This essentially means that we should be far more grateful (instead of proud) towards good things that we manage to achieve and far less shame-ridden towards bad things in our life. Sounds like building blocks of a more pleasant world for all of us.
@@an0ma1y72 : I do... It can be annoying but not wrong.... but the point is that there is a why behind every action and why behind that etc. There is no action free from the external factors.
This is why I'm glad I live in Norway not the US: we are much more accepting of the fact that people are not 100% individually responsible for what they do. So we focus on rehabilitation over punishment and we make sure noone will starve or not be able to afford medicine, child care, an education and so on
@@williamburts3114 Only in the consequentialist sense. Responsibility still exists in a incompatibalist, deterministic no free will world, it just means something different. It essentially keeps the "you did it and need to be taken care of" part, but the "need to be taken care of" has all hatred and vengeance substracted, because peoples brains are in essence no different than a storm or earthquake when they cause suffering to others. If we could, we would stop earthquakes and storms from happening or at least shield ourselves completely from their destruction, but we don't hate them for existing. Punishment can still exist to a degree that it has potential utility (mostly invoking fear of consequence for edge cases), but is secondary or even tertiary behind restoration and rehabilitation. The way you ask the question is basically just an emotional appeal from a no free will perspective. Hating a rapist makes as much sense as hating a bear that mauled your sister or the earthquake that destroyed her home. It has no merit, because it begs the question of whether or not free will exists which this is all about. From my pov, in that sense free will is a coping tool for the brain to deal with loss by finding a scapegoat to blame. People actually did use to blame even earthquakes, storms or famines on others for the longest time, because we did not have an explanation for how these things happened, but we did have strong feelings of loss that needed to be taken somewhere and the path of least resistance is always blame. It was easy to insert free will into this gap. By that token free will is equivalent to the god of the gaps argument. Now we know from physics and neurobiology that the brain is also bound to the same laws as natural catastrophes, so that gap to insert free will in also slowly vanishes. What many people often fail to see as well is that blame is usually a bad coping tool in the first place. It tends to end in cycles of hatred that in consequence cause even more suffering. Which is why even therapists who believe in free will want their patients to forgive those who caused suffering.
@@Luftgitarrenprofi The person you are at a particular time might be someone you think should change for the benefit of your mental and physical health, but that rehabilitation of self Isn't something that happens randomly but is something that happens through your own free willful intent to change yourself for the better.
@@williamburts3114 That's begging the question again. You're just asserting a "free willful intent", but whether this willful intent is free of anything that made you you prior to the point you make any decision is what is put into question. You're skipping the most important part. The claim also isn't that it's random, but rather that you're part of the deterministic machinery of causal events, not exempt from it.
We don't have obligations if we lack free will. Therefore no one ought to read his book if his book is correct (which it isn't). And if it isn't correct, then no one ought to read it either. So I think you're wrong - no matter what, no one ought to read his book.
@@geraldharrison5787 What are you afraid of? Investigate away, read for yourself, arrive to your own conclusions, follow the facts where they lead, test, re-imagine conceptual frameworks, go explore new frontiers. Above all, be honest, try to have intellectual integrity. And learn to distinguish between established science and non-established science, of course.
@@junanougues I am not afraid of anything, I just think - for the reasons given - that no matter what, no one ought to read his book. Again: if it is true, then no one ought to read it because no one ought to do anything. And if it is false then no one ought to read it, because it's false. It's one of those two. Therefore no one ought to read it.
I used to "teach " a chimp sign language for Columbia- U. I'm also bipolar- both experiences lead me to believe Dr. Sapolsky is totally correct- Without question
Sounds like "Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद, Pāli: paṭiccasamuppāda), commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, is a key doctrine in Buddhism shared by all schools of Buddhism.[1][note 1] It states that all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things." Wikipedia
@@annalisasteinnes buddhist practice is based on the assumption that we have agency but, since the self is enmeshed in the network of dependent origination, the scope and character of this agency is different than in typically western perspectives.
Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
Free will is not an illusion only atheists come up with this nonsense idea because he doesn't believe in the soul if you turn it around that the true nature of a person is the soul and the body belongs to the soul and not the other way around all those everything will full into place, the Soul uses the body to experience life, even if the body is damaged the soul will find a way to use it and experience life, like for a blind person, He keeps saying it is strange for someone to say thank you if someone says you have beautiful eyes but it's the soul that says thank you because the body belongs to it, this is the reason some people dislike their body or part of it, If you see yourself as a soul then all decisions come from it
@@MrManny075 you are aware of your emotions and desires; however, you are ignorant of the causes of your desires, emotions, and how you are determined by them.
@@lewisalmeida3495 Are you for real? No one desires something he never heard or seen in his life, What you know is what makes you, Sure all thoughts that come up are within you even the bacteria in your guts can influence your thoughts but they only give you what you know already, if you are in the driving seat you know what they are and if you are ignorant then your desire is in the driving seat and you have no control.
I’m listening to the audiobook of Determined and it’s quite fascinating. It does seem that Sapolsky’s strong determinist view is also strong materialist. What about emergent properties, and also quantum mechanics? Those seem to lessen the utility and predictive power of pure determinism
That a property is emergent suggests it was determined and whatever it affects would be determined by it. It's my understanding that the effects of seemingly random quantum fluctuations are so minute that they don't seem to affect the macro world. Determinism does not suggest predictability because there are too many factors. The three body problem is that only three bodies of similar size orbiting each other are unpredictable.
@@lrvogt1257 right, so emergent complexity and quantum indeterminacy seem to be counterarguments to the utility of strong materialism. If it’s very difficult to predict behavior of matter and natural systems based on their constituent particles due to emergent complexity, is strong materialism still useful? I guess Sapolsky would argue that everything is still determined even if it’s hard to predict It seems a lot of the free will vs. determinism debate really boils down to theism vs. atheism. Sapolsky seems an atheist and materialist from what I can tell. The opposite side of the spectrum may be George Berkeley’s theistic idealism, and mind body dualism
My take on the idea that no one should get credit or blame is that in the real world, regardless of whether it's determined or not, you'd want to hire someone who's had a history of achieving their goals... and one would lock up those who do harm to prevent more harm. How we responde to people's actions will have an effect on whether those actions are repeated or not.
The way to respond is not punishment though whether there is free will or not. I absolutely don’t think there is but nonetheless, punishment is barbaric, yes it may “work” in a short term sense and can’t be denied it has in the past to a degree, the problem is it’s a loop. It doesn’t prevent undesirable behavior it represses it. It doesn’t rehabilitate it refocuses ideas of worthlessness, of unredeemable, follows an individual for a lifetime hindering the ideas of true change, true neuroplasticity, we are our brains after all. All of this applies to the fear of punishment as well. I have to ask myself why isn’t just removing an individual from society either temporarily or permanently depending on the behavior not enough along with a tremendous attempt to reinforce better causes and ideas, a sense of being redeemable. Isn’t that what rehabilitation should be about? Also the same idea goes for preventing undesirable behavior.
A question: if we do not control what we do, how can we be responsible for what we do? And if we can, to what extent? Another question: why free will and determinism mutually excluding? Wouldn't it be possible for both of them to be mitigated by each other?
Regardless of why you do something, if you harm others they will take measures to stop you. Knowing that fact would be another external factor determining your actions. It's hard for me to reconcile the two. If you have free will at all then you have it.
I don't get how he can have such strong beliefs in no free will and then on the other hand say we shouldn't treat certain people certain ways as if we had the choice.
"There but for fortune go you or I". As a pragmatic reaction to the equally valid assertion "It is stranger than we can think" (JBS Haldane) I choose to act as if prior to the big bang a good force set it all up and determined that each indivdual consciousness (Soul) should learn something necessary for its future experience after death. Most important is MLK's critical question. "An Individual has not started living fully until they can rise above the narrow confines of individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of humanity. Every person must decide at some point, whether they will walk in light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment: Life's most persistent and urgent question is: 'What are you doing for others?' As quoted by Coretta Scott King in The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Second Edition (2011), Ch. "Community of man", p. 3
To add to my last post, the two slit experiment should be enough to resolve this argument as well as the uncertainty principle. A Euclidean or newton's world does not exist.
The "divine" or whatever it is that we don't know and can't know but want to think we know is a factor in all of this trying to know for sure. Its what some humans do, try to know the unknowable and then pretend they do, doing that based on non free will? sure, who knows, not us.
I too have enjoyed listening to Sapolsky's dialogues. I have a question though: at around 15:30, he's talking about fetus' from lower income mothers already showing smaller brain growth (think he says "volume"). Are there really studies done that analyze the fetal brain growth of enough children to make this statement ? I guess part of a legendary scientist is to make sure you have data backing up your assertions, but I'm trying to imagine how they would do a study to prove that assertion. I'm also wondering if to really make that statement, wouldn;t you have to follow said group of fetus' throughout their lives to imply that they will have a bleaker outcome than more affluent fetus' ? Is that part of the study ?
Maybe i did not choose to this podcast...but i spontaneously decided to stop after 3 minutes...i took a break, smoked a cigarette and returned to hear the rest..did i do this because of my free will or my freedom of choice? Or was it predetermined and a consequence of some causal chains?
Your action was predetermined becaused your blood nicotine levels dropped, which is again connected causally to some state in which you were in that made it likely why you started smoking in the first place.
@@benediktdanting9970 I thought of that...but i smoked a cigarette 10 minutes before i started watching...usually there is an hour between 2 cigarettes...that is why i have chosen to do it. I am sure that low nicotine levels are not the 'cause' of my action.
@@zenon7094 : You had experiences that introduced you to smoking and your body gave you signals to keep you smoking. Your body triggered a desire for you to light up at that time and wanted to smoke more than you wanted to not smoke so your action was determined by that entire history of events. You had to make a choice but why you made the choice you did was determined by the moment before and a causal chain that just keeps going back in time.
I don't think free will is about control but more about just having the volition to act freely. In other words, free will means you are free to use your will. Now we have urges that could impel us to act a certain way out of impulse but when we practice yoga through our own volition, we can control those impulses and thus become controllers of our mind rather than letting our mind control us.
Our entire life, internally and externally, is an uncountable number of influential factors, most of which we are unaware, that determine what we want... and that is what we will attempt to do.
Yet human behavior has been altered significantly over the last few thousand years especially how we regard one another. Is there a biological drive in terms our behavior? Yes but it’s not the sole determinant in terms of who we end up being. He actually discusses the importance of environment which means that we can change outcomes biology withstanding.
People need to listen to his “definition of Free Will” around 6:00. A lot of gut-check reaction to Sapolsky’s arguments are based on misapprehension of what he means by free will. He defines it quite succinctly: the ability of the (human) brain to produce a behavior COMPLETELY FREE of all outside and historical influence. He doesn’t say that there are no elements of choice in behavior: he argues that every decision is conditioned by the environment spatially, culturally, and temporally.
reality check unlike freedom of thought, freedom to act (free will) includes the possibility of external consequences. a person Must Choose to act, or to not act. actions include speech and gesture. the fact that a decision to act was preceded by an infinite number of 'variables' is not significant.
If our desire to act is not the result of external influences, they would be random and irrational. We do what we want but we can't chose what we want.
So would this mean that the only way for a person to change is if they encounter something that disrupts or challenges their current patterns of thinking and behavior and are in a state of being open to altering those patterns?
change is mysterious and unfathomably complex - its impossible to trace all the prior causes and so we are left with simplified stories of change. -eg I changed due to this person, therapist, drug etc.
Yes and No. All ppl go through hard times but it seems there is a blue print to a % of ppl getting kicked well down and that being the very catalyst to propel the success. It's a much larger subject than just free will. There are too many variables. The simple answer is yes. The complicated answer to ppl who have a brain is no. Tomatoe Toe mot toe To do or not to do?
Fascinating and eye opening but not all encompassing. Arguments that hold up between scientists and philosophers don’t always translate to real life. As a person who advocates for greater understanding of “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome” (FAS) It pleases me to hear some of the Justice and prison examples. But we live in Democratic societies where human emotional responses are easily manipulated politically at the expense of the disenfranchised. I am certainly tired of hearing conservatives point to examples of singular over-achievers as proof that anyone can overcome childhood economic adversity. That’s as absurd as pointing to a drug-addicted former child of millionaires living on the street as an example that wealth doesn’t offer any advantages.
