The best podcast I have encountered in recent years. It offers in-depth discussions, questions are very thoughtful and guests have space to get into details. As a fellow PhD in Philosophy with various side interests, I love the choice of guests! I listen to every episode!
most scientists are determinists, the question is can free will co-exist with determinism. they are divided as compatabalists and sapolsky is an extreme non-compatabalist
Good luck on the! I don’t get around much, ( totally what I choose but not free will) Flying commercial should clear a bunch of sins! Sadly, Robert is right. This nation is so poorly educated his argument has no chance!
♂️+01=0=-01♀️ OB-server IAM0 For thoughts Frequency vibration OBserverTHOUGHT CHARGE ACTION FrOM=0= Darkeness COMEs CIRCLES QUANTUMO ♂️⚖️♀️✡️🕎LIGHT COLOR SOUND♀️♂️IAM ALLMIND369 CARrie's Mass MC square 1IN3X369IN7 21+1 ÷ LIGHTWAVES ALL intelligence signsALLMIND Measures 1IN3TRI 3 FatherINFINITE MIND LIGHTS Time IN US ALL MIND 3IN7. MeTAtron's MAtriX3x3 OM'E... "The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental." "As above, so below; as below, so above.” "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates." Everything is ALLMIND369 OVEONE IAM=O=QuantuM⚖️ ALLMIND IN 3in1MINDS Body Spirit OVE light*3÷7 color*3÷7 sound*3÷7.. infinite all mind in Trinity every thought has an opposite charge of itself. ♂️+01=0=-01♀️ Riding the waves through our moments in equilibrium is A NEW beginning in masteRING3X369 of our OWN each individual unique complete Immaculate conceived MIND 1IN3💚3IN1 of IAM 1LOVES Light3 3 above our heArt 3 below 7 sums 7SUMS CREATION ALLMIND frequency vibration in THOUGHTS charge MC² in WAVES OVE 3SOUNDs7 1Frequency. ... Amplitude. ... 2Timbre. ... Envelope. ... ***3Velocity. ... Wavelength. ... Phase =SUM.7 3 Lights7: 1 radio waves,÷ microwaves, 2infrared (IR)÷ visible light, ***3ultraviolet ÷ X-rays Sum Gamma rays SUM7x 6 COLORs 7 1 Red÷ Orange 2Yellow÷ Green ***3. Blue÷ Indigo SUM Violet SUM7 9 In seven colors seven notes seven lights in infinite divisions ALL TOGETHER Creating all living systems, Creating All living bodies, Creating all gravity, Creating all matter.. IN ElectroMAGnetic geometrical symmetrical fractal order HerMEs TrisMAjistus THOTH TimesFaceInEnergy Thoth me Light Never Dies death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real.. Prisoners law in three power three sets all captives free 3Consciousness says I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms wisdom's wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is key ⚖️ EnKi 🗝
We are all ♂️♀️=Gods=♂️♀️ underONE=0= infinite Creator. The hierarchy of Heaven is like the family all different ages in stages of growth IN MIND0 Mind369
MeTAtron's MAtriX3x3 OM'E... "The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental." "As above, so below; as below, so above.” "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates." Everything is ALLMIND369 OVEONE IAM=O=QuantuM⚖️ ALLMIND IN 3in1MINDS Body Spirit OVE light*3÷7 color*3÷7 sound*3÷7.. infinite all mind in Trinity every thought has an opposite charge of itself. ♂️+01=0=-01♀️ Riding the waves through our moments in equilibrium is A NEW beginning in masteRING3X369 of our OWN each individual unique complete Immaculate conceived MIND 1IN3💚3IN1 of IAM 1LOVES Light3 3 above our heArt 3 below 7 sums 7SUMS CREATION ALLMIND frequency vibration in THOUGHTS charge MC² in WAVES OVE 3SOUNDs7 1Frequency. ... Amplitude. ... 2Timbre. ... Envelope. ... ***3Velocity. ... Wavelength. ... Phase =SUM.7 3 Lights7: 1 radio waves,÷ microwaves, 2infrared (IR)÷ visible light, ***3ultraviolet ÷ X-rays Sum Gamma rays SUM7x 6 COLORs 7 1 Red÷ Orange 2Yellow÷ Green ***3. Blue÷ Indigo SUM Violet SUM7 9 In seven colors seven notes seven lights in infinite divisions ALL TOGETHER Creating all living systems, Creating All living bodies, Creating all gravity, Creating all matter.. IN ElectroMAGnetic geometrical symmetrical fractal order HerMEs TrisMAjistus THOTH TimesFaceInEnergy Thoth me Light Never Dies death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real.. Prisoners law in three power three sets all captives free 3Consciousness says I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms wisdom's wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is key ⚖️ EnKi 🗝
There are so many great podcasts now, but I just discovered this one and it stands out for me. The discussions with Dennett, Sapolsky and Plomin taught me things about all of them that I'd never noticed in other interviews or, indeed, in their writings. Many thanks to Robinson. Consider me a fan of your interviewing style.
I listened to so many of these, some are boring because the interviewer lacks compelling questions. This is a great podcast and great interview. Because of that Robert is totally more engaged. Are you on a podcast site so I don't have to RUclips?
Really enjoying the podcast version, and i don't mind the ad inserts there, but Robinson, can you please look into normalizing the volume between the show and the ads? My eardrums are getting blasted when the ads come on...
i think it is a quiet and quite beautiful part of the human psyche that we can become infatuated by life, small things or animals, whether they feel much of anything for us or not. it is undoubtedly an artifact of our tuned brains and emotional faculty, but the idea of a child for example who sits on the grass with a beetle in her hand caring for it, being incredibly gentle and treating it like it was a little baby or puppy, fascinated but also emotionally invested in some very primal sense. if we could learn to be as caring with very sick people we have to lock up and look after because they are dangerous, ofc not in the same way, in a sort of custodian manner, then we would suddenly become a whole lot more humane. the same goes for reptiles i guess, but i also think it is kind of creepy with people who are obsessed with snakes, that is my irrationally speaking ofc. but at the end of the day we are also in a sense like the beetle or snake, not really having much control over ourselves ultimately, we should treat each other gently anyway.
A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants. - Arthur Schopenhauer Your life trajectory is determined by your DNA and chance, an inconvenient truth.
I have an app that talks to a setup with a light source and a diagonal polarized lens, and then it measures if photons go through or not. Each prompt you give it will give you a true 50/50 chance of one or the other. I sometimes use this for difficult decisions where there is no preferred outcome.
Free will with determinism is not about breaking the laws of physics or finding loopholes in physics. Free will in determinism is about being configured as a control system. The car I drive is not a control system because I must control it to stop at red lights, turn left, accelerate, etc. A self-driving car is a control system. A self-driving car can stop at red lights, turn left, accelerate, etc. without someone controlling it. Sapolsky’s argument is that the self-driving car only stops at red lights because it is configured the way it’s configured. Exactly! It is configured as a control system. Sapolsky would argue that neither a traditional car nor a self-driving car makes decisions. He would argue that in both cases it is the sum of all past events that make the decisions. However, past events don’t take the same path. Some past events pass through control systems. Other paths do not. You do what you do because you are configured the way you are configured. In other words, you do what you do because you’re you. Isn’t that what people want?
Fascinating analogy. As a compatabalist: i don't believe humans have the material measurement capability of the mind nor the deep consciousness which is invisible to the observer. Like someone who is observing the car from the outside, in the night where car windows are 100% tinted. The mind exists in levels of consciousness which takes time and development to comprehend. Like a phantom metaphysical 'thing' to powered by will.
