The Junk Drawer

[printer]

Totally man crushing on this guy:

Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will

You may think you chose to read this, but Stanford scientist Robert Sapolsky would disagree. He says virtually all human behavior is beyond our conscious control.

www.latimes.com

Spinoza and Nietzsche would approve.

Oh well, no viewing unless I Subscribe. No concern, have seen him a few times. The lecture series from quite a while ago is still relevant. Almost think it should be required viewing for all in high school.

 

[cannabineer]

 

[Sativied]

Oh well, no viewing unless I Subscribe. No concern, have seen him a few times. The lecture series from quite a while ago is still relevant. Almost think it should be required viewing for all in high school.

Thanks, will watch that next year. The article is about his latest book “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.”

 

[printer]

Thanks, will watch that next year. The article is about his latest book “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.”

There is also a number of videos where he gives presentations on the subjects, he is thought provoking.

 

[Fogdog]

Totally man crushing on this guy:

Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will

You may think you chose to read this, but Stanford scientist Robert Sapolsky would disagree. He says virtually all human behavior is beyond our conscious control.

www.latimes.com

Spinoza and Nietzsche would approve.

yeah, no,

It's the old nature vs nurture argument which should end with the conclusion that both are true. For example, Trump chose to try to overthrow the election. He was driven to do so by many things that occurred in his past but at the moment the election was over, he chose to deny it and then chose to conspire with others who chose to conspire with him, all of which resulted in the Jan 6 insurrection. Was it 100% choice? No. Was it 100% determined before the election was over? No.

To avoid subscription paywall, or getting bored before finishing an article, the following can be listened to while doing mindless chores. Starts at the beginning of the lecture.

 

[Sativied]

yeah, no,

It's the old nature vs nurture argument which is should end with the conclusion that both are true. For example, Trump chose to try to overthrow the election. He was driven to do so by many things that occurred in his past but at the moment the election was over, he chose to deny it and then chose to conspire with others who chose to conspire with him, all of which resulted in the Jan 6 insurrection. Was it 100% choice? No. Was it 100% determined before the election was over? No.

So what you’re saying is “no, I disagree“. But you haven’t presented good arguments to support that position. It’s not nature vs nurture, that’s psychology, Free will is a key philosophy topic, a much bigger question. And no, it was 100% determined at the big bang.

“Sapolsky knows he won’t persuade most of his readers. It’s hard to convince people who have been harmed that perpetrators deserve less blame because [external circumstances]. It’s even harder to convince the well-off that their accomplishments deserve less praise because of their history of privilege. “

Aside from being a different topic, no, I don’t believe in evil by nature. That’s a christian scam, in turn the product of their biggest scam: free will.

 

[Fogdog]

So what you’re saying is “no, I disagree“. But you haven’t presented good arguments to support that position. It’s not nature vs nurture, that’s psychology, Free will is a key philosophy topic, a much bigger question. And no, it was 100% determined at the big bang.

“Sapolsky knows he won’t persuade most of his readers. It’s hard to convince people who have been harmed that perpetrators deserve less blame because [external circumstances]. It’s even harder to convince the well-off that their accomplishments deserve less praise because of their history of privilege. “

Aside from being a different topic, no, I don’t believe in evil by nature. That’s a christian scam.

Sapolsky is a neurobiologist and not a philosopher. His arguments are based upon how our meat brains develop and change. At the moment we make a decision to do something, he concludes there was no choice involved. The evidence he brings to make that assertion is circumstantial and flimsy. To pull the trigger or not still requires that a choice be made. Through a set of stochastic nodes, we come to a single point in time and at that time, we do make choices. Our choices are limited, constrained and influenced by what went on before and there are tendencies that a person has that strongly influence which choice they will make. But at the moment, to do or not to do is a choice we all make.

I am not a religious person, I don't believe there is a god or in the concept of good and evil. I simply know that what I do or do not do is a combination of everything that brought me to the moment and what I choose to do at that moment.

 

[Sativied]

Sapolsky is a neurobiologist and not a philosopher.

He's answering a great philosophical question with that very intention, there should be no debate about that regardless of any occupation labels. His conclusions aren't mere musings and truthy sounding metaphysical mumbo jumbo. As Descartes said: It is reason which corrects the visual judgment that a stick protruding from water is bent.

