Libertarian Free-Thinking and the Sapolsky Paradox

"I’ve decided that Sapolsky embodies a paradox: when you decide free will does not exist because you have weighed arguments for and against it, you prove free will exists."

- John Horgan (the science writer) Horgan is exactly right. These words are in response to neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, who argues against free will in his new book, Determined. But, Sapolsky's book does not demonstrate that humans never possess the libertarian freedom to think. As Horgan notes in Free Will and the Sapolsky Paradox:

Our choices, Sapolsky shows, are rarely as rational, let alone free, as we think they are.

But Sapolsky hasn’t proved that free will is illusory; he has merely confirmed that it exists on a sliding scale. My ability to make good decisions . . . varies from hour to hour, day to day, year to year. I had zero free will when I was drooling in my crib, I will have zero when I’m drooling in a nursing home.

Amen to that. This is why I've argued for what I refer to as limited libertarian freedom. That is to say, I do not argue that humanity always possesses libertarian freedom, but rather, that humans occasionally possess this power -- and if we are careful to handle this power responsibly (Luke 12:48) and take bad thoughts captive (2 Cor 10:5) before they take us (Col 2:8), then we can attain truth about metaphysical matters. 

Horgan writes:

To explain the Sapolsky paradox, I need to spell out what I mean by free will: Free will is your capacity to discern different possible paths; weigh their pros and cons; and choose one path because of your deliberations. I believe in free will because I exercise this capacity now and then . . . I see others exercising the same capacity--including free-will deniers like Sapolsky.

Indeed, if Sapolsky demands that he does not possess the libertarian freedom to think and rationally reach his conclusion, then he must point to exactly what has determined and necessitated his belief in determinism. If this something or someone else cannot be trusted to deliver truth regarding metaphysical matters -- such as those under discussion -- (or can be trusted to determine humanity to affirm false metaphysical beliefs) then a defeater is raised against Sapolsky's belief that we do not possess this kind of freedom. Given this defeater, with all due respect to Sapolsky (he is an intellectual giant), when he claims we do not possess this kind of freedom, it is evidence that he does not possess justification for his belief that we do not possess this kind of freedom. Thus, since knowledge seems to require justification, he does not possess knowledge of what he asserts. That's a nice way of saying that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  If a person's entire mental activity is being determined by something or someone else, then this person does not have any sense of control worth wanting. This describes the determinist who affirms that something or someone else necessitates all things—including the entirety of their mental actions—but still claims to have “guidance control.” Elenore Stump, referring to the characters in Dostoyevsky’s novel, The Possessed, clarifies:

"Even if it were coherent to suppose that one agent, say Verkhovensky, could directly produce some reasoning in the mind of another, such as Stavrogin, that reasoning would not be Stavrogin’s but rather Verkhovensky’s (or at any rate a product of Verkhovensky’s reasoning). If Verkhovensky continuously produced thoughts in Stavrogin, then Stavrogin would have ceased to be a person and would instead be something like Verkhovensky’s puppet. … An agent’s second-order volitions cannot be produced by someone else."

With Stump’s words in mind, not only is humanity not epistemically responsible on determinism or what we refer to as “rational inference” but, moreover, if the something else that determines the entirety of our mental activity can be shown to be non-rational or untrustworthy to determine metaphysical truth, then humanity cannot justifiably affirm that we have rationally inferred true beliefs over false ones. This is especially the case when it comes to metaphysical matters such as those under discussion.

Indeed, it is self-refuting to argue against libertarian free-thinking. 

Horgan concludes:

If you read Sapolsky’s book and end up agreeing with him, that is evidence that you possess free will as I define it above. If you decide that Sapolsky is wrong after reading the new pro-free-will book by neurobiologist Kevin Mitchell, that is also evidence that you possess free will. Any choice resulting from conscious deliberation demonstrates free will. Heads I win, tails you lose.

J.P. Moreland and I clarify exactly what Horgan means when he discusses yourconscious deliberation in our article entitled, An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument. In a nutshell, if it is genuinely your active deliberation (and not a mere subjective and passive sensation of deliberation determined by something or someone else), then you are behind the controls and piloting the ship of reason. And since you are piloting the ship of reason, if you are careful and handle the ship with precision, then you have the power and control to ensure a safe landing at the correct destination (beliefs which corresponds to metaphysical reality). However, if you are exhaustively determined by something or someone else, then you are not the pilot, but rather, you are being piloted by another pilot! At best, you are merely tied up, gagged, and sitting in the back seat, merely aware of how an untrustworthy someone else is piloting the manner in which you think -- and ultimately all of your beliefs.

At worst, you are tied up, gagged, and sitting in the back seat while also trippin' on acid and thinking that you are actually piloting the ship. That's not being rational; that's being delusional! 

After noting that Sapolsky struggles with depression and that this depression has contributed to his beliefs, Horgan ends with the following point:

If Sapolsky rejects free will because of rational deliberation, then he demonstrates that he possesses free will. If he rejects free will because he is prone to depression, then we can reject his stance as subjective and unscientific. Again, free will wins either way.

I could not have said it better.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton