Scientist [Sapolsky], after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
phys.orgI feel like there's an inherent contradiction in the statement that one has concluded they lack free will.
If you lack free will the conclusion can't be yours, can it?
Even though the conclusion itself may not be a product of free will, the awareness of this conclusion can be consistent with our subjective experience of having the capacity to reason, reflect, and examine our beliefs.
True, but so what?
Whether or not he had the subjective experience, if he truly has no free will he has no ability to evaluate the evidence any other way than he did, no matter how good the evidence actually is. So if his conclusion is correct, we cannot trust his conclusion.
Or anyone else's. About anything.
Including our own.
If he's right, then science and reason are dead.
If reason is indeed an automatic process, it doesn't imply that it's unreliable or untrustworthy. Many automatic processes in our brain, like pattern recognition or memory retrieval, are highly evolved and serve us well.
Even if someone's conclusions are determined by automatic processes, these processes can still evaluate evidence and information.
If the evidence and information being processed are accurate and comprehensive, the conclusions reached by an automatic process can be quite reliable. If reason is an automatic process, this doesn't invalidate the scientific method.
The challenge to free will doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that science and reason are dead. While it does raise questions about the nature of agency and choice, it doesn't undermine the utility of reason in making sense of the world and advancing our understanding.
> If reason is indeed an automatic process, it doesn't imply that it's unreliable or untrustworthy.
But it doesn't imply that it's reliable and trustworthy, either.
Humans didn't evolve to do pure logic correctly in order to find absolute truth. They evolved to get good enough answers fast enough in order to survive. We think our logic is accurate... but maybe that's just so that, given a "good enough" answer, we move with confidence rather than doubt.
But as you mention, there's more than just pure logic. There's also evaluating evidence and information. (Sometimes there's too little, and sometimes there's too much. Which pieces do you believe?) It seems to me that this involved choice, and so the question of whether you can choose is directly relevant.
Even if that isn't directly relevant, I would say that if you are determined (that is, have no free will), and you judge the evidence badly, it is going to be very hard to show you that you judged the evidence badly. You judged it the only way you could; how can someone show you that you are wrong?
I freely choose not to accept these results.
Just saying it doesn't mean it's true. The point is why you pick that choice, and not the other one. Why you like that color, and don't like that one. Why you fell in love with that person and not another one, and so on... Most of the choices we make we don't know why we made them.