As a physicist, I find it funny how there is a significant divide between physicists and philosophers. Most philosophers seem to think that free will does exist, and they always invoke things like emergence and so on. But, from the times I've debated them, they always change the definition of determinism as being practically able to determine something. I've even had a philosopher try to teach me what deterministic systems are, which is a concept from physics... The only way you can really argue for free will is if you can provide a specific mechanism for exactly how it emerges. Or that what makes consciousness and free will is some magical thing not rooted in the physical processes of the brain. Otherwise, any argument will fall short, within currently accepted physics. So, the default position must be that free will cannot exist. If we eventually gain more information, we are able to reconsider our stance. That's the beauty of science.
that is it, i understand that people are very confused about this fact in information theory, but that doesn't change the fact. it is what it is. indeterminacy is a mode of modeling, it is always identical to a quasi random process for any set of outcomes.
Praise and blame don't necessarily make sense in Sapolsky's view, but there should be ways to make it so that we, idk, encourage(?) the kinds of behaviors we want and discourage(?) the kinds of behaviors we don't want?
the kind of complexity that can arise, and the complexity of the compression and decompression of natural information the brain processes, means it can be in principle as responsive to relevant input as you could possibly imagine, the question of how "reasonable" and "responsive" to our evaluations, and how independent it is from the environment on an abstract higher level is an empirical question, and also a question separate from control independent of physics, the control that is there is mediated by physics, and it is still determined, the experience associated with it can be as fulfilling as you could possibly want to imagine in principle, but that is separate from having control of who you are, or what changes you go through. that is just an incoherent concept. what it feels like to be me, what it feels like to make my choices, to feel guilt or pride, enjoyment or discomfort, all of those things are there independent of my choice of their form, that choice is contradictory with being in relation to such concepts. if i had to choose to enjoy a cool tune i find, my experience would be rather different, but even then, i would have to decide whether to choose to feel this way or that way, and the content of that preference is of the same kind as the enjoyment of the music, if it is a choice experienced as completely ambivalent, then it feels random and even then there is a non choice there as to what happens to be the thing i choose. what we value as humans, is that our lives makes sense to us, that we are mostly free of fear, and have access to what makes us feel fulfilled, whether it is about pleasure, meaning, humor, achievement, awe or whatever. a good life is the best possible illusion of an interactive world that we move, even though we do not, the world still end up changing through us, and we better do our best to create a world in which the experience of helplessness and being a passenger in our own experience to some degree, is enjoyable, meaningful and safe. we do that by doing our best to make the world safe, free and productive, both in material terms and in terms of helping each other in freeing ourselves of shame and learning to treat each other better in all domains we can. i certainly hope we end up doing that, there is no contradiction between not being in control and a better future being possible. it is only in a world where it is determined that we try, that it is possible to get there, ironically.
It's one hell of an insight to render in such short time....usually it takes decades to accumulate understanding in several different domains which then through contemplation synergize and ultimately collapse into a realization that Creations movent is all the product of the Prime Cause / Big Bang / PC Bootup....
I think the realization follows straightforwardly enough from taking materialism seriously, it's just learning how to convince other people that he has taken a lifetime to master
the indeterminacy example is provably identical to a deterministic substitution in terms of outcome. the proof is so simple it can be given in words. pick your favorite in-deterministic theory, whatever theory you want, whatever behavior you want. this will inevitably be a theory of distributions of outcomes over time in some way or another. the distribution is given by some function for whatever physical fact or measurement you are concerned with. now we grab ourselves a turning complete computer, with unlimited memory, and unlimited computing power. such a computer can 1. produce a perfect random number generator, and 2. can approximate any function in any domain asymptotically analytically. now we can trivially see that it can run any in-deterministic process in a simulation, using only deterministic variables, deterministic variables accounting for the random number generator, and deterministic variables that approximate the function. this leads us to the inevitable conclusion, that any in-deterministic evolution of any system of any kind what so ever, can be considered as identical to deterministic evolution. there is therefore no mathematical difference you could even in principle trace out between deterministic and in-deterministic evolution, with respect to any question of physics, whether it has to do with free will, or any other question you want to ask what so ever, from the perspective of information theory, there is absolutely no logical way to prove a difference, based on the evolution itself, independently on what the evolution is. therefore the category of in-deterministic evolution, is a frivolous one. we have theories of deterministic evolution and deterministic theories of evolution of distribution with deterministic selection, that encompasses all possible dynamics in an informationally complete way. saying that random variables are fundamental, is just like an opinion man, it can never be proven, or distinguished from behavior, and therefore, it is practically an empty concept theoretically. any ontology that contains a fundamental random number generator, can be replaced with a quasi random version, with no loss, and the gain of the theory being informationally complete. this is not merely an argument, it is a proof in the form of words when it comes to information theory and the theory of computation.
“How did you turn out to be the person that would do that?” ~ Robert Sapolski You became that person because of your biology and your environment but your leaving out our choice to choose how we feel about what we feel. We can’t control what comes from us but we can choose how to filter what we feed back into us. You’re not factoring in time.
How so? I disagree. We don’t choose how we feel about how we feel. It’s simply just another feeling. The release of certain neurotransmitters that prompts certain neural pathways in response to stimuli like all thoughts/feelings. We also don’t choose what we feed back to ourselves on. Again this is another intention/action that is not chosen by us but is the produce of our biology/environment. Why would you say we are a product of our environment and genetics for some things but not for others for seemingly no reason/evidence? Just curious - cheers.
@@nonononononono8532 If we can’t choose to accept or reject a thing that comes to our conscious mind, regardless of where it comes from. Then ultimately we cannot reason. We accept children cannot do this well. Like teenagers and such.
@@nonononononono8532 If an adult cannot choose to accept or reject a thing that comes to their conscious minds then any active attempt at communication becomes an attempted form of brainwashing. Like movies would be brainwashing without the capacity for reason. This is why we are careful about what movies our children are exposed do. They have a limited capacity to reason.
@@Dgujg somewhat agree. We cannot reason in so far as we cannot choose what we find convincing and thus we don’t choose what beliefs we hold. But this doesn’t influence the truth of the conclusion. For instance I may say that it is raining outside despite no good reason (like I have no window and I just like it when it rains) but it can still be correct that it is raining outside. Hence we should disprove the truth of the belief rather than the means in which people come to accept it.
@@nonononononono8532 under that belief though. Every form of active communication becomes attempted brainwashing and a form of violence on an individual.
This probably reflects just personal taste but I feel like Tim Maudlin's explanation of Hume's "conpatabilism" is a much better counter argument than Dennet. Free will doesn't seem so much about fundamental root causes as causal order. Your dad passing down an interest in chess isn't a violation of free will, but your dad forcing you at gunpoint to play chess is. Not really a huge problem IMO. Ending carceral justice systems is important but orthogonal. Robinson doesn't show his hand too much, but after talking to various people with thoughts on the matter I wonder if he still is in agreement.
any such difference must therefore be derived from confused criteria if it is to arise, that is it is conditional on the criteria that prohibit there being something under the hood based on invalid criteria. such things are criteria in special domains which hold no water and are more akin to linguistic paradoxes than rigorous mathematics. for example i can set the criteria that my random dependent variables cannot be described by variables that affect each other, now this is a contradiction in terms if you read the words "dependent" and "cannot affect" somewhat carefully. it is completely legitimate to do analysis at the level of dependent variables without considering the structure of the dependence or its origin, but it is always in all cases possible to invoke some informationally complete origin of this kind of mutual information in modeling or in the context of measurement in a physical theory.
yeah, provided you can do an infinite amount of work calculating whatever you want in a finite time, there is no difficulty in predicting how a chaotic system will behave at all. a classic example is the 3 body problem in gravity, there are rational solutions like Lagrange solutions, and there are irrational solutions like generic solutions, some are periodically rational, some are time independent under some symmetry like rotation. the irrational solutions cannot be solved analytically without computing an infinite amount of terms to correct the result and the error of an approximation grows fast with larger time steps. that means essentially that numerical methods or approximations with analytical corrections need to be more and more precise to be as precise at later time, the exact solution requires cheating, the solution to a 3 body problem in space is essentially an infinite path that doesnt repeat for each body, which can be given by a special kind of furrier series in principle, but getting those or using those requires to do all that infinite work we can't do in practice, that is essentially what a chaotic attractor is in space such a trajectory given by a non repeating furrier series curve.
i prefer to think of the universe as a whole as the most immersive possible live action role play game there could ever be, visceral beyond all belief, detailed beyond anything else, and there is nothing else. we are like one big organism together, even with the matter inert as it seems to us. complete. but enough poetry, funny episode, hopefully people will grow up a bit sooner rather than later so we can start treating people better, and stop taking ourselves so seriously.
so if you grant that magic happens, that is also compatible with this computer analog. but not in a way that is recursive, because causing magic to happen by will means the past you causing the future you and that chain goes back to not you whatever you do.
