This clip is from the Huberman Lab episode "Dr. Robert Sapolsky: Science of Stress, Testosterone & Free Will." The full episode can be found on RUclips here: ruclips.net/video/DtmwtjOoSYU/видео.html
Dr. Sapolsky’s grave misattributions of persistence and consequentiality demand that he respond in this manner…”He has NO CHOICE but to do so…he can do NOTHING ELSE. His agenda is recognized, understood, noble, and his method to accomplish his goal, flawed. There are no “NPCs” but he is caught in a mosh that he can’t escape. Good luck!!😘
Someone told me that Baruch Spinoza said (around 1650) that people believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their actions but unconscious of the causes of those actions. Makes sense to me! And I also like how Sapolsky explains it. It's quite liberating, actually. Less internal conflict.
No. ^^ Its rubbish and makes no sense whatsoever if you think serious about it. And that is also the reason why nearly every philosopher believes it. And just one question to you? Don't you feel that you have agency and freedom to what you choose? So why do you believe the opposite, although you clearly *experience* (!!!!) the opposite every day? And why does he discard those experiences? On what grounds? Only because it conflicts with his materialistic and nihilistic worldview.
@@MiauZi69 It seems you would agree that our subjective experience is shaped by belief, just as belief is shaped by experience. My beliefs have changed over the years, as has my experience of 'agency' and 'freedom'. Far from a nihilistic worldview, this change has increased empathy and my ability to deal with pain, as the person below states. This change has not resulted in a belief in determinism, and I think that is a crucial point. Determinism implies a self which is a static entity. I've looked very carefully over many years and I see no such self. Do you?
@@patriciaadducci6549 Yes. Very clearly. And your statement, you don't see /experience your own self and you do not suffer from nihilism, is quite some mental gymnastics.
@@MiauZi69 The tangled web of lies which has indoctrinated our thinking has us living in a constant struggle of mental gymnastics until we surrender to the obvious fact that there is no independently existing self. Nature simply doesn't work that way. Decisions are made through complex processes which are largely unconscious. Having faith in those processes leads to effortless action. A very nice way to live! What does your 'self' look like? Is it a static entity, a collection of memories, a flow of events which are constantly shifting and changing? Or -- ???
@@patriciaadducci6549 whatever. You just chose to ignore the obvious fact in front of you, by having trained yourself to ignore and reframe it. I once also believed things similar to what you stated, hence I know I can't reach you.
To everyone who’s read his book, listened to this podcast and Sam Harris’ on the same topic, congratulations on being at a new historical viewpoint, much like the realisation of the earth not being the centre of the universe. I think it’s vital for us to get this knowledge out there for increasing empathy and dealing with pain.
@guttergrown was here He's only 'oppressive towards muslims' because he uses them as an example (and usually it's extremism). His point surrounding it makes a lot of sense. The general idea being that believing in imaginary things has been a healthy thing for the human species, but today it can be a brainwashing mechanism to do more harm than good, on an objective level.
@guttergrown was here I'm pretty sure he wouldn't make an exