Determinism -> Liberation and Compassion (Free Will Links)

Bob Geldof - Thinking Voyager 2 Type Things

Last week, Anne and I briefly hung out with a friend who found "we have no free will" to be destructive. Immediately after that meeting ended, I came across this Kevin Drum post, "Free will is mankind’s biggest myth" which linked over to the LA Times' "Stanford scientist [Robert Sapolsky], after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will."

In the article, of course, there are people who argue that realizing we have no free will is harmful, in much the same way many argue that realizing there are no gods is harmful. (Why the two topics were intertwined for me, as discussed in Losing.)

But as I explained in "Enlightenment June 2023: Emptiness and Freedom," my experience (and Anne's) is that recognizing determinism is absolutely freeing. My main mental task is trying to more fully internalize this fact. 

(I think that is one of the most important pieces I've ever written. Of course I do! But also of course, I could be wrong. I've been wrong many, many times.... But I could do no other at those times.)

From the Times article:

Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, and killed or castrated sufferers to prevent them from passing tainted blood to a new generation.

Today we know epilepsy is a disease. By and large, it’s accepted that a person who causes a fatal traffic accident while in the grip of a seizure should not be charged with murder.

That’s good, says Stanford University neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky. That’s progress. But there’s still a long way to go. ...

The greatest risk of abandoning free will, Sapolsky concedes, isn’t that we’ll want to do bad things. It’s that, without a sense of personal agency, we won’t want to do anything.

“It may be dangerous to tell people that they don’t have free will,” Sapolsky said. “The vast majority of the time, I really think it’s a hell of a lot more humane.”

Sapolsky knows he won’t persuade most of his readers. ... 

His true hope, he says, is to increase compassion. Maybe if people understand how thoroughly an early history of trauma can rewire a brain, they’ll stop lusting for harsh punishments. Maybe if someone realizes they have a brain condition like depression or ADHD, they’ll stop hating themselves for struggling with tasks that seem easier for others....

We are machines, Sapolsky argues, exceptional in our ability to perceive our own experiences and feel emotions about them. It is pointless to hate a machine for its failures.

Dan Dennett is an arrogant asshole (Also: you don't need free will to be "good")

Happy Solstice!

Many years ago (before we moved to Tucson) I read one of "philosopher" Dan Dennett's books where he claimed that only humans and dogs were conscious, so we can do anything to any other animal we want. 

Isn't that convenient?

He also thinks the hard problem of consciousness doesn't exist. This seems to me like an incredible failure of understanding, or just contrarian arrogance.

More recently, I heard him on a podcast saying that yes, we can know exactly what it is like to be another person. Not some general idea, or even what they are thinking and what they are feeling. Rather, we can know what it is actually like to be them having their own individual subjective experience. 

Yeesh.

Now I'm finally reading Robert Sapolsky's Determined. In it, he quotes Dennett claiming that "luck evens out" for everyone, thus, no one has any excuse for anything. 

FU, Dan, you POS.

In  Jerry Coyne's piece on Determined (actually from this, but found at Why Evolution Is True):

Sapolsky is especially critical of compatibilist Daniel Dennett, who has claimed that “luck averages out in the long run.” He responds in characteristically plain-spoken style:

No it doesn’t. Suppose you’re born a crack baby. In order to counterbalance this bad luck, does society rush in to ensure that you’ll be raised in relative affluence and with various therapies to overcome your neurodevelopmental problems? No, you are overwhelmingly likely to be born into poverty and stay there. Well then, says society, at least let’s make sure your mother is loving, is stable, has lots of free time to nurture you with books and museum visits. Yeah, right; as we know your mother is likely to be drowning in the pathological consequences of her own miserable luck in life, with a good chance of leaving you neglected, abused, shuttled through foster homes. Well, does society at least mobilize then to counterbalance that additional bad luck, ensuring you live in a safe neighborhood with excellent schools? Nope, your neighborhood is likely to be gang-riddled and your school underfunded.

The entire piece and the quoted review are worth reading (especially the Massachusetts' friend story in the former - yikes) while you wait for Determined to be available at the library. (It is actually one of the very very few books we purchased (on Kindle).) More from the review:

In coming to terms with determinism and the science behind it, Sapolsky urges [that] we shouldn’t deny the reality of our own causal powers or of our own local control. We don’t need to be exceptions to cause and effect, or ultimately self-caused, to be potent causers and controllers in our own right, and to be held responsible in a forward-looking way that helps to shape behavior for the good. Reliable causal relations between desire, deliberation, intention, and action need to be in place for us to be effective agents.... Seen in this light, determinism is not a bitter pill, not a derogation of human dignity or power, but the very key to agency. ...

