I read the synopsis of Sapolsky’s book and it’s quite comical. The entire thing argues we don’t have free will, while making statements that assume we do. Example: “By the end, Sapolsky argues that while living our daily lives recognizing that we have no free will is going to be monumentally difficult, doing so is not going to result in anarchy, pointlessness, and existential malaise. Instead, it will make for a much more humane world.” This entire paragraph assumes that what this author has discovered via his research will change the way society behaves. Society will suddenly realize that what they believed about free will was a lie and that they have no ability to change their minds or behavior which will cause them to change their minds resulting in a society that behaves much more humanely. 🤣

@@scottsponaas Dr. Saplosky probably overlooked the absurdity. Many believe in scientism, the idea that science is our only source of knowledge. But that's another absurdity because it's not scientific. It's philosophical. What will happen if Dr. Saplosky reads "The Epistemological Skyhook," where Dr. Jim Slagle argues that physicalism and determinism defeat themselves? Saplosky probably will say that deterministic events forced him to agree, disagree, or suspend judgment. But that reply would clearly beg the question. My favorite KZfaqr is Alex O'Connor, who calls himself the "Cosmic Skeptic." He's also an ethical emotivist, believing that we merely express our emotions when we say something is morally right or morally wrong. Alex is clearly honest and humble. But if you don't know that he's an emotivist, he'll seem to believe that he's not talking about feelings. He's too honest to want to fool anyone. But sometimes he probably misleads others by mistake..

And when you point that out to them, they will turn right around and argue with you about it, which is a performative contradiction. Arguing with someone assumes they possess the ability to change their beliefs…something they’re also arguing isn’t possible 🤦🏻‍♂️. It’s like they’re saying “you believe that people can change their minds, but you should change your mind and believe that it’s impossible to change your mind.”😂

@@scottsponaas Exactly. Many determinists still believe in moral rightness and moral wrongness when you need to have free will to deserve praise or blame.

Why is rational thought impossible if determinism is true?

​@@RLBays Consider Hilary Putnam's thought experiment, where a mad scientist represents deterministic events. You're a brain floating in a vat while a mad scientist stimulates you with an electrode. He makes you hallucinate so you believe you're a whole person sunbathing on a beach. He causes each mental event you have. That makes it impossible for you to know you're being fooled. How can you think rationally when you can't control anything that happens in your mind.

@@RLBays because everyone would just be programmed to believe as they do. Nobody would have the ability to question their own beliefs, examine both sides of an argument, and freely decide which one is more rational, we would all just believe what the laws of nature determined us to believe with no ability to change our own minds.

The soul is merely your mind, emotions, personality, and will. Those things exist immaterially and are expressed physically through your brain. If you only had a brain with no mind, it would be like having a control center with no operator. Everything would just be on autopilot. Nonetheless, we know from decades of neuroscience and psychology that human beings all possess the ability to change their emotions, personalities, and thoughts through mindfulness. It doesn’t just happen on autopilot. Ask any psychologist and they will tell you about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. They help people with anxiety, depression, and other emotional disorders by helping them change the way they look at things. If you choose to ruminate on negative things, you will experience negative emotions. Focus on the positive, and you will feel good. Without a mind/soul, your brain would just be a series of random electrochemical reactions you had no control over. There would be no distinction between voluntary and involuntary movements. It would all just happen based on the laws of nature. The guy who kills another person…couldn’t help it. The rapist..just doing what his brain made him do.

@@scottsponaas So you're just using "soul" as a synonym for "consciousness"?

@@RLBays correct. I think the word “soul” gives people the mental image of ghosts or spirits, which can sound unscientific and I get that lol. Basically your soul is the conscious override ability we all possess. Our body gives us an urge to punch someone in the face, and we consciously choose not to follow that urge. If we didn’t have a soul, there would be no need for consciousness. Everything would just be involuntarily done by the brain with no need for a distinction between voluntary and involuntary.