The Man Who Had a Hole Blown In His Head - Robert Sapolsky
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 фев 2024
- Clip taken from Within Reason 55 with Robert Sapolsky: • There's No Free Will. ...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
"A report of Gage's physical and mental condition shortly before his death implies that his most serious mental changes were *temporary,* so that in later life he was far more functional, and socially far better adapted, than in the years immediately following his accident. A social recovery hypothesis suggests that his work as a stagecoach driver in Chile fostered this recovery by providing daily structure that allowed him to regain lost social and personal skills." Wiki
Perks of being a networked entity rather than having something like a personality gland.
Where are you getting this info because that’s not what I’ve researched, an article from the NLM says that though he recorded somewhat his personality and temperament were dramatically changed. He didn’t develop mental disruptions like dementia but his behavior and attitude were vastly different from his uninjured self.
Reciprocity would mean that there were complementary changes in the brain, as well, due to the brain's plasticity.
@@anotherway6427 As I mentioned at the end of the comment, it's a quote from wikipedia.
“Tis but a flesh wound”
😂
As someone that majored in Philosophy and minored in Psychology I got hit with Phineas on multiple fronts 😂 Free will, Psychology of Personality, Philosophy of Neuroscience, & Biological Psychology.
There’s no such thing as biological psychology, only kids pretending to be behavioural neuroscientists.
Kool. I got my degree on this story from Sam O'nella Academy. 😂😂😂
You wasted many years of your life, because we are all philosophers, and Psychology is pseudo science
I learned all I know from Sam. Swiss miss instant piss!
It's the first story in literally every course
Cant believe you actually got to sit down w such a legend. So happy for you!
“Got to”? Was determined to.
@@jkm9332 yes fully! Energy is moving in his favour :) isn't it wonderful!? So incredibly blessed that we get to witness this conversation. I like to trash talk technology a lot but really, without it we wouldn't get to bare witness and grow from this experience together
I love listening to his lectures which are up on RUclips. He's a great teacher and story teller.
The first true metal head \m/
Im dead lol
Your ( R. Sapolsky) book "Behave" has changed my worldwiew kompletely, thank you!
It is human instinct to judge. And consequences for actions may benefit society. But to truly think you know what someone deserves is the ultimate hubris. We don’t know what other people go through.
i live above a drunk, she is totally obnoxious, screams profanity at everyone for no apparent reason and seems determined (in the sense she is being deliberate) to make everyone hate her, it is really hard not to want bad things to happen to her, and it is equally hard to find empathy. the way i see it is that if she were aware and seeking some kind of help then i do what i do, which is to totally ignore her, but if she isn't looking for help, then she has made up her mind she doesn't even want me to like her.
but ultimately we should be looking for cures to people's illnesses - if she has an illness that is, even though i "know" there is no free will, i find it hard to excuse someone that awful.
@@HarryNicNicholas We are human. Judging is part of it. It’s normal. It’s not always helpful, though.
What a great conversation. Many thanks to Alex and Prof. Sopolsky.
I like these short form clips better than your longer videos, it is far easier to find time to watch a ten minute clip than an hour long one. I hope you will continue to make them, as well as uploading your full length content.
I love listening to the long discussions on bus rides.
I came to this conclusion a decade ago, and my Criminal Justice professors treated me like a moron for suggesting it 😂
I’m very glad Dr Sapolsky is willing to say this out loud, because our current punitive justice system (in America) is built on lies and deceit. We shouldn’t be putting all these men in cages.
Yeah me too. It's why I don't feel hate, but sorrow for everyone involved in painful situations. On both sides. I think it's also why feeling proud of something feels wrong or even strange to me, and feel privileged or grateful instead. Since I've been feeling/thinking like this I feel much more at rest.
Nobody just wakes up one day and chose to be bad/evil or incapable of something they'd like to be.
Doesn't putting killers in prison contribute to all those 'little things' that makes us who we are, and in essence keeps people alive who would otherwise be killed in turn by these criminals (if they were not in prison)?
@@Fair-to-Middling So what you’re discussing is the UTILITY of locking up violent criminals. I was discussing the VIRTUE of guilt/praise.
To pull on this thread, I’ll give you my opinion, just as an example. Retributive Justice satisfies our virtue for penalizing criminals. But the outcomes are horrific for the victim, perpetrator, and society at large.
Contrast this with rehabilitative/restorative Justice which is more focused on outcomes, and has been shown to be highly effective.
My main point is that, once we dispense with the *virtue* of punishment/guilt, we can start discussing the *utility* of outcome-based justice.
@@Fair-to-Middling what people find hard to grasp is that locking people up is still immoral, we do it cos we have no other solution. the real problem is also in the solution though, we "cure" people of criminality, but then we have to deal with _how far do we go_ ? and what else can be "cured" when we have that ability.
Wait is his stance really that no one is responsible for his own actions because they had no say in what shaped them? Does he therefore believe we should not incarcerate anyone??? That would be wild. And Alex did let that slip???
The title kinda suggests that it was Robert that got hit in the head and not Phineas!