Neurological science, which is Robert's field of research, has often had a lot to say about free will. So yes, I would ask for Robert's opinions on the subject.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 That's because you're ignorant and he's exploiting that. Neurscience doesn't study free will. Not even a little bit. It's studied exclusively in philosophy. Neuroscience investigates THE BRAIN not free will. You can't detect free will using the instruments of the natural sciences. But anyway, my whole point is that the bulk of people don't know this - they think scientists are studying things they're not studying at all. Why? Because some unprofessional and unethical scientists write books on such matters, knowing full well that if they do then with the exception of the academic community everyone else will just blithely assume they are experts on what they are writing about.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 You're his market - people who don't know the subject matter of different disciplines. Biologists do not study the metaphysics of free will. It's a subject in philosophy, nothing else. But he knows that you don't know that. He knows that you - and most others apart from academics - think that scientists do study such topics. That's why he can write a book on it and know that you'll buy it thinking he's an authority. He's not. If he was a dentist you wouldn't buy it as you know that dentists study teeth, not free will. But biologists no more study free will than dentists do. It's unprofessional and unethical, imo. He should write on his subject of expertise, not promote the false idea that scientists are somehow authorities on philosophical questions.
(1) If Robert Sapolsky does maintain that "there is no free will", does then Robert himself have free will to assert that "there is no free will"? Moreover, if a person M. - in clear contrast to Robert - does assert that "there is free will", does that very person M., who happens to be a "biologist" like Robert, lacks free will as well (according to Robert's view) while declaring that free will does exist? (2) How on Earth is still possible that an educated person (precisely , any educated person, biologist Robert included) in 21st century still does not differentiate between (a) realm of physical laws and (b) realm of will? (3) Or Robert can logically, irrefutably, unquestionably , indisputably prove, corroborate , demonstrate, show beyond doubt that (b) only amounts to (a)? (4) If a person A. resists (even for a ten seconds) the urge to react compulsively in a situation, is it a proof of that very person's free will or is it a proof that there is no such a thing like free will?
Scientists who harbor materialist presumptions are either withholding or unaware of the extensive research and engineering practice on feedback control systems. Living organisms do not simply react to external and internal stimuli, they incorporate multiply-nested feedback systems that work together to maintain biological and psychological homeostasis. In every organism, there are multiple layers of purposeful action employed to continuously monitor their external and internal environments to maintain personal integrity, not simply a unitary spark of consciousness directing everything from inside your head. You may not think you have "free will", but your body would be paralysed without the ability to act on its own free agency.
The concept of free will implies that my actions follow my conscious thoughts re. this choice vs that choice. The notion of a body having 'free agency' is something entirely different - different in the sense that the centre of control is not the sovereign ego, but something much more expansive and diffuse, something that includes the body, it's biology, its history and circumstances
@@darrinheaton2614 - Exactly. The assumption of a "sovereign ego" is itself ego-centric. Human self-awareness is an emergent phenomenon, and the medical field of anesthesiology shows that it is dependent on numerous coordinated functions of the brain.
The more we learn the causes of things - the less "randomness" and thereby "free will" we discover we have. People may always continue to hold on to hope and imply that we still have a sliver of randomness as we go... never minding the obvious fact the whole time... that if even a sliver of influential causes exist we can not claim to have free will.. because we remain influenced to the n-th degree and thereby can't possibly be 100% free. And in all actuality, your will must be 100% free from influence from the start to be considered free or generated by you. So its not about holding onto a sliver of randomness... if you are unable to disprove every last sliver of influence you've already lost. Each new discovery of causality is another paper added to the top of an already atmospherically high stack on a desk tray of evidence against freewill that MUST be completely empty for the case to be won. Give up now and look for the benefits of not having free will. If you remove the selfish aspects of it you will find the benefits to humanity outweigh the cons 8 billion to 1 (you being the 1 and the whole rest of humanity being the beneficiaries of your new outlook in a life where you no longer judge them, hold grudges, place blame or glorify one over another... a life where you treat them all with the maximum amount of empathy a philosophy can offer). Let's all start treating each other better! Let's all start acting off the evidence that our fellow men are not to blame for their circumstances. A blameless future.
I generally agree that it's not free will if the choices presented to you arise from causality. But I think it's more of a macro vs micro or larger reality vs drilling down to base motivations. However, if you have two people a and b, one stays mired in drug addiction while the other makes a series of choices that lead to them being clean. I don't see why the choice to be clean isn't a choice made of one's own volition. Just because your situation presents you with certain choices doesn't mean your not making a choice when presented with two options. That does not mean the other person is bad. It just means they lack the proper information to make a choice in their own best interests from the point of view of the person in the future had they made another choice. So I guess what I'm saying is that free will is a BOUNDED quantity like number sets.
It's not that there are choices to be made but the reasons why any specific choice is made. If your decision isn't determined by your situation and experience it would be random and irrational. Your choice will always be the thing you want most... but what and why you want that thing is determined by every moment that preceded it.
The choice IS made of one's own volition. But where did that volition come from? It came from the specific combination of physical (biological) and experiential (cultural) inputs that led up to that choice, some of which are previous choices. And where did those previous choices come from? It's turtles all the way down.
Dr. Sapolsky is absolutely right. Let us imagine that we are confronted with 2 choices: A and B. And let's say we choose A. After we choose A, let us imagine that we could rewind the universe exactly at the point before we made our choice. I claim we would always end up choosing A. That could be an alternative explanation, that is, there is a substance that we are made of that is not interacting with normal matter, but it could influence our brain. But that is just speculation. And no, quantum mechanics doesn't modify the issue of free will. Finally, existentialism as a philosophical movement is falsified.
@@lrvogt1257 To say "imagine going back in time" is to say "imagine God exists". It is meaningless to predict physical phenomenon from supernatural nonsense.
We didn’t find free will in so many places the burden of proof switched and now you have to show where that free will exists before you can claim there is one
Okay you’ve completely convinced that there is no free will. But what do I do in light of this information? What do I do with my life now? Should I just lie down and accept my life for what it is since I don’t have any instruments for changing my life? It is deeply nihilistic fact to understand. We have basically reduced ourselves to biological machines. I don't know why but this interview was deeply devastating to hear. I truly believed that if you try hard enough you can change yourself for the better but his book has shown me that changing is out of my life is out of my control. What do I do?
You ask “what do I do?” Do you see the error in the question? “I” Here’s something that I find helpful: Events happen. Deeds are done. There is no DOER, thereof. That doesn’t mean nothing happens. It doesn’t mean you should do nothing. Just shift from a DOER mentality to an OBSERVER mentality. It’s quite an experience. Take care :)
It's bollocks that you can't change. Yes we don't have free will until we understand that we don't, at that point we can begin to cultivate it. That will likely involve a lot of work on ourselves as we've been conditioned since birth to function under and maintain capitalism. Free will is the opposite of capitalism. So search out some good anti capitalist therapists eg Gabor Mate and start the process.
As with everything, the knowledge of this concept is just one more input that changes you. In my case, I'm excited about having a new outlook that makes me more compassionate toward people I used to find abhorrent. Now, I try (but probably fail miserably) to interact with people in such a way that my interaction is a positive input into their lives to change the way they view things for the better. If a person's will is truly based largely on their experiences, we all need to provide experiences that change people for the better as much as we can. Realizing that my motivation to do such a thing was caused by all the physical and experiential inputs I've had is interesting and grounding, but I still allow myself to think of myself as a person that can create change in others.
Robert Sapolsky, no question, you are a highly educated scientist, and you see man as a biological animal with an intelligent potential. However, man is more than a physical thing. You are so right in thinking about man doesn’t have free will. Spinoza, a 17th century philosopher, explains in his Ethics the nature of man, the mind, freedom from emotional bondage, and his relationship with Nature. Spinoza understood that all animals are governed, influenced, and are determined by laws. The law of necessity, the law of self-preservation, the law of inertial, and the law of cause and effect. Lastly, the brain is not the mind. The brain is a physical thing that is the storehouse of information such as memory, and which helps regulate all the systems of the body. The mind is a non-tangible thinking thing. Its nature or essential nature is knowledge comprised of clear and confused ideas. Spinoza explains that when our thinking is clear and true, that God constitutes the essence of our mind. We are not separate from the whole of Nature or God. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
The mind is what the brain does. Any changes to the brain affect the mind. What part of the mind is not a direct result of something the brain is doing?
@@williamkretz3686 In theory! But what if the self does not belong to the brain compleatly? What if the brain belongs to the self? Because, let's be honest, you have NO IDEA what the self is. So let's cut the bull shit. We. Don't. Know. By the way, Spinoza was not a dualist, so re-read Spinoza.
I've been following doctor sapolski around the internet to the point of stalking. Lol I listen to what he says. I respect his credentials and his research. But I've been disappointed that after speaking for hours He gives about 5 minutes of context and explanation for the rest of us to come to grips with what he said. I did see him say on one interview that he just basically threw this in people's face and is letting us deal with it. I think that's why I see the missing link between taking what he says and putting it in a form that people can more easily apprehend. And since I had no choice in making this comment, it must be accurate. Don't you think?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you having a problem following the argument that leads him to claim the fallacy of free will, or are you having a hard time understanding how this knowledge can inform/reform our social and economic institutions?
Yes. Dr. Salposky has videos on RUclips on depression and mental illness from his lectures at Stanford University. I've watched several of them more than once.
@@raginald7mars408 Ich bin kein Biologe...habe ich auch nicht behauptet. Aber sie haben das...also...was ist denn nun ihr Spezialgebiet in der Biologie?
Absolutely zero free will. We can and will always do what we want most, but we are not in control of what we want. We can do what we will, but we can't will our will. This is true regardless of even causality (which drives it home though), but the fact alone that we don't even know where our will comes from when we introspect hard enough just from personal experience alone. This has been established long before Sapolsky entered the stage, but he's good at making the argument from a biology perspective.
Here's the thing about rewards though: all those good childhood experiences like ice skating lessons and trips abroad to museums, those are pleasant experiences that set the child up for being a good person who makes good choices. Your brain never quite stops making new connections, so, aren't compliments and rewards pleasant experiences that might set a person up to be a good adult, or a good elderly person who made good choices? Maybe a bit less of an influence than in childhood, but it's something, right? Maybe the mechanisms of politeness that we have that lead people to issue compliments are society's way of reinforcing good behaviour?
Now let's say I didn't even choose this video pressing the next button chose it chose for me.. is that AI choosing my video for me?or is it the algorithm of videos that I chose in the past
Seems to me that people conflate "determined" and "predictable" Future will never be 100% predictable even though it is determined. A perfect model of the universe would have to include a model of itself modeling itself modeling the universe and that would include a model modeling itself etc etc It would end up being slower than real time Edit: so yeah for all intents and purposes we have free will
Did this guy have free wll? Today's headline reads, "Gunman in Maine's deadliest mass shooting, Robert Card, had significant evidence of brain injuries, analysis shows."
"Free will is when your brain produces a behavior. And the brain did so completely free of every influence that came before." said by: Robert Sapolsky. This is similar "Straw Man" Fallacy. Create a definition that cannot be proven and then claim that that definition is in error, -not to leave out the fact that Robert Sapolsky created the definition, and then quickly refutes it makes his argument absurd.
To be fair, Sapolsky is not equivocating but providing a specific definition so you know what he's talking about. Merriam-Webster defines it as ": freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" so Sapolsky is consistent with the common understanding.
It is unfair that Robert Sapolsky uses his acumen and intellect as a mischievous absurdist. The Merriam-Webster definition of Free Will and Robert Sapolsky's definition of Free Will are not equivocations. There are several definitions of Free Will. Why choose those definitions that are incorrect? That is why, "No one should read Robert Sapolsky's books nor listen to his lectures/podcasts...[specifically on Free Will]." He, Robert Sapolsky, seems like an overeducated prankster. lol
Dude, free will was invented by Laplace and Kant to get rid of God and church deciding things for you. It was not invented to say no, when you actually trying to decide to go to work today or not, the result is pre-determined by your hormone levels. Second, the philosophical debate has moved on from 17 century to existentialism of Sartre, which says there is no religious morals, not even secular morals pre-determined, but it is each one of us has to decide what is good and bad. Mind you not deciding whether to DO good or bad, but deciding WHAT is good and what is bad.
