Free Will: A Definitive Debate

"Two titans of neuroscience and philosophy come together to debate the existence of free will – a question with profound implications for identity, justice, and the very meaning of life itself. 

"Do human beings have free will? 

"For Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, science clearly demonstrates that free will is a powerful and dangerous illusion. Without free will, it makes no more sense to punish people for antisocial behaviour than it does to scold a car for breaking down. It is no one's fault they are poor or overweight or unsuccessful, nor do people deserve praise for their talent or hard work; 'grit' is a myth.­ 

"But for philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, free will is not only compatible with our current scientific knowledge but justified by it. Free will underwrites our moral and artistic responsibility – and reason and self-control are both real and desirable. 

"Coming together to debate this question for the first time, these two intellectual giants will delve deep into the science and philosophy of the mind and get to the heart of this ancient and vitally important question."

- - - - - - - - -

Click on the link below for an hour-long video debate that clarifies the science and science-based philosophy of Free Will. Two points from me: 1) Both reject any supernatural/spiritual elements and agree that the phenomenon is deterministic. 2) It was close, but I think the scientist (Sapolsky) won over the philosopher (Dennett), surprise, surprise.

Do We Have Freewill?

Another Christian Apologist Attempting To Explain Free Will

 Click on the link below for a short video of a Christian apologist attempting to support the discredited concept of Free Will:

Goofy Arguments About Free Will

- - - - - - - 

This video clarified the subject 2 years ago: 
("We don't have it, but should live like we do.")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_BTVN68-ZA

Heros, Empathy, Apathy, And The Brain

"Scott Pelley meets with Carnegie Hero Fund awardees and reports on a possible difference in brain make-up for those who commit heroic acts."

What makes up a hero? Who has what it takes to be one? Are all of us pre-programmed towards empathy or apathy in a life-threatening emergency? Click on the link below for a recent "60 Minutes" segment that presents the latest scientific findings attempting to answer these questions. 

What's in the heads of heroes?

I finish with a serious suggestion for research. Since it is clear to anyone paying attention that there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding empathy, select samples of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans and brain scan them looking for the same findings presented in this "60 Minutes" segment. If there are significant differences, a second/repeat study could be performed on the same subjects after an appropriate educational process of critical thinking and scientific findings regarding the brain and free will.

Free Will Rebutted

Dennis Mark Prager (/ˈpreɪɡər/; born August 2, 1948)[1] is an American conservative radio talk show host and writer. He hosts the nationally syndicated radio talk show The Dennis Prager Show. In 2009, he co-founded PragerU, which creates five-minute videos from an American conservative perspective. (Wikipedia) His views are consistent with essentially every dogma of Christianity, including the belief in human free will, which is not compatible with the findings of science.

Click on the link below for a 13-min video clearly and concisely debunking all of the main claims for contra-causal free will:

PragerU Misunderstands Free Will

Steven Pinker In-Depth

"Even as a young teenager, Dr. Steven Pinker (@sapinker) prized rationality as a virtue, and considered himself an anarchist. He changed that belief, however, when evidence indicated that anarchy was not a path to human flourishing. In this special episode, a co-production with the New Enlightenment Project, previous Podcast for Inquiry guest Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson returns as a co-host. Together, Lloyd and Leslie explore with Dr. Pinker whether universities are betraying their mission, how the human brain spectacularly fails while also working wonders, the loose connections between science and technology with social and moral progress, and what humanity needs to do to continue to thrive for the next 50 to 100 years."

Steven Pinker is a world-renowned intellectual who has many detractors regarding his focus on the red herring of a "woke" academia and other Neo-Liberal/Conservative thinking (link)(link). However, click on the link below for a deep and broad picture of his views on several important topics:

Steven Pinker Discusses Rationality and Humanist Values

The Neuroscience Of Political Views

As a science-based thinker, I have to accept that there probably is no contra-causal free will. The following short video explores the current understanding of the relationship between the brain, and its function, and political views:

Liberal vs. Conservative: A Neuroscientific Analysis

Free Will: A Different Look At It

"How low in complexity can you go and still have free will. Does a bacteria have free will? Do single cells have it? What do we know about agency in living systems? I collaborated with physicist and author Philip Ball, a former editor at the prestigious journal Nature. who has written extensively on this and other subjects. 

"What’s the difference between a living thing and one that’s not alive? Scientists don't agree. But we can say living organisms do things to suit themselves. They rearrange their surroundings for their own purposes. 

"Even single living cells act with agendas. Macrophages in your immune system chase a bacterium across the slide, switching course as its prey tries to escape, before finally gobbling it up."

This topic is one of the most controversial areas of science. This video essentially EXPANDS the definition to include not only humans but all living things.

Click on the link below:

Do all living things have free will?

A Look At Justice

Justice is the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness.

Retributive Justice, a system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation, has been the standard of justice for the vast majority of human history. While it has been a bedrock of most religions and governments, ancient and modern governments have attempted to institute some basic forms of restorative justice with minimal success (link).

Restorative Justice aims to get offenders to take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. The better and more recent research is supportive of this concept. However, while it seems necessary, it is not sufficient. Efforts to correct societal inequality are needed to decrease harm (link).

A final thought: the culpability of the perpetrator has to be placed in the context of the findings of science that show that our concept of Free Will is probably an illusion (link).