It is a causation problem. What causes the feeling of freedom? The feeling of "freedom" is subjective. What causes "will"? The experience of the exercising of will power is also subjective. The moment you talk about causation, you need to take into account confounding. So what are the confounders in the causation of the subjective feeling of "free will"? .... Well that's a stinger, if there ever was one. Rather phrase "What is not confounding the hypothesis humans-have-no-free-will. The null-hypothesis or alternative hypothesis would then be "Humans -have-free-will" To prove the hypothesis statistically you would have to do some measurements. What would you measure? To prove the hypothesis you would have to take a sample. You can't do a case-control study: cases have free will and controls don't. You can't do a cohort study and follow-up in 40 years who has free will and who doesn't. Hmm... Will have to think and design a little longer. Prayer in silence: "Thank you for every inspiration of oxygen-rich air. I am blessed"
How do we know that this Universe that we came out from and eventually go back into, (TATWD) when departing this earthy existence... And then that of praise-punishment, aggression, hatred, torture, manslaughter, conflict, retaliation, wars and just all around death and destruction - of these ancient fight, flight or freeze responses that seem uncontrollable... that is until the learning behaviors of the human consciousness from its surroundings in life begin and have an impact on their developmental conscience? … However, back to the Universe we come from..., how do any know that this fairness, honesty or the good and positive behaviors are not imprinted on human beings and other creatures, (TATWD) from the Universe itself, before any births that ever existed or ever will exist? And that may be the purpose of consciousness, instead of emergence, which it seems not to be (TATWD). As it too, the consciousness may be (TATWD), but in a neutral cause and effect wise of evolution with that in which we came from as part of its own non-Darwinian evolution? And meaning no omnipotent overseeing autocratically orientated puny being that needs controlled worship from other beings. It's going somewhere, with or without the physical, but perhaps not without this consciousness process of peace or chaos in its Earth bound forms... I guess you could refer to this as a kind of freewill in the development of the inner consciousness to prepare for the grim reaper's handshake into an eternity without any ego or physical body and its organic parts.
The myth of turtles over turtles, i know it from Jorge Luis Borges Book, "Imaginary Creatures"... I read it with a curious and mistyc aproach.... I do hope God will intervein Sapolsky
No one want to know or discuss biology and physiology of action, in any species. Believe I have watched all the interviews, don't think a single utuber has referred to any of the research on how action happens in any animal. There is some decent preliminary work on all this, see Paul Cisek in Montreal, BTW, be suspicious of any research or ideas using the words "cognitive." The papers are free to everyone. What is the point of physicists/philosophers/etc holding forth on biology where they have no training, or somed folks who just trade in pop tropes of the moments. Genomics is the real basis for it all but that's way too advanced for this crowd....oh well
Sapolsky talking about free will just never seems to work. He'll start out saying 2+3=5 , and 1+4=5, and 2.5+2.5=5 .....and we the audience will be thinking "fine, yeah, that works, no argument there...." and then he'll say "therefore 2+2=5" and we're thinking "wait.... what? That doesn't logically connect to anything you said before, and it doesn't even work by itself either. Nothing Sapolsky has ever said about biology or genetics or sociology or psychology or neuroscience has ever had any logical links to say that free will does not exist. Free will is not magic, it doesn't come from a ghost in the sky, yet it remains real no matter how many interviews Sapolsky does.
i have to stress how important this argument is for dodging nonsense. somehow a bunch of physicists have convinced themselves such a distinction makes sense, but that is just a lack of rigor and a lack of imagination speaking, not logic, and certainly not mathematics.
1:30:11 Robert would have to do a little more work to completely get the philosophers to shut up, but, hey, maybe some people are already doing some of this work! 😅
I think I must be missing something. I'm thinking of an example with two grand masters, A and B, playing chess. Say A moves a pawn in the middle of the game. Then you ask why did he do that? One answer is that it is part of the new strategy he is implementing. Another answer would be to list all the past movements that have played so far, and then saying this is the most logical step. Are they freely playing chess? I would say yes. Are they always following the rules of chess? Sure. Is it determined? Probably. Say the are both really good then at that point in the game all the most optimal moves could be constantly calculated, and the players are so good that they actually do follow the predicted steps. It seems irrelevant to me--- that calculation still depends on how the game is going and would need to be updated as it goes on. However, it seems to me that Sapolsky would insist in a definition that would say: "they are not freely playing because the decision to move the pawn is not 100% independent of all the past movement from both players". I agree that if you use that definition, then it is not free, but it seems to me like it is a very unreasonable way of defining it. Basically I agree with him, but while he is trying to make his definition be very sharp, he ends up overworking it so much that it makes so blunt that it doesn't matter in the end.
*"It is impossible for a contradictory thing to be true.* A non-contradictory thing could be true or could be false depending on context but at least has the *possibility* of being true." -me, I said that ❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics❌️ (Knowing Good; Functions; limit built into every operation): 1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are the exact same character. 2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton calculus). 3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton physics). ✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics✅️ (Knowing Good from Evil; Relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation): 1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are polar opposite characters. 2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus). 3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics). [💩Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]: Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍 [💩Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]: The standard model of physics is 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real. Been that way since Newton. Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago! 🦧 [Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]: locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary") not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent") TL;DR the Materialism/Empiricism package brings with it all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level? If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (for the first time ever).
the only way you can get truly free will is of the entire world is structured from infinite past to future by your will, but also my will, and everyone's will. and you end up having to say well, maybe god is actually experiencing all of this, and that is our means of experience as well, through this machinery of limiting sensation we call the world. but then why would a God choose to limit his experience, he or she would choose to experience all possible conscious realities, and so we end up with a world filled with all possible experiences, and the real behavior physically that makes it possible in a self consistent way, which is what the world kind of has to be anyway, god or no god. determined by god, or as god, makes no difference. not a religious comment btw, just a thought experiment considering a magic solution, and i think we land in the context of the possible computations of possible worlds in a deterministic way anyway, the sets are the same possible sets.
[infinity and zero, God, soul]: 1) in·fin·i·ty MATHEMATICS a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞). 2) What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary? a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity. b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers. Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. 3) Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)? Well, 0D is outside of space and time: 0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless 1D-3D (natural) = spatial dimensions 4D (natural) = temporal dimension 4) Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (neutron) and female (proton) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1. Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them. "Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)" A) The postulated soul, 👻, has 1. no spatial extension 2. zero size 3. exact location only B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
I have to make one more comment. No free will in principle is bad enough. But this applied no free will, if you will,. where we're going to reform the justice system along these lines is outright bonkers. Society is ripe for all kinds of humane improvements, no one would disagree. In fact human society is breathtaking in its cruelty and ruthlessness and relentless self-interest. And all, or at least many such improvements would involve helping people improve their behavior - BY VIRTUE OF GREATER SELF-MASTERY OVER THEIR FREE WILL. Among other forms of assistance. So they live better, in all sorts of ways. Whether they're criminals or not. And then maybe we wouldn't even need jails. But could you possibly imagine going to the powers that be, and making your case for truly radical reform of our prisons, not merely because they're monstrously violent and evil and not at all rehabilitative, but rather, because people have zero point zero free will at all, and are thus totally not responsible for their behavior in any way. Straight up. None of us are, not you, not me, not the warden of the prison - no one. So what do you say to that?? But I suppose he means well. And he even took on his beloved meritocracy, without which fine professors such as himself presumably wouldn't have amounted to as much. As quite naturally they are arch-beneficiaries of our world without free will. Or whatever you'd call that, maybe there's a German word for it. And contrary to their annoying moniker, they didn't earn a dang thing!