Free Will is not of the brain. "Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet. The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves. The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated. The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law. Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law. So, what is The Law? In a word, The Law is options. Definition option: a thing that is or may be chosen. The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is. Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is. In clarifying what The Law is; The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing. Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate. Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating; the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon, the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded, the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded, the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence, the concept of options, and Free Will. However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential. As we experience The Law in our Being, The Law is Free Will. The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent. The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent." - Goho-tekina Otoko
"Truth is always relative to the closed system it exists within. Existence is, in the strictest sense, a closed system. There are truths within existence that are true and there are truths within existence that are not true. Truth can only exist in a closed system and may or may not be true outside of that closed system, not therein. Truth is that which men and women convey through Voice and Word. One's offered truth may or may not be true. Truth and true are not the same word, and subsequently, truth and true are not the same thing. True is that which can be shown in words through at least one question and its exact answer. That which can be shown in words can subsequently be seen by all men and women. In the closed system of the Catholic Church of four hundred years ago, the truth was that our planet was the centre of a geocentric planetary system. Galileo posited that our planet was a part of a heliocentric solar system and spent the last years of his life under house arrest as a consequence of going against the truth of the Church. The Church has since changed its truth to the heliocentric solar system model." - Goho-tekina Otoko
So, because one has experienced x y and z, it is more likely they will react to the next thing in one manner over the other. In this way, there is "no free will"? This seems misleading..... There is the part of us that reacts instinctively, thoughtlessly, reactively to a situation. But there's also an undeniable part of us that fights against those reactions, and chooses to react differently. In Phineas Gage, it appears the latter part of him was destroyed. It doesn't mean it wasn't there before.
Both the instinctive and intentional parts of us that you mention are products of our physical and cultural being. In his book "Determined", he goes into great detail about how our decision making at every level is affected by physical and cultural characteristics. He describes the difference between decisions you make in the moment and the conscious process of overriding these decisions (he calls it "free wont" as opposed to "free will"). What are you are proposing contributes to your decision-making in addition to your biology and environment as Sapolsky describes them?
Such a shame that they had to go outside dr Sapolsky's expertise at the end. He's been at this long enough that he knows that there's no reason to think that disincentives or incentives need even a reform, much less a radical reform, in the absence of free will. If we were to give up on the requirement of legal guilt (legal guilt may well be a fiction, but it is more difficult to show legal guilt rather than mere physical causal connection between one individual's action and a consequence) in criminal sentencing, we'd be giving up on a restraint on punishment -- which might lead to a reduction in anti-social behaviours -- and if we don't reward productivity, the productive individuals will produce less of the goods and services we want.
I’ve been studying and specially observing the astrological movements of planets in relation to my (and others) birth astral chart. It is beyond incredible to see how many events coincide exactly with planetary positioning themselves in exact angules and the astral meaning of these planets being exactly what the event shapes , or what happens in that moment of sinchrinixity. These I’ve seen in hundreds of meaningful events in my md mubfamily life , and the sinchrinicity is not aproximate but exact. That is to say that rhe olaneta, , seriuos astrology already has been pointing to this “determinism” since ages ago. One can say that is the planets influence, but must accurately I see is that the olanets are a map of what’s there to come, or what “alreqdy happened” Time is iñlusiry, there’s no linear time where ine thing is the cause of another, that’s illusory And the indeoendent self is illusory roo, since there is really nonody choosing is infere that there is no I, if there is no I then there is noone determindes or free
Determinism is part of relativity and how a character interacts with things other than itself. The choices presented are part of proximal probability. The perception of situations and choices are delayed because they are made of electrical impulses from senses to processing before awareness itself can witness it. The so called philosophers that he is dismissing study the intangible but still experiential beyond all the quanta. What is a bunch of data sets or quanta becoming qualia or conscious experiences. All quanta take place within awareness not outside of it so the brain is not and never will be fundamental. Giving an example of a man who only had a brain stem and no other brain matter was still fully functional with a high iq and phd. Another example is people with autism. Again this is claimed as a state of neurodivergence yet some people use this diagnosis as an excuse to perpetuate their state patterns of behaviour where others don’t identify with the label and change their personality leading to a point where tested again are no longer considered valid for a diagnosis of autism. This seems to be whether a person identifies with the patterns and programmings, thoughts and beliefs they were born into( which is indoctrinated by the culture from birth and partly genetic… they are born more or less pristine prior to that) they get stuck in a deterministic pattern and essentially have no free will. Then there are people who stop identifying with the programs and start identifying with the awareness that witnesses the programmed behavior. These people make choices from free will as the awareness is part of the absolute not relativity. They witness the deterministic part and are able to curtail it to push their experience in a direction if they’re choosing. Of course being a human biological meat machine still has limitations but even that is taking place within awareness. I used to be vehemently materialistic but since studying a bit of the non tangible phenomenon and having direct experiences of those, there is much much more going on then just this materialistic reductionism. Even quantum physics is demonstrating this and there are more experiment being done this year to clear up the questions raised by the double slit. If you don’t like mysticism or language that sounds airy fairy or religious then look into the work of scientists like Donald Hoffman and nassim harmain. Allot of ancient text are describing something that correlate to understandings in our now unfolding field of quantum physics and field theory. Study of AI is also showing us how our brains and consciousness work. Don’t be so quick to dismiss things when they should first be studied. Coming to a conclusion based on “I don’t belief that shit” is still a belief and not a humble exploration of our reality.
This sounds a lot like the Buddhist doctrine of dependant origination, and how we free ourselves from the cycle of birth and death that that bracket the entire field of causation. I think the confusing issue here is the definition of 'free will', or agency. They mean two different things in the east and the west. I think the concept of agency that Sapolsky is critiquing is the western concept of an autonomous, individuated and rational cognition choosing this thing over that thing based on a set of knowable outcomes that are either positively or negatively charged with value.
@@darrinheaton2614 I wouldn’t know unfortunately as I’ve tried to stay away from already existing philosophies and even modern scientific theories to prevent being influenced. Even trying to be scientific meant there were two things. What I was observing and me. How do I take myself out of the equation so as not to project my bias… Buddhism would certainly help by proposing the practice of going into a state of no self. I was given a simple practice so I could experience it for myself and when I came face to face with the nature of reality ( after months of deconstructing reality, concepts, phenomena etc) what I was confronted with was both terrifying and amazing at the same time. The understanding of infinity and nothingness, consciousness and awareness respectively. To realise I’d been wrong about everything and myself because of every programmed mental pattern I had assimilated from the day I was born, mistaking those patterns for me. I think in orthodox Buddhism there is a misunderstanding of what is being taught but if one goes back and studies ancient poly and interprets directly from the original meaning of the words used, a different story emerges. I think your right though, two types of free will. The illusion of such from within a programmed expectation and the actual implementation of free will when the programmed patterns and self identification process is recognised.
@@lrvogt1257 To ask the question is to state that AN answer exists. To say no free will is to say NO answer exists as everyone is merely experiencing what they must. Therefore there is no difference between a flat earther and a cosmologist, both are equally true to reality as we cannot ever know reality merely we can only "know" what we have to "know". This means knowledge is just sparks in a machine without connection to anything "real".
@@ExistenceUniversity : To ask a question is to HOPE an answer exists or it could be rhetorical to make a point. When facts have a persistent predictably we tend to accept them as real but there are hypotheses and pure speculation as well... and illusions that seem very real but don't hold up to close scrutiny... like free will.
@@lrvogt1257 To experience an illusion is to know the difference between reality and fiction. To say free will is an illusion is to say it is similar but difference from real free will. Here is a fact of reality. We have emotions. Robots don't need emotions. Why cry when a loved one dies? What determined trait of survival makes you cry or smile or experience joy when stimuli spark your nervous system?
@@janeayre96 We are obviously influenced by countless things in countless ways. Nor do we have 'completely' free will (I can't decide to be a fig leaf, I can’t decide to be weather, I can't decide to be you, >>>>>>). Sapolsky’s argument is very simple. He is claiming that consciousness (aka: you) is a function of biology…and biology is deterministic…therefore ‘you’ (and your decision-making) are also deterministic. But…nobody actually has a clue what consciousness is…let alone how it is created. If you put Sapolsky and every living cognitive scientist in a room they still couldn't even begin to explain how a single moment of human subjective experience occurs (...that's worth emphasizing: It's not just that they couldn't explain it...they couldn't even BEGIN to explain it). These are FACTS. If Sapolsky wants to pretend he has solved the consciousness problem…then there is a Nobel prize with his name on it. What this means…is that there is a VAST area of ‘you’ that is utterly inscrutable. Nobody has a clue either what it is or how it works. That 'something' ALSO influences everything you do (this is indisputable…for no other reason than that science cannot even begin to comprehensively explain a single moment of ‘you’). THAT...is f.w. Until someone can explicitly present a definitive empirical deterministic description of how that happens (and, as I said, no one is within light years of doing that)… free will exists…BY DEFAULT! THAT is why I can unconditionally insist that the entire premise that free will does not exist...is trivially easy to unconditionally refute. Because it is. I just did it.
Let's do some basic philosophy and show how irrational his view is. Let's imagine that determinism has been shown to be true somehow. Well, then one should reason like this: 1. Determinism is true 2. We have free will 3. Therefore we have free will and determinism is true (compatibilism). That's because by hypothesis 1 is true, and 2 is self-evident to reason. But let's imagine that, upon reflection, our reason tells us that determinism is incompatible with free will (and note, it doesn't tell us this at all clearly if at all, which is precisely why there's a debate over the matter). Well, then one should reason like this: 1. Determinism is incompatible with free will 2. We have free will 3. Therefore determinism is false But why not like this, you may ask: 1. Determinism is true 2. If determinism is true, we lack free will 3. Therefore we lack free will? Well, because 1 and 2 are less self-evident to reason than the negation of 3. That is, it is more self-evident that we have free will than that either determinism is true, or that determinism is incompatible with free will. This is why the bulk of philosophers - so, actual experts in the matter at hand - are free will realists, despite disagreeing over the compatibility or otherwise of free will with determinism. If push comes to shove, it is more reasonable to be sceptical about whether our reason is correct in representing free will to require X, than it is to conclude that we lack free will. That is, it is more manifest to reason that we have free will, than that free will requires X. And thus if the leading thesis about reality has it that reality does not contain X, the reasonable conclusion is that this amounts to discovering that free will does not require X, rather than concluding that we have discovered we lack free will.
only some philosophers. look at other non white western men philosophizing. look at buddhism, for example, and maybe other ways of thinking. your are such a str8 white male, or a wanna be. there is no free will. that was a stupid idea that allow some to oppress others. get rid of it
Just because it’s inadvertently or initially incompatible with how or what one has become accustomed as a particular language of categories or a means in engaging things doesn’t mean ‘his view’ is irrational. While it’s appreciated and respectable that academic labels are relevant. They generally imply just as you did of one’s expertise or mastery in a discipline/subject. It would however be an error to assume he’s lacking foundation in philosophy and logical reasoning that would negate his observations and studies. Even worse to then use that to justify an attempt to irrationalize a rational discussion. It’s not wild and crazy cult shit. Of course it’s tricky for most of us to jive with initially. It’s not about looking to find a right, wrong or plausible- he’s done that for what it’s worth. Of course his work and knowledge can be expanded further and may lead to other understandings and that’s the cool part of the whole academic thing and sharing one’s work.
@@audimaster5000 I explained carefully why his view on free will was irrational. You have said nothing at all to address that case. indeed, you seem to think I just blandly stated that his view was irrational. No I didn't. I showed how it was. He is not an expert in the metaphysics of free will. Anyone who is knows this, for he defines free will in a question begging way - a way that presupposes incompatibilism. Only someone utterly ignorant of the entire philosophical debate would do that. Of course, most people are every bit as ignorant as he is and so don't realize. They think 'oh, he's defined free will in a way I can accept'. That is why what he's doing is so irresponsible and unprofessional. He's exploiting the public's ignorance of his ignorance. His views - which really are ignorant and pay no respect whatsoever to the careful views of experts in the field - are accorded an authority they do not deserve. If he was a dentist rather than a scientist, would you buy his book? No, right. Because we all know that dentists are not experts in the metaphysics of free will - not in virtue of being dentists anyway. That applies as much to biologists.....as much to scientists more generally. But you don't know that, correct? You think he somehow does - does by virtue of being a scientist - have some insight into the matter......that's confused. Do a science degree and see if you study the metaphysics of free will. You won't.
