Why do elite scientists hate free will?

A Stanford scientist, Robert Sapolsky, wrote a new book arguing that free will doesn’t exist—that all behavior is determined. This isn’t a new argument—it pops up every now and then, usually from elite scientists much like Sapolsky, and it seems to get more extreme every time. In his book, Sapolsky argues that free will virtually does not exist at all. He is a neuroscientist, unsurprisingly—because they think the three pound lump of wet meat called the human brain is the magical key to the entire cosmos, they always make the most grandiose statements (even moreso than philosophers!).

Obviously this is reductive—reducing all human behavior to the brain is not at all warranted, but that won’t stop elite scientists from doing it. Since they think that all behavior comes from the brain, and neurons in the brain act without our conscious control, free will cannot logically exist. To small-minded scientists, this sounds like an open and shut case. They never even feel the need to define or explore what consciousness, or free will, even are—they just prove that neurons behave in ways too complex and rapid for humans to control in any conceivable way, and that’s the end of it.

This is such a stupid, simpleminded view, which is usually the case when you peel back what these elite scientists are actually saying. Their role is as propagandists, not as seekers of truth in any meaningful way. So why is this argument, that free will doesn’t exist because the neurons in the brain are not subject to conscious control, a bad one? Just think about style and argument. Usually the people who have the best sense of style, and the best powers of argument or persuasion, do not have the best grasp of formal logic or grammar—if you asked them to take a test on logical minutia, or rules of grammar, they would probably not do well, even though they are persuasive and stylish. The point is that you don’t need to know about something to have it. So you don’t need to know what your neurons are doing in order to have control over them.

In fact, people who know the most about rules of grammar usually have the worst style. Most of the most famous and innovative writers in history have not had the most extensive formal training in the rules of grammar, or logical rules of rhetoric and argument. You could almost say that the more you know about the rules of grammar and formal logic, the less power you will have with style and argument. So you could perhaps reasonably say the same thing about free will—that the more knowledge you might have of the microprocesses of the brain, the less control you have over it; and that the less you know about it, the more control you would have over your brain, and the more free will you would have in general.

So why is the anti-free will narrative so attractive for elite scientists like Sapolsky, and the elite circles he is doing propaganda for? It’s pretty obvious—they want the status quo to seem like it can’t be changed, since they have power, and they want to keep it. If everything is determined already, then nothing can change, and we should just accept their power over us. Also, anything evil they do to get and, more importantly, to maintain their power, isn’t evil, since they can’t freely choose to do anything—they are just acting out what is already determined, so they can’t be morally blamed. Between these two things—nothing being changeable, and elites not being blameable—it’s an important part of their ideological control system.

Sapolsky has received the usual credentials that go along with being an elite scientist who tells us that we can’t do anything to change the status quo: he received a so-called MacArthur Genius Grant (always a good indication that someone is a complete tool). His previous book, 2017’s bestseller “Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst,” won a bunch of awards. And, of course, he works at Stanford, the most elite institution other than Harvard and Yale (and thus the one most interested in producing ideas that serve the elite). It should go without saying by now that the more credentials and accolades someone has, the more that elites tell you to listen to them, the more full of shit and likely actively evil they are. Why would any of these people be on the level? Why would they produce ideas that are anything but poisonous? Why should we listen to anything they say? Because they are good at difficult things like neuroscience? As if prodding around a three pound lump of wet meat means anything. Neuroscience is valuable as a tool for treating neurological disorders, but that’s about it. Looking to these people—who are just technicians and very limited—for any insight into social or philosophical questions, is absolutely stupid and insane.