Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, and killed or castrated sufferers to prevent them from passing tainted blood to a new generation.
This is the standard philosophical question of how responsible for our actions we are if we’re just the result of boundary conditions of the universe.
It’s not an uninteresting discussion, but it’s far from settled or even possible to settle.
I’ve long held the belief that each of us ought to act as if we have free will even though we probably don’t. I doubt we’d get much done if we spent all our time thinking, “OH, I was fated to be this way” instead of deciding to work harder for our goals.
Every great mind, star athlete, and general over-achiever motivated themselves to improve their talents. They say so in interviews, books, and things like commencement speeches. I’m sure that there are people who would never get as far as the famous greats despite trying just as hard – be it circumstance, genetic differences, nutrition, luck, or what have you – but those who try still end up more skilled than those who don’t.
More importantly, I have renewed hope that perhaps we might have free will after learning that the universe is not locally real! Sure, our brain chemistry may still be fixed to react in one way or another, but what if we or something else can alter or diverge from the course set by our own chemistry through means we’ve not yet discovered?
“The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over,” Sapolsky said.
If there’s no free will, there’s no such thing as “fair” or “unfair.” Things just happen, and we’re powerless to change them.
“We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.”
If I have no free will, I literally can’t stop doing that.
The problem with arguments against free will is they generally need to implicitly assume free will exists to even have a discussion about it.
The concept of free will has never made an iota of sense to me, other than as a sometimes-comforting myth.
Sucks that he doesn’t, but I’m built different. That’s probably why I didn’t waste decades trying to answer a philosophical question that doesn’t ultimately matter.