He contradicts himself in a way that shows he knows a lot about determinism, but nothing about free will. He starts be defining free will as something like “deciding completely independent of past events;” then says something like “nobody thinks randomness is free will.” Being completely independent of past events IS randomness! Daniel Dennett will eat him up!
Ok. So. I'm a Marxist. So I have to say he's right about everything. I especially loved when he called Dennett a liberal in their debate. But. I also have to say. I don't talk about "free will." I talk about _freedom._ So I think we both agree that the way for people to have the most _freedom_ is to make sure all their needs are met!
We can also talk about "self-control" as a "skill" that you can improve without ever using the term "free will." (i.e., we don't have to talk about it like a liberal! 🤣)
And I "prefer" to talk about it in this way instead of like a compatibilist because they have to talk about "when" a person has "more" or "less" free will, which, does that even make sense anymore? Does it make sense to talk about "free" will if you can predict based on what zip code a person grew up in "how much" "free will" they're gonna have when they become an adult? 🤔
Free will the name of the universal Game of Life⚡️ Consciousness power 3 the universal aim of life🎵 Consciousness in heart mind coherence says I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is our master key and breaks the wheel of karma pendulum out of order Beast mind energy swing🌈🖖369 vibration frequency in ArcLight 9 thot charge
Every podcast sells more books. You are all absolved of all responsibility for everything. You can't help it. It's not your fault. What's not to like? Just one little thing. It's bullshit.
Interesting. So if being contrairan isn't free will and randomness isn't free, will, is this saying that probability, and the multiverse can't exist? Or is determinism not thisnevent will happen 100% I likento think of free will asni get to choose what universe in the multiverse I get to inhabit. Am I deluded? Is there only one possible outcome? Ps. Incan tell you why someone majors in psychology. They need therapy. We are cheap and guarded. 80% of psych majors know this. Why does the Pareto principle work? I wish I actually knew. Yikes back to no free will. The emotive part of the brain is not significantly different than the "rational" part of the brain. Information processing is just Information processing. It's just computation. Hmmm. I absolutely have an enlarged amygdala and no inwould not figjt the popcorn guy.... well maybey. 80% of the time no. 29% yes. Depends on if i was aggrieved beforhand. Mostly i avoid confrontation.
Everettian theory doesn't have much to do with this conversation. If many worlds is true almost all of your duplicates probably make the exact same choices. To my mind that doesn't diminish free will because I want to determine what I'm doing, not be a probability matrix.
@@onlynormalperson Free will imho works via a probability matrix though. I want an outcome and I decide the behavior with what I determine has the highest probability of success.
Robert, can a beach ball create billons of beach balls? A human could. If he wanted too. :) Also, Robert's reasoning is exactly like saying 'destroying all guns in the world would erase death by conflict and wars'. It's uh...fucking stupid reasoning.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 Bro I can do 3 backflips here now because I want to and not because I am predisposed to do so, or 10 jumping jacks, w/e. I'm lazy as fuck don't say I'm 'predisposed to suffer for nothing' shit logic please.
You and I were predisposed to come back and check comments. I'd wager you haven't and won't do back flips. I won't be doing any either. There are prior reasons for your laziness existing. Laziness doesn't just spontaneously exist out of nowhere. I am similar, I lack motivation. There are multifarious casual factors that made me this way.
Once again, wtf is he talking about? He is obsessed with achievement, whenever he gets rolling. Why would someone be the kind of person who would wind up, in college, at a top university, at that moment, participating in some lame experiment, with whatever particular life history they have, and upbringing, and then actually push the button at the moment in time in the exact way they did, registering on the little gizmo the timing of the self-reported impulse that supposedly proves he didn't individually intend to press the button using his free will and truth be told the whole thing was preordained from the moment of the Big Bang..... There was even some Freudian slip, or something, where he cites why would a student give intentionally wrong answers because he must think he's smarter than the teacher. And was presumably was part of the whole stream of consciousness experienced, so to speak, totally beyond the control of the hapless college student participating in the infamous Libet experiment. So he's definitely not kidding about turtles all the way down. No matter how mind-numbing his litany, he just keeps rolling it out. This simplistic sequence of one's own life events that no one can escape or control, and is but a rudderless, aimless spectator of. You're just along for the ride! And now he's hip to invoking the sexy notion of 'post hoc rationalization', as more expedient evidence that you have no control over your actions, for some reason. The science of psychology hasn't been completely discredited yet, so I guess that's something he can employ for now, even though it would seem to be particularly weak sauce with which to bolster his case. And again, totally irrelevant, and not bearing upon the faculty of free will at all, that purportedly people's actions can't be reliably traced back to moral claims made, when somebody puts them on the spot and says 'Hey buddy, why'd you do that??' In any case, it just keeps getting worse and worse with this guy.....
If I understand him correctly, Sapolsky argues that since every effect has a cause, this is evidence that there is no free will. But why does anything exist at all? When you consider how something like our Universe could come from nothing, this argument fails horribly. There are two possibilities here. 1: The universe, or something that caused the universe, came from nothing. In this case, there was an effect that didn’t have a cause, which defeats Sapolsky’s argument that effects are entirely responsible for causes. Or 2: The Universe or something that caused the Universe always existed. In this case, one could easily argue that consciousness/freewill needs no cause. It could just exist without explanation.
@@thekenoshakid I’m baffled as to how you can possibly have this response based on what I said. I’m “making a theory of God” and my “argument is for a mysticism”? What are you talking about?
I think your second possibility that consciousness and free will exist without cause, would imply panpsychism correct? I think that's what the guy thinks is mysticism@@timjohnson3913
@@thekenoshakid “So when you try and make an argument against Sapolsky by way of something coming from nothing…” You have to read what I said. That’s not the argument at all; I gave the analysis if something comes from nothing or if something always existed. Both options lead to a failure of Sapolsky’s argument.
@@thekenoshakid the thing you are not understanding is I’m saying there are two possible answers to the why anything exists. There are only 2; try to keep up this time. 1. Nothing existed and then something existed. 2. Something always existed. In both of the only 2 possible cases, Sapolsky’s argument fails.
@@thekenoshakid It’s simple logic. If you take the stance that we exist because something just always existed. Then you have an effect without a cause. You can’t then make an argument that all effects have causes to support a belief. The two arguments contradict eachother.
The best podcast I have encountered in recent years. It offers in-depth discussions, questions are very thoughtful and guests have space to get into details. As a fellow PhD in Philosophy with various side interests, I love the choice of guests! I listen to every episode!
Love Robert, and i'm definitely a determinist at this point. Glad to see this theory of behaviour on the show.
most scientists are determinists, the question is can free will co-exist with determinism. they are divided as compatabalists and sapolsky is an extreme non-compatabalist
Good luck on the! I don’t get around much, ( totally what I choose but not free will)
Flying commercial should clear a bunch of sins!
Sadly, Robert is right. This nation is so poorly educated his argument has no chance!
Regardless of how I feel about Sapolsky's logic I have to be impressed that he seems to have done like 50 interviews in two months
Indeed, I think I've listened to five of them.
♂️+01=0=-01♀️
OB-server IAM0
For thoughts Frequency vibration OBserverTHOUGHT CHARGE ACTION
FrOM=0= Darkeness COMEs CIRCLES QUANTUMO ♂️⚖️♀️✡️🕎LIGHT COLOR SOUND♀️♂️IAM ALLMIND369 CARrie's Mass MC square
1IN3X369IN7 21+1 ÷ LIGHTWAVES ALL intelligence signsALLMIND Measures 1IN3TRI 3 FatherINFINITE MIND LIGHTS Time IN US ALL MIND 3IN7.
MeTAtron's MAtriX3x3 OM'E...
"The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental." "As above, so below; as below, so above.”
"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."