More On Consciousness, The Soul, And Free Will

A few months ago I posted on brain oddities, specifically focusing on patients who had split-brain syndrome. This involves the severing of the corpus callosum, the connection between the right and left sides of the brain, The link below delves into the anatomy and physiology of the brain and the importance of the corpus callosum in consciousness and decision-making. It is more evidence that the concepts of a soul and free will are probably illusions.

"Is consciousness a scientific problem to be solved? Or a philosophical problem that will remain a mystery? What do scientists who study the brain think? And why do they think the way they do? These leading brain scientists share their intimate ideas about how the brain generates consciousness."

Click on the link below:

How The Brain Scientists Think About Consciousness

Moral Responsibility And Free Will

"Does morality require free will? Philosophers and brain scientists argue that our ‘will’ is less ‘free’ than we think. How do arguments about free will impact morality and civil society, including the judicial system and legal defenses?"

If there ever was a topic that is more important, but more difficult on which to agree in a free society, I haven't seen it. Justice, retribution, safety, and freedom are all intertwined in the question.

Click on this link for an in-depth analysis of the topic.

Brain Imaging Is Imperative For Behavior Diagnosis

Prior to brain imaging,  abnormal human behavior was attributed to evil spirits or the effects of "Original Sin." This video is enlightening in understanding the natural causes of behavior good and bad. After watching it, your opinion on punishment may change.

No Soul, No Afterlife

There are many ways to falsify religious claims. Sean Carroll always seems to be able to communicate ways of doing so with succinctness, clarity, and humor. Here in this video, he presents the following FACTS:

• Our reality involves atoms (chemistry) ONLY.
• Life emerged from chemistry.
• At death, our atoms disperse from our bodies and stay within our natural reality.
• Thus, there is no support for a supernatural "Soul" or for our brains being conduits for a universal "Consciousness."
• Free Will: Humans can't overrule the laws of physics but are rational agents with the ability to make choices.

Sooooo, to religious apologists: Why do you ignore reality understood by science?

Click on the link below:

Has Science Refuted Religion?

This link is also worthwhile to watch:

You don't have free will, but don't worry

Free Will From A Logical View

There is much literature challenging the concept of Free Will. This video only looks at the issue from a purely logical standpoint:

Why Free Will Doesn't Exist

Taking The Woo Out of Quantum Mechanics

Many pseudoscience-oriented folks attempt to use quantum mechanics to explain such unsupported claims such as human free will and consciousness. This 13-min video does a pretty good job both in explaining quantum mechanics, as well as falsifying the claims that humans have free will and that consciousness is independent of the brain:

• "The fundamental underpinnings of nature are probabilistic, or nondeterministic. - - - we have to be careful not to extrapolate what happens at the quantum level, to the deterministic world of our everyday experience. Just because free will implies that your decisions are not deterministic, and quantum mechanics also implies that the properties of small particles are not deterministic, the two are not related. There is no science linking free will with quantum uncertainty."

The woo explained! Consciousness, Free will, Observation in Quantum physics

Has A Famous Argument Against Free Will Been Debunked?

The Atlantic magazine recently published an article entitled, "A Famous Article Against Free Will Has Been Debunked." Needless to say, this has set off much discussion within the science community, to include the r/science subreddit. Following are some comments from such:

Free Will, Original Sin, And Education

Proponents of the Abrahamic religions like to talk about the sinful nature of humanity due to Original Sin.  They also promote the concept of Free Will and push for overcoming our weaknesses with such.  All of this is magical thinking and is counter to reality and harmful.  This article is a good example of science-based thinkers promoting something that works.

Students need trauma-informed care

Free Will Is An Illusion: A Summary

"Although the existence of free will is treated as a self-evident fact by most, neuroscientific research suggests that there may be a more complex explanation to your wink and to the notion of free will than there appears at first glance."

Illusion of Choice: The Myth of Free Will

British Skeptics Lead the Charge against Contra-Causal Free Will

Sam Harris: The Illusion of Free Will

Jerry Coyne Critiques Sean Carroll's Free Will Opinion

"To his credit, Sean doesn’t try to offer up an alternative definition of free will like some compatibilists do, but merely says that using the language of 'choice' is a useful convention, even if it’s not true that we 'could have decided otherwise'."

Sean Carroll on free will

Why Abrahamic Theists Reject Determinism

"In the case of Abrahamic religionists, most (except for Calvinists) have to believe in libertarian free will, the kind where, if you could rewind history at a 'decision point', with everything absolutely identical to before, you still could have done something differently from what you did. Without that ability to choose between 'right' and 'wrong,' Christianity, Judaism, and Islam collapse, for what kind of God would reward or punish you in the afterlife if you couldn’t have 'chosen otherwise'?"

ID advocates mock determinism, insist on libertarian free will and human exceptionalism

A Perspective On Free Will From An Eminent Philosopher

"The big philosophical problem with free will, which has been highlighted repeatedly by Sam Harris, and here stressed by Searle, is this: we feel as if we are free agents, that we are in control of our decisions—but we’re not.  How can that be? Compatibilism simply doesn’t deal with that question, and Searle calls compatibilism (at 6:25) a 'copout.'"

John Searle on the persistent philosophical problem of free will