Scientist claims humans have no free will and gives scientific reasoning behind it

A scientist has concluded after 'decades' of research he doesn't believe humans have free will.

If you're desperate for more Black Mirror after already binge-watching the latest season straight after its release, then how about feeling like you've been physically dropped into an episode yourself instead?

Prepare yourself as we delve into the big old philosophical questions you normally save for 3.00am at the after party.

Whether or not humans have free will is a contentious topic of discussion.

Many scientists, philosophers and the rest of the population argue humans definitely have free will, take Bernardo Kastrup - who has a PhD in philosophy and works in some of the world's 'foremost research laboratories' - for instance.

In an article for the Scientific Journal in 2020, Kastrup defines free will as being 'if our choices are determined by that which we experientially identify with'.

He explained that his own 'tastes and preferences' are 'consciously felt by' him and his choices are then 'determined by these felt tastes and preferences'.

The scientist draws on 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's argument that even if our sensory organs didn't sense something and prompt how we perceive it and then react to it, we'd still feel our own internal sense to choose what action to perform.

Kastrup resolves: "Therefore, prior to being represented we are essentially will. Our physical body is merely how our will presents itself to an external vantage point."

Ultimately, most scientists agree humans have some level of free will, but one particular scientist doesn't agree at all.

Pexels/ Sebastian Voortman

After looking into the subject of free will for 'decades,' Stanford University neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky says humans don't have any.

Sapolsky delves into the debate in his new book Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will - published on 17 October - arguing most of all human behaviour is out of our conscious control.

The scientist resolves: "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.

"We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there."

Stanford University

According to Sapolsky, humans are 'nothing more or less than the sum of that which we could not control - our biology, our environments, their interactions'.

In an interview with CultureLab, he adds: "In terms of my orientation, my basic approach is you look at a behaviour and someone has just done something that’s wonderful or awful or ambiguously in-between or in the eyes of the beholder, but some behaviour has happened, and you ask, 'Why did that occur?' and you’re asking a whole hierarchy of questions."

For Sapolsky these questions begin with 'which neurons did what, ten milliseconds before,' and go all the way back to taking into account 'this morning's hormone levels' and their impact on your brain's sensitivity to the stimuli; before going even further back to previous months of potential trauma all the way to 'childhood and foetal environment' and genes.

The scientist even goes as far to argue you should then ask questions looking as far back as the culture of people's ancestors and evolution as a whole.

Amazon

Sapolsky resolves: "What you see at that point is, not just saying, 'Wow, when you look at all these different disciplines, collectively, they’re showing we’re just biological machines,' but they’re not all these different disciplines. They’re all one continuous one.

"If you’re talking about genes, by definition, genes and behaviour, by definition, you’re talking about evolution and you’re talking about neurobiology and genetic variance and neuronal function. If you’re talking about, you know, early trauma in life, you’re talking about epigenetics and you’re talking about adult propensity.

"So, they’re all one continuous seam of influences, and when you look at it that way, there’s not a damn crack anywhere in there to shoehorn in a notion of free will."