Everything is ALLMIND369 OVEONE IAM=O=QuantuM⚖️ ALLMIND IN 3in1MINDS Body Spirit OVE
light*3÷7 color*3÷7 sound*3÷7.. infinite all mind in Trinity every thought has an opposite charge of itself.
♂️+01=0=-01♀️
Riding the waves through our moments in equilibrium is A NEW beginning in masteRING3X369 of our OWN each individual unique complete Immaculate conceived MIND
1IN3💚3IN1 of
IAM 1LOVES
Light3
3 above our heArt
3 below
7 sums
7SUMS CREATION ALLMIND frequency vibration in THOUGHTS charge
MC² in
WAVES OVE
3SOUNDs7
1Frequency. ...
Amplitude. ...
2Timbre. ...
Envelope. ...
***3Velocity. ...
Wavelength. ...
Phase =SUM.7
3
Lights7:
1 radio waves,÷
microwaves,
2infrared (IR)÷
visible light,
***3ultraviolet ÷
X-rays
Sum Gamma rays SUM7x
6
COLORs 7
1 Red÷
Orange
2Yellow÷
Green
***3. Blue÷
Indigo
SUM Violet
SUM7
9
In seven colors seven notes seven lights in infinite divisions ALL TOGETHER
Creating all living systems,
Creating All living bodies,
Creating all gravity,
Creating all matter.. IN
ElectroMAGnetic geometrical symmetrical fractal order
HerMEs TrisMAjistus
THOTH
TimesFaceInEnergy
Thoth me
Light Never Dies death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real..
Prisoners law in three power three sets all captives free 3Consciousness says
I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms wisdom's wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is key ⚖️ EnKi 🗝
We are all ♂️♀️=Gods=♂️♀️ underONE=0= infinite Creator.
The hierarchy of Heaven is like the family all different ages in stages of growth IN MIND0 Mind369
MeTAtron's MAtriX3x3 OM'E...
"The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental." "As above, so below; as below, so above.”
"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."
Everything is ALLMIND369 OVEONE IAM=O=QuantuM⚖️ ALLMIND IN 3in1MINDS Body Spirit OVE
light*3÷7 color*3÷7 sound*3÷7.. infinite all mind in Trinity every thought has an opposite charge of itself.
♂️+01=0=-01♀️
Riding the waves through our moments in equilibrium is A NEW beginning in masteRING3X369 of our OWN each individual unique complete Immaculate conceived MIND
1IN3💚3IN1 of
IAM 1LOVES
Light3
3 above our heArt
3 below
7 sums
7SUMS CREATION ALLMIND frequency vibration in THOUGHTS charge
MC² in
WAVES OVE
3SOUNDs7
1Frequency. ...
Amplitude. ...
2Timbre. ...
Envelope. ...
***3Velocity. ...
Wavelength. ...
Phase =SUM.7
3
Lights7:
1 radio waves,÷
microwaves,
2infrared (IR)÷
visible light,
***3ultraviolet ÷
X-rays
Sum Gamma rays SUM7x
6
COLORs 7
1 Red÷
Orange
2Yellow÷
Green
***3. Blue÷
Indigo
SUM Violet
SUM7
9
In seven colors seven notes seven lights in infinite divisions ALL TOGETHER
Creating all living systems,
Creating All living bodies,
Creating all gravity,
Creating all matter.. IN
ElectroMAGnetic geometrical symmetrical fractal order
HerMEs TrisMAjistus
THOTH
TimesFaceInEnergy
Thoth me
Light Never Dies death is our illusion through the terrible twos of childhood in Mercy Mercy Me and our promise rest is real..
Prisoners law in three power three sets all captives free 3Consciousness says
I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms wisdom's wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is key ⚖️ EnKi 🗝
@@brendabeamerford4555 no
There are so many great podcasts now, but I just discovered this one and it stands out for me. The discussions with Dennett, Sapolsky and Plomin taught me things about all of them that I'd never noticed in other interviews or, indeed, in their writings. Many thanks to Robinson. Consider me a fan of your interviewing style.
Thanks!
Woah
This is what happens when you choose the private sector over academia
@@chasekanipe Relax Chase!!!
wow
Money laundering through bot accounts
I am here now, and I am grateful for this! Thank you!
I listened to so many of these, some are boring because the interviewer lacks compelling questions. This is a great podcast and great interview. Because of that Robert is totally more engaged. Are you on a podcast site so I don't have to RUclips?
oh man. real excited for this one! can't wait to watch it on my next day off.
Really enjoying the podcast version, and i don't mind the ad inserts there, but Robinson, can you please look into normalizing the volume between the show and the ads? My eardrums are getting blasted when the ads come on...
i think it is a quiet and quite beautiful part of the human psyche that we can become infatuated by life, small things or animals, whether they feel much of anything for us or not. it is undoubtedly an artifact of our tuned brains and emotional faculty, but the idea of a child for example who sits on the grass with a beetle in her hand caring for it, being incredibly gentle and treating it like it was a little baby or puppy, fascinated but also emotionally invested in some very primal sense. if we could learn to be as caring with very sick people we have to lock up and look after because they are dangerous, ofc not in the same way, in a sort of custodian manner, then we would suddenly become a whole lot more humane. the same goes for reptiles i guess, but i also think it is kind of creepy with people who are obsessed with snakes, that is my irrationally speaking ofc. but at the end of the day we are also in a sense like the beetle or snake, not really having much control over ourselves ultimately, we should treat each other gently anyway.
therefore, the distinction cannot add to any arguing of free will, or indeed any other dispute.
A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants. - Arthur Schopenhauer Your life trajectory is determined by your DNA and chance, an inconvenient truth.
I have an app that talks to a setup with a light source and a diagonal polarized lens, and then it measures if photons go through or not. Each prompt you give it will give you a true 50/50 chance of one or the other. I sometimes use this for difficult decisions where there is no preferred outcome.
Free will with determinism is not about breaking the laws of physics or finding loopholes in physics. Free will in determinism is about being configured as a control system. The car I drive is not a control system because I must control it to stop at red lights, turn left, accelerate, etc. A self-driving car is a control system. A self-driving car can stop at red lights, turn left, accelerate, etc. without someone controlling it. Sapolsky’s argument is that the self-driving car only stops at red lights because it is configured the way it’s configured. Exactly! It is configured as a control system. Sapolsky would argue that neither a traditional car nor a self-driving car makes decisions. He would argue that in both cases it is the sum of all past events that make the decisions. However, past events don’t take the same path. Some past events pass through control systems. Other paths do not. You do what you do because you are configured the way you are configured. In other words, you do what you do because you’re you. Isn’t that what people want?
Fascinating analogy. As a compatabalist: i don't believe humans have the material measurement capability of the mind nor the deep consciousness which is invisible to the observer. Like someone who is observing the car from the outside, in the night where car windows are 100% tinted. The mind exists in levels of consciousness which takes time and development to comprehend. Like a phantom metaphysical 'thing' to powered by will.
As a physicist, I find it funny how there is a significant divide between physicists and philosophers. Most philosophers seem to think that free will does exist, and they always invoke things like emergence and so on. But, from the times I've debated them, they always change the definition of determinism as being practically able to determine something. I've even had a philosopher try to teach me what deterministic systems are, which is a concept from physics... The only way you can really argue for free will is if you can provide a specific mechanism for exactly how it emerges. Or that what makes consciousness and free will is some magical thing not rooted in the physical processes of the brain. Otherwise, any argument will fall short, within currently accepted physics. So, the default position must be that free will cannot exist. If we eventually gain more information, we are able to reconsider our stance. That's the beauty of science.
I've been waiting for this!
In regards to the analogy of weather forecasting and determinism rules, what metaphor would you use to apply this to conscious persons?
that is it, i understand that people are very confused about this fact in information theory, but that doesn't change the fact. it is what it is. indeterminacy is a mode of modeling, it is always identical to a quasi random process for any set of outcomes.
Robert is based.
What does based mean? Based on what?
I had no choice but to be the first to comment.