"Analyzing human behavior through the lens of any single discipline leaves room for the possibility that people choose their actions, he says. But after a long cross-disciplinary career, he feels it’s intellectually dishonest to write anything other than what he sees as the unavoidable conclusion: Free will is a myth, and the sooner we accept that, the more just our society will be." -Sapolsky

"We no longer have any sympathy today with the concept of ‘free will’: we know only too well what is is - the most infamous of all the arts of the theologian for making mankind ‘accountable’... Everywhere accountability is sought, it is usually the instinct for punishing and judging which seeks it… the doctrine of will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is of finding guilty.” (Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche)

I simply know believe that what I do or do not do is a combination of everything that brought me to the moment and what I choose to do at that moment.

Fify? You restated your claim in different wording and qualified his 'evidence' as circumstantial and flimsy, still without actually substantiating it. I can do that to: Free will is the magic power God granted Adam and Eve.

 

[Fogdog]

He's answering a great philosophical question with that very intention, there should be no debate about that regardless of any occupation labels. His conclusions aren't mere musings and truthy sounding metaphysical mumbo jumbo. As Descartes said: It is reason which corrects the visual judgment that a stick protruding from water is bent.

"Analyzing human behavior through the lens of any single discipline leaves room for the possibility that people choose their actions, he says. But after a long cross-disciplinary career, he feels it’s intellectually dishonest to write anything other than what he sees as the unavoidable conclusion: Free will is a myth, and the sooner we accept that, the more just our society will be." -Sapolsky

"We no longer have any sympathy today with the concept of ‘free will’: we know only too well what is is - the most infamous of all the arts of the theologian for making mankind ‘accountable’... Everywhere accountability is sought, it is usually the instinct for punishing and judging which seeks it… the doctrine of will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is of finding guilty.” (Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche)


Fify? You restated your claim in different wording and qualified his 'evidence' as circumstantial and flimsy, still without actually substantiating it. I can do that to: Free will is the magic power God granted Adam and Eve.

No, you didn't fix anything. You can say what you want or what you believe. I know myself. What you are doing is projecting your belief onto me. Which is fine, you go ahead and believe what you like about me. I just know that I've made a lot of decisions that affected my life going forward. Maybe everybody else don't have free will but I do. (said totally tongue in cheek).

What he's promoting is not wrong, it's just another model for human behavior. Models are always wrong. Good models are useful. From the perspective of an outside observer, it might be useful to consider that people are the products of all that went on before the moment they did something and therefore they didn't have a choice in what they did. He's promoting the idea that we need to consider removing the factors that cause people to do certain things. That's not a bad idea.

He is not approaching the subject as a philosopher, he's basing his model upon observational science.

 

[Sativied]

No, you didn't fix anything. You can say what you want or what you believe. I know myself. What you are doing is projecting your belief onto me. Which is fine, you go ahead and believe what you like about me. I just know that I've made a lot of decisions that affected my life going forward. Maybe everybody else don't have free will but I do. (said totally tongue in cheek).

Ok Neo.

He's promoting the idea that we need to consider removing the factors that cause people to do certain things. That's not a bad idea.

Exactly. But we need not only consider the possibility he's absolutely right, we need to reason with that as a given before we can decide what we want to believe/accept, or what you refer to as 'know' and what we'll do with the insights gained.

Thanks for playing.

 

[GenericEnigma]

He's answering a great philosophical question with that very intention, there should be no debate about that regardless of any occupation labels. His conclusions aren't mere musings and truthy sounding metaphysical mumbo jumbo. As Descartes said: It is reason which corrects the visual judgment that a stick protruding from water is bent.

"Analyzing human behavior through the lens of any single discipline leaves room for the possibility that people choose their actions, he says. But after a long cross-disciplinary career, he feels it’s intellectually dishonest to write anything other than what he sees as the unavoidable conclusion: Free will is a myth, and the sooner we accept that, the more just our society will be." -Sapolsky

"We no longer have any sympathy today with the concept of ‘free will’: we know only too well what is is - the most infamous of all the arts of the theologian for making mankind ‘accountable’... Everywhere accountability is sought, it is usually the instinct for punishing and judging which seeks it… the doctrine of will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is of finding guilty.” (Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche)


Fify? You restated your claim in different wording and qualified his 'evidence' as circumstantial and flimsy, still without actually substantiating it. I can do that to: Free will is the magic power God granted Adam and Eve.