"1. Determinism is true 2. We have free will 3. Therefore we have free will and determinism is true (compatibilism). That's because by hypothesis 1 is true, and 2 is self-evident to reason. " 2 is not always self-evident to reason, your assumption is that every human being is able to reason at this level although it is basic, it still is a requirement to reason. Someone who is brain dead does not have the "free will" to choose to reason at this point. There are certain limitations for every human being in some capacity whether it's ability, disability, their circumstances,etc. I don't agree with your premise of your argument that the more "self-evident" thing is that free-will exists. It is evident that we have a WILL, but we do not determine our WILL or the circumstances that influence our will. Can you spontaneously will yourself to like cucumbers if you hate them? Do you WILL your preferences or do you DISCOVER them and therefore make choices bound by your preferences which you had no control over.
@@Raz0rIG we do not see touch hear smell or taste free will. Yet it is widely believed-in. The best explanation of this is that our reason represents us to have it. For how else would the notion have even occurred to us? Plus our reason represents us to be morally responsible, both in the sense of having moral obligations, and also the sense of being deserving of harm or reward depending on whether or not we fulfil those obligations. Our reason also assures us that only a person with free will would be morally responsible in either sense. Thus in this way our reason once more represents us to have free will. There is, note, no serious dispute over this. Thus the argument appears sound. And certainly, any representations of our reason that may imply (and I do not think there actually are any on inspection) the incompatibility of free will and determinism are far less clear and forceful than those telling us we are free. It would thus be rationally perverse to conclude that we lack free will on the basis of the supposed truth of determinism.
Robert Sapolsky defines Free Will and then quickly refutes that definition. “Free Will is when your brain produces a behavior and the brain did so completely free of every influence that came before. Free Will is the ability of your brain to produce behavior free of its history.” Here is a practical definition of Free Will-the ability to act at one's own discretion. Definitions are created to clarify not confuse, confound, or reveal an absurdity. If you start with an absurd definition why expect readers to be further misled?
If you use a definition that does not include the ability to make decisions independent of prior circumstances, then what you're describing is just that humans have a lot of varied and complex behaviours. Nobody is disputing that. But if they are all determined (albeit in complex, difficult to predict ways) by prior circumstances then it's deterministic (or deterministic + randomness). The definition of free will as your behaviour being completely determined by prior circumstances seems like a big difference from the common definition (that I decide my own fate etc.).
He really doesn’t understand free will. I am IFA is it African religion called youruba religion that we all chose our own destiny whatever that destiny is, it could be poor it could be a criminal. It could be a prostitute. It could be a genius it could be a musician. It could be whatever you want when we got here we change environment by the influence, the people that we surround ourselves by all the religions, but everything that he mentioned, and we get confused of free will the way it is so basic it’s laughable😂
"we all chose our own destiny whatever that destiny is, it could be poor it could be a criminal" You have no evidence for this belief, whereas Robert provides actual evidence to support his own ideas.
No. Not MOST people believe that we have free will. ALL people, including Sapolsky, believe that we have free will. He acts in a way that betrays this belief, no matter what he says. It's complete nonsense. The mere fact that we can make happen what we decide to do because of a FUTURE goal in mind is proof of free will. We are partially determined by the future, thanks to our ability for reason (and therefore our ability to predict the consequences of our behavior, sometimes years in advance). Besides, computation is NOT a physical phenomenon (even though it is implemented on physical systems). Sapolsky seems to think that showing a few examples where we don't have free will (which is quite a lot) is enough. That is moronic in the extreme. To argue that all people should be treated exactly the same regardless of behavior is not only moronic, it is immoral (profoundly so). This man is trying to destroy society from the inside in pursuit of a radical leftist political agenda. Pretty despicable, especially for a supposed "scientist." Man, this was bad...
100% agree. Maybe I'm overconnecting dots, but it's interesting how Sapolsky is being spotlighted on MSM propaganda outlets like Apple News during the time Israel has stepped up its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza. I'm sure they'd love the world to absolve Zi onists of their genocidal behavior
@@nivekab No, it does not come out of nowhere. It comes from YOU decision as to which path to take. The only thing that is true is that the various OPTIONS you are able to visualize are themselves constrained by you past experience, but the choice you make between them is not, It is determined by what you want to happen IN THE FUTURE! Nothing else forces you to chose that option. YOU are the decider, no one or nothing else. The ability to correctly visualize the future is what gives us free will, and differentiate a 2-year-old from a sane adult (as an example). Treating the two-year-old the same as the adult (as the determinists would do) is insane. And in fact it is so insane that literally no one does so, which means literally NO ONE believes Free Will does not exist.
@@nivekab I know kids do not have the same ability to predict the consequences of their actions as adults do. And I am not the only one, Literally everyone (including lawmakers, judges, and juries) agree with me. In fact the entire jurisprudence of any society that has ever existed agrees. Questions?
If your choices weren't determined by who you are, what you've experienced, and the circumstances... they would be random and irrational. You don't even choose the choices. If you think you could have done something differently... well, you didn't. But why did you make THAT choice. You did it because of that because of that because of that etc.
There are so many axioms (e.g., the idea of a fixed morality) I can't take this seriously. Terms like "kind" or "empathic" or "just" are just inserted into the conversation without any definition or theory of origin. He just assumes we all agree on the definition of these terms and that whatever these definitions are are true. He lists examples of nature, which no one controls, and nurture, that at times seems to be controlled by nature through culture and at other times culture through nature. It's a system set up to be non-falsifiable. Those toga wearing philosophers have already dealt with these arguments.
I didn't see a "fixed" morality suggested but the idea that we should have more empathy for people with issues is just the golden rule... morality is the evolving wisdom of society as humans have interacted for millennia. People learn that treating each other with respect improves outcomes for everyone. It's as deterministic as spheres forming hexagonal patterns after being jostled enough. Over time, harmonious patterns emerge.
@@lrvogt1257 you just proved the point about thinking being not rigorous. " People learn that treating each other with respect improves outcomes for everyone" why is one outcome better than the other if it is all like domino it just the flow of the river no better or worse without possibility. you cant just ignore the contradiction when it is staring you in the face.
@@ReflectiveJourney it doesn’t matter to the universe… but determinism doesn’t mean we don’t feel things. Our awareness is why determinism is a powerful illusion. Feelings are part of the equation. Because something happens we respond. Emotion is awareness of bodily responses to stimuli. Fear… adrenaline… heart racing… flight or fight. See an attractive person… arousal… other emotions arise. See something gross… body says yuck , bad… get away. Feelings are awareness of autonomic responses. Someone you know dies… you feel bad… or not so much… You may not know which until it happens. You don’t choose. You find out.
@@lrvogt1257 i agree with you.. our consciousness is a what makes us aware of the interiority of nature. I am disagreeing on "facts" to some extent i.e. what is logical. We start from a subjective point of view and then try to get rid of that subjectivity as an eternal death drive in search for abstract laws. I understand the motivations and alienation being a strong drive. Strictly speaking, why should evolved apes have so much confidence in their fragile reasoning process that evolved in the past 400 years over the visceral process that has evolved over a billion years. Unless you claim all subjectivity is epiphenomenal it is an interesting question at least
Does the U of Chicago have a philosophy department? If so, do they approve of this silliness parading as scholarly thought about determinism and free will? Embarrassing.
Wow. Existence exists. That’s what you’re saying. What a revelation…. For a modern philosopher, that’s a big step forward from “we can’t know anything” but it’s a giant step behind understanding the “why”. The fault is in the first few minutes of this recording when you define free will. Your axiom is flawed. Which means everything built on it is flawed. Free will isn’t separate from existence, it’s part of it. You talk about how from the dawn of time that stars/proteins/amoebas/amphibians/humans (every bit of matter since the Big Bang) have been on this course. Sure, the courses of evolution were based on many things (environment, food, predators, etc…) Of course everything that is going to happen, is going to happen… there’s no changing that. Anyone with half a brain (to use your example) knows that. Who doesn’t know that everything in the past built everything around us and made us what we are. It’s not that what your saying is completely wrong, it’s just completely irrelevant. Not because you haven’t researched enough or haven’t studied everything, I see that you have. You just missed the point. You were so close.
Sapolsky s definition of free will is problematic at the outset. Free will is the “ability of your brain to produce behaviour free of history”. So the brain produces the behaviour, not you, so his definition presupposes a will that is not free. Isnt that an issue?
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
This essentially means that we should be far more grateful (instead of proud) towards good things that we manage to achieve and far less shame-ridden towards bad things in our life. Sounds like building blocks of a more pleasant world for all of us.
Kids aren't wrong when they continue asking "Why?" to every answer.
like, why was i born
They have no choice, apparently.
You obviously don't have kids 😂
@@an0ma1y72 and those are smart people! only indifferent, dmbas s people still procreate
@@an0ma1y72 : I do... It can be annoying but not wrong.... but the point is that there is a why behind every action and why behind that etc. There is no action free from the external factors.
I mean I've been watching and rewatching his Stanford lectures for years. Obviously I had no choice but to click on this video.
😂
This is why I'm glad I live in Norway not the US: we are much more accepting of the fact that people are not 100% individually responsible for what they do. So we focus on rehabilitation over punishment and we make sure noone will starve or not be able to afford medicine, child care, an education and so on
This is the way it should be everywhere.
So if you had a sister and somebody raped her you don't think this guy should be held responsible for what he did?
@@williamburts3114 Only in the consequentialist sense. Responsibility still exists in a incompatibalist, deterministic no free will world, it just means something different. It essentially keeps the "you did it and need to be taken care of" part, but the "need to be taken care of" has all hatred and vengeance substracted, because peoples brains are in essence no different than a storm or earthquake when they cause suffering to others. If we could, we would stop earthquakes and storms from happening or at least shield ourselves completely from their destruction, but we don't hate them for existing.
Punishment can still exist to a degree that it has potential utility (mostly invoking fear of consequence for edge cases), but is secondary or even tertiary behind restoration and rehabilitation.
The way you ask the question is basically just an emotional appeal from a no free will perspective. Hating a rapist makes as much sense as hating a bear that mauled your sister or the earthquake that destroyed her home. It has no merit, because it begs the question of whether or not free will exists which this is all about.
From my pov, in that sense free will is a coping tool for the brain to deal with loss by finding a scapegoat to blame. People actually did use to blame even earthquakes, storms or famines on others for the longest time, because we did not have an explanation for how these things happened, but we did have strong feelings of loss that needed to be taken somewhere and the path of least resistance is always blame. It was easy to insert free will into this gap. By that token free will is equivalent to the god of the gaps argument.
Now we know from physics and neurobiology that the brain is also bound to the same laws as natural catastrophes, so that gap to insert free will in also slowly vanishes.
What many people often fail to see as well is that blame is usually a bad coping tool in the first place. It tends to end in cycles of hatred that in consequence cause even more suffering. Which is why even therapists who believe in free will want their patients to forgive those who caused suffering.
@@Luftgitarrenprofi The person you are at a particular time might be someone you think should change for the benefit of your mental and physical health, but that rehabilitation of self Isn't something that happens randomly but is something that happens through your own free willful intent to change yourself for the better.
@@williamburts3114 That's begging the question again. You're just asserting a "free willful intent", but whether this willful intent is free of anything that made you you prior to the point you make any decision is what is put into question.
You're skipping the most important part.
The claim also isn't that it's random, but rather that you're part of the deterministic machinery of causal events, not exempt from it.
One of the best interviews on Determined and with Sapolsky, congratulations!!!!! (hahahaha I can't escape it, I just have to congratulate you!!!!)
When discussing this subject, it is hard to separate determinism from fatalism, but this interview made a much stronger distinction. Bravo!
Everyone should read Dr. Robert Sapolsky’s books or listen to his lectures/podcasts. Thank you for hosting him UC.
Oh, really? Says the posting with some chick 🧘♀️ meditating, on what? What exactly are you working on if you are just wiring?
We don't have obligations if we lack free will. Therefore no one ought to read his book if his book is correct (which it isn't). And if it isn't correct, then no one ought to read it either. So I think you're wrong - no matter what, no one ought to read his book.