Sapolsky reassures us that fostering disbelief in libertarian freedom will not result in moral anarchy. Just as atheists can be good without God, so too can skeptics about the unconditional ability to do otherwise. ...

Acceptance of determinism will depend in large part on how it’s portrayed: not as an affront to a realistic conception of autonomy, but its basis. Not as fatalism, but as key to effective action informed by greater knowledge of the causal and explanatory relations that govern behavior. Not as a blanket excuse, but as an evidence-based view of wrongdoing that will lead to a more humane criminal justice system. Not as universally true, given that indeterminism might exist in nature, but as a pragmatically useful perspective that affords us greater compassion and control, a secure basis on which to understand ourselves in service to human and planetary flourishing.

Determinism is unlikely to go viral any time soon given its image as the enemy of freedom, but that perception may shift as the incoherence of libertarian free will becomes apparent, and as the evidence for our complete inclusion in the causal order grows. Sapolsky has marshalled a compelling case for such inclusion, presented it with unconventional flair, and shown the practical and ethical advantages of taking determinism to heart. His persistence in seeing Determined to completion – a prodigious undertaking – is much to be congratulated, although he would disavow deserving any such praise. Even if he’s right about that, we’re still lucky to have him.

Even if you already believe there is no free will, or even if you are sure you won't change your mind, the book is fantastic in discussing how the mind works.

Free Will is the New Jesus

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 that overrides 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 like being able to blame others for their "bad choices." We like feeling that we have earned and deserve our awards, accomplishments, and accolades. "It isn't luck! It's my hard work!" 

And, of course, we feel like we are in control, as long as we don't examine that too closely. (Seriously - don't click that link if you want your feelings to remain your "reality.")

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.

More on Ozempic

 
A follow-up to this.

From Robert Sapolsky's amazing and (potentially) life-changing book Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will:

Encouraging studies show that the average levels of implicit, unconscious bias against people as a function of their race, age, or sexual orientation have all decreased significantly over the last decade. But not implicit biases against obese individuals. They’ve gotten worse. ...

Even your average obese individual shows implicit antiobesity biases, unconsciously associating obesity with laziness...

Of course, there is the argument that we should spend our limited time and resources "fighting" these biases. But I would contend that there are other injustices in the world that urgently deserve our finite attention. 

If we can do something to change our caloric intake and improve both our healthspan and our societal standing, we should. (And, of course, improving others' opinion of us increases our ability to help those most in need of our help.)

Quotes from Robert Sapolsky + Danny Kahneman

 

Author of the incredible book Determined:

“Yup. I had a crisis of trying to make sense of theistic determinism. The Exodus story. Moses goes to Pharaoh and says, “Let my people go.” And Pharaoh says, “No way.” And Moses brings a plague upon Egypt. And Pharaoh says, “Okay, I give up. You can all go.” And then, at least in the version I was raised with, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” and made him say, “I changed my mind, nobody’s going anywhere.” So now, in comes the second plague, and Pharaoh says, “I give up.” And God intervenes again, and at the end we’re asked not only to judge Pharaoh but, while we’re at it, kill all the firstborns and the horses and whatever poor schmucks have been forced to be in the army running those chariots across the Red Sea. And justice has been served.

But wait a second—God interfered. But then God judged them, and that’s very confusing. And when I was thirteen, it became crystal clear. I remember one night waking up at two in the morning and thinking, “None of that makes sense. None of it’s for real. It’s nonsense.” And I’ve been incapable of a shred of spirituality or religiosity since then.”

...

I'll see the Northern California stereotype of people saying, “Well I don't subscribe to any organized religion but I'm a very spiritual person and I think of nature as personified.” And I know that I'd love to be able to believe that and take comfort from that. But I'm an utterly hard-nosed materialist and incapable of anything else.

...

Nobel-Winning Daniel Kahneman, RIP:

I think preventing misery is a much better and more important objective than promoting happiness. 

Living Well Is the Best Revenge

I'm not following the news, but things leak through. ("I'm glad my faith in humanity is not alive to see this."*) 

As someone in my family noted, one of the only two** goals of one side is to piss off the other side. "Drink liberal tears." They want us despondent. They want us to despair. They want us to be filled with rage. 

Don't help them achieve their goals.

Living well is the best revenge.

*If you've read it, you know I've never had faith in humanity.

