Free will

Hey, it's been a while since I've written a post about free will, or rather, the lack thereof. Obviously the universe determined that I take a break from one of my favorite subjects. Not a complete break, though. For during my daily at-home exercise routine, I've been listening to a debate between Robert Sapolsky, who wrote the recent instant-classic book Determined that persuasively argues why free will is an illusion, and Daniel Dennett, a philosopher who is noted for his view that while determinism guides the world, free will still exists. Here's the You Tube video of their debate. To…

It's such a beautiful way of looking upon the world. I didn't choose to write this blog post. You didn't choose to read it. Yet here we are, a blog post having been written, and a blog post having been read. This is how the entire world works. Things happen, yet there is no one making them happen.  As bizarre as this may seem, it makes good sense for a couple of reasons. First, free will is an illusion. Second, the notion of an independent self capable of freely choosing also is an illusion.  So choosing just happens. I love…

As noted in my previous post, I was disappointed when I got to the discussion of free will in William Egginton's book, The Rigor of Angels: Borges, Heisenberg, Kant, and the Ultimate Nature of Reality, and found that Egginton embraced the absurd notion much beloved by philosophers like himself that determinism and free will are somehow compatible. Hence, the term compatibilism for this nonsensical belief. It's nonsensical because it does away with the "free" in free will, since determinism holds that what came before this present moment determines how that moment unfolds. Where's the "free" in that? But I became…

Disappointment is part of life. Okay, a big part. Still, it hurt when I reached the Free Will chapter in the book by William Egginton that I'm enjoying a lot: The Rigor of Angels: Borges, Heisenberg, Kant, and the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Up to that point, Egginton impressed me with his writing ability, intelligence, and ability to weave the lives and teachings of a poet, physicist, and philosopher into a satisfying picture of what reality is all about. (One sentence summary of the book: we never learn what reality is, in itself, but how reality appears to us based…

Here's a thought-provoking video of Robert Sapolsky speaking about how difficult it is for him, and others, to experientially live as if free will doesn't exist, even though he's spent fifty years not believing in it. I've made the video start at this point of the interview. The next 20 minutes or so are interesting, as is the entire interview, since the conversation moves into atheism and other subjects. Enjoy, whether or not you agree with Sapolsky.

I readily confess to being a no-free-will addict. However, I'd never join a 12-step program aimed at, um, freeing me from this addiction, because I consider it a good thing to embrace the reality of determinism instead of the illusion of free will. I've been feeding my taste for no-free-will for quite a few years. I've read every book published in English on this subject that I can find. Some of them have been read repeatedly. Most recently, I studied Robert Sapolsky's instant classic Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will closely, since Sapolsky has written the definitive critique…

I enjoyed Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, so much, I've been listening to You Tube interviews of Sapolsky while I do a workout every day with my Monkii 360 Core Training System (the Monkii ball and resistance bungees are an enjoyable way to exercise). His interview with Michael Shermer was interesting because Shermer had some compatibilist views about free will that Sapolsky strongly disagreed with. Compatibilism is a misguided attempt to save a form of free will by saying that even though our thoughts, actions, emotions and such are determined by causes, free will…

Because I liked Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, so much, when I saw that the November 13, 2023 issue of The New Yorker had a review of it, I was nervous that the reviewer, Nikhil Krishnan, would have a devastating criticism of the book that I couldn't ignore. I say this because The New Yorker has wonderfully erudite book reviews by highly talented writers. So I was pleased when it turned out that Krishnan had a subtle take on free will that managed to combine agreement with Sapolsky's thesis that determinism is how the…

I enjoy most of the comments left on my Church of the Churchless blog posts, the exceptions being from people who are preachy, closed-minded, or dogmatic (worst of all, preachily closed-minded dogmatic). So when I got a email message this morning from frequent commenter Appreciative Reader, who disagreed with my contention that not believing in free will implies not desiring retribution as a guiding principle in a justice system, leaving rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection of society as the core remaining principles, I told him that I'd convert his message to a comment, then respond to it in a blog post…

At long last, I've almost finished reading Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. Just have the final chapter to go.  The next to last chapter, "The Joy of Punishment," was both interesting and disturbing. Sapolsky uses history and psychological research to examine how and why we humans find so much satisfaction when a person is punished for something they've done. He goes into grisly detail about the "drawing and quartering" of Robert-Francois Damiens, who in 1757 stabbed King Louis XV of France with what was essentially a penknife, creating only a superficial wound.  Nonetheless, Damiens…

Now that I've about three-fourths of the way through Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, I was going to attempt a summary of the first half of the book (the second half focuses on the implications of living without a belief in free will). Then I realized that the best person, by far, to summarize the initial part of Determined is the author himself. Sapolsky does this in a brief "Interlude" chapter. Below is most of that chapter. It should make pretty good sense on its own, though obviously Sapolsky is describing entire detailed chapters…

As I make my way through Robert Sapolsky's lengthy (400 pages of text) book about the non-existence of free will, Determined, I become more and more impressed with both Sapolsky and what he has wrought. He's a terrific writer and thinker. His talent is reflected in the fact that he's a recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "Genius Grant." And his scientific expertise is evident by the approach he takes in Determined.  Usually non-fiction authors are content to make a strong case for their subject. Sapolsky does that in arguing that free will is an illusion. But he goes beyond in…

One of the joys for me of maintaining this blog in good working order is also one of the frustrations. I enjoy seeing what people think of my posts via the comments they leave on them. But frequently I'll be amazed at how a fairly simple idea, which I view as essentially unarguable, is twisted into complex knots by commenters who are so eager to maintain a belief, they ignore the facts I've presented. Or, if the facts are recognized, they are shape-shifted into something other than what they actually are. Now, I readily admit that I'm guilty at times…

Thanks to a recent article in New Scientist, Is Free Will an Illusion?, I learned about two new books on this subject. The one that appealed to me most was Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, by Robert M. Sapolsky -- a professor of biology, of neurology and neurological sciences, and of neurosurgery at Stanford. It arrived yesterday. I had no problem holding it up to take this photo, but I wanted to show how thick it was, 403 pages plus some appendices. I was worried that a book of this size could be heavy reading if the…