@@geraldharrison5787 What are you afraid of? Investigate away, read for yourself, arrive to your own conclusions, follow the facts where they lead, test, re-imagine conceptual frameworks, go explore new frontiers. Above all, be honest, try to have intellectual integrity. And learn to distinguish between established science and non-established science, of course.
@@junanougues I am not afraid of anything, I just think - for the reasons given - that no matter what, no one ought to read his book. Again: if it is true, then no one ought to read it because no one ought to do anything. And if it is false then no one ought to read it, because it's false. It's one of those two. Therefore no one ought to read it.
@@geraldharrison5787 Ok, I give up, do what you like, but please don't ban books.
I used to "teach " a chimp sign language for Columbia- U. I'm also bipolar- both experiences lead me to believe Dr. Sapolsky is totally correct- Without question
Of the many interviews Dr Sapolsky has done recently, this was one of the more unique. Thank you.
Sounds like "Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद, Pāli: paṭiccasamuppāda), commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, is a key doctrine in Buddhism shared by all schools of Buddhism.[1][note 1] It states that all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things." Wikipedia
That's interesting--I was wondering what Buddhism might say about this. .
@@annalisasteinnes buddhist practice is based on the assumption that we have agency but, since the self is enmeshed in the network of dependent origination, the scope and character of this agency is different than in typically western perspectives.
@@its_eis Thanks for the explanation.
@chithranair Sure, but less cryptic
The "Dharma" is the "gospel" in Mahayana Buddhism You're responding to 'a Wiki'. Citation please. haha@@annalisasteinnes
Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
The view isn't taking into account the belief that we are the universe, rather that we are somehow 'apart' for it, of which we are not...
Unfortunately, Robert is NOT on social media, so little chance of getting an answer from him...
Free will is not an illusion only atheists come up with this nonsense idea because he doesn't believe in the soul if you turn it around that the true nature of a person is the soul and the body belongs to the soul and not the other way around all those everything will full into place, the Soul uses the body to experience life, even if the body is damaged the soul will find a way to use it and experience life, like for a blind person,
He keeps saying it is strange for someone to say thank you if someone says you have beautiful eyes but it's the soul that says thank you because the body belongs to it, this is the reason some people dislike their body or part of it, If you see yourself as a soul then all decisions come from it
@@MrManny075 you are aware of your emotions and desires; however, you are ignorant of the causes of your desires, emotions, and how you are determined by them.
@@lewisalmeida3495 Are you for real? No one desires something he never heard or seen in his life, What you know is what makes you, Sure all thoughts that come up are within you even the bacteria in your guts can influence your thoughts but they only give you what you know already, if you are in the driving seat you know what they are and if you are ignorant then your desire is in the driving seat and you have no control.
This was such an impeccably coherent explanation ! Very factual and well researched and resourced👍
He had no choice but for it to be coherent and factual and well researched.
I’m listening to the audiobook of Determined and it’s quite fascinating.
It does seem that Sapolsky’s strong determinist view is also strong materialist. What about emergent properties, and also quantum mechanics? Those seem to lessen the utility and predictive power of pure determinism
That a property is emergent suggests it was determined and whatever it affects would be determined by it. It's my understanding that the effects of seemingly random quantum fluctuations are so minute that they don't seem to affect the macro world. Determinism does not suggest predictability because there are too many factors. The three body problem is that only three bodies of similar size orbiting each other are unpredictable.
@@lrvogt1257 right, so emergent complexity and quantum indeterminacy seem to be counterarguments to the utility of strong materialism. If it’s very difficult to predict behavior of matter and natural systems based on their constituent particles due to emergent complexity, is strong materialism still useful?
I guess Sapolsky would argue that everything is still determined even if it’s hard to predict
It seems a lot of the free will vs. determinism debate really boils down to theism vs. atheism. Sapolsky seems an atheist and materialist from what I can tell. The opposite side of the spectrum may be George Berkeley’s theistic idealism, and mind body dualism
My take on the idea that no one should get credit or blame is that in the real world, regardless of whether it's determined or not, you'd want to hire someone who's had a history of achieving their goals... and one would lock up those who do harm to prevent more harm. How we responde to people's actions will have an effect on whether those actions are repeated or not.
Unless that person had a history of achieving their goals to commit harm...
haha@@Campingwilder
The way to respond is not punishment though whether there is free will or not. I absolutely don’t think there is but nonetheless, punishment is barbaric, yes it may “work” in a short term sense and can’t be denied it has in the past to a degree, the problem is it’s a loop. It doesn’t prevent undesirable behavior it represses it. It doesn’t rehabilitate it refocuses ideas of worthlessness, of unredeemable, follows an individual for a lifetime hindering the ideas of true change, true neuroplasticity, we are our brains after all. All of this applies to the fear of punishment as well. I have to ask myself why isn’t just removing an individual from society either temporarily or permanently depending on the behavior not enough along with a tremendous attempt to reinforce better causes and ideas, a sense of being redeemable. Isn’t that what rehabilitation should be about? Also the same idea goes for preventing undesirable behavior.
A question: if we do not control what we do, how can we be responsible for what we do? And if we can, to what extent?
Another question: why free will and determinism mutually excluding? Wouldn't it be possible for both of them to be mitigated by each other?
Regardless of why you do something, if you harm others they will take measures to stop you. Knowing that fact would be another external factor determining your actions.
It's hard for me to reconcile the two. If you have free will at all then you have it.
Prof Sapolsky pronounced Laplace correctly 😊.
I don't get how he can have such strong beliefs in no free will and then on the other hand say we shouldn't treat certain people certain ways as if we had the choice.
Its his destiny to say it
UChicago's Econ department is on borrowed time when the belief in free will inevitably erodes.
"There but for fortune go you or I". As a pragmatic reaction to the equally valid assertion "It is stranger than we can think" (JBS Haldane) I choose to act as if prior to the big bang a good force set it all up and determined that each indivdual consciousness (Soul) should learn something necessary for its future experience after death. Most important is MLK's critical question. "An Individual has not started living fully until they can rise above the narrow confines of individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of humanity. Every person must decide at some point, whether they will walk in light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment: Life's most persistent and urgent question is: 'What are you doing for others?' As quoted by Coretta Scott King in The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Second Edition (2011), Ch. "Community of man", p. 3
To add to my last post, the two slit experiment should be enough to resolve this argument as well as the uncertainty principle. A Euclidean or newton's
world does not exist.
people always understand this when they make a mistake, but never seem to extend the curtesy
this is known as the fundamental attribution error, very fascinating stuff
@@davidcathey6806 I thought it was called narcissism lol
@@srso4660 Calling those people narcissists is ironically another example of the fundamental attribution error.
The "divine" or whatever it is that we don't know and can't know but want to think we know is a factor in all of this trying to know for sure. Its what some humans do, try to know the unknowable and then pretend they do, doing that based on non free will? sure, who knows, not us.
LOVE THIS! Thank you so much! I had to say that.
I too have enjoyed listening to Sapolsky's dialogues. I have a question though: at around 15:30, he's talking about fetus' from lower income mothers already showing smaller brain growth (think he says "volume"). Are there really studies done that analyze the fetal brain growth of enough children to make this statement ? I guess part of a legendary scientist is to make sure you have data backing up your assertions, but I'm trying to imagine how they would do a study to prove that assertion. I'm also wondering if to really make that statement, wouldn;t you have to follow said group of fetus' throughout their lives to imply that they will have a bleaker outcome than more affluent fetus' ? Is that part of the study ?
google it. they have done it. volume of gray matter differences
Luck, love and liberty... yield... good habits, health and hope. (My INTP thought cheatsheet.)
My parents always told us how lucky we were, and we believed it.
Maybe i did not choose to this podcast...but i spontaneously decided to stop after 3 minutes...i took a break, smoked a cigarette and returned to hear the rest..did i do this because of my free will or my freedom of choice? Or was it predetermined and a consequence of some causal chains?
What happened was a chain of reactions to thoughts automatically appearing in perception. Nobody had these thoughts there is nobody choosing.
Your action was predetermined becaused your blood nicotine levels dropped, which is again connected causally to some state in which you were in that made it likely why you started smoking in the first place.
@@benediktdanting9970 I thought of that...but i smoked a cigarette 10 minutes before i started watching...usually there is an hour between 2 cigarettes...that is why i have chosen to do it. I am sure that low nicotine levels are not the 'cause' of my action.
@@zenon7094 : You had experiences that introduced you to smoking and your body gave you signals to keep you smoking. Your body triggered a desire for you to light up at that time and wanted to smoke more than you wanted to not smoke so your action was determined by that entire history of events. You had to make a choice but why you made the choice you did was determined by the moment before and a causal chain that just keeps going back in time.
Great discussion ❤
I don't think free will is about control but more about just having the volition to act freely. In other words, free will means you are free to use your will. Now we have urges that could impel us to act a certain way out of impulse but when we practice yoga through our own volition, we can control those impulses and thus become controllers of our mind rather than letting our mind control us.
What are you apart from your mind?
@@sammesingson7584 Its not " I think, therefore I Am" its " I Am, therefore I think"
Our entire life, internally and externally, is an uncountable number of influential factors, most of which we are unaware, that determine what we want... and that is what we will attempt to do.
@@lrvogt1257 True, but the influential factors aren't the doers of the activity.
@@williamburts3114 they are the instigators
Yet human behavior has been altered significantly over the last few thousand years especially how we regard one another. Is there a biological drive in terms our behavior? Yes but it’s not the sole determinant in terms of who we end up being. He actually discusses the importance of environment which means that we can change outcomes biology withstanding.
To the host: With all respect. Please stop talking and let this man speak. Thank you.
People need to listen to his “definition of Free Will” around 6:00. A lot of gut-check reaction to Sapolsky’s arguments are based on misapprehension of what he means by free will. He defines it quite succinctly: the ability of the (human) brain to produce a behavior COMPLETELY FREE of all outside and historical influence. He doesn’t say that there are no elements of choice in behavior: he argues that every decision is conditioned by the environment spatially, culturally, and temporally.
reality check unlike freedom of thought, freedom to act (free will) includes the possibility of external consequences. a person Must Choose to act, or to not act. actions include speech and gesture. the fact that a decision to act was preceded by an infinite number of 'variables' is not significant.
If our desire to act is not the result of external influences, they would be random and irrational. We do what we want but we can't chose what we want.
So would this mean that the only way for a person to change is if they encounter something that disrupts or challenges their current patterns of thinking and behavior and are in a state of being open to altering those patterns?
change is mysterious and unfathomably complex - its impossible to trace all the prior causes and so we are left with simplified stories of change. -eg I changed due to this person, therapist, drug etc.
Yes and No. All ppl go through hard times but it seems there is a blue print to a % of ppl getting kicked well down and that being the very catalyst to propel the success.
It's a much larger subject than just free will. There are too many variables. The simple answer is yes. The complicated answer to ppl who have a brain is no.
Tomatoe
Toe mot toe
To do or not to do?
Fascinating and eye opening but not all encompassing. Arguments that hold up between scientists and philosophers don’t always translate to real life. As a person who advocates for greater understanding of “Fetal Alcohol Syndrome” (FAS) It pleases me to hear some of the Justice and prison examples. But we live in Democratic societies where human emotional responses are easily manipulated politically at the expense of the disenfranchised. I am certainly tired of hearing conservatives point to examples of singular over-achievers as proof that anyone can overcome childhood economic adversity. That’s as absurd as pointing to a drug-addicted former child of millionaires living on the street as an example that wealth doesn’t offer any advantages.
I'm going to dislike this video just because I can
I love when he points out early on that "we all know". This is what drives me crazy about society, we all know and yet we still choose to run with it.
Definitely no such thing as free will. How else can we explain Professor Sapolsky's hair?
Based solely on his sense of humor in his book "Determined", I bet he would find this hilarious.
Leading dentist argues that we lack free will. Would you buy that book? I wouldn't, for what the hell does a dentist know about free will?
Neurological science, which is Robert's field of research, has often had a lot to say about free will.
