This was an interesting take. I just finished reading this book a month or so ago and had a very different reaction to it. I, too, noticed the lack of real engagement with the philosophy of free will but was honestly glad to focus exclusively on the science of it (even as someone who enjoys the humanities very much).
The question strikes me as one that only science can really answer (along the lines of the origin of the universe, the nature of human consciousness, etc), even though philosophy can give us more interesting or insightful ways to frame the question itself. I don’t think it’s philosophy’s job to tell us “is there free will?” but more so to determine what exactly free will would entail (as you note) or to tell us “knowing there is or there isn’t free will, how ought we proceed?”
I think science often vindicates the conclusion philosophy already reached through less conclusive means, as is the case with the Nietzche quote you shared. But that makes the scientific approach incredibly valuable.
That being said, this was a thought-provoking angle and makes me want to wade a little deeper in the philosophical side of things. Thanks for the read!
I think one thing philosophers should tell us is where to place the onus (imo it should be on free will advocates given that the source of their belief is mainly just the feeling of agency people have).
Another important thing they could tell us is that given the real disputes about free will and moral responsibility we should build that uncertainty into the design of social policies especially when it comes to retributive punishment.
Hey, Rose. I don't think our science, as we conceive of it today, is capable of answering any of these questions (e.g., the origin of the universe, the nature of consciousness, the status of free will). These questions fall beyond the epistemic range of science.
That said, I think we could soon stumble into a "new" science (à la Thomas Kuhn) -- a means of ascertaining truth that looks very different from today's science. I'm not sure such a new science can emerge but from the direct or indirect collaboration of scientists and philosophers. A recent and compelling example of this kind of effort is described in "The Blind Spot" (linked below).
I believe confusion hangs primarily on the means of simplifying the facts for as wide an audience as possible. Efforts to communicate valuable implications should include more art and socially relatable satire in line with popular cartoons and media. While intriguing, valuable, and unique, an article such as this (and the book it reviews) through the language it relies on alone, slots itself into a realm that can only appeal to those who enjoy paying keen attention to the topic. We're sort of perpetually admiring the aesthetic of each others tails as we chase one another. Preaching to the choir with intellectual flair.
I could say something artistically poetic yet unnecessarily dense, "Free will is an illusion. Instinctual distractions push against free will in a sarcastic display of merciless disruption tearing at the default state of nothing."
Or I could say, "Free will is an illusion. The habits we adopt and the patterns we produce form an almost sarcastic thread of life as we experience it."
It took Feynman, what, 30-seconds to distill what went wrong with the o-rings in a simple, elegant illustration. Surely we can sort out a similar simplification?
You might like https://outlandishclaims.substack.com/p/william-godwins-libertarian-free, which despite the name makes a compatibilist case similar to yours. A book called "The Science of Free Will" should be considered the same as a book called "The Physics of Basketball." The first can inform the second, but it can't refute it--that's just a category error.
This was an interesting take. I just finished reading this book a month or so ago and had a very different reaction to it. I, too, noticed the lack of real engagement with the philosophy of free will but was honestly glad to focus exclusively on the science of it (even as someone who enjoys the humanities very much).
The question strikes me as one that only science can really answer (along the lines of the origin of the universe, the nature of human consciousness, etc), even though philosophy can give us more interesting or insightful ways to frame the question itself. I don’t think it’s philosophy’s job to tell us “is there free will?” but more so to determine what exactly free will would entail (as you note) or to tell us “knowing there is or there isn’t free will, how ought we proceed?”
I think science often vindicates the conclusion philosophy already reached through less conclusive means, as is the case with the Nietzche quote you shared. But that makes the scientific approach incredibly valuable.
That being said, this was a thought-provoking angle and makes me want to wade a little deeper in the philosophical side of things. Thanks for the read!
I think one thing philosophers should tell us is where to place the onus (imo it should be on free will advocates given that the source of their belief is mainly just the feeling of agency people have).
Another important thing they could tell us is that given the real disputes about free will and moral responsibility we should build that uncertainty into the design of social policies especially when it comes to retributive punishment.
Hey, Rose. I don't think our science, as we conceive of it today, is capable of answering any of these questions (e.g., the origin of the universe, the nature of consciousness, the status of free will). These questions fall beyond the epistemic range of science.
That said, I think we could soon stumble into a "new" science (à la Thomas Kuhn) -- a means of ascertaining truth that looks very different from today's science. I'm not sure such a new science can emerge but from the direct or indirect collaboration of scientists and philosophers. A recent and compelling example of this kind of effort is described in "The Blind Spot" (linked below).
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262048804/the-blind-spot/
Honestly, really enjoyable. And that’s from a spooky libertarian.
Thanks for this post, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of Sapolsky's book. I just posted a rebuttal of Sapolsky's and Sam Harris's views on free will for anyone interested. https://open.substack.com/pub/jmoss3/p/robert-sapolsky-and-sam-harris-on?r=3my0zq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I believe confusion hangs primarily on the means of simplifying the facts for as wide an audience as possible. Efforts to communicate valuable implications should include more art and socially relatable satire in line with popular cartoons and media. While intriguing, valuable, and unique, an article such as this (and the book it reviews) through the language it relies on alone, slots itself into a realm that can only appeal to those who enjoy paying keen attention to the topic. We're sort of perpetually admiring the aesthetic of each others tails as we chase one another. Preaching to the choir with intellectual flair.
I could say something artistically poetic yet unnecessarily dense, "Free will is an illusion. Instinctual distractions push against free will in a sarcastic display of merciless disruption tearing at the default state of nothing."
Or I could say, "Free will is an illusion. The habits we adopt and the patterns we produce form an almost sarcastic thread of life as we experience it."
It took Feynman, what, 30-seconds to distill what went wrong with the o-rings in a simple, elegant illustration. Surely we can sort out a similar simplification?
You might like https://outlandishclaims.substack.com/p/william-godwins-libertarian-free, which despite the name makes a compatibilist case similar to yours. A book called "The Science of Free Will" should be considered the same as a book called "The Physics of Basketball." The first can inform the second, but it can't refute it--that's just a category error.