A scientist says we have no free will

[Nofear]

Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

Well, since a scientist said it, it must be true. The article does cite some others who disagree with him. Myself, a scientist, also disagree.

A quick primer:

Sapolsky would likely be a hard determinist (though, if one accepts certain quantum mechanical interpretations, there is hard indeterminism). There are LDS thinkers who are Compatibilists. I personally am and Libertarian (I think "intelligence" acts indeterministically -- though that has some physics challenges yet to be overcome). It is without a doubt that our biology influences us. I think it a remarkable engineering feat that our bodies were designed so as to allow us a measure of moral agency while still maintaining it's proper functions and such. I further suggest that Lucifer's position wasn't to remove the existence of sin but simply that he would have organized our physical bodies such that we simply not would have the moral agency to sin and thus be guiltless of any misdeeds.

Sapolsky's hard determinism does leave him a conundrum though which he admits he hasn't resolved: "It is logically indefensible, ludicrous, meaningless to believe that something 'good' can happen to a machine," he writes. "Nonetheless, I am certain that it is good if people feel less pain and more happiness." Seems kind of the flip side of the "problem of evil" and thus we might call it the "problem of good".

PS: There is a funny anecdote in the early 1900's where a murderer attempted to use hard determinism as a defense. He argued that though he murdered, since he doesn't have free will he shouldn't be punished. The judge, cleverly, responded along the lines, "FIne, but I don't have a choice either but to sentence you to jail. It's just what I am going to do even though I don't have free will."

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Nofear

[SeekingUnderstanding]

30 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

Well, since a scientist said it, it must be true. The article does cite some others who disagree with him. Myself, a scientist, also disagree.

A quick primer:

Sapolsky would likely be a hard determinist (though, if one accepts certain quantum mechanical interpretations, there is hard indeterminism). There are LDS thinkers who are Compatibilists. I personally am and Libertarian (I think "intelligence" acts indeterministically -- though that has some physics challenges yet to be overcome). It is without a doubt that our biology influences us. I think it a remarkable engineering feat that our bodies were designed so as to allow us a measure of moral agency while still maintaining it's proper functions and such. I further suggest that Lucifer's position wasn't to remove the existence of sin but simply that he would have organized our physical bodies such that we simply would have the moral agency to sin and thus be guiltless of any misdeeds.

Sapolsky's hard determinism does leave him a conundrum though which he admits he hasn't resolved: "It is logically indefensible, ludicrous, meaningless to believe that something 'good' can happen to a machine," he writes. "Nonetheless, I am certain that it is good if people feel less pain and more happiness." Seems kind of the flip side of the "problem of evil" and thus we might call it the "problem of good".

PS: There is a funny anecdote in the early 1900's where a murderer attempted to use hard determinism as a defense. He argued that though he murdered, since he doesn't have free will he shouldn't be punished. The judge, cleverly, responded along the lines, "FIne, but I don't have a choice either but to sentence you to jail. It's just what I am going to do even though I don't have free will."

 

I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for libertarian free will that is compatible with a God that knows the future. 

[Nofear]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for libertarian free will that is compatible with a God that knows the future. 

In a block model of the universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) everything has already happened anyway. Thus "choice" has already happened and God, knowing the future, knows what "choice" we (already) made. Since we only see a slice of the universe at a time, we have the illusion that things haven't already happened--that there is a "future". Can we make choices? Sure*. But the tense in that sentence in wrong. Every choice we can "make" is already "made".

I don't subscribe to the block model of the universe either, but it is a tricky subject philosophically once relativity is brought into the discussion.

* Depending on one's free will model.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, Nofear said:

In a block model of the universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) everything has already happened anyway. Thus "choice" has already happened and God, knowing the future, knows what "choice" we (already) made. Since we only see a slice of the universe at a time, we have the illusion that things haven't already happened--that there is a "future". Can we make choices? Sure*. But the tense in that sentence in wrong. Every choice we can "make" is already "made".

I don’t see it. A block model of the universe means everything is determined (the future already exists). In what sense can I make a meaningful choice (in a libertarian free will kind of way) if the future is determined? What sense does it make to pray to God if he only knows the future because he can see it? How can he offer advice on who to marry? What job to take??

29 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I don't subscribe to the block model of the universe either, but it is a tricky subject philosophically once relativity is brought into the discussion.

 

* Depending on one's free will model.

So you appeal to a model you don’t subscribe to to defend a libertarian free will that coexists with Gods knowledge of the future?