So yes, I would ask for Robert's opinions on the subject.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 That's because you're ignorant and he's exploiting that. Neurscience doesn't study free will. Not even a little bit. It's studied exclusively in philosophy. Neuroscience investigates THE BRAIN not free will. You can't detect free will using the instruments of the natural sciences. But anyway, my whole point is that the bulk of people don't know this - they think scientists are studying things they're not studying at all. Why? Because some unprofessional and unethical scientists write books on such matters, knowing full well that if they do then with the exception of the academic community everyone else will just blithely assume they are experts on what they are writing about.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 You're his market - people who don't know the subject matter of different disciplines. Biologists do not study the metaphysics of free will. It's a subject in philosophy, nothing else. But he knows that you don't know that. He knows that you - and most others apart from academics - think that scientists do study such topics. That's why he can write a book on it and know that you'll buy it thinking he's an authority. He's not. If he was a dentist you wouldn't buy it as you know that dentists study teeth, not free will. But biologists no more study free will than dentists do. It's unprofessional and unethical, imo. He should write on his subject of expertise, not promote the false idea that scientists are somehow authorities on philosophical questions.
(1) If Robert Sapolsky does maintain that "there is no free will", does then Robert himself have free will to assert that "there is no free will"? Moreover, if a person M. - in clear contrast to Robert - does assert that "there is free will", does that very person M., who happens to be a "biologist" like Robert, lacks free will as well (according to Robert's view) while declaring that free will does exist? (2) How on Earth is still possible that an educated person (precisely , any educated person, biologist Robert included) in 21st century still does not differentiate between (a) realm of physical laws and (b) realm of will? (3) Or Robert can logically, irrefutably, unquestionably , indisputably prove, corroborate , demonstrate, show beyond doubt that (b) only amounts to (a)? (4) If a person A. resists (even for a ten seconds) the urge to react compulsively in a situation, is it a proof of that very person's free will or is it a proof that there is no such a thing like free will?
Scientists who harbor materialist presumptions are either withholding or unaware of the extensive research and engineering practice on feedback control systems. Living organisms do not simply react to external and internal stimuli, they incorporate multiply-nested feedback systems that work together to maintain biological and psychological homeostasis. In every organism, there are multiple layers of purposeful action employed to continuously monitor their external and internal environments to maintain personal integrity, not simply a unitary spark of consciousness directing everything from inside your head. You may not think you have "free will", but your body would be paralysed without the ability to act on its own free agency.
The concept of free will implies that my actions follow my conscious thoughts re. this choice vs that choice. The notion of a body having 'free agency' is something entirely different - different in the sense that the centre of control is not the sovereign ego, but something much more expansive and diffuse, something that includes the body, it's biology, its history and circumstances
@@darrinheaton2614 - Exactly. The assumption of a "sovereign ego" is itself ego-centric. Human self-awareness is an emergent phenomenon, and the medical field of anesthesiology shows that it is dependent on numerous coordinated functions of the brain.
That’s a good point, that free will might be an emergent property that’s not fully explainable by pure materialism
In the I.S. ~ Information System, the will is totally free. Humans have the freedom to choose I.T. Information Theory.
The more we learn the causes of things - the less "randomness" and thereby "free will" we discover we have. People may always continue to hold on to hope and imply that we still have a sliver of randomness as we go... never minding the obvious fact the whole time... that if even a sliver of influential causes exist we can not claim to have free will.. because we remain influenced to the n-th degree and thereby can't possibly be 100% free. And in all actuality, your will must be 100% free from influence from the start to be considered free or generated by you. So its not about holding onto a sliver of randomness... if you are unable to disprove every last sliver of influence you've already lost.
Each new discovery of causality is another paper added to the top of an already atmospherically high stack on a desk tray of evidence against freewill that MUST be completely empty for the case to be won. Give up now and look for the benefits of not having free will. If you remove the selfish aspects of it you will find the benefits to humanity outweigh the cons 8 billion to 1 (you being the 1 and the whole rest of humanity being the beneficiaries of your new outlook in a life where you no longer judge them, hold grudges, place blame or glorify one over another... a life where you treat them all with the maximum amount of empathy a philosophy can offer).
Let's all start treating each other better! Let's all start acting off the evidence that our fellow men are not to blame for their circumstances. A blameless future.
I generally agree that it's not free will if the choices presented to you arise from causality. But I think it's more of a macro vs micro or larger reality vs drilling down to base motivations.
However, if you have two people a and b, one stays mired in drug addiction while the other makes a series of choices that lead to them being clean. I don't see why the choice to be clean isn't a choice made of one's own volition.
Just because your situation presents you with certain choices doesn't mean your not making a choice when presented with two options. That does not mean the other person is bad. It just means they lack the proper information to make a choice in their own best interests from the point of view of the person in the future had they made another choice.
So I guess what I'm saying is that free will is a BOUNDED quantity like number sets.
It's not that there are choices to be made but the reasons why any specific choice is made. If your decision isn't determined by your situation and experience it would be random and irrational. Your choice will always be the thing you want most... but what and why you want that thing is determined by every moment that preceded it.
The choice IS made of one's own volition. But where did that volition come from? It came from the specific combination of physical (biological) and experiential (cultural) inputs that led up to that choice, some of which are previous choices. And where did those previous choices come from? It's turtles all the way down.
📍26:15
Dr. Sapolsky is absolutely right. Let us imagine that we are confronted with 2 choices: A and B. And let's say we choose A. After we choose A, let us imagine that we could rewind the universe exactly at the point before we made our choice. I claim we would always end up choosing A. That could be an alternative explanation, that is, there is a substance that we are made of that is not interacting with normal matter, but it could influence our brain. But that is just speculation. And no, quantum mechanics doesn't modify the issue of free will. Finally, existentialism as a philosophical movement is falsified.
Stupid argument. The argument is this: "Imagine an impossible situation, now imagine I am right about it!"
Wow so smart
@@ExistenceUniversity : That would be stupid if that's what was said... but it wasn't.
As Sabine Hossenfelder said: "To suggest that you could have chosen differently is just words because... well... you didn't."
@@lrvogt1257 To say "imagine going back in time" is to say "imagine God exists". It is meaningless to predict physical phenomenon from supernatural nonsense.
@@ExistenceUniversity : Extraordinary hypotheticals aren't necessarily meant to be real but just to illustrate a point.
Pick a card
Poproszę o jezyk polski ❤ Dziękuję
"We didn't find free will here" isn't the same as "there is no free will."
We didn’t find free will in so many places the burden of proof switched and now you have to show where that free will exists before you can claim there is one
Okay you’ve completely convinced that there is no free will. But what do I do in light of this information? What do I do with my life now? Should I just lie down and accept my life for what it is since I don’t have any instruments for changing my life? It is deeply nihilistic fact to understand. We have basically reduced ourselves to biological machines. I don't know why but this interview was deeply devastating to hear. I truly believed that if you try hard enough you can change yourself for the better but his book has shown me that changing is out of my life is out of my control. What do I do?
You ask “what do I do?”
Do you see the error in the question?
“I”
Here’s something that I find helpful:
Events happen.
Deeds are done.
There is no DOER, thereof.
That doesn’t mean nothing happens. It doesn’t mean you should do nothing.
Just shift from a DOER mentality to an OBSERVER mentality. It’s quite an experience.
Take care :)
It's bollocks that you can't change. Yes we don't have free will until we understand that we don't, at that point we can begin to cultivate it. That will likely involve a lot of work on ourselves as we've been conditioned since birth to function under and maintain capitalism. Free will is the opposite of capitalism. So search out some good anti capitalist therapists eg Gabor Mate and start the process.
@@arnusion you can be changed, but not out of your own "free" will because our will is determined
As with everything, the knowledge of this concept is just one more input that changes you. In my case, I'm excited about having a new outlook that makes me more compassionate toward people I used to find abhorrent. Now, I try (but probably fail miserably) to interact with people in such a way that my interaction is a positive input into their lives to change the way they view things for the better. If a person's will is truly based largely on their experiences, we all need to provide experiences that change people for the better as much as we can. Realizing that my motivation to do such a thing was caused by all the physical and experiential inputs I've had is interesting and grounding, but I still allow myself to think of myself as a person that can create change in others.
Free will is an abstract academic term. Nothing about the world changed after you watched this video
Nuts
You don't know that for sure
Robert Sapolsky, no question, you are a highly educated scientist, and you see man as a biological animal with an intelligent potential. However, man is more than a physical thing. You are so right in thinking about man doesn’t have free will. Spinoza, a 17th century philosopher, explains in his Ethics the nature of man, the mind, freedom from emotional bondage, and his relationship with Nature. Spinoza understood that all animals are governed, influenced, and are determined by laws. The law of necessity, the law of self-preservation, the law of inertial, and the law of cause and effect. Lastly, the brain is not the mind. The brain is a physical thing that is the storehouse of information such as memory, and which helps regulate all the systems of the body. The mind is a non-tangible thinking thing. Its nature or essential nature is knowledge comprised of clear and confused ideas. Spinoza explains that when our thinking is clear and true, that God constitutes the essence of our mind. We are not separate from the whole of Nature or God. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
The mind is what the brain does. Any changes to the brain affect the mind. What part of the mind is not a direct result of something the brain is doing?
@@williamkretz3686 In theory! But what if the self does not belong to the brain compleatly? What if the brain belongs to the self? Because, let's be honest, you have NO IDEA what the self is. So let's cut the bull shit. We. Don't. Know. By the way, Spinoza was not a dualist, so re-read Spinoza.
The only question you need to ask is "why?"
I've been following doctor sapolski around the internet to the point of stalking. Lol I listen to what he says. I respect his credentials and his research. But I've been disappointed that after speaking for hours He gives about 5 minutes of context and explanation for the rest of us to come to grips with what he said. I did see him say on one interview that he just basically threw this in people's face and is letting us deal with it. I think that's why I see the missing link between taking what he says and putting it in a form that people can more easily apprehend. And since I had no choice in making this comment, it must be accurate. Don't you think?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you having a problem following the argument that leads him to claim the fallacy of free will, or are you having a hard time understanding how this knowledge can inform/reform our social and economic institutions?
Or you could.. just read the book? :D
do we have biological caused depression?
Yes. Dr. Salposky has videos on RUclips on depression and mental illness from his lectures at Stanford University. I've watched several of them more than once.
Depends..epigenetics
The answer is amor fati.
Your Will, is Obsessed with 'free will',
Will is Eternal.
… as a German Biologist -
Ab Surd “Dis Cussion”
We All
are Slaves of our Auto Pilot
and PAIN - REWARD conditioning
you're not a biologist
@@millerstation92
YOU are an Ex Crementer
Sie sind ein deutscher Biologe? Wo genau arbeiten sie denn und was haben sie studiert?
@@zenon7094
frag Dich selber
Super Smart
@@raginald7mars408 Ich bin kein Biologe...habe ich auch nicht behauptet. Aber sie haben das...also...was ist denn nun ihr Spezialgebiet in der Biologie?
Do we mean absolutely zero free will? Or do we mean very little free will?
Absolutely zero free will. We can and will always do what we want most, but we are not in control of what we want.
We can do what we will, but we can't will our will. This is true regardless of even causality (which drives it home though), but the fact alone that we don't even know where our will comes from when we introspect hard enough just from personal experience alone.
This has been established long before Sapolsky entered the stage, but he's good at making the argument from a biology perspective.
So he is a scientific Calvinist.....lol
Here's the thing about rewards though: all those good childhood experiences like ice skating lessons and trips abroad to museums, those are pleasant experiences that set the child up for being a good person who makes good choices. Your brain never quite stops making new connections, so, aren't compliments and rewards pleasant experiences that might set a person up to be a good adult, or a good elderly person who made good choices? Maybe a bit less of an influence than in childhood, but it's something, right? Maybe the mechanisms of politeness that we have that lead people to issue compliments are society's way of reinforcing good behaviour?
Now let's say I didn't even choose this video pressing the next button chose it chose for me.. is that AI choosing my video for me?or is it the algorithm of videos that I chose in the past
It was Thomas Hobbes who said free will is a contradiction in terms, it’s in the first few chapters of Leviathan
No it isn't. Thomas Hobbes was a believer in free will. He's one of the most prominent 'compatibilist' philosophers from among the greats!
Of course we do, We have no choice !
Seems to me that people conflate "determined" and "predictable"
Future will never be 100% predictable even though it is determined.
