I like the approach you gave to this conundrum that free will is. A kind of "middle way" (as in Buddhism). I too see it as a tug of war, as it were, between our acknowledgment that complete free will is an illusion and our input or sense of agency. Neither goes all the way.
After reading scientist Robert Sapolsky's book Determined and learning from other thinkers such as Sam Harris or philosopher Alex O'Connor, one can not avoid but conclude that we should be very careful, compassionate and unbiased (easier said than done) towards other's behaviours, reactions and interactions on a day to day basis. None of us are in complete control of our feelings and actions. We are, at least in part, darwinian robots with biological algorithms with some agency.
There are several cases where people become killers or sexual predators after having a quite normal life because brain tumours affect areas in their brains that "made them do heinous actions" or hindered their inhibition to act in such a way.
Judges that judge more harshly in court if they haven't had a meal (low glucose levels) is another example, among hundreds.
Blind belief in a God-given free will is common in Mexico since Catholicism predominates. Extreme (and sometimes unjustified) punishment is the result, such as eternal damnation in Hell.
Lets understand ourselves and, in extension, one another.
Very wise words. Thank you so much for your contribution. Yes Sapolsky's Determined is scientifically accurate, but I don't think his conclusions on free will are wise. Saying that free will doesn't exist because it isn't absolutely free is like saying truth doesn't exist because we can't achieve absolute, perfect knowledge. It raises questions about morality and responsibility.
We have the perhaps inalienable capacity, at every moment, to consider alternatives, form intentions, and take action. From this perspective, we’re neither predetermined nor random—instead, we’re biased, in favor of our wants, needs, and desires, as best as we can perceive these, at the moment of decision.
I favor the compatibilistic view of free will, more in line with Buddhist philosophy and psychology. Even if our decisions are influenced or caused by prior events, we can still have "free" will if we act according to our desires, values, or reasoning, without external coercion. Most of it is clouded by the illusion of the Self, but it cannot entirely deny a degree of autonomy in making decisions, which of course makes us morally accountable for what we do (if not entirely responsible).
This perspective aligns with our intuitive sense of responsibility, making it a middle ground between libertarian free will and strict determinism.
I like the approach you gave to this conundrum that free will is. A kind of "middle way" (as in Buddhism). I too see it as a tug of war, as it were, between our acknowledgment that complete free will is an illusion and our input or sense of agency. Neither goes all the way.
After reading scientist Robert Sapolsky's book Determined and learning from other thinkers such as Sam Harris or philosopher Alex O'Connor, one can not avoid but conclude that we should be very careful, compassionate and unbiased (easier said than done) towards other's behaviours, reactions and interactions on a day to day basis. None of us are in complete control of our feelings and actions. We are, at least in part, darwinian robots with biological algorithms with some agency.
There are several cases where people become killers or sexual predators after having a quite normal life because brain tumours affect areas in their brains that "made them do heinous actions" or hindered their inhibition to act in such a way.
Judges that judge more harshly in court if they haven't had a meal (low glucose levels) is another example, among hundreds.
Blind belief in a God-given free will is common in Mexico since Catholicism predominates. Extreme (and sometimes unjustified) punishment is the result, such as eternal damnation in Hell.
Lets understand ourselves and, in extension, one another.
Indeed, a thought provoking topic.
Thanks Rob!
Very wise words. Thank you so much for your contribution. Yes Sapolsky's Determined is scientifically accurate, but I don't think his conclusions on free will are wise. Saying that free will doesn't exist because it isn't absolutely free is like saying truth doesn't exist because we can't achieve absolute, perfect knowledge. It raises questions about morality and responsibility.
We have the perhaps inalienable capacity, at every moment, to consider alternatives, form intentions, and take action. From this perspective, we’re neither predetermined nor random—instead, we’re biased, in favor of our wants, needs, and desires, as best as we can perceive these, at the moment of decision.
I favor the compatibilistic view of free will, more in line with Buddhist philosophy and psychology. Even if our decisions are influenced or caused by prior events, we can still have "free" will if we act according to our desires, values, or reasoning, without external coercion. Most of it is clouded by the illusion of the Self, but it cannot entirely deny a degree of autonomy in making decisions, which of course makes us morally accountable for what we do (if not entirely responsible).
This perspective aligns with our intuitive sense of responsibility, making it a middle ground between libertarian free will and strict determinism.