I've always wonderd how much of Phineas Gage's behavioural changes might have been due to PTSD. Its alwasy assumed that it was solely from the damage, but much of his behaviour was similar to those who suffer from stress related disorders.
lol
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT ok, thanks for the input. I'm not denying that his brain damage caused substantive behavioural changes. But given other factors we understand about mental trauma, it poses an interesting question about which effects were stress related and which were neurological. But I guess we could just laugh at each other's thoughts instead.
Great point.
Indeed, "What now?" Society has a right (or does it?) to protect itself from certain individuals regardless of the conditions that brought them to do anti-social things, like murder. How do we turn confinement from punishment to treatment? Perhaps the first step is simply acknowledging that blame is not pertinent if there is no free will for the "patient," (as opposed to "criminal") and then I suppose, work towards behavior modification?
I highly recommend Sapulsky's new book, "Determined." A lot to think about.
I learned about Phineas as a psychology major.
I agree very much.
This is my second favourite story about something going through someone’s head. The first is about a guy who put his head into particle accelerator
You could easily say that the experience itself changed him. Or whatever part of his brain that kept certain behaviors checked was lost. The person didn't ultimately change, he's just dealing with a different set of information and checks.
There are many informed historians who doubt the reports of Gage's profound change in behaviour.
Just a quick google search suffices to discover this isn't the whole story, and it's actually disputed what conclusions should be reached by it.
imagine having a rod fly through your brain and on the same day go on to have a nice dinner.
Ok
@@leonardmead1425😂😂
Hope it wasn't toad in the hole.
That dude was a fucking G
So if our brain structure & chemistry dictate how we act, (which I believe they do), why wouldn't praise & reward be meaningful? They serve to reduce negative behaviour & encourage positive? If new neural pathways are made by repetition & reinforcement, then praise & reward (& maybe threat punishment to a degree), would physiologically alter the brain too? Just like all the other factors that made you you?
Maybe I've misunderstood something here though
You could be right, the “problem” is it’s now just a descriptive claim of what’s effective, rather than in the moral sphere.
@hrothgr52 yeah, my views were challenged by Alex's Free Will Doesn't Exist video. I can feel myself going there again thinking about morality. It's uncomfortable
@@hannahmitchell87 I don’t take a strong position on free will. I don’t think Alex, or anyone else’s, arguments work, but I also don’t see a particularly compelling case for free will either. I agree the answer complicated things for sure.
I don't think free will is relevant, what's relevant is whether or not we can learn things and we can so therefore it is useful to teach and discipline people. Punishment though might be more difficult to justify for other reasons.
Yeah i think his use of "reward" and "punishment" are misuses considering the learning (neurological long term potentiation) that takes place in operant conditioning which is obviously based on reinforcement and punishment. Assigning fault or recognition for a behavior may not make sense with his take on free will, but using those tools to shape behavior is absolutely useful. Blame and punishment, as well as recognition and reward, are related but not interchangeable with the former being a perception and the latter being a behavior.
I think i would have been cursing in church if my god's idea of a miracle was allowing me to survive after a steel rod turned my head into a keyhole.
It was a tamping rod, used to compact explosive materials placed into a drill hole. In the event of a spark, the tamping rod became a projectile. Seems a basic fact for somebody as astute as Sapolsky.
Closing statement’s importance is gonna go over most peoples heads but damn is it true
Cool discussion. I disagree about reward & punishment being useless, since those are added to all the other influences on behavior, for the individual, as well as anyone who is aware of the system.
Our unintentional assumptions about ourselves are deeply affected by deserving and not deserving the life we live. I've always wondered about my decisions. I rationalize them but I'm sure i don't know exactly how I've made them.
"There is nothing more dangerous than to confide in our own strength, and trust to feelings of fervor. We are full of malice, and capable of committing the most enormous crimes, unless God supports us.”
-Fr. Ignatius of the Side of Jesus, p. 85-86
This is why I don't endorse hostility in the political sphere. Politician X seems like a bad person? By all means, oppose his candidacy, but don't hate him. Hatred has downstream effects, many of which hurt you and none of which affect the candidate's electability.
Well, yes, people who do immoral things may have no choice but to do so, but then, the people who punish them also have no choice but to do so
But knowing this, I no longer blame anyone for anything or praise anyone for anything, morally. I try to use the language of social conditioning rather than good/bad and reward/punishment.
It does raise the question of how they should be punished, though.
@@madnessoverload7824 Why does anyone need to be punished? What good does it do? Surely it's better (if they're a genuine danger) to rehabilitate, if possible, whilst keeping them away from others in a safe environment? Punishers are no better than those they're punishing; they just believes they're justified so get to enact their bloodlust with impunity
@@madnessoverload7824punishment was created to make the punisher feel better about the crime, it has never stopped crime however
Max Stirner/Landstreicher translation: “The Unique and Its Property “ solved this ‘problem’ in 1844. And many other ones. Yet little to no interest.
Gage returned to his normal self as his brain rewired itself--frontal lobe connections to the amygdala, before he died his early death.
A quick search on wiki shows that because of the legend of him, a lot of stories about him were likely exaggerated. Furthermore, his brain adapted and he was far more functional and socially coherent later in life.
