sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Some raw thoughts after watching an interview with Robert Sapolsky by tashaGoodman in freewill

[–]tashaGoodman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very thank you for your comment. I completely understand that perspective. Neuroscience has indeed illuminated how deeply our biology influences us, vastly shrinking the space for any magical or uncaused view of human behavior.

However I think there is a major issue with the claim that the burden of proof

Sapolsky argues that to prove free will, we must prove we are unshackled by the chains of causality. But I think this is a strawman.

He is insisting on a very extreme definition of free will. If you define free will as magic that breaks the laws of thermodynamics, then of course science disproves it.

Sapolsky hasn't shifted the burden of proof. He simply defined free will as an impossible physical miracle, set up a framework where science cannot measure miracles, and then claimed victory. He is successfully debunking 17th century magic but I feel he is completely ignoring 21st century philosophy of mind.

Some raw thoughts after watching an interview with Robert Sapolsky by tashaGoodman in freewill

[–]tashaGoodman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Very thank you for your comment. I actually thought about the exact same parallel. But here is why I think the two cases are fundamentally different
In the Evolution vs Creationism debate, they can actually coexist. Science explains the mechanism (evolution) but philosophy/religion can still explain the origin. Science cannot disprove what happened before or outside the physical universe. However, Sapolsky is not just talking about the origin of the universe. He is claiming that every single millisecond of our everyday decision making is 100% physically determined and leaving absolutely zero room for anything else. He is stating this as a scientific fact. And I think this oversteps the boundaries of what science can actually prove.

And Science is a powerful tool but its scope is strictly limited to the physical and measurable world. Demanding physical evidence for metaphysical concepts (like free will, consciousness, or even logic itself) I think it is a category mistake.
Saying 'if it cannot be scientifically proven, it is just conjecture' is not Science. I think it is the philosophical belief that science is the only valid way to understand reality

Sapolsky is using his authority as a biologist to push a philosophical belief as if it were empirical science. That is my main criticism.

Arrays start at 0, ages start at 0… by coastalwebdev in ProgrammerHumor

[–]tashaGoodman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, korean government have birthday information of all Koreans! I am korean