Edited October 25, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[filovirus]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I further suggest that Lucifer's position wasn't to remove the existence of sin but simply that he would have organized our physical bodies such that we simply would have the moral agency to sin and thus be guiltless of any misdeeds.

Can you expound a bit on this. I can't seem to wrap my head around what you are trying to say. Are you saying we would be like the other animals, we would just live lives without any awareness of moral issues?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

. I further suggest that Lucifer's position wasn't to remove the existence of sin but simply that he would have organized our physical bodies such that we simply would have the moral agency to sin and thus be guiltless of any misdeeds.

Is there a “not” left out before “have the moral agency”?
 

And if so, so you believe he was capable of making that happen?

Edited October 25, 2023 by Calm

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So you appeal to a model you don’t subscribe to to defend a libertarian free will that coexists with Gods knowledge of the future?

Oh, I appeal to ideas that I don't believe in all the time. I have the vanity to suppose that I try to understand alternative ways of thinking about things. Sometimes that is useful. As Joseph Smith said, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.”

But, philosophers and scientists have been puzzling over free will and such for literally thousands of years. And still, there is no real consensus. I don't anticipate a random thread on a random discussion board will resolve this millennia old problem.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there a “not” left out before “have the moral agency”?
 

And if so, so you believe he was capable of making that happen?

Thank you. Post edited. I think Lucifer believed he was capable of making it happen. As it stands, there are plenty of things in our body that we don't have agency. And there are individuals whose body is not functioning quite right and the Church will deem them not morally culpable. In my mind, it's not without the realm of possibility. For me, it makes more sense that Lucifer argued not to change the laws of heaven and by redefining "good" or "sin" but instead to modify/redefine our mortal bodies*.

* Which, as I suggested in the original post, I believe is a remarkable balance of involuntary function and moral agency. I don't think all animals have such. I ascribe no moral agency to an ant, for example.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

For me, it makes more sense that Lucifer argued not to change the laws of heaven and by redefining "good" or "sin" but instead to modify/redefine our mortal bodies*.

Probably altering some neurotransmitters would be sufficient.  But there might be a problem with keeping humanity alive.

[CV75]

PROOF of free Willy:

[tagriffy]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for libertarian free will that is compatible with a God that knows the future. 

That's because there is no compelling argument for libertarian free will and God absolutely knowing the future. Like us, he could make predictions based on trends and do a bit better than us because he knows each of us intimately.

[tagriffy]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

In a block model of the universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) everything has already happened anyway. Thus "choice" has already happened and God, knowing the future, knows what "choice" we (already) made. Since we only see a slice of the universe at a time, we have the illusion that things haven't already happened--that there is a "future". Can we make choices? Sure*. But the tense in that sentence in wrong. Every choice we can "make" is already "made".

I don't subscribe to the block model of the universe either, but it is a tricky subject philosophically once relativity is brought into the discussion.

* Depending on one's free will model.

Not to mention chaos theory and the uncertainty principle.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

That's because there is no compelling argument for libertarian free will and God absolutely knowing the future. Like us, he could make predictions based on trends and do a bit better than us because he knows each of us intimately.

You couldn’t absolutely trust such a God.

[CA Steve]

44 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

That's because there is no compelling argument for libertarian free will and God absolutely knowing the future. Like us, he could make predictions based on trends and do a bit better than us because he knows each of us intimately.

Doesn't that leave you with a God who is not truly omnipotent nor omniscient?

[Nofear]

48 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

Not to mention chaos theory and the uncertainty principle.

Randomness (either because of incomplete information like chaos theory or because of indeterminism like in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) does not free will make.

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t see it. A block model of the universe means everything is determined (the future already exists). In what sense can I make a meaningful choice (in a libertarian free will kind of way) if the future is determined? What sense does it make to pray to God if he only knows the future because he can see it? How can he offer advice on who to marry? What job to take??

So you appeal to a model you don’t subscribe to to defend a libertarian free will that coexists with Gods knowledge of the future?

Time is relative. We are subject to a time, with real time free and now undetermined results, but the Eternal plane may not be subject to our time, from there the results of our free choices may have already been made or simply made observable. Reminds me of the line in the Mothman Prophecies.

"If there was a car crash ten blocks away, that window washer up there could probably see it. Now, that doesn't mean he's God, or even smarter than we are. But from where he's sitting, he can see a little further down the road."

Edited October 25, 2023 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

I choose not to believe this. Or did I?

*ominous music*

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Since the universe is subject to time, with free and undetermined results, while the Eternal world is not subject to time, the end results of our free choices have already been made. 