Seems like a weird story to harp on, given there were few and exaggerative stories on him, most of which are not possible to corroborate
The main point still stands though, it is evidence that who we are is a physical function of the brain and one affected by physical changes in the brain. This also isn't the only case but the first case that clearly showed change, the topic has been studied further since.
@@charlestownsend9280Antonio Damsio provides more contemporary examples from his own work in Descartes' Error.
There may be exaggerated stories "out there" but he was also studied medically. So yes, they are possible to corroborate. So here is a hint. Don't use wiki as a reliable source without understanding how to source you claims.
@@littlebitofhope1489 silly comment. What I said makes sense. “Medically studied” in what way? It was the 1800s. How much could you really be studied in a sufficient manner? What happened to him was so mind blowing and wild, it’s all but guaranteed he would have many stories and legends made about him.
Sure, wiki isn’t good for specifics. But it’s good enough to get the gist of what’s going on
Oh yes, let's listen to the Wiki guy over Sapolsky...
A professor at Notre Dame wrote a rebuttal on this book and view, one which Majesty of Reason highlighted. It tore apart Sapolsky's claims. Joe from Majesty of Reason agreed with the criticism of Sapolsky, and Sapolsky's lack of understanding of vital issues in the debate. It's worth checking out.
This sounds very interesting. Could you tell me a quick summary of the rebuttal? I’d be keen to check it out. Thanks bro 🙏🏻
Same thing happened to me after brain surgery
while gauge is a fantastic example dramatic brain change what exactly do you think that you are saying is new?
I always wondered what went through Phineas Gage’s head when he was injured. Now I know.
Although i agree that there is no free will. Reward and punishnent do make sense because of operant conditioning. We dont have free will but we dont need it to learn.
Punishment has been shown not to work well. It is too location specific. Reinforcement works very well and is intrinsic.
@@littlebitofhope1489Punitive punishment doesn’t work well… but reinforcement can be used as a form of discipline.
@@littlebitofhope1489 Imho yes and no. Especially when the kid acts deliberately to challenge you, to see who is more determined, I think it makes sense to show you are NOT willing to submit, and this experience is important when they try the same with someone who retorts not educational, but with full force.
It can be required as instant reaction when something is outright dangerous, damaging to life-threatening.
Or when the kid does something that is harmful to others (physically or psychologically).
Especially with rather young kids, you cannot constantly engage in endless discussions.
Important is the direct connection action - reaction.
Punishment that is executed long after the event is over is nonsense. That brings nothing.
The case of your dog is around having a great time, all over the place, and not listening to your calls.
You get angrier and angrier.
And when then, after half an hour, your dog finally notices you and comes to you, and you punish him, he will be confused. You must praise him because he finally did whar you wanted.
Social conditioning is useful, yes.
@@feedingravensI don't buy it. You are not teaching the kid to be better and reevaluate the wrong, but simply to fear the retaliation after committing the wrong. And you definitely should engage the child with discussion, not to try to convice of the wrong, but to make it understand why they did it in the first place, finding a common ground, present the kid with an alternative that will satisfy both. It's tough and most parents don't have time, but it's crucial to make the kid be better and to think for themselves and to evaluate the consequences and find an alternative path.
You don't teach anyone by beating them into being a better person, you convince them.
Humans are different from dogs, the kid can do the same thing but trying it's best to not make you aware of it. It's much more damaging in the long run if this is the lesson the kid learns.
That's not the same as saying they shouldn't be reprimanded, but punishment is definitely not the answer. At least in my opinion.
From what I have researched, the personality changes of Gage was either a publicity stunt or temporary AT BEST. While he was recovering, it is noted that his personality went back to normal.
Please have Dr. John Lennox next!
Only after they get Dr Paul McCartknees. Or Professor Ringo Starsky
If we're saying that threads of the past are distributed yet causal, then doesn't blame and punishment make perfect sense to ingrain new threads within that person to not repeat certain actions?
I would love to see Alex Hormozi on the podcast, talk about philosophy
The logical thing to do, is to decide that we logically cant make any choices or do logic.
I think free will isn't an either/or question. We are influenced by a multitude of factors beyond our control, neurological, environmental, and circumstantial. But that doesn't mean we still don't have agency in our own lives. Like with most things, the truth is somewhere between the two extremes.
“There is free will” and “there is not free will” is a true dichotomy. Any other conclusion violates the law of excluded middle.
You have a will, it’s not free from anything.
compatabilists will argue otherwise. who knows whos right whos wrong but i dont think philosophers treat it as a copmlete binary.@@Leith_Crowther
@@Earthad23 I love this statement.
I hear this logic mistake often. I think it exists to make it so certain topics are easier to think about, since you don't actually "have to" come to a proper conclusion or accept that not knowing may be the only proper answer.
It is not possible that what you said is true. Free will either exists or it doesn't. This is based upon one of the fundamental tenets of logical reasoning.
With respect, I understand what Mr. Sapolsky is saying but in my view freedom is not connected to who we are, and how we became that person, but it's connected to our interaction with the world. Freedom is not connected to reasons why are we doing something, it is connected to having the ability (freedom) to do it.