I haven't studied a lot of philosophy. Still, I have come to the conclusion that some questions are debated simply for the sake of debate/ego, and the real answer is unknowable by humans' current configuration:

Origin of the universe
Infinity (incl. very large numbers)
Spirituality (beyond what science can measure)
Time
Free will

Regardless, all questions/answers begin with assumptions (e.g., existence is consistent such that science works, i.e., identical experiments will continue to produce identical results).

 

[Sativied]

I haven't studied a lot of philosophy. Still, I have come to the conclusion that some questions are debated simply for the sake of debate/ego, and the real answer is unknowable by humans' current configuration:

Origin of the universe
Infinity (incl. very large numbers)
Spirituality (beyond what science can measure)
Time
Free will

Regardless, all questions/answers begin with assumptions (e.g., existence is consistent such that science works, i.e., identical experiments will continue to produce identical results).

"Some questions" mostly being those part of the branches metaphysics and epistemology. Not so much the others (logic and ethics).

Free will is pretty much the most debated and debatable question in metaphysics.

"Debate/ego" doesn't compute and to me but I very much like the choice of words: "current configuration".


Several great philosophers have drawn the same conclusion based on reason and logic, again see quote Descartes, things aren't true only when we have a specific measurement device to confirm it. To what level one has studied philosophy or what occupation one has in contrary to reason does not determine whether he or she is speaking the truth. Discrediting the author (ad hominem) doesn't discredit his arguments.

 

[printer]

He is not approaching the subject as a philosopher, he's basing his model upon observational science.

May not go over big with the maga crowd.

Time

Not sure if I would include this one.

Not that I read his book but from taking in his course and the presentations he has online I am not sure he says every action is not of free will. "Will I pick up this pencil." being one of them. He has also said all the things leading up to the moment has an influence. At least he did.

 

[Sativied]

Not that I read his book but from taking in his course and the presentations he has online I am not sure he says every action is not of free will. "Will I pick up this pencil." being one of them. He has also said all the things leading up to the moment has an influence. At least he did.

From the article:

"[interviewer:] But, like — everything? We have no meaningful command over our choice of careers, romantic partners or weekend plans? If you reach out right now and pick up a pen, was even that insignificant action somehow preordained?

Yes, Sapolsky says, both in the book and to the countless students who have asked the same question during his office hours. What the student experiences as a decision to grab the pen is preceded by a jumble of competing impulses beyond his or her conscious control. Maybe their pique is heightened because they skipped lunch; maybe they’re subconsciously triggered by the professor’s resemblance to an irritating relative.

Then look at the forces that brought them to the professor’s office, feeling empowered to challenge a point. They’re more likely to have had parents who themselves were college educated, more likely to hail from an individualistic culture rather than a collective one. All of those influences subtly nudge behavior in predictable ways.

You may have had the uncanny experience of talking about an upcoming camping trip with a friend, only to find yourself served with ads for tents on social media later. Your phone didn’t record your conversation, even if that’s what it feels like. It’s just that the collective record of your likes, clicks, searches and shares paints such a detailed picture of your preferences and decision-making patterns that algorithms can predict — often with unsettling accuracy — what you are going to do.:

Didn't realize it was behind paywall, don't want to bluntly copy and paste the whole thing. One of the most interesting parts is how opponents try to argue against it. Or attempt to. With arguments like (paraphrasing) "smart people can be dumb too", "there's too many variables [more like it's to complicated to wrap my brain around]" "it's dangerous to tell people the truth", and verbatim: "But if we want to live in a just society, we have to believe that we can [will ourselves]."

Believe what you want. We're all in a simulation, you're all NPCs, and I'm the main character cause I hereby chose to let you come to terms with this new reality on your own so we can discuss what this all means. I for example used to have more respect for people who stopped drinking alcohol excessively than those who never had a sip. Now, people just can't help themselves, people are wired to do whatever they do.