You beat me!
@@JohnE-c2k Even me
Please attempt to have Thomas Metzinger on…..I believe he has a book release this month or next.
And of course thank you for this content as well!
Praise and blame don't necessarily make sense in Sapolsky's view, but there should be ways to make it so that we, idk, encourage(?) the kinds of behaviors we want and discourage(?) the kinds of behaviors we don't want?
We do and should continue but in a less judgemental way. And from crime think about ways to prevent them and treat them
the kind of complexity that can arise, and the complexity of the compression and decompression of natural information the brain processes, means it can be in principle as responsive to relevant input as you could possibly imagine, the question of how "reasonable" and "responsive" to our evaluations, and how independent it is from the environment on an abstract higher level is an empirical question, and also a question separate from control independent of physics, the control that is there is mediated by physics, and it is still determined, the experience associated with it can be as fulfilling as you could possibly want to imagine in principle, but that is separate from having control of who you are, or what changes you go through. that is just an incoherent concept. what it feels like to be me, what it feels like to make my choices, to feel guilt or pride, enjoyment or discomfort, all of those things are there independent of my choice of their form, that choice is contradictory with being in relation to such concepts. if i had to choose to enjoy a cool tune i find, my experience would be rather different, but even then, i would have to decide whether to choose to feel this way or that way, and the content of that preference is of the same kind as the enjoyment of the music, if it is a choice experienced as completely ambivalent, then it feels random and even then there is a non choice there as to what happens to be the thing i choose. what we value as humans, is that our lives makes sense to us, that we are mostly free of fear, and have access to what makes us feel fulfilled, whether it is about pleasure, meaning, humor, achievement, awe or whatever. a good life is the best possible illusion of an interactive world that we move, even though we do not, the world still end up changing through us, and we better do our best to create a world in which the experience of helplessness and being a passenger in our own experience to some degree, is enjoyable, meaningful and safe. we do that by doing our best to make the world safe, free and productive, both in material terms and in terms of helping each other in freeing ourselves of shame and learning to treat each other better in all domains we can. i certainly hope we end up doing that, there is no contradiction between not being in control and a better future being possible. it is only in a world where it is determined that we try, that it is possible to get there, ironically.
What made Sapolsky ‘already know there was no such thing as free will’ when he was 14?
It's one hell of an insight to render in such short time....usually it takes decades to accumulate understanding in several different domains which then through contemplation synergize and ultimately collapse into a realization that Creations movent is all the product of the Prime Cause / Big Bang / PC Bootup....
I think the realization follows straightforwardly enough from taking materialism seriously, it's just learning how to convince other people that he has taken a lifetime to master
the indeterminacy example is provably identical to a deterministic substitution in terms of outcome. the proof is so simple it can be given in words.
pick your favorite in-deterministic theory, whatever theory you want, whatever behavior you want.
this will inevitably be a theory of distributions of outcomes over time in some way or another. the distribution is given by some function for whatever physical fact or measurement you are concerned with.
now we grab ourselves a turning complete computer, with unlimited memory, and unlimited computing power.
such a computer can 1. produce a perfect random number generator, and 2. can approximate any function in any domain asymptotically analytically.
now we can trivially see that it can run any in-deterministic process in a simulation, using only deterministic variables, deterministic variables accounting for the random number generator, and deterministic variables that approximate the function.
this leads us to the inevitable conclusion, that any in-deterministic evolution of any system of any kind what so ever, can be considered as identical to deterministic evolution. there is therefore no mathematical difference you could even in principle trace out between deterministic and in-deterministic evolution, with respect to any question of physics, whether it has to do with free will, or any other question you want to ask what so ever, from the perspective of information theory, there is absolutely no logical way to prove a difference, based on the evolution itself, independently on what the evolution is. therefore the category of in-deterministic evolution, is a frivolous one. we have theories of deterministic evolution and deterministic theories of evolution of distribution with deterministic selection, that encompasses all possible dynamics in an informationally complete way. saying that random variables are fundamental, is just like an opinion man, it can never be proven, or distinguished from behavior, and therefore, it is practically an empty concept theoretically. any ontology that contains a fundamental random number generator, can be replaced with a quasi random version, with no loss, and the gain of the theory being informationally complete. this is not merely an argument, it is a proof in the form of words when it comes to information theory and the theory of computation.
“How did you turn out to be the person that would do that?” ~ Robert Sapolski
You became that person because of your biology and your environment but your leaving out our choice to choose how we feel about what we feel. We can’t control what comes from us but we can choose how to filter what we feed back into us. You’re not factoring in time.
How so? I disagree. We don’t choose how we feel about how we feel. It’s simply just another feeling. The release of certain neurotransmitters that prompts certain neural pathways in response to stimuli like all thoughts/feelings. We also don’t choose what we feed back to ourselves on. Again this is another intention/action that is not chosen by us but is the produce of our biology/environment. Why would you say we are a product of our environment and genetics for some things but not for others for seemingly no reason/evidence? Just curious - cheers.
@@nonononononono8532 If we can’t choose to accept or reject a thing that comes to our conscious mind, regardless of where it comes from. Then ultimately we cannot reason.
We accept children cannot do this well. Like teenagers and such.
@@nonononononono8532 If an adult cannot choose to accept or reject a thing that comes to their conscious minds then any active attempt at communication becomes an attempted form of brainwashing. Like movies would be brainwashing without the capacity for reason. This is why we are careful about what movies our children are exposed do. They have a limited capacity to reason.
@@Dgujg somewhat agree. We cannot reason in so far as we cannot choose what we find convincing and thus we don’t choose what beliefs we hold. But this doesn’t influence the truth of the conclusion. For instance I may say that it is raining outside despite no good reason (like I have no window and I just like it when it rains) but it can still be correct that it is raining outside. Hence we should disprove the truth of the belief rather than the means in which people come to accept it.
@@nonononononono8532 under that belief though. Every form of active communication becomes attempted brainwashing and a form of violence on an individual.
The philosopher Galen Strawson has been pushing this line for decades.
This probably reflects just personal taste but I feel like Tim Maudlin's explanation of Hume's "conpatabilism" is a much better counter argument than Dennet. Free will doesn't seem so much about fundamental root causes as causal order. Your dad passing down an interest in chess isn't a violation of free will, but your dad forcing you at gunpoint to play chess is. Not really a huge problem IMO. Ending carceral justice systems is important but orthogonal.
Robinson doesn't show his hand too much, but after talking to various people with thoughts on the matter I wonder if he still is in agreement.
I like his headphones. Anyone know what they are?
any such difference must therefore be derived from confused criteria if it is to arise, that is it is conditional on the criteria that prohibit there being something under the hood based on invalid criteria. such things are criteria in special domains which hold no water and are more akin to linguistic paradoxes than rigorous mathematics. for example i can set the criteria that my random dependent variables cannot be described by variables that affect each other, now this is a contradiction in terms if you read the words "dependent" and "cannot affect" somewhat carefully. it is completely legitimate to do analysis at the level of dependent variables without considering the structure of the dependence or its origin, but it is always in all cases possible to invoke some informationally complete origin of this kind of mutual information in modeling or in the context of measurement in a physical theory.
yeah, provided you can do an infinite amount of work calculating whatever you want in a finite time, there is no difficulty in predicting how a chaotic system will behave at all. a classic example is the 3 body problem in gravity, there are rational solutions like Lagrange solutions, and there are irrational solutions like generic solutions, some are periodically rational, some are time independent under some symmetry like rotation. the irrational solutions cannot be solved analytically without computing an infinite amount of terms to correct the result and the error of an approximation grows fast with larger time steps. that means essentially that numerical methods or approximations with analytical corrections need to be more and more precise to be as precise at later time, the exact solution requires cheating, the solution to a 3 body problem in space is essentially an infinite path that doesnt repeat for each body, which can be given by a special kind of furrier series in principle, but getting those or using those requires to do all that infinite work we can't do in practice, that is essentially what a chaotic attractor is in space such a trajectory given by a non repeating furrier series curve.
i prefer to think of the universe as a whole as the most immersive possible live action role play game there could ever be, visceral beyond all belief, detailed beyond anything else, and there is nothing else. we are like one big organism together, even with the matter inert as it seems to us. complete. but enough poetry, funny episode, hopefully people will grow up a bit sooner rather than later so we can start treating people better, and stop taking ourselves so seriously.
