It is ... let's say "amusing" ... to hear so many big-brained intellectuals tie themselves into knots claiming they have free will. These are highly-educated individuals, who would (and sometimes do) mock people who believe in a magic friend in the sky. But they insist over and over that they have magic in their heads - magic that somehow creates a causeless cause outside the laws of physics.
On Armchair Expert, Dax Shepherd makes the comparison of god(s) and free will in his conversation with Robert Sapolsky. Dax - a huge fan of Sapolsky who thinks Behave* is one of the best books ever - noted that people make some of the same arguments for free will that others make for god(s).
Like many, Dax will go part of the way, accepting that, say, criminals who had terrible lives aren't responsible for their actions. But he, Dax, does have free will.
It all comes down to feelings. We like feeling that an all-powerful being loves us (and will give us life after death). We like feeling that we are in control. We (i.e., people who read this blog or Sapolsky's books) like feeling that we have earned and deserve our awards, accomplishments, and accolades.
And, of course, we feel like we are in control, as long as we don't examine that too closely.
So I don't (and can't!) blame anyone for refusing to give up their preferred personal magic. However, their fears are misplaced. Accepting reality can make us happier, as well as more understanding.
* After writing Behave, people told Sapolsky, "Oh, I don't know about this. It might make people doubt free will." Saposky's reaction was "Might??" That led him to stop being subtle and write Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.
2 comments:
It's worth acknowledging that while free-willers tie themselves in knots trying claiming they have free will, determinists also tie themselves in knots trying to act (and speak) in accordance with their belief in determinism—not judging people as if they have free will. I don't think Sam Harris shows much appreciation for Trump's lack of fault for his "malignant selfishness", and Sapolsky himself, in "Determined", sometimes reiterates his inability to divorce his mind from assumptions of free will, and at other times seems to not realise he's not divorcing his mind from those assumptions.
This doesn't mean, of course, that they're incorrect, any more than an evolutionary biologist using the word "designed" or "purpose" does. But, I think there's a sort of (at least linguistic) paradox that makes an assumption of (and speaking in terms of) free will forgivable.
Love this comment. Re: SH:
https://www.mattball.org/2025/01/the-least-self-aware-guru.html
And re: Sapolsky - I have great sympathy for his comment that you can know something but not act on / internalize it. It is a very active area for me (and Anne); e.g.:
https://www.mattball.org/2023/06/enlightenment-june-2023-emptiness-and.html
Although you've probably read both of those.
Post a Comment