As someone who holds pretty strongly to determinism, I dont believe it makes blame, punishment, praise, or reward illogical. Those things are tools. Its like saying because a hammer didnt choose to be a hammer, it's useless to get anything built. We have praise & punishment for very obvious good reasons.
But if we all realize and except this then obviously they are not logical. But if we all realize it , then we're in trouble, a lot of trouble. This is why we usually don't hear many people talking about it. I was almost suicidal thinking about it, and I still can't except it. And won't.lol
It depends on what you mean by "illogical". As a counterexample, religion is an effective tool to control the morality of a large population. Would it be then be logical to push the general public to adhere to a certain religion? If all you care about is the collective morality of the public, then yes it is logical. However, if, for example, you also care about truth, then no it's not.
Perhaps it is the case that blame and praise is still needed, as forms of encouragement or deterrence, but determinism mitigates the emotional aspect of how we view such situations. For example, we can focus on rehabilitating criminals (if possible), instead of punishing them solely as retribution for the grievance they've caused.
It doesn't directly undermine the utility aspects of these, but it does undermine the emotional ones.
If it undermines the emotional aspects though, then how can the utility aspects be kept? Aren't they reliant on the emotional?
My answer to this is that we keep them, but in a different way, not based in free will/agency but in ethics. Even without free will, we don't lose empathy and the preference not to suffer and to find happiness/pleasure. We'd still want to put a murderer away, but not because we think they're ultimately responsible, but because we think they're in the way of other peoples happiness. And we'd shift focus on rehabilitation and restoration if possible, not dwell on a false sense of responsibility that only has hatred as result.
Can you for once have a discussion on hinduism?
Morality and punishment were invented in the deep dark past before we began to understand cause and effect. In modern times, we have the opportunity to re-evaluate all our old inherited beliefs.
So the answer is to letting murderers roam the streets?
While it seems the story of Phineas Gage does, in some way, impact a philosophical discussion on Free Will, the actual story is not exactly what many relay. So, for example, it’s reported that in later years Gage’s behavior became more inline with his original calmer / responsible personality.
The brain is a wonderful thing, and can likely reform lots of the pathways missing
So with that explanation and one that is logical and rational we should not be demonizing people with so-called mental illnesses or addictions. Just like the most compassionate leaders in the field state we should ask not what’s wrong with you but what happened to you.
What do you mean by so called mental illnesses? Mental illness was never demonized, addictions are because it’s a choice that people made mental illness however is something most people with born with or otherwise. there is no choice
@campbellsjournal6537 that’s just not true.
In the study of the causes of addiction it’s too simplistic to say that people chose.
If we’re talking about any kind of addiction “elicit”, alcohol, gambling, food, there’s a whole lot of factors including brain science (reward system) Not to mention childhood trauma that highly increases a persons chance of looking to substances to elevate stress symptoms. And those symptoms are within the realm of what we see with people who have so-called mental illnesses. I say so called because all of it is a cluster of symptoms that have to do with the overwhelm of the nervous system And if you think that mental illness has not been demonized I suggest you study the history of eugenics (demonization) and how it has influenced our current mental health system and conversations about it.
hey i wanted to know if you could refute syfetalk?
he's quite the challenge for atheists.
I find the better lesson from this unfortunate story is more about why we need work place safety rules that are actually followed.
As a Christian, I would hope that you one day look into the transcendental argument for Gods existance, as presented by Greg Bahnsen. There are several debates available on youtube where he presents this argument in debating atheists.
😂
You people are absolutely fucking nuts, honestly.
It's only logical, and as it stands, it's impossible for the world to bear.
The logical thing to do, is to decide that we logically can't make any choices or do logic.
@@jaredgardner5275It's only logical.
Did researchers consider the possibility of a post-traumatic behavioral change, or was it exclusively the brain damage?
I doubt psychological trauma would lead to such immediate drastic personality changes. Thats like a man being shot one time and his behaviour suddenly changes (probably unlikely)
I think if follow up research didn't support the hypothesis, then folks would probably not go with this idea.
Guage was the beginning of the field, but since then a lot of research supports this idea. Studies on identical twins and the similarity in their decisions being a really interesting one.
@@arnoldwise5657 I remembered the image of the WW2 soldier smiling abnormally after seeing someone get shot
Not sure about the premise that Gage's behavioural changes post- accident suggest we just follow our brain's biology and are not truly free agents. A fully functioning brain, unlike Gage's, is usually capable or reasoning, empathy etc. With this follows responsibility for your actions.
So Phineas got ahead at Harvard! 😅😂
"If God is for us, who can be against us?" Rom 8
Isn’t there a link between serial killers and childhood injury/illness too?
yes of course. there's a link between serial killers and that one time they saw a girl on the street when they were 5 and seemingly forgot about 5 minutes later.
Not gonna lie... The story does kinda come off as a guy who was pissed off about his injury.
The story is told as if he was supposed to be cool with having a hole pierced through his brain and it was unusual for him to be ornery about his situation.
