of achievement or the shame of failing to do the right thing.

There is a kind of free will that we don’t, and cannot have, which is called Absolute Free Will. This is the kind that allows us to do otherwise for any previous decision. This type of free will is required for Moral Responsibility because if someone could not have done otherwise then they are not morally responsible.

Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky believes humans have no free will. By studying baboons in Africa and human behaviour for decades, he’s concluded neurochemical influences determine human behaviour. The supposition should create a more just world, Sapolsky claims.

Here the paradox is that not only is the status of the concept a matter for debate, but the very existence of free will as a subject of research remains unclear.

Many philosophers and theologians have however, taken the general idea of free will as a legitimate defense and explanation for the problem of evil. The (religious) argument is made that God desires free creatures, free creatures are created, and therefore it is the free creatures that bring evil into the world.

Most psychologists use the concept of free will to express the idea that behaviour is not a passive reaction to forces but that individuals actively respond to internal and external forces.

14 Mar 2024

Is there a quantum reason we could have free will? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comedian Chuck Nice explore the concept of free will and predetermination with neuroscientist, biologist, and author of Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will, Robert Sapolsky.

A special thanks from our editors to Robert Sapolsky’s dog.

Could we put an end to the question of whether or not we have free will? Discover “The Hungry Judge Effect” and how little bits of biology affect our actions. We break down a physicist’s perspective of free will, The Big Bang, and chaos theory. Is it enough to just feel like we have free will? Why is it an issue to think you have free will if you don’t?

We discuss the difference between free will in big decisions versus everyday decisions. How do you turn out to be the type of person who chooses vanilla ice cream over strawberry? We explore how quantum physics and virtual particles factor into predetermination. Could quantum randomness change the actions of an atom? How can society best account for a lack of free will? Are people still responsible for their actions?

What would Chuck do if he could do anything he wanted? We also discuss the benefits of a society that acknowledges powers outside of our control and scientific advancements made. How is meritocracy impacted by free will? Plus, can you change if people believe in free will if they have no free will in believing so?

Thanks to our Patrons Pro Handyman, Brad K. Daniels, Starman, Stephen Somers, Nina Kane, Paul Applegate, and David Goldberg for supporting us this week.

A special thanks from our editors to Robert Sapolsky’s dog.

NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free.

31 Jan 2024

Does free will truly exist, or are we merely sophisticated meat machines running our biochemical programming with sentience as a byproduct? Stanford University neurologist Robert Sapolsky, having extensively studied the topic, asserts that not only is free will a myth but also that our insistence on its reality adversely affects the world we inhabit. In this episode, Adam speaks with Dr. Sapolsky about how choice is an illusion and the impact this has on our society, from workplace meritocracies to criminal justice reform. Find Dr. Sapolsky’s book, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, at factuallypod.com/books

is there free will or a fixed designed destiny? | biology, religion, philosophy, science & linguistics

share your ideas

28 Mar 2021

“What does it mean to have—or not have—free will? Were the actions of mass murderers pre-determined billions of years ago? Do brain processes trump personal responsibility? Can experiments prove that free will is an illusion? Bill Nye, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Michio Kaku, Robert Sapolsky, and others approach the topic from their unique fields and illustrate how complex and layered the free will debate is. From Newtonian determinism, to brain chemistry, to a Dennett thought experiment, explore the arguments that make up the free will landscape.

———————————————————————————-

TRANSCRIPT: – Well, you ask one of the deepest philosophical questions of physics. The question of free will. – For billions of years on this planet, there was life, but no free will. Physics hasn’t changed, but now we have free will. – The brains are automatic, but people are free. – Our ability to choose is often confused. – Human choices will not be predictable in any simple way. – In reality, I don’t think there’s any free will at all.