Your channel description has a logical flaw…
so if you grant that magic happens, that is also compatible with this computer analog. but not in a way that is recursive, because causing magic to happen by will means the past you causing the future you and that chain goes back to not you whatever you do.
sapolsky is dangerous, but more dangerous are people misinterpreting him even more then he does his own discoveries.
Yeah hes not intellectually sound or at least cautious in any way.
It is a causation problem. What causes the feeling of freedom? The feeling of "freedom" is subjective. What causes "will"? The experience of the exercising of will power is also subjective. The moment you talk about causation, you need to take into account confounding. So what are the confounders in the causation of the subjective feeling of "free will"? .... Well that's a stinger, if there ever was one. Rather phrase "What is not confounding the hypothesis humans-have-no-free-will.
The null-hypothesis or alternative hypothesis would then be "Humans -have-free-will" To prove the hypothesis statistically you would have to do some measurements. What would you measure?
To prove the hypothesis you would have to take a sample. You can't do a case-control study: cases have free will and controls don't. You can't do a cohort study and follow-up in 40 years who has free will and who doesn't.
Hmm... Will have to think and design a little longer.
Prayer in silence: "Thank you for every inspiration of oxygen-rich air. I am blessed"
How do we know that this Universe that we came out from and eventually go back into, (TATWD) when departing this earthy existence... And then that of praise-punishment, aggression, hatred, torture, manslaughter, conflict, retaliation, wars and just all around death and destruction - of these ancient fight, flight or freeze responses that seem uncontrollable... that is until the learning behaviors of the human consciousness from its surroundings in life begin and have an impact on their developmental conscience? … However, back to the Universe we come from..., how do any know that this fairness, honesty or the good and positive behaviors are not imprinted on human beings and other creatures, (TATWD) from the Universe itself, before any births that ever existed or ever will exist? And that may be the purpose of consciousness, instead of emergence, which it seems not to be (TATWD). As it too, the consciousness may be (TATWD), but in a neutral cause and effect wise of evolution with that in which we came from as part of its own non-Darwinian evolution? And meaning no omnipotent overseeing autocratically orientated puny being that needs controlled worship from other beings. It's going somewhere, with or without the physical, but perhaps not without this consciousness process of peace or chaos in its Earth bound forms... I guess you could refer to this as a kind of freewill in the development of the inner consciousness to prepare for the grim reaper's handshake into an eternity without any ego or physical body and its organic parts.
One of these days, Sapolsky is going to discuss how capitalism is unjustifiable as a system of reward for individual merit.
One can hope.
it's like watching a guy try to build a chainsaw from spare parts to cutdown a tree when people have plenty of axes to share.
“Whether your right butt is itchy or not”. That’s gold.
The myth of turtles over turtles, i know it from Jorge Luis Borges Book, "Imaginary Creatures"... I read it with a curious and mistyc aproach.... I do hope God will intervein Sapolsky
Appreciates science but hopes god will intervene lmao
No one want to know or discuss biology and physiology of action, in any species.
Believe I have watched all the interviews, don't think a single utuber has referred to any of the research on how action happens in any animal. There is some decent preliminary work on all this, see Paul Cisek in Montreal, BTW, be suspicious of any research or ideas using the words "cognitive."
The papers are free to everyone.
What is the point of physicists/philosophers/etc holding forth on biology where they have no training, or somed folks who just trade in pop tropes of the moments.
Genomics is the real basis for it all but that's way too advanced for this crowd....oh well
Can you state your point relative to Sapolsky's claims here?
Sapolsky talking about free will just never seems to work. He'll start out saying 2+3=5 , and 1+4=5, and 2.5+2.5=5 .....and we the audience will be thinking "fine, yeah, that works, no argument there...." and then he'll say "therefore 2+2=5" and we're thinking "wait.... what? That doesn't logically connect to anything you said before, and it doesn't even work by itself either. Nothing Sapolsky has ever said about biology or genetics or sociology or psychology or neuroscience has ever had any logical links to say that free will does not exist. Free will is not magic, it doesn't come from a ghost in the sky, yet it remains real no matter how many interviews Sapolsky does.
curious about which parts you disagree with :)
i have to stress how important this argument is for dodging nonsense. somehow a bunch of physicists have convinced themselves such a distinction makes sense, but that is just a lack of rigor and a lack of imagination speaking, not logic, and certainly not mathematics.
1:30:11 Robert would have to do a little more work to completely get the philosophers to shut up, but, hey, maybe some people are already doing some of this work! 😅
I am kinda shamed to say the information I have most keyed in on is host is single.
So we are, a bacteria's machine to expllore the 3D world from a 2D plain?
I think I must be missing something. I'm thinking of an example with two grand masters, A and B, playing chess. Say A moves a pawn in the middle of the game. Then you ask why did he do that? One answer is that it is part of the new strategy he is implementing. Another answer would be to list all the past movements that have played so far, and then saying this is the most logical step. Are they freely playing chess? I would say yes. Are they always following the rules of chess? Sure. Is it determined? Probably. Say the are both really good then at that point in the game all the most optimal moves could be constantly calculated, and the players are so good that they actually do follow the predicted steps. It seems irrelevant to me--- that calculation still depends on how the game is going and would need to be updated as it goes on.
However, it seems to me that Sapolsky would insist in a definition that would say: "they are not freely playing because the decision to move the pawn is not 100% independent of all the past movement from both players". I agree that if you use that definition, then it is not free, but it seems to me like it is a very unreasonable way of defining it. Basically I agree with him, but while he is trying to make his definition be very sharp, he ends up overworking it so much that it makes so blunt that it doesn't matter in the end.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Something either is free or it is influenced.
*"It is impossible for a contradictory thing to be true.*
A non-contradictory thing could be true or could be false depending on context but at least has the *possibility* of being true." -me, I said that
❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics❌️ (Knowing Good; Functions; limit built into every operation):
1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are the exact same character.
2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton calculus).
3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton physics).
✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics✅️ (Knowing Good from Evil; Relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation):
1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are polar opposite characters.
2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus).
3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics).
[💩Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]:
Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍
[💩Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]:
The standard model of physics is 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real. Been that way since Newton.
Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago! 🦧
[Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]:
locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary")
not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent")
TL;DR the Materialism/Empiricism package brings with it all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level?
If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (for the first time ever).
the only way you can get truly free will is of the entire world is structured from infinite past to future by your will, but also my will, and everyone's will. and you end up having to say well, maybe god is actually experiencing all of this, and that is our means of experience as well, through this machinery of limiting sensation we call the world. but then why would a God choose to limit his experience, he or she would choose to experience all possible conscious realities, and so we end up with a world filled with all possible experiences, and the real behavior physically that makes it possible in a self consistent way, which is what the world kind of has to be anyway, god or no god. determined by god, or as god, makes no difference. not a religious comment btw, just a thought experiment considering a magic solution, and i think we land in the context of the possible computations of possible worlds in a deterministic way anyway, the sets are the same possible sets.
[infinity and zero, God, soul]:
1) in·fin·i·ty
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
2) What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary?
a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.
b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.
Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.
3) Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)?
Well, 0D is outside of space and time:
0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless
1D-3D (natural) = spatial dimensions
4D (natural) = temporal dimension
4) Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (neutron) and female (proton) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1.
Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)"
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
I have to make one more comment. No free will in principle is bad enough. But this applied no free will, if you will,. where we're going to reform the justice system along these lines is outright bonkers. Society is ripe for all kinds of humane improvements, no one would disagree. In fact human society is breathtaking in its cruelty and ruthlessness and relentless self-interest. And all, or at least many such improvements would involve helping people improve their behavior - BY VIRTUE OF GREATER SELF-MASTERY OVER THEIR FREE WILL. Among other forms of assistance. So they live better, in all sorts of ways. Whether they're criminals or not. And then maybe we wouldn't even need jails. But could you possibly imagine going to the powers that be, and making your case for truly radical reform of our prisons, not merely because they're monstrously violent and evil and not at all rehabilitative, but rather, because people have zero point zero free will at all, and are thus totally not responsible for their behavior in any way. Straight up. None of us are, not you, not me, not the warden of the prison - no one. So what do you say to that??
But I suppose he means well. And he even took on his beloved meritocracy, without which fine professors such as himself presumably wouldn't have amounted to as much. As quite naturally they are arch-beneficiaries of our world without free will. Or whatever you'd call that, maybe there's a German word for it. And contrary to their annoying moniker, they didn't earn a dang thing!
He contradicts himself in a way that shows he knows a lot about determinism, but nothing about free will. He starts be defining free will as something like “deciding completely independent of past events;” then says something like “nobody thinks randomness is free will.” Being completely independent of past events IS randomness! Daniel Dennett will eat him up!
Aged like milk. RIP Dennett but he made a very poor appearance
Ok. So. I'm a Marxist. So I have to say he's right about everything. I especially loved when he called Dennett a liberal in their debate. But. I also have to say. I don't talk about "free will." I talk about _freedom._ So I think we both agree that the way for people to have the most _freedom_ is to make sure all their needs are met!
We can also talk about "self-control" as a "skill" that you can improve without ever using the term "free will." (i.e., we don't have to talk about it like a liberal! 🤣)
And I "prefer" to talk about it in this way instead of like a compatibilist because they have to talk about "when" a person has "more" or "less" free will, which, does that even make sense anymore? Does it make sense to talk about "free" will if you can predict based on what zip code a person grew up in "how much" "free will" they're gonna have when they become an adult? 🤔
Free will the name of the universal Game of Life⚡️ Consciousness power 3 the universal aim of life🎵 Consciousness in heart mind coherence says I see you Mirror Mirror I see me wisdoms unconditional love and forgiveness is our master key and breaks the wheel of karma pendulum out of order Beast mind energy swing🌈🖖369 vibration frequency in ArcLight 9 thot charge
omg Sapolsky is a hopeless romantic :)
Garcia Frank Martin Elizabeth Martin Robert
Every podcast sells more books. You are all absolved of all responsibility for everything. You can't help it. It's not your fault. What's not to like? Just one little thing. It's bullshit.
Interesting. So if being contrairan isn't free will and randomness isn't free, will, is this saying that probability, and the multiverse can't exist? Or is determinism not thisnevent will happen 100%
I likento think of free will asni get to choose what universe in the multiverse I get to inhabit. Am I deluded?
Is there only one possible outcome?
Ps. Incan tell you why someone majors in psychology. They need therapy. We are cheap and guarded. 80% of psych majors know this.
Why does the Pareto principle work? I wish I actually knew.
Yikes back to no free will.
The emotive part of the brain is not significantly different than the "rational" part of the brain. Information processing is just Information processing. It's just computation.
Hmmm. I absolutely have an enlarged amygdala and no inwould not figjt the popcorn guy.... well maybey. 80% of the time no. 29% yes. Depends on if i was aggrieved beforhand. Mostly i avoid confrontation.
Everettian theory doesn't have much to do with this conversation.
If many worlds is true almost all of your duplicates probably make the exact same choices. To my mind that doesn't diminish free will because I want to determine what I'm doing, not be a probability matrix.
www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kk3n/80-300/madlin1989.pdf
Maudlin argues against the conclusion that consciousness is fundamentally computational
@@onlynormalperson Free will imho works via a probability matrix though. I want an outcome and I decide the behavior with what I determine has the highest probability of success.
@oliviamaynard9372 if you determine an outcome the outcome isn't probabalistic.
@@oliviamaynard9372 you lost me lol
Third!
i choose to dislike the video. I have free will. 😝(joking, but you know that I could...)
Robert, can a beach ball create billons of beach balls?
A human could.
If he wanted too. :)
Also, Robert's reasoning is exactly like saying 'destroying all guns in the world would erase death by conflict and wars'.
It's uh...fucking stupid reasoning.
Only a human predisposed to pursue the construction of beach balls.
Most of us won't, for our own unique causal chain reasons.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 Bro I can do 3 backflips here now because I want to and not because I am predisposed to do so, or 10 jumping jacks, w/e. I'm lazy as fuck don't say I'm 'predisposed to suffer for nothing' shit logic please.
You and I were predisposed to come back and check comments.
I'd wager you haven't and won't do back flips.
I won't be doing any either.
There are prior reasons for your laziness existing.
Laziness doesn't just spontaneously exist out of nowhere.
I am similar, I lack motivation.
There are multifarious casual factors that made me this way.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 Okay NPC
@@sohamsuke
🤖
Super boring
Once again, wtf is he talking about? He is obsessed with achievement, whenever he gets rolling. Why would someone be the kind of person who would wind up, in college, at a top university, at that moment, participating in some lame experiment, with whatever particular life history they have, and upbringing, and then actually push the button at the moment in time in the exact way they did, registering on the little gizmo the timing of the self-reported impulse that supposedly proves he didn't individually intend to press the button using his free will and truth be told the whole thing was preordained from the moment of the Big Bang..... There was even some Freudian slip, or something, where he cites why would a student give intentionally wrong answers because he must think he's smarter than the teacher. And was presumably was part of the whole stream of consciousness experienced, so to speak, totally beyond the control of the hapless college student participating in the infamous Libet experiment.
So he's definitely not kidding about turtles all the way down. No matter how mind-numbing his litany, he just keeps rolling it out. This simplistic sequence of one's own life events that no one can escape or control, and is but a rudderless, aimless spectator of. You're just along for the ride! And now he's hip to invoking the sexy notion of 'post hoc rationalization', as more expedient evidence that you have no control over your actions, for some reason. The science of psychology hasn't been completely discredited yet, so I guess that's something he can employ for now, even though it would seem to be particularly weak sauce with which to bolster his case. And again, totally irrelevant, and not bearing upon the faculty of free will at all, that purportedly people's actions can't be reliably traced back to moral claims made, when somebody puts them on the spot and says 'Hey buddy, why'd you do that??'
In any case, it just keeps getting worse and worse with this guy.....
If I understand him correctly, Sapolsky argues that since every effect has a cause, this is evidence that there is no free will. But why does anything exist at all? When you consider how something like our Universe could come from nothing, this argument fails horribly. There are two possibilities here. 1: The universe, or something that caused the universe, came from nothing. In this case, there was an effect that didn’t have a cause, which defeats Sapolsky’s argument that effects are entirely responsible for causes. Or 2: The Universe or something that caused the Universe always existed. In this case, one could easily argue that consciousness/freewill needs no cause. It could just exist without explanation.
@@thekenoshakid I’m baffled as to how you can possibly have this response based on what I said. I’m “making a theory of God” and my “argument is for a mysticism”? What are you talking about?
I think your second possibility that consciousness and free will exist without cause, would imply panpsychism correct? I think that's what the guy thinks is mysticism@@timjohnson3913
@@thekenoshakid “So when you try and make an argument against Sapolsky by way of something coming from nothing…” You have to read what I said. That’s not the argument at all; I gave the analysis if something comes from nothing or if something always existed. Both options lead to a failure of Sapolsky’s argument.
@@thekenoshakid the thing you are not understanding is I’m saying there are two possible answers to the why anything exists. There are only 2; try to keep up this time. 1. Nothing existed and then something existed. 2. Something always existed. In both of the only 2 possible cases, Sapolsky’s argument fails.
@@thekenoshakid It’s simple logic. If you take the stance that we exist because something just always existed. Then you have an effect without a cause. You can’t then make an argument that all effects have causes to support a belief. The two arguments contradict eachother.