When they say it ''changed his personality', that's like saying a hole in his head turned his favorite color from red to blue.
He was probably a pretty cool guy with self control to the people around him. But he was human and absolutely got frustrated and angry. Maybe he didn't curse out loud, but he was thinking the curse words.
Maybe he just stopped filtering. Maybe 'who he became' was already who he was. And maybe he lost the filter because traumatic injuries are traumatic. He had no reason to hold back or feel good about his situation.
________________________
I don't have a deep understanding of the story, who he was, who he became, and how he adjusted over the rest of his life. This is just my reaction to hearing the myth of the man. (Not myth as in it's entirely false, but myth as as in the narrative around his story.)
I get where you are coming from. If this was the only data point to suggest that empathy and conscience are linked to frontal lobe functioning your interpretation could very well be right.
But it is not. Far from it. There is so much work of both experimental and clinical nature that Cage's story is only of interest as a historical anecdote for a phenomenon that is now well-known in neuropsychology.
Have a great day.
If Final Destination had a good ending
Will you have Dennett on? I think the secular/arheist community severely gets free will wrong.
Would be a tad inappropriate to have Dennett on.
Isn't the awareness of blame and punishment part of the vast tapestry that decide what we do? So, even assuming no free will, doesn't it make sense to, say, imprison drunk drivers?
If you are not in control of your actions, it is not right to punish you for them. If your actions are hurting people then you may need to be locked up or trained or given therapy or whatever, but to punish someone for what is not their fault is unethical, pretty much by definition.
@@mcv2178 i dont see the distinction here. You're allowing for locking up people if their hurting people, despite them having no control over that, but also that's a morally wrong thing to do?
This gets confusing.
@@j8000 He probably means physical punishment. Obviously you can understand the difference between physical and mental punishment. Ok, they can suffer mental punishment (being locked up) because why should innocent, law-abiding members of society suffer punishment (if the perp is to commit crime again)?
@@Cheximus sorry, I can't parse that. Is being locked up not a physical punishment?
@@j8000 I guess both but I'd say more mental than physical. Physical in terms of freedom but there's no actual pain being inflicted upon your body.
Exploding Head Syndrome
It's caused from the mind being unnaturally compressed so it can work with the brain.
🫢👍
ℹ️
How can the beardy bloke make his deduction from this case? It would be simpler argument that he lost the basic capacity for many higher mental functions.
The discussion is mainly about the poor unfortunate's behaviour but the internal mental state is more important. The claim here is that the gradual and detailed creation of Gage's mental capacities and their destruction are equivalent.
Alex, if you're interested in having informed discussions about the biological basis of cognition and the human mind, you really should talk with a systems neuroscientist who has actually studied this rather than a rodent neuroscientist who has dabbled in human cognition. Turns out it's actually rather complicated. Sapolsky's research is top-notch, as is Andrew Huberman's, but neither of them have actually studied and published on much of what you and others are asking them about on social media. It undermines the credibility of all involved. Just a suggestion. 🤔
Utter twaddle.
@@corb5654 Right. As if possessing expertise in one area of scientific inquiry (e.g., rat neuroendocrinology) means you possess it in all adjacent areas (e.g., the human systems neuroscience of executive control).
So true. Huberman is always talking about human longevity and wellness but has mainly published work on animals that only live for about two to three years (rats). LOL.
@@timbrown8443 Precisely. And Sapolsky's publication record is largely in molecular and cellular endocrine mechanisms in rodents with little published experimental work in human systems, cognitive, and behavioral neuroscience. These distinctions are incredibly important to respect in science communication, where the public doesn't tend to understand them. Maybe I'll let Sapolsky or Huberman attempt to perform my next evacuative craniotomy for subdural hematoma and we'll let Corb watch the procedure and see if he can discern any important differences in expertise among the neurosciences subdisciplines. 😉
@@corb5654 how? experts doing research in one area of study inherently don't know as much about an area outside their research as scientists actually doing research in that area. this is irrefutable and common sense.
What about alcohol?
it's best to assume that you are mentally ill, and so is everyone around you. i treat everyone that way, it means i feel happier about myself and i don't get angry at the stupids i have to deal with, cos they are just sick.
That's a fun idea :)
It is interesting, of course, to quantify the brain, its parts, and its multivarious functions - not least when a portion of the brain's matter has be destroyed - yet it is still an assessment based on bean counting (on an imaginary or actual scale). This basically scholarly activity does not qualify the term or concept of 'Consciousness' .. or that true oddity of the oddly human aspect of it: 'conscience' .. its material origin, its formal design (or designation), its actual activity, and its final purpose. None of which impacts upon either the concept < God > or the notion of (limited) freedom to will; the organic construct of sensory awareness (its material origin) set some decidedly abrupt (quatifiable) limits to will, willingness, and willpower - in both thought and deed (the qualifiable) formal designations usually applied); they chiefly affect the action of the agent involved, measurably (in quantity), or alter the agent's grasp on his purpose, discernibly (by quality).
