Solvreven

My claim is: If you’re a determinist. You cannot even rely on the Axiom of determinism. Cause there is no «you» that relies on it.

I can see that he wrote it, but the link only goes so far as to Januar 1963. FYI

Yeah it's likely they don't have remorse. However dogs have, and i view them as less intelligent than cats?

Aha, I was wondering if it was just a typo. Are we sure that cats don't have free will btw? That it might only be possible in lets say monkeys as mentioned or perhaps dolphins? Does it requirte the prefrontal cortex to even consider free will existing in an animal?

And my claim is that with this, knowledge cannot exist for a determinist. Not sure if I follow. You write agency always requires free will, then procedes to say "a cat has agency without free will". Isn't this a contradiction? Might be a misunderstanding on my part - not trying to be difficult. Everything that has no free will is basically the same, no? You have a stone, and you have a cat.. the difference is just the type of motion they make and what makes them react.

So as far as I can understand Sapoly, Hossenfelder and Harris, they deny the very existence of free will. It's not about how much you have.. it's about having non at all.

So this no longer then becomes a discussion of Free Will vs Determinism, rather "how much Free Will do we possess"? Which would be an interly different discussion. To be more presise it's a discussion of how the laws of identity applies to identities? This is why I bring about the likes of Sapolsky, Hossenfelder and Harris - as i view them all as "full deterministic".. maybe open to some variance of indeterminism on the quantum level.. but most only view that as not fully understood yet (seems likely). But indeterminism has nothing to do with free will. The full determinist perspective is anti-philosophy and anti-knowledge. I will read and respond to this later. Page 183 to 193 right?

What I've always found curious about determinism: So if you reduce it down, determinism is mere reactions to reactions, or behaviours to behaviour if you will. With determinism (if you have all the information of the universe that has ever existed) you can perfectly modell the future and foresee absolutely everything that will happen. So here's the contradiction as far as I see it: How can you have knowledge/obtain certainty when everything that happens is just reactions forcing you to react - there is no "you". I can't see how they can even come to the conclusion of having any form of knowledge.. so it's a claim of "I know this by accerting we cannot know". Maybe this is wrongthink?

Hossenfelder i basicaly a more coherent variant of Sam Harris in my estimation. I'm having a hard time taking determinists serious, but I guess there's some usecase to doing so, as in you learn more, and therefore can reach better conclusions (not always). I've never read Penrose, but I've seen some interviews of him - and he has a fascinating idea of how the universe works. He is rather vague when it comes to his free will premise, and afraid of asserting his views from the videos I've seen. Also thank you very much for your replies! Very glad I found this forum.

Bodystun - are you familiar with Sam Harris's work on determinism? And how would you compare Sapolsky's book with Harris? I've not read the determinist books that you have mentioned in your earlier post, but I might give them a read over time. I'm still studying objectivism - as it's so big.. And which is the first philosophy I've ever encountered that just don't have swiss cheese holes in it's logic. However bad Sapolsky might be, he is by far the most popular "philosopher" at the moment. Together with the likes of Jordan Peterson, Harris, Hossenfelder and Kaku perhaps.. What I find interesting is that there are non that are philosophers first - but has taken interest in it through their field. I think this is where alot of it tends to go wrong.

Not a response from me, but a short video from Sapolsky (1min):

I might, but I had a discussion with a friend (determinist), for 3 hours where i argued Sapolsky's position.. and even my determinist friend did not to dare go as far as I claimed Sapolsky to be going. Which I find inevitable - and I think Sapolsky would wholeheartedly agree with me. As to your writings I'm not sure I follow you all the way. I do however appreciate the energy you put into it. It might have something to do with english not being my first language. This argument I certainly disagree with, and I think Rand refutes both determinism and compatibilism as far as I understand. I can elaborate further if wished. Thank you!

Sapolsky's claim is that there is no Agent (my understanding) - we are mere reactions (or behaviours if you will). This is where I think Sapolsky goes wrong and contradicts himself in the deepest sense. He tries to make an objective argument, claiming there can be no objectivity.

I'd very much like to hear your thought on the book. I have not read it myself, as I'm almost done with OPAR, and I'm starting on a book called "Strategy" by Bob de Wit.

I think this can only be done, having all the information of the universe - cause you have to put all previous information together, integrate that information in a correct way (correct model). To make such proof.