A perfect model of the universe would have to include a model of itself modeling itself modeling the universe and that would include a model modeling itself etc etc
It would end up being slower than real time
Edit: so yeah for all intents and purposes we have free will
Did this guy have free wll? Today's headline reads, "Gunman in Maine's deadliest mass shooting, Robert Card, had significant evidence of brain injuries, analysis shows."
Free of what?
"Free will is when your brain produces a behavior. And the brain did so completely free of every influence that came before." said by: Robert Sapolsky. This is similar "Straw Man" Fallacy. Create a definition that cannot be proven and then claim that that definition is in error, -not to leave out the fact that Robert Sapolsky created the definition, and then quickly refutes it makes his argument absurd.
To be fair, Sapolsky is not equivocating but providing a specific definition so you know what he's talking about. Merriam-Webster defines it as ": freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" so Sapolsky is consistent with the common understanding.
It is unfair that Robert Sapolsky uses his acumen and intellect as a mischievous absurdist. The Merriam-Webster definition of Free Will and Robert Sapolsky's definition of Free Will are not equivocations. There are several definitions of Free Will. Why choose those definitions that are incorrect? That is why, "No one should read Robert Sapolsky's books nor listen to his lectures/podcasts...[specifically on Free Will]." He, Robert Sapolsky, seems like an overeducated prankster. lol
You're obviously NOT reading my manuscripts, and how I get about 65% of my info. I'm hurt and offended.
Ya know- All bears do bear things, all cats do cat things-all dog do dog things- What are human things???
cause those things we do not choose to do
... we do have free will, but we do not have freedom !
A song called Que Sera Sera pretty much sums it all up.
Dude, free will was invented by Laplace and Kant to get rid of God and church deciding things for you. It was not invented to say no, when you actually trying to decide to go to work today or not, the result is pre-determined by your hormone levels. Second, the philosophical debate has moved on from 17 century to existentialism of Sartre, which says there is no religious morals, not even secular morals pre-determined, but it is each one of us has to decide what is good and bad. Mind you not deciding whether to DO good or bad, but deciding WHAT is good and what is bad.
Free Will is not of the brain.
"Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet.
The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves.
The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated.
The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law.
Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law.
So, what is The Law?
In a word, The Law is options.
Definition
option: a thing that is or may be chosen.
The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is.
Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is.
In clarifying what The Law is;
The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing.
Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate.
Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating;
the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon,
the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded,
the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded,
the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence,
the concept of options, and
Free Will.
However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential.
As we experience The Law in our Being,
The Law is Free Will.
The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent.
The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
"Truth is always relative to the closed system it exists within. Existence is, in the strictest sense, a closed system. There are truths within existence that are true and there are truths within existence that are not true. Truth can only exist in a closed system and may or may not be true outside of that closed system, not therein. Truth is that which men and women convey through Voice and Word. One's offered truth may or may not be true. Truth and true are not the same word, and subsequently, truth and true are not the same thing. True is that which can be shown in words through at least one question and its exact answer. That which can be shown in words can subsequently be seen by all men and women.
In the closed system of the Catholic Church of four hundred years ago, the truth was that our planet was the centre of a geocentric planetary system. Galileo posited that our planet was a part of a heliocentric solar system and spent the last years of his life under house arrest as a consequence of going against the truth of the Church. The Church has since changed its truth to the heliocentric solar system model."
- Goho-tekina Otoko
TRUE ! From my Primitive Serbian Balkan/ American Brain which is 100 % genetic from both late parents.
Go Blackhawks!
So, because one has experienced x y and z, it is more likely they will react to the next thing in one manner over the other. In this way, there is "no free will"? This seems misleading.....
There is the part of us that reacts instinctively, thoughtlessly, reactively to a situation. But there's also an undeniable part of us that fights against those reactions, and chooses to react differently. In Phineas Gage, it appears the latter part of him was destroyed. It doesn't mean it wasn't there before.
that thing instinct is also determined.... those reactions and the ability to react is also determined... show that neuron that wasnt determined
Both the instinctive and intentional parts of us that you mention are products of our physical and cultural being. In his book "Determined", he goes into great detail about how our decision making at every level is affected by physical and cultural characteristics. He describes the difference between decisions you make in the moment and the conscious process of overriding these decisions (he calls it "free wont" as opposed to "free will"). What are you are proposing contributes to your decision-making in addition to your biology and environment as Sapolsky describes them?
Yes we do. Ok that was fun next lol
Such a shame that they had to go outside dr Sapolsky's expertise at the end. He's been at this long enough that he knows that there's no reason to think that disincentives or incentives need even a reform, much less a radical reform, in the absence of free will. If we were to give up on the requirement of legal guilt (legal guilt may well be a fiction, but it is more difficult to show legal guilt rather than mere physical causal connection between one individual's action and a consequence) in criminal sentencing, we'd be giving up on a restraint on punishment -- which might lead to a reduction in anti-social behaviours -- and if we don't reward productivity, the productive individuals will produce less of the goods and services we want.
I’ve been studying and specially observing the astrological movements of planets in relation to my (and others) birth astral chart. It is beyond incredible to see how many events coincide exactly with planetary positioning themselves in exact angules and the astral meaning of these planets being exactly what the event shapes , or what happens in that moment of sinchrinixity. These I’ve seen in hundreds of meaningful events in my md mubfamily life , and the sinchrinicity is not aproximate but exact. That is to say that rhe olaneta, , seriuos astrology already has been pointing to this “determinism” since ages ago.
One can say that is the planets influence, but must accurately I see is that the olanets are a map of what’s there to come, or what “alreqdy happened”
Time is iñlusiry, there’s no linear time where ine thing is the cause of another, that’s illusory
And the indeoendent self is illusory roo, since there is really nonody choosing is infere that there is no I, if there is no I then there is noone determindes or free
Determinism is part of relativity and how a character interacts with things other than itself. The choices presented are part of proximal probability. The perception of situations and choices are delayed because they are made of electrical impulses from senses to processing before awareness itself can witness it. The so called philosophers that he is dismissing study the intangible but still experiential beyond all the quanta. What is a bunch of data sets or quanta becoming qualia or conscious experiences. All quanta take place within awareness not outside of it so the brain is not and never will be fundamental. Giving an example of a man who only had a brain stem and no other brain matter was still fully functional with a high iq and phd. Another example is people with autism. Again this is claimed as a state of neurodivergence yet some people use this diagnosis as an excuse to perpetuate their state patterns of behaviour where others don’t identify with the label and change their personality leading to a point where tested again are no longer considered valid for a diagnosis of autism. This seems to be whether a person identifies with the patterns and programmings, thoughts and beliefs they were born into( which is indoctrinated by the culture from birth and partly genetic… they are born more or less pristine prior to that) they get stuck in a deterministic pattern and essentially have no free will. Then there are people who stop identifying with the programs and start identifying with the awareness that witnesses the programmed behavior. These people make choices from free will as the awareness is part of the absolute not relativity. They witness the deterministic part and are able to curtail it to push their experience in a direction if they’re choosing. Of course being a human biological meat machine still has limitations but even that is taking place within awareness. I used to be vehemently materialistic but since studying a bit of the non tangible phenomenon and having direct experiences of those, there is much much more going on then just this materialistic reductionism. Even quantum physics is demonstrating this and there are more experiment being done this year to clear up the questions raised by the double slit. If you don’t like mysticism or language that sounds airy fairy or religious then look into the work of scientists like Donald Hoffman and nassim harmain. Allot of ancient text are describing something that correlate to understandings in our now unfolding field of quantum physics and field theory. Study of AI is also showing us how our brains and consciousness work. Don’t be so quick to dismiss things when they should first be studied. Coming to a conclusion based on “I don’t belief that shit” is still a belief and not a humble exploration of our reality.
This sounds a lot like the Buddhist doctrine of dependant origination, and how we free ourselves from the cycle of birth and death that that bracket the entire field of causation. I think the confusing issue here is the definition of 'free will', or agency. They mean two different things in the east and the west. I think the concept of agency that Sapolsky is critiquing is the western concept of an autonomous, individuated and rational cognition choosing this thing over that thing based on a set of knowable outcomes that are either positively or negatively charged with value.
@@darrinheaton2614 I wouldn’t know unfortunately as I’ve tried to stay away from already existing philosophies and even modern scientific theories to prevent being influenced. Even trying to be scientific meant there were two things. What I was observing and me. How do I take myself out of the equation so as not to project my bias… Buddhism would certainly help by proposing the practice of going into a state of no self. I was given a simple practice so I could experience it for myself and when I came face to face with the nature of reality ( after months of deconstructing reality, concepts, phenomena etc) what I was confronted with was both terrifying and amazing at the same time. The understanding of infinity and nothingness, consciousness and awareness respectively. To realise I’d been wrong about everything and myself because of every programmed mental pattern I had assimilated from the day I was born, mistaking those patterns for me. I think in orthodox Buddhism there is a misunderstanding of what is being taught but if one goes back and studies ancient poly and interprets directly from the original meaning of the words used, a different story emerges. I think your right though, two types of free will. The illusion of such from within a programmed expectation and the actual implementation of free will when the programmed patterns and self identification process is recognised.
Soviet Union;
Orthodox Jewish background;
Harvard;
Stanford;
Rockefeller University..
There are red flags all over this individual.
Perhaps. Is he wrong, though?
Your attempt at reason/logic points to red flags with you
That's an Ad hominem abusive with no substance or merit. Do you only get information from people with no expertise? That is a red flag.
@@lrvogt1257 His book is devoid of substance.
Nothing new in it for anyone familiar with philosophy.
And to flaunt that hypocrisy: that feels nice! :)
If you have to ask, the answer can only be yes. Why else would you ask questions for?
Why not? It's a very fundamental question and the answer isn't entirely obvious.
@@lrvogt1257 To ask the question is to state that AN answer exists. To say no free will is to say NO answer exists as everyone is merely experiencing what they must. Therefore there is no difference between a flat earther and a cosmologist, both are equally true to reality as we cannot ever know reality merely we can only "know" what we have to "know". This means knowledge is just sparks in a machine without connection to anything "real".
@@ExistenceUniversity : To ask a question is to HOPE an answer exists or it could be rhetorical to make a point.
When facts have a persistent predictably we tend to accept them as real but there are hypotheses and pure speculation as well... and illusions that seem very real but don't hold up to close scrutiny... like free will.
@@lrvogt1257 What is hope to a robot?
@@lrvogt1257 To experience an illusion is to know the difference between reality and fiction. To say free will is an illusion is to say it is similar but difference from real free will.
Here is a fact of reality. We have emotions. Robots don't need emotions. Why cry when a loved one dies? What determined trait of survival makes you cry or smile or experience joy when stimuli spark your nervous system?
it's called KARMA.
I can prove that free will exists. Yes...that means that Sapolsky is unequivocally wrong...and yes...I CAN prove it.
Then prove it or shut up.
@@janeayre96 We are obviously influenced by countless things in countless ways. Nor do we have 'completely' free will (I can't decide to be a fig leaf, I can’t decide to be weather, I can't decide to be you, >>>>>>).
Sapolsky’s argument is very simple. He is claiming that consciousness (aka: you) is a function of biology…and biology is deterministic…therefore ‘you’ (and your decision-making) are also deterministic. But…nobody actually has a clue what consciousness is…let alone how it is created. If you put Sapolsky and every living cognitive scientist in a room they still couldn't even begin to explain how a single moment of human subjective experience occurs (...that's worth emphasizing: It's not just that they couldn't explain it...they couldn't even BEGIN to explain it). These are FACTS. If Sapolsky wants to pretend he has solved the consciousness problem…then there is a Nobel prize with his name on it.
What this means…is that there is a VAST area of ‘you’ that is utterly inscrutable. Nobody has a clue either what it is or how it works. That 'something' ALSO influences everything you do (this is indisputable…for no other reason than that science cannot even begin to comprehensively explain a single moment of ‘you’). THAT...is f.w. Until someone can explicitly present a definitive empirical deterministic description of how that happens (and, as I said, no one is within light years of doing that)… free will exists…BY DEFAULT! THAT is why I can unconditionally insist that the entire premise that free will does not exist...is trivially easy to unconditionally refute. Because it is. I just did it.
The Milgram expirement shows the limite of free will
Totally wrong.
He’s been debunked many times
Let's do some basic philosophy and show how irrational his view is.