Pain felt through jabbing at a false hand, for instance, is still 'pain' .. as generally measured (1-10) in 'soreness', 'endurablitiy', or 'reaction' (jerking back an arm, etc), that is sensory awareness (misguided or fooled). But it does not count as 'pain' in discernible quality, it is a triggered reaction not a reasoned response, that is consideration (upon reflection and understanding).
The function (the jerked arm) belongs to the specific agent (and dies with his disintegration), the capacity (to think through, and at times morally) rests, however, with the general category (and so does not vanish with the agent only with the type - thus it persists* as a capacity, potentially or actually); and so, free will (?), the jerked response is generally-speaking not a matter of will, in the intellect, however, accepting blame and receiving forgiveness, speficially, is indeed reliant on the will freely to accept or reject it, rationally-speaking (engaging the intellect - an 'inner' ability to consider, 'stuff' - at some level no matter how limited).
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
* Not floating around in the disembodied ether, universally, but - by quirky design - linked to the particular kind of being with some organic sensory awareness. Angels and stars do not have 'sensory awareness' of any organic sort; notwithstanding, both choir quite merrily - in the own individual and common ways. Freely so, too, the star being far more limited in expression of freedom (having no more will than the urge to be what it is, quite happily .. if at times explosively by way of material nature).
But praise and punishment are necessary. Well, we have control over them anyway. It's just how humans function. Hmm.
such is our free will dependency on our biology. Free will is biological construct!
It's very convenient and presumably comfortable to never have to be held accountable for your actions.
no, i think that is the problem that religists have, they are so attracted to the idea of retribution they think any other line of thought is an excuse "you just want to sin" is an UTTERLY ignorant way of thinking. there is no free will, people do the things they do because they have antecedents to the choices they make, it is in no way "making excuses" you need to watch some of sapolsky and try to take in what he's about.
did you come to your conclusion randomly, just plucked that idea out of the blue, or did you have a reason for saying what you said? cos if you had a reason, then you don't have free will, you did not choose, you persuaded yourself.
@@HarryNicNicholas the reason I said what I did is simple. I wanted to point out the obviously self serving nature of claim that we have no free will.
If you want to get into it in depth I'll start with a few further observations.
1. Religious people are not the only ones who assert free will.
2. Free will does NOT mean the absence of contingencies. It simply means the ability to take some actions and not others.
3. Sapolsky talks about the fellow in the video as if his case is a clean knockout out the concept of free will but, from what was said here, that case proves nothing of the sort. It shows the brain chemistry affects our moods but what about that unfortunate man's condition is supposed to lead me to the belief that he couldn't make any choice at all?
4. I hope you recognize the beautiful irony of your negative comments about religious folks. If you really believed what you say you do then you could no more criticize religious people for their intolerance than you could criticize the sound of the wind in the trees.
5. What's more disturbing to me than the inability to criticize that the lack of free will would necessitate is the far more bleak inability to praise anyone or anything. If you'd rather live in a world where all that is good, beautiful, heroic, loving, kind, selfless and honorable is a mere accident then be my guest. For me, I make the choice to live in the only world that is worth living in. One where we can decide to pursue all those wonderful things I mentioned above.
@@HarryNicNicholas That doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for your own actions. I'm really disappointed by Sapolsky here. What utter nonsense. Yes the penal system in the US is horrible but the other extreme also causes a great deal of harm. Ask the families of people who were murdered or permanently injured by someone who was let go because they thought he wasn't really responsible for his actions due to his bad childhood.
@@47StormShadowThanks someone who got it. I really admire Sapolsky and still do for his work but that was absolute nonsense. I'm even more shocked that Alex would something like that just slide. Did he even counter or even ask if he thinks that therefore murderers should be put into rehabilitation programs instead of doing life in prison? I would be highly interested.
@@EbonyPope there is a further moral complications. Presumably the murders being put into rehab without their consent. So there you have compulsory punishment and removal of liberty from persons who have no guilt...
C.S. Lewis does a great job on this very topic in, I believe, The Abolition of Man.
"Blame and punishment (as virtues in and of themselves) never make any sense."
Do they make sense even if we do believe in free will?
If people have free will, then that means people can decide to behave differently in the future, and surely we'd be obligated to allow for that by not seeking blame and punishment for their own sake.
Concepts like rehabilitiation and forgiveness have value in either worldview:
If there is no free will, then maybe we can find a rehabilitative program that will work to change behaviour (fundementally due to deterministic mechanics, like brain chemistry or psychology etc)
If there is free will, then we have to be ready to accept that people's behaviour could change by the power of their free will.
Wait is his stance really that no one is responsible for his own actions because they had no say in what shaped them? Does he therefore believe we should not incarcerate anyone??? That would be wild. And Alex did let that slip???
Prisons exist to protect society, not to punish criminals.
I dont believe in freewill. Nothing is anyone's moral fault. Morality doesn't exist. I don't blame or praise anyone for anything. But I think rehabilitation centres a useful thing.
No one is responsible for their actions, but it doesn't matter, we shouldn't imprison people. During the pandemic, many people were quarantined and this doesn't mean that it was their fault that they got sick, we had to isolate them from others for the safety of society.
