Dec 08, 2023 09:00:00

What is the problem with the theory that Stanford University scientists say ``free will does not exist''?

Many people believe that we have '

free will, ' which means we can think as we please and choose what we want to do, but the existence of free will has not been scientifically proven. Not. A book published in 2023 by a neurobiologist at Stanford University asserts that ``free will is an illusion,'' and this theory is attracting attention. Ethics experts explain the important points and what is the subject of debate in the theory of free will.

A Stanford professor says science shows free will doesn't exist. Here's why he's mistaken
https://theconversation.com/a-stanford-professor-says-science-shows-free-will-doesnt-exist-heres-why-hes-mistaken-218525

In his book “ Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will ,” published in October 2023 by Robert Sapolsky, a neurobiologist at Stanford University, he discusses determinism . Summarizes and explains scientific research. Determinism is the philosophical idea that ``every event is determined only by the events that precede it.'' Since determinism emphasizes strict causal relationships based on physical laws, it is thought that human thoughts and actions are guided and determined by some factors, and the existence of free will is denied in determinism. .

There is confusion among scientists about Sapolsky's support for scientific determinism, and Adam Bioverky, a researcher at the Institute of Ethics and Society at the University of Notre Dame Australia, explains why. According to Bioverky, Sapolsky said, ``Human choices, like the laws of physics, are simply the result of environment, upbringing, hormones, genes, culture, and countless other factors over which we have no control. ' will not intervene.' Furthermore, Mr. Sapolsky also states that ``No one is morally responsible for their own actions because our actions are determined deterministically, not by free will.'' He points out that this is a ``quite radical position.''

Regarding 'free will' and 'responsibility,' there are theories such as Sapolsky's that 'responsibility does not arise because actions are determined in a deterministic manner,' and the opposite, 'responsibility comes with actions chosen with free will.' On the other hand, there is also the idea of ``

compatibilism ,'' which holds that ``deterministic choices are compatible with the existence of free will and moral responsibility.'' A 2020 survey of a wide range of philosophical beliefs found that 59% of philosophers believed that determinism is compatible with free will and responsibility, compared to 11% who agreed with Sapolsky. It was recorded that only

In his review of ``Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will,'' John Martin Fisher, an expert on free will at the University of California, Riverside, wrote, ``The problem with Sapolsky's argument is that freedom It offers no real argument as to why the concept of will is correct.'' In the first place, the question ``what is free will?'' is an ambiguous proposition, and experiments using machines to measure the activity of muscles and the brain have shown that ``the muscles are more active than we realize that the brain decides what to do.'' Even when a scientist showed that 'free will does not exist,' the content of the experiment was called into question by considering the definition of free will.

Why do scientists claim that there is no such thing as free will? -GIGAZINE

In his book, Sapolsky simply defines free will as being incompatible with determinism, and then goes on to argue that this absolves people of moral responsibility, and argues that free will is incompatible with determinism. It explains the process by which actions are determined. On the other hand, compatibilists think of free will in a more relaxed way, and even if our actions are determined deterministically, we will understand right and wrong within that determined range and follow moral reasons. It is argued that it is in action.

The reason for the discrepancy between Sapolsky's theory and compatibilist theory is that they deal with free will, which is a difficult issue to judge. Therefore, Mr. Sapolsky first needed to show ``why assumptions about free will are related to moral responsibility.'' The debate over free will and responsibility has been a topic that philosophers have been asking for a long time, and Sapolsky's decision to ignore it, freely choose a convenient definition, and view it as ``just a scientific issue'' is what Sapolsky did. Fisher says it was his biggest mistake.