Let's imagine that determinism has been shown to be true somehow. Well, then one should reason like this:
1. Determinism is true
2. We have free will
3. Therefore we have free will and determinism is true (compatibilism).
That's because by hypothesis 1 is true, and 2 is self-evident to reason.
But let's imagine that, upon reflection, our reason tells us that determinism is incompatible with free will (and note, it doesn't tell us this at all clearly if at all, which is precisely why there's a debate over the matter). Well, then one should reason like this:
1. Determinism is incompatible with free will
2. We have free will
3. Therefore determinism is false
But why not like this, you may ask:
1. Determinism is true
2. If determinism is true, we lack free will
3. Therefore we lack free will?
Well, because 1 and 2 are less self-evident to reason than the negation of 3. That is, it is more self-evident that we have free will than that either determinism is true, or that determinism is incompatible with free will.
This is why the bulk of philosophers - so, actual experts in the matter at hand - are free will realists, despite disagreeing over the compatibility or otherwise of free will with determinism. If push comes to shove, it is more reasonable to be sceptical about whether our reason is correct in representing free will to require X, than it is to conclude that we lack free will. That is, it is more manifest to reason that we have free will, than that free will requires X. And thus if the leading thesis about reality has it that reality does not contain X, the reasonable conclusion is that this amounts to discovering that free will does not require X, rather than concluding that we have discovered we lack free will.
only some philosophers. look at other non white western men philosophizing. look at buddhism, for example, and maybe other ways of thinking. your are such a str8 white male, or a wanna be. there is no free will. that was a stupid idea that allow some to oppress others. get rid of it
Just because it’s inadvertently or initially incompatible with how or what one has become accustomed as a particular language of categories or a means in engaging things doesn’t mean ‘his view’ is irrational.
While it’s appreciated and respectable that academic labels are relevant. They generally imply just as you did of one’s expertise or mastery in a discipline/subject.
It would however be an error to assume he’s lacking foundation in philosophy and logical reasoning that would negate his observations and studies. Even worse to then use that to justify an attempt to irrationalize a rational discussion. It’s not wild and crazy cult shit.
Of course it’s tricky for most of us to jive with initially. It’s not about looking to find a right, wrong or plausible- he’s done that for what it’s worth.
Of course his work and knowledge can be expanded further and may lead to other understandings and that’s the cool part of the whole academic thing and sharing one’s work.
@@audimaster5000 I explained carefully why his view on free will was irrational. You have said nothing at all to address that case. indeed, you seem to think I just blandly stated that his view was irrational. No I didn't. I showed how it was.
He is not an expert in the metaphysics of free will. Anyone who is knows this, for he defines free will in a question begging way - a way that presupposes incompatibilism. Only someone utterly ignorant of the entire philosophical debate would do that. Of course, most people are every bit as ignorant as he is and so don't realize. They think 'oh, he's defined free will in a way I can accept'. That is why what he's doing is so irresponsible and unprofessional. He's exploiting the public's ignorance of his ignorance. His views - which really are ignorant and pay no respect whatsoever to the careful views of experts in the field - are accorded an authority they do not deserve. If he was a dentist rather than a scientist, would you buy his book? No, right. Because we all know that dentists are not experts in the metaphysics of free will - not in virtue of being dentists anyway. That applies as much to biologists.....as much to scientists more generally. But you don't know that, correct? You think he somehow does - does by virtue of being a scientist - have some insight into the matter......that's confused. Do a science degree and see if you study the metaphysics of free will. You won't.
"1. Determinism is true
2. We have free will
3. Therefore we have free will and determinism is true (compatibilism).
That's because by hypothesis 1 is true, and 2 is self-evident to reason. "
2 is not always self-evident to reason, your assumption is that every human being is able to reason at this level although it is basic, it still is a requirement to reason. Someone who is brain dead does not have the "free will" to choose to reason at this point. There are certain limitations for every human being in some capacity whether it's ability, disability, their circumstances,etc.
I don't agree with your premise of your argument that the more "self-evident" thing is that free-will exists. It is evident that we have a WILL, but we do not determine our WILL or the circumstances that influence our will. Can you spontaneously will yourself to like cucumbers if you hate them? Do you WILL your preferences or do you DISCOVER them and therefore make choices bound by your preferences which you had no control over.
@@Raz0rIG we do not see touch hear smell or taste free will. Yet it is widely believed-in. The best explanation of this is that our reason represents us to have it. For how else would the notion have even occurred to us? Plus our reason represents us to be morally responsible, both in the sense of having moral obligations, and also the sense of being deserving of harm or reward depending on whether or not we fulfil those obligations. Our reason also assures us that only a person with free will would be morally responsible in either sense. Thus in this way our reason once more represents us to have free will. There is, note, no serious dispute over this. Thus the argument appears sound. And certainly, any representations of our reason that may imply (and I do not think there actually are any on inspection) the incompatibility of free will and determinism are far less clear and forceful than those telling us we are free. It would thus be rationally perverse to conclude that we lack free will on the basis of the supposed truth of determinism.
A Lutheran response is yes, In Christ.
Lutheran has no evidence.
Robert Sapolsky defines Free Will and then quickly refutes that definition. “Free Will is when your brain produces a behavior and the brain did so completely free of every influence that came before. Free Will is the ability of your brain to produce behavior free of its history.” Here is a practical definition of Free Will-the ability to act at one's own discretion. Definitions are created to clarify not confuse, confound, or reveal an absurdity. If you start with an absurd definition why expect readers to be further misled?
If you use a definition that does not include the ability to make decisions independent of prior circumstances, then what you're describing is just that humans have a lot of varied and complex behaviours. Nobody is disputing that. But if they are all determined (albeit in complex, difficult to predict ways) by prior circumstances then it's deterministic (or deterministic + randomness). The definition of free will as your behaviour being completely determined by prior circumstances seems like a big difference from the common definition (that I decide my own fate etc.).
He really doesn’t understand free will. I am IFA is it African religion called youruba religion that we all chose our own destiny whatever that destiny is, it could be poor it could be a criminal. It could be a prostitute. It could be a genius it could be a musician. It could be whatever you want when we got here we change environment by the influence, the people that we surround ourselves by all the religions, but everything that he mentioned, and we get confused of free will the way it is so basic it’s laughable😂
"we all chose our own destiny whatever that destiny is, it could be poor it could be a criminal"
You have no evidence for this belief, whereas Robert provides actual evidence to support his own ideas.
More importantly... Is that a wig?
No. Not MOST people believe that we have free will. ALL people, including Sapolsky, believe that we have free will. He acts in a way that betrays this belief, no matter what he says. It's complete nonsense. The mere fact that we can make happen what we decide to do because of a FUTURE goal in mind is proof of free will. We are partially determined by the future, thanks to our ability for reason (and therefore our ability to predict the consequences of our behavior, sometimes years in advance). Besides, computation is NOT a physical phenomenon (even though it is implemented on physical systems). Sapolsky seems to think that showing a few examples where we don't have free will (which is quite a lot) is enough. That is moronic in the extreme. To argue that all people should be treated exactly the same regardless of behavior is not only moronic, it is immoral (profoundly so). This man is trying to destroy society from the inside in pursuit of a radical leftist political agenda. Pretty despicable, especially for a supposed "scientist." Man, this was bad...
100% agree. Maybe I'm overconnecting dots, but it's interesting how Sapolsky is being spotlighted on MSM propaganda outlets like Apple News during the time Israel has stepped up its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza. I'm sure they'd love the world to absolve Zi onists of their genocidal behavior
how do you determine that future goal? does it just magically come to you from nowhere?
@@nivekab No, it does not come out of nowhere. It comes from YOU decision as to which path to take. The only thing that is true is that the various OPTIONS you are able to visualize are themselves constrained by you past experience, but the choice you make between them is not, It is determined by what you want to happen IN THE FUTURE! Nothing else forces you to chose that option. YOU are the decider, no one or nothing else. The ability to correctly visualize the future is what gives us free will, and differentiate a 2-year-old from a sane adult (as an example). Treating the two-year-old the same as the adult (as the determinists would do) is insane. And in fact it is so insane that literally no one does so, which means literally NO ONE believes Free Will does not exist.
@@KRGruner 😂 so are you saying you treat a kid differently because you inherently know they're a kid?
@@nivekab I know kids do not have the same ability to predict the consequences of their actions as adults do. And I am not the only one, Literally everyone (including lawmakers, judges, and juries) agree with me. In fact the entire jurisprudence of any society that has ever existed agrees. Questions?
More preposterous babbling about the illusion of free will.
You were determined to comment.
If your choices weren't determined by who you are, what you've experienced, and the circumstances... they would be random and irrational. You don't even choose the choices.
If you think you could have done something differently... well, you didn't. But why did you make THAT choice. You did it because of that because of that because of that etc.
*BRO LOOKS LIKE PSARANTONIS AND DOESN'T EVEN CARE...*
There are so many axioms (e.g., the idea of a fixed morality) I can't take this seriously. Terms like "kind" or "empathic" or "just" are just inserted into the conversation without any definition or theory of origin. He just assumes we all agree on the definition of these terms and that whatever these definitions are are true. He lists examples of nature, which no one controls, and nurture, that at times seems to be controlled by nature through culture and at other times culture through nature. It's a system set up to be non-falsifiable. Those toga wearing philosophers have already dealt with these arguments.
yeah no consistency here. He wants to have the cake and eat it too.
I didn't see a "fixed" morality suggested but the idea that we should have more empathy for people with issues is just the golden rule... morality is the evolving wisdom of society as humans have interacted for millennia. People learn that treating each other with respect improves outcomes for everyone. It's as deterministic as spheres forming hexagonal patterns after being jostled enough. Over time, harmonious patterns emerge.
@@lrvogt1257 you just proved the point about thinking being not rigorous. " People learn that treating each other with respect improves outcomes for everyone" why is one outcome better than the other if it is all like domino it just the flow of the river no better or worse without possibility. you cant just ignore the contradiction when it is staring you in the face.
@@ReflectiveJourney it doesn’t matter to the universe… but determinism doesn’t mean we don’t feel things. Our awareness is why determinism is a powerful illusion. Feelings are part of the equation. Because something happens we respond. Emotion is awareness of bodily responses to stimuli. Fear… adrenaline… heart racing… flight or fight. See an attractive person… arousal… other emotions arise. See something gross… body says yuck , bad… get away. Feelings are awareness of autonomic responses. Someone you know dies… you feel bad… or not so much… You may not know which until it happens. You don’t choose. You find out.
@@lrvogt1257 i agree with you.. our consciousness is a what makes us aware of the interiority of nature. I am disagreeing on "facts" to some extent i.e. what is logical. We start from a subjective point of view and then try to get rid of that subjectivity as an eternal death drive in search for abstract laws. I understand the motivations and alienation being a strong drive. Strictly speaking, why should evolved apes have so much confidence in their fragile reasoning process that evolved in the past 400 years over the visceral process that has evolved over a billion years. Unless you claim all subjectivity is epiphenomenal it is an interesting question at least
Does the U of Chicago have a philosophy department? If so, do they approve of this silliness parading as scholarly thought about determinism and free will? Embarrassing.
Wow, please, give us your “lights”!
It's hardly silly. It's one of the most basic philosophical questions.
Wow. Existence exists. That’s what you’re saying. What a revelation…. For a modern philosopher, that’s a big step forward from “we can’t know anything” but it’s a giant step behind understanding the “why”. The fault is in the first few minutes of this recording when you define free will. Your axiom is flawed. Which means everything built on it is flawed. Free will isn’t separate from existence, it’s part of it. You talk about how from the dawn of time that stars/proteins/amoebas/amphibians/humans (every bit of matter since the Big Bang) have been on this course. Sure, the courses of evolution were based on many things (environment, food, predators, etc…) Of course everything that is going to happen, is going to happen… there’s no changing that. Anyone with half a brain (to use your example) knows that. Who doesn’t know that everything in the past built everything around us and made us what we are. It’s not that what your saying is completely wrong, it’s just completely irrelevant. Not because you haven’t researched enough or haven’t studied everything, I see that you have. You just missed the point. You were so close.
Sapolsky s definition of free will is problematic at the outset. Free will is the “ability of your brain to produce behaviour free of history”. So the brain produces the behaviour, not you, so his definition presupposes a will that is not free. Isnt that an issue?
Stop listening to these vicious talks everyone
No
@nibas4920 know what?