 

 don’t see it. If God can see the end results of our choices how are they undetermined?  In what sense can I make a meaningful choice (in a libertarian free will kind of way) if the future is determined? What sense does it make to pray to God if he only knows the future because he can see it? How can he offer advice on who to marry? What job to take??

 

[Pyreaux]

59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 don’t see it. If God can see the end results of our choices how are they undetermined?  In what sense can I make a meaningful choice (in a libertarian free will kind of way) if the future is determined? What sense does it make to pray to God if he only knows the future because he can see it? How can he offer advice on who to marry? What job to take??

Because we are still living in the moment right now. Here, now, on this planet, we are still in the moment. If the sun turned in to a black hole and you were sucked into it but we all escaped. We are going to live in two different time rates, where for you it's already happened while we watch you get sucked in for hundreds of years or we come save you. To God, being outside time, the end may have happened, but being outside time, he may also access the now and tamper with the end. For us, the now, is still changeable. So, advice can be given, because he's altering your fate. If you can alter fate, is it still fate? I don't see the issue.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Nofear]

Nobody has commented yet on the issue Sapolsky saw, that which I called the problem of good.

5 hours ago, Nofear said:

"It is logically indefensible, ludicrous, meaningless to believe that something 'good' can happen to a machine," he writes. "Nonetheless, I am certain that it is good if people feel less pain and more happiness."

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Nobody has commented yet on the issue Sapolsky saw, that which I called the problem of good.

 

Maybe because it seems like nothing more than a definitional issue?

[tagriffy]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Time is relative. We are subject to a time, with real time free and now undetermined results, but the Eternal plane may not be subject to our time, from there the results of our free choices may have already been made or simply made observable. Reminds me of the line in the Mothman Prophecies.

"If there was a car crash ten blocks away, that window washer up there could probably see it. Now, that doesn't mean he's God, or even smarter than we are. But from where he's sitting, he can see a little further down the road."

In Utah Mormonism, God is in our space/time. Hence the problem. The quote from the Mothman Prophecies still works.

Edited October 25, 2023 by tagriffy
additional comment

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Because we are still living in the moment right now. Here, now, on this planet, we are still in the moment. If the sun turned in to a black hole and you were sucked into it but we all escaped. We are going to live in two different time rates, where for you it's already happened while we watch you get sucked in for hundreds of years or we come save you.
 

Each observer experiences time passing at one second per second and lives in the present. Only the present. Completely irrelevant to causality, free will, or whether it is possible to be outside time and see all moments at once. 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

To God, being outside time, the end may have happened, but being outside time, he may also access the now and tamper with the end.

 

So the end has already happened for God, but he can also change it? It’s fine if you want to invoke paradox and magic to maintain libertarian free will, but I don’t find such to be a compelling argument. 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

[tagriffy]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You couldn’t absolutely trust such a God.

Why not?

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, tagriffy said:

Why not?

If God is working off of probabilities can God deliver on promises when the very unlikely happens?

[teddyaware]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for libertarian free will that is compatible with a God that knows the future. 

In 2 Nephi 2, the prophet Lehi testifies that there can be no existence unless each individual thing that does exist has a counterpart that also exists in diametric opposition to itself. In fact, Lehi teaches us that without the eternal principle of diametric opposition in all things not a single thing that does now exist could exist, including God himself. There can be no goodness without the possibility of choosing evil; no choice to love without the possibility of choosing to hate; no enjoyment of pleasure without also having experience with unpleasantness and pain. And truth cannot exist without the possibility of untruth and deception.

Likewise, liberty and freedom of choice cannot exist unless the possibility of enslavement and the loss of agency also exist. In accord with the eternal principle of opposition in all things, the freedom to choose the direction of one’s own life could not exist unless enslavement and the loss of freedom also exist in dynamic opposition to one other. Meanwhile, the foolish attempt to conflate freedom with slavery is a deliberate negation of the eternal law of diametric opposition in all things, something that cannot be as long as existence continues.

 Conversely, if God ceases to be God, and all things that do now exist vanish away into nonexistence, then free will and enslavement can indeed be conflated for, as Lehi testifies, if this we’re to happen all things that now exist would become a compound in one. Therefore, the unscriptural belief that free will is actually a deceptive form of enslavement cannot exist as long as there is a just God who makes an infinite and and eternal atoning sacrifice of infinite and eternal liberation. I suppose this is why it’s mostly atheists who push this destructive and demoralizing false doctrine that cynically negates the eternal love and goodness of God. Simply put, it’s a doctrine of the devil designed to destroy faith in the love inspired mission of the great liberator, who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Edited October 25, 2023 by teddyaware