@iabla Of course we should imprison people are you mad? It just shouldn't the be end of what is done about crime. Where I live you have rehabilitation programs just like in scandinavian countries too. And it works since the reoffending rates are very low. But that doesn't mean that you get to walk free after murdering someone.
@@EbonyPope I'm just responding to your comment, you asked that if no one is responsible for their actions, does he think we shouldn't imprison anyone? Why do you think I'm mad?
heyo wassup rex orange county clone
“Distributed causality” isn’t causality. If it were, you might as well say that the change in Phineas Gage was more due to his childhood than the iron rod. Not to mention the initial conditions of the Big Bang! The whole point of the Phineas Gage example is that in his case, there’s actually an explanation for the change in his behavior. THAT’S why we don’t blame him.
No one has freewill so no one can be blamed for anything.
@@someonesomeone25 ohhhhhh I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
Alex, this is a bit off topic, but can you do us all a favour and talk to Stephen Woodford? After watching his debate with Peter Boghossian, I think he has lost some credibility with many of his followers. I'm glad that you too haven't yet lost your mind... especially over all this ridiculous woke nonsense.
I recently learned that you lean towards ethical emotivism now, i thought you were a moral objectivist
Could you explain what shifted your view?
Even in his old videos I don't think he was an objectivist. I don't know how to put it in words but just observing the world and how humans behave it seems to be the most obvious reasoning for morality to me.
@@OmniversalInsect Oh I thought the podcast he had on the objectivity of morality was him saying he was an objectivist
Are you an objectivist?
@@luth7698 Sorry I just realised I didn't even say in my comment, I'm not an objectivist. I think I mostly agree with Alex on emotivism.
@@OmniversalInsect I haven't really read anything or researched into emotivism yet I'll probably do that
thanks
@@luth7698 Tbh I haven't either, just an observation of what I see.
So that title reads very much like Robert Sapolsky had a hole blown in his head.
Your obsession with self isn't as bad as your obsession with others, or theirs with you. Becomes less important than a humain society. And singular neurosis on the individual level less consequential so long as they aren't broadly consequential. And back to the top of the page
what?
@@nicbarth3838 dont ask, adjust your diet, maybe try electro shock. Or software, try an ideological fix.
@@tuckersabath2099 I couldn't comprehend what I was reading I wasn't disagreeing, I just couldn't understand
@@tuckersabath2099 Did you take asking as an offense?
@@tuckersabath2099 what be better electro shock or diet which one do you recommend to fix my ideology, which method worked for you?
It's irritating that this is used as an example against free will. Literally no one who is a proponent of free will would make the assertion that a severely brain damaged person would act normally and indistinguishably from a mentally normal person without a damaged brain, so what exactly do they think is being debunked by bringing this up as an example? It's like they're trying to debunk some kind of straw man of the free will position.
I suppose it depends on what type of free will you believe in. I'm assuming you believe in free will? if so. What are your justifications for that belief? Ruling out any arguments that rely solely on the innate feeling of agency that the conscious mind feels.
@@ariyahreuven I'm not interested in a long back & forth on this topic. My main issue with Alex and basically everyone I've seen take up the determinist point of view is that I think the argument boils down to semantics, basically always. Their version of what the concept of "free will" means is basically something impossible. So the argument ends up being not worth having since both sides don't see eye to eye on what the subject means.
To reiterate my original point: If someone was a proponent of free will, whatever that phrase might mean to them, would you expect them to say that a severely brain damaged person would behave indistinguishably from a person without brain damage? The honest answer you'd have to give is no. No person who believes in free will would believe that a brain damaged person would behave the same as a mentally normal person. So what's the point of bringing this up as an example?
@@BennyOceanno people who believe in libertarian free will should still believe that a broken brain should work
@@BennyOceanin order to have free will you must be the origin of your action, however we as minds, cannot be the origin of our actions. We are not aware of the factors that cause our thoughts, and basically everything that happens in our mind seems due to brain activity, which means we are just an epiphenomenk product of brain activity. And this removes any possibility of any morally significant freedom. Free will as a concept is ilgical and non sense. People who think that it can make sense, are the one who try to change its traditional meaning.
@@marco_mate5181 Having "free will" means 1. Having will. So first we'd need to determine what "will" is and if we have that. Then we'd need to determine 2. Is that will "free"? In what sense is it free or unfree? Are there degrees of freedom? Free from what exactly?
I don't think the way that most determinists discuss this topic sheds any light at all on the topic, and I think they're trying to "win" via semantics, by framing the discussion in a way that favors them so that they can win by default. Side note: Let's say for a moment that the monotheistic God exists. In your view would this God have free will? And if so, why would this entity have free will when we don't? I'd like to understand the line between freedom and lack of freedom. Or, if there were entities that had free will, how would we identify them? How would their actions differ from entities without it?
I don't believe that he had such a transformation. it's all history revisionists to me. Do we have video footage of him cursing? where's the evidence?
@@trinitygod5530Should they not require rigourous evidence for the support of Christianity?
Except for the fact that he was studied by medical professionals who recorded what they saw. It's in writing sweetheart. And peer reviewed. That is the evidence.
@@trinitygod5530 Tell me, why did you feel the need to lie?