DANIEL DENNETT: For billions of years on this planet there was life, but no free will. Physics hasn’t changed, but now we have free will. The difference is not in physics. It has to do with, ultimately, with biology. Particularly evolutionary biology. What has happened over those billions of years, is that greater and greater competences have been designed and have evolved. And the competence of a dolphin, or of a chimpanzee, the cognitive competence, the sort of mental competence, is hugely superior to the competence of a lobster, or a starfish. But ours dwarfs the competence of a dolphin or a chimpanzee, perhaps to an even greater extent. And there’s an entirely naturalistic story to say, to tell about how we came to have that competence, or those competences. And it’s that, “Can do.” It’s that power that we have which is natural, but it’s that power which sets us aside from every other species. And the key to it is that we don’t just act for reasons. We represent our reasons to ourselves and to others. The business of asking somebody, “Why did you do that?” And the person being able to answer, it is the key to responsibility. And in fact, the word, “responsibility,” sort of wears its meaning on its sleeve. We are responsible because we can respond to challenges to our reasons. Why? Because we don’t just act for reasons, we act for reasons that we consciously represent to ourselves. And this is what gives us the power and the obligation to think ahead, to anticipate, to see the consequences of our action. To be able to evaluate those consequences in the light of what other people tell us. To share our wisdom with each other. No other species can do anything like it. And it’s because we can share our wisdom that we have a special responsibility. That’s what makes us free in a way that no bird is free, for instance. There’s a very sharp limit to the depth that we as conscious agents can probe our own activities. This sort of superficial access that we have to what’s going on, that’s what consciousness is. Now, when I say, who’s this, “we,” who’s got this access? That’s itself part of the illusion because there isn’t a, sort of, boss part of the brain that’s sitting there with this limited access. That itself is part of the illusion. What it is, is a bunch of different subsystems, which have varying access to varying things and that conspire in a sort of competitive way to execute whatever projects it is that they’re, in their, sort of, mindless way executing.

STEVEN PINKER: I don’t believe there’s such a thing as free will in the sense of a ghost in the machine, a spirit, or soul that somehow reads the TV screen of the senses and pushes buttons and pulls levers of behaviour. There’s no sense that we can make of that. I think we are…our behaviour is the product of physical processes in the brain. On the other hand, when you have a brain that consists of a hundred billion neurons, connected by a hundred trillion synapses, there is a vast amount of complexity. That means that human choices will not be predictable in any simple way from the stimuli that have impinged on it beforehand. We also know that that brain is set up so that there are at least two kinds of behaviour. There’s what happens when I shine a light in your eye and your iris contracts, or I hit your knee with a hammer and your leg jerks upward. We also know that there’s a part of the brain that does things like choose what to have for dinner, whether to order chocolate, or vanilla ice cream. How to move the next chess piece…

DNA, the astonishing hypothesis, by Francis Crick and James Watson the men who discovered DNA.

Francis Crick, the man who discovered DNA:  Scientific Search for the Soul (excerpt) – Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove

A noted scientist discusses free will, consciousness, attention and memory and their relationship to the human nervous system. In a wide ranging discussion, Crick points out that the hypothesis that the brain is the seat of consciousness has not yet been proven.

Francis Crick, Ph.D., received the Nobel Prize in 1962 for the discovery of DNA’s central role in the process of genetic reproduction. He is author of Life Itself, What Mad Pursuit and The Astonishing Hypothesis.

The Secret of Life — Discovery of DNA Structure

Fifty years ago, James Watson and Francis Crick announced to patrons in a Cambridge pub that they had just discovered the secret of life. Their discovery was that the DNA double helix explained how cells divide and develop. Yet it was not enlightened genius alone that propelled Watson and Crick toward this fundamental revelation. In addition they were building on the work of other scientists and a fortuitous (and un-acknowledged at the time) collaboration with Rosalind Franklin, a British X-Ray crystallographer, was of crucial help in this great achievement.

How we discovered DNA, by James Watson.

Nobel laureate James Watson opens TED2005 with the frank and funny story of how he and his research partner, Francis Crick, discovered the structure of DNA.