 

[printer]

From the article:

"[interviewer:] But, like — everything? We have no meaningful command over our choice of careers, romantic partners or weekend plans? If you reach out right now and pick up a pen, was even that insignificant action somehow preordained?

Yes, Sapolsky says, both in the book and to the countless students who have asked the same question during his office hours. What the student experiences as a decision to grab the pen is preceded by a jumble of competing impulses beyond his or her conscious control. Maybe their pique is heightened because they skipped lunch; maybe they’re subconsciously triggered by the professor’s resemblance to an irritating relative.

Then look at the forces that brought them to the professor’s office, feeling empowered to challenge a point. They’re more likely to have had parents who themselves were college educated, more likely to hail from an individualistic culture rather than a collective one. All of those influences subtly nudge behavior in predictable ways.

You may have had the uncanny experience of talking about an upcoming camping trip with a friend, only to find yourself served with ads for tents on social media later. Your phone didn’t record your conversation, even if that’s what it feels like. It’s just that the collective record of your likes, clicks, searches and shares paints such a detailed picture of your preferences and decision-making patterns that algorithms can predict — often with unsettling accuracy — what you are going to do.:

Didn't realize it was behind paywall, don't want to bluntly copy and paste the whole thing. One of the most interesting parts is how opponents try to argue against it. Or attempt to. With arguments like (paraphrasing) "smart people can be dumb too", "there's too many variables [more like it's to complicated to wrap my brain around]" "it's dangerous to tell people the truth", and verbatim: "But if we want to live in a just society, we have to believe that we can [will ourselves]."

Believe what you want. We're all in a simulation, you're all NPCs, and I'm the main character cause I hereby chose to let you come to terms with this new reality on your own so we can discuss what this all means. I for example used to have more respect for people who stopped drinking alcohol excessively than those who never had a sip. Now, people just can't help themselves, people are wired to do whatever they do.

Dinosaurs and quantum physics screws things up. Was there a reason for dinosaurs to live before us and for many times longer than we have been a race, say 3 million years and only a couple hundred thousand in our (more or less) current state. If we are children of god why were we not around 100 million years earlier? On the flip side physics says that (still only a theory mind you) that the visible universe that we see is only about 3% of the total. Is there room in the 96% for heaven and hell? Or some other reality that we can not comprehend? Did we lose the ability to perform magic by loosing touch of the unseen? Is the 4% just a supercomputer that is playing out a game for the gods to entertain themselves? How many years in advance do they plan? Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[cannabineer]

Dinosaurs and quantum physics screws things up. Was there a reason for dinosaurs to live before us and for many times longer than we have been a race, say 3 million years and only a couple hundred thousand in our (more or less) current state. If we are children of god why were we not around 100 million years earlier? On the flip side physics says that (still only a theory mind you) that the visible universe that we see is only about 3% of the total. Is there room in the 96% for heaven and hell? Or some other reality that we can not comprehend? Did we lose the ability to perform magic by loosing touch of the unseen? Is the 4% just a supercomputer that is playing out a game for the gods to entertain themselves? How many years in advance do they plan? Inquiring minds would like to know.

I have unshakable faith that doggie heaven is big enough for every bad cat across time.

 

[printer]

I am a few weeks behind on my music programing, just heard today he died.

 

[cannabineer]

omglol

troll trump

troll trump

www.yasrye.top

 

[cannabineer]

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

yeah, no,

It's the old nature vs nurture argument which should end with the conclusion that both are true. For example, Trump chose to try to overthrow the election. He was driven to do so by many things that occurred in his past but at the moment the election was over, he chose to deny it and then chose to conspire with others who chose to conspire with him, all of which resulted in the Jan 6 insurrection. Was it 100% choice? No. Was it 100% determined before the election was over? No.

To avoid subscription paywall, or getting bored before finishing an article, the following can be listened to while doing mindless chores. Starts at the beginning of the lecture.

The Buddha said we don't have free will over 2500 years ago and proved it with logic, not science though. Free will presumes our minds are fixed things and not evolving processes, it denies causality, it is basically a convenient and useful delusion.