At its core,

[MadMojoMonkey]

How does neurochemistry signaling a choice before the choice is consciously signaled demonstrate lack of free will?

The most common argument in favor of free will is "It feels like I have it."
However, it's shown that the feeling of making a decision comes after the making of the decision.

So the feeling is ruled out as evidence of free will... and what do we have left?

[Poopadoop]

However, it's shown that the feeling of making a decision comes after the making of the decision.

To be fair, although I'm personally in objective agreement with this narrative, I wouldn't say the evidence is entirely unequivocal. And deep down I'd rather think we have free will than we don't.

That said, it sure seems a lot easier to find someone speaking intelligently about there not being free will than doing the same for the other side.

[wufwugy]

it sure seems a lot easier to find someone speaking intelligently about_______ than doing the same for the other side.

I thought the same thing about lots of stuff before I came across Dr. Jordan Peterson. This isn't about free will specifically (although he probably would argue for its existence), but that our contemporary narratives appear to have base in groupthink or hallucination, roughly speaking. In my estimation, Peterson seems to have gotten so wildly popular in such a short period of time due to saying things that nobody else is saying yet making a whole lot of sense doing so.

An example is that I agreed with Sam Harris that reason and science can get humankind to a moral mode of being until Peterson came along and executed a battleship bombardment on that beach. Now my thoughts are changing. To what, I don't know.

[Poopadoop]

Don't know who Petersen is but if his argument is that morality is subjective, and thus on a different mental plane from science and reason, and so the two ways of thinking can't really guide each other, then I'd be inclined to agree. Though I admit to not having spent much time thinking about it.

OTOH, if his argument is that religion can guide morality then I'd say that ship hit an iceberg a long time ago.

[wufwugy]

OTOH, if his argument is that religion can guide morality then I'd say that ship hit an iceberg a long time ago.

The short of his argument is some of what I've mentioned ITT. Religious and mythical archetypes are descriptions of evolutionary adaptation -- primarily through the dominance hierarchy -- that yield the greatest mode of being (morality and behavior) for species survival. For example, the flood myths are about corrupted peoples being destroyed by God, just like how Hurricane Katrina's devastation was due to corruption (everybody knew the levees would break but society was too corrupted to fix them) leading to inevitable destruction by an act of God. The archetypes in religion are such old and biological stories, like how Medusa has a head of snakes that petrifies anybody who sees them, just like how our literal critter ancestors were petrified by literally seeing a literal snake, and perhaps like how the snake of the human soul petrifies that human when confronted.

His argument relevant to postmodernists like Harris and Richard Dawkins is that they think we can discard the moral ideas that have evolved over hundreds of millions of years and instead know what morals are through scientific examination. Peterson argues that science only tells us what is, not how to be; whereas religion and myths are symbiotic in human nature and tell us how to be. An example I like is the idea of sacrifice of oneself for the greater good. This is the core teaching/exemplification of many religions, that the mode of being that is best for the person and best for the society is sacrifice of oneself for the greater good/logos. Science doesn't get humans to that point, but hundred of millions of years of evolution has, and our ideas embedded in our myths and our religion do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Peterson argues that science only tells us what is, not how to be; whereas religion and myths are symbiotic in human nature and tell us how to be.

I agree in broad context, but not this wording.

A) That's not what science does.
B) While those technically count as cultural and moral guides, I wouldn't call them up-to-date sources.
It's folly to assert that people of long ago had some secret wisdom which is directly applicable to modern life.

The world of humans was largely the same for ~400,000+ years. Very little changed for humans during that time. In the past 12,000 years or so (start of the neolithic era), there was a burgeoning change away from nomadic tribalism and toward more permanent settlements. Even still, the pace of change for most of that time was glacial. The neolithic era lasted for 6,000 - 8,000 years, depending on who you ask and where they divide the eras. That took us from the stone age to the dawning of metal used for tools. We're still ~2 - 4 thousand BCE, now.

Look at how dramatically different our lives are from our grandparents. Our grandparents lives were largely the same as their grandparent's lives. In the past 100 year or so, industrialization and communication have dramatically changed our lives.

My point is that this may have been a viable way to keep future populations safe for a very long time. I don't see how it's directly relevant today. The notion that someone living without modern education, public health awareness, or medical knowledge is somehow an expert on my life ... doesn't make sense to me.

[wufwugy]

A) That's not what science does.

I think I'll take advantage of having access to somebody who understands science better than anybody I know (you), and ask the question: how does "science tells us what is, not how to be" not an accurate characterization of science?