@@littlebitofhope1489Some Christians think it’s okay because they think they are on “team Jesus” who gave them permission to do whatever they want because they will be forgiven.
Video footage 😂.
Oh the history of history… It’s a thing.
First thought this is about Donald Trump.
I always thought to myself thats is kind of impossible to determine how much of his personality change was due to the physical damage, & how much was actual mental health related because he was just so angry that something terrible happened to him and it may have made him look uglier and he may have blamed himself "my mistake got a rod blown through my head". To truly find out wed have to blast rods through a lot of heads and compare, so I dont think we'll ever truly know.
What part of mental health is not physical?
Take drugs and see what happens to your brain
Tsk tsk.
11 - 10 Adamus - BRAIN VS. MIND - The Emergence Series 10 - JUNE, 2019
Watch this video if you're interested in some actual intelligent information.
Maybe he was the same guy but he was just so pissed off from the accident that he hated God and understandably never wanted to go back to work 🤷♂
Wy so mny cat ads ds dys? Did u knw tht cat hate cats?
You are your brain.
Pretty much.
I have heard that even your gut microbiome has an effect on your mind, there is probably being research done on that topic.
@OmniversalInsect True. Although there's no real stable clear personal identity, no 'you' over time, we could say that what makes up that messy 'you' is mostly brain, some body.
I wound say You are your experiense
@@haepy2953you're just adding an unnecessary middle man. Our experiences are our brain
Disagree. Big events have bigger impact
So someone not saying please or thank you is a result of something outside of their control? I know it sounds like a trivial matter but I guess you could apply to other things like littering, leaving your trolley by your car etc??
"You" are a product of your physical body (mainly the brain and hormones) and the environment that shaped you into who you are. You cannot control what environment you were born into and any actions you take are a result of your genes and how that environment affects you. Humans are so up their ass they believe they have some higher consciousness that transcends the ongoing chemical reaction which is who you are. There is no free will as the universe is deterministic (except for random quantum leaps which are completely random so also out of your control) what you do is just a product of things you cannot control however that culmination of uncontrollable things is what being a person is.
As a materialist, I have to co Clyde freewill doesn't exist. Your consciousness is impotent.
It was predetermined that I would disagree with Robert Sapolsky on the topic of free will.
RIP Robert.
He ain't ded bruh
Wtf
Reality is energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are one eternal consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there’s no such thing as death life is a dream in which we are the imagination of ourselves. Bill Hicks
Basic basic basic
Well, unfortunately, and Generally Speaking, this's all just fruitlessly merritless in both the short run of things and in the long run of things, as he's just "creatively" "making" up theoretically hypothetical scenarios as he's goes along, and then, he's just naively believing and blindly assuming that they're all factually truthful statements and logically rational explanations as to why he's personally saying things such as that there's no Free Will and of itself whatsoever in such an moronically idiotic way and in such an nimrodically stupid manner. (And this's w/h out any of The Common Senses and The Self-Awarenesses on any of these very things and matters and whether any of these very things and matters are even readily applicable to anyone if not everyone that realistically exists with Humanity, Reality, and Existence itself as of presently and concurrently in such an simple-mindedly narrow-minded fashion. (And, even then, I haven't even begun to critically judge any single other facet of his arguments and of those very examples and how and why they're all more often than not ridiculously nonsensical and illogically irrational in and of themselves, since he's more than just suggestively implying that people aren't even able to generally all-around practically control any single one of their own thoughts, words, and/or actions, and he's just supportively hinging all of this on his own personal emotional feelings and his own personal subjectively biased perspective(s) w/h out verifiably proving any of this beyond a shadow of a doubt and far from irreason from any sort of intelligently competent standpoint(s) and from any type of objectively non-biased perspective(s) whatsoever. (Amongst many other things and matters.).).). - And, so, this's all just pointlessly useless and worthlessly meaningless to even actively do in both the short run of things and in the long run of things overall, and also, altogether.
First
The problem with his analysis is that, as Daniel Dennet pointed out to him, he gives way too much ground to non-compatiablist, immaterial, liberation ideas of free will and self.
For a compatiblist, the idea that the brain has casual influence on your decision making doesn't refute the idea of self-control and agency. Saying we are determined by the past and therefore free will doesn't exist is just begging the question.
Nonsense. If the part of your brain the controls emotion malfunctions, your emotions will not be under your control. Same for speech, sight and any other behavior. It is not the past that determines, it is your brain.
Compatiblism is nonsensical. We either have free will or we don't. Daniel Dennett can equivocate all he wants; I'm still not accepting a contradiction as a valid view.
@@littlebitofhope1489 why are you assuming that the self and your will are not part of your brain and have control over parts of your brain like any other parts of your brain?
Again, same error.
This is the best argument for eugenics I've ever heard.
how lol. i dont follow your logic maybe im slow.
You didn't listen to him or any of the conversation. Watch it again. There is literally nothing that implies eugenics would work as intended.
No it is not.
Isn’t he saying we can’t change our nature?
@@dwightfry99 He is literally saying you don't have a choice and you are what your genes determine you to be.