The Skeptics Guide #967 - Jan 20 2024 (Ad Free)
Added 2024-01-20 17:01:08 +0000 UTCInterview with Robert Sapolsky; News Items: Betavolt 50 Year Battery, Moon Landing Delayed, Cloned Monkeys, Converting CO2 into Carbon Nanofibers, Bad Fen Shui; Who's That Noisy; From TikTok: Jellyfish UFO; Science or Fiction
Comments
Free will seems to be the topic du jour (or should I say of the day). Did I write what I wanted, or did I change it to what sounded best in the moment? I'm not a philosopher, but I have read up on this to some extent. I like to think that we're more than just hyper-aware meatbags. Without going into a deep dive beyond the scope of this forum, is free will an illusion, as Sam Harris writes? It depends on how we define free will. I think the entire debate suffers from poorly defining what will/agency is. Just reading Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought, we know extremely little about what actually goes on in the brain to create the mind. So, we’re defining something without actually fully understanding it, while at the same time having to define what we don’t understand. (And then language is its own wrangled topic.) Free will (no external/internal influence) is BS simply because we don’t exist in a vacuum. That form of free will certainly is an illusion. Determinism is BS because it reduces humans to chemical reactions (like Sheldon in BBT declaring that physics explains everything since everything is subject to the laws of physics). It also replaces probability with destiny and conflates influence with control. Determinism is like declaring that baseball has rules, therefore it’s not a game. The limitations are what define the medium. Agency is what we have to determine that something about the rules isn’t working so we can tweak it. And both sides just use caricatures. Complex caricatures, to be sure, but that’s because we don’t know enough while pretending to acknowledge that we don’t know enough then proceed to ignore that lack of knowledge. If some form of agency didn’t exist, then smokers and alcoholics would never be able to quit and no one would ever be able to change their diet to something healthier because our brains are controlled by chemicals that make us crave the worst foods.
Asymetra
2024-01-30 20:51:36 +0000 UTClol no one chose the driving fish 🐠 in science or fiction 🤦♂️… because there’s no free will?
Milan Pintar
2024-01-26 12:05:58 +0000 UTCi agree there is no free will, the simplest explanation is everything including our thoughts are controlled by evolution! environment pressures and options are based on our past and our genes (which is our past too!)
Milan Pintar
2024-01-26 11:26:43 +0000 UTCMy early vote for best interview of the year - clear, concise discussion of a major philosophical subject. I’ve been on the fence on this and Dr Sapolsky has given me the best explanation so far. Now am even more tilted to the NFW. Excellent points made by Steve that were quite helpful - that people should still act as if they had free will and that hard work should be encouraged and rewarded. Keep up the great work SGU team!
Vincent Tabirara
2024-01-23 22:10:20 +0000 UTCThis interview was fantastic. I practice this as a criminal defense lawyer because there is ALWAYS a reason for behavior. This is called the utilitarian model of criminal justice which I've always been drawn to. I've considered myself the mitigation queen in criminal court especially in juvenile court. The state of Florida money I've spent on psychologists to show the Court this VERY THING is a lot and I'm proud of that. Great interview and what I've believed to be true: we are a product of environment, trauma, brain chemistry.
Marci Silver
2024-01-23 13:31:43 +0000 UTCOops accidentally made a new parent comment instead of a reply.
Emily Anne Daniel
2024-01-22 08:21:53 +0000 UTCI'm usually satisfied with saying that I can't know what I can't know, or we can't speculate what we might find out if there is some limit to our abilities (humankind's) to even conceptualize that. I think Biology in particular is still young enough to warrant being careful making big claims on its basis about e.g. free will. (I'm not a brilliant brain scientist, so I'm far from adequately assessing that beyond what I know as a biologist). That is, it's easy to say we could be missing key info that would make a stronger argument here. If biology (and its physical basis) is strictly deterministic so that given any cause A there is effect B even in behavior and belief, then free will can't exist. B will happen, and choice is not "real". I can accept that. Problem is, I can't think of a way to prove A could cause effect B or C without a time machine. But I don't think that inability necessarily means we need to believe B is the only possible outcome.
Emily Anne Daniel
2024-01-22 08:20:47 +0000 UTCI thought I had seen a "goldfish car thing" somewhere! ChatGPT couldn't make it up! The Rogues WERE right!
Jim Sky
2024-01-22 08:04:37 +0000 UTCHi Emily, what kinds of things are you imagining that we could find which would invalidate determinism, or supplement it in some way to provide for free will? You point out our incomplete knowledge of physics/psychology but my imagination fails me as to what "types" of things we might find out to help with the problem. - Another non-philosopher here.
Jim Sky
2024-01-22 07:56:37 +0000 UTCAnd here's a fish driving a car. https://youtu.be/AlPg_4u4rk0?si=yabIf1hi1qTrHdYb
Dan Oberste
2024-01-21 16:57:12 +0000 UTCScience takes on clearing icy roads. https://youtu.be/7Zau3jgUJWU?si=Gwt1g6zDzU4-yhn7
Dan Oberste
2024-01-20 21:18:07 +0000 UTCDoes Dr. Sapolsky's position rely too much on an assumption that we know enough about behavior, mind/belief, and the brain/ body? Is it not likely that we incorrectly or incompletely understand the concept of causality/determinism as it relates to physical brains causing behavior/belief? If reality is different than we think (and can perceive/observe), we wouldn't know, so it seems foolish to me to be so confident that free will doesn't exist BECAUSE it's incompatible. I couldn't quickly find this refutation to the free will incompatibilist position online (but it's probably out there). (I'm not a philospher, so to any actual philosohers reading this, don't assume I have sufficient background.)
Emily Anne Daniel
2024-01-20 18:57:12 +0000 UTC