**Obv, the other goal is to further enrich themselves. Also, for more on why we act the way we do, this interview with Robert Sapolsky is very good.

Dancing Saguaro. 

Unintended Consequences, Personal Edition (How I hurt animals, but you don't have to)

I came across the above story in Google News while writing the post below. This isn’t the mainstream media laughing at some extreme vegan – this is what the vegan media choose to discuss in public.

 

Preface: This post is not fishing for compliments or trying to get you to disagree about my work’s overall impact. (I’ve had that discussion plenty.) Rather, this post is an offer for others to learn from my mistakes.

When the great Robert Sapolsky was asked why he wrote the explicitly “there is no free will” Determined, he answered (paraphrasing): 

After I wrote Behave, [X person] said, ‘Oh, wow, this could make people doubt free will!’ And I thought, ‘Doubt? DOUBT?’ I was too subtle!’

 So I wrote Determined to spell it out very clearly.

That came to mind when someone was surprised by this post (specifically, “I spent most of my professional life making the world a net worse place”).

So please let me spell it out very clearly. There are two ways I made the world worse:

1. At least in the United States, the word “vegan” hurts animals, as documented for years and featured in Losing (“The End of Veganism”). Yet I let an explicitly animal advocacy organization (Animal Liberation Action) be renamed and refocused as a veganism advocacy organization. Then I spent decades promoting this organization.  😞

2. Regardless of the exact word used, on average, vegetarian / vegan advocacy hurts animals, for the five reasons spelled out here. 

In short: the arguments veg advocates promote (health and environment especially) lead people, on net, to eat more factory-farmed chickens. (Which I’ve noted for decades, spelling out as one of the first posts on this blog, more than ten years ago.) We’ve seen this happen even outside the United States.

Heck (and this blew my mind), even One Step for Animals' message of “Please don’t eat chickens” has as much impact on people’s consumption of red meat as it does on their consumption of birds!

Those two reasons are simple and straightforward, making it entirely clear to me that my net impact on the world has been negative. (I don’t even need to mention that, as a utilitarian during those decades, I was fundamentally philosophically mistaken, as per “Biting the Philosophical Bullet” in Losing.)

Again, this post is not about me or the past. It is simply noting mistakes in an attempt to make the world less bad in the future.

If you found this at all interesting, please consider sharing it. Thanks.

Dealing with Stress from an Evolutionary Perspective (and travel bonus)

LA area.
Here is a pretty good quick overview of how to travel freely.

The brilliant and kind Robert Sapolsky points out that exercise is very often the best way to deal with stress. (Book.)

He notes that the stress response evolved to avoid being eaten. 

Stress is meant to prime our bodies to fight or flee, not to think more. Thus: "fighting or fleeing" (lifting weights, running, etc.) is a good way to deal with stress. 

A very smart (and tall) friend told me that going to a silent retreat made their mental health worse - being alone with their thoughts was not a good idea. Anne and I have a long list of people we know (or know of) who are big-time meditators yet are quite poorly adjusted. 

This is not meant to shit on meditation. But I think simply saying "meditate" or "be mindful" is worse than saying nothing. In my experience, a framework like Robert Wright's Why Buddhism Is True (or even just this) is vital for any meditative practice. 

More broadly, "smart" people tend to think [sic] that everything can be dealt with by thinking. And many of us (e.g., raised Catholic) tend to think [sic] poorly of "the body." Neither of these are accurate, and often lead to more suffering.

Weekend Reading: More on the world's deadliest animal

Flagstaff Hail! July 15, 2024

Picking up the point, "Opposition to mosquito eradication is immoral and

incredibly arrogant" in Losing, Nate Crosser goes into much more detail about the problem and possible solutions (including trade-offs) in "Mosquito-Borne Disease: Environmental Justice, Geopolitics, and Biotechnology."

("Deadliest" here refers only to deadliest to humans. When it comes to killing (and torturing) any sentient being, no other species holds a candle to Homo Sapiens.) 

Building on Robert Sapolsky's amazing work on poverty, stress, and brain function, our pal NZ James has a short post, "Why People in Poverty Make Poor Decisions." I shudder when I try to imagine navigating our society if poor and less-educated. 

Also, don't read this political / economic analysis (it won't bring you joy or help you make the world a better place) but please share with anyone who claims to care about the poor and disadvantaged yet isn't planning to vote a straight D ticket.

PS: Just a reminder: A plurality of white women voted for pussy-grabbing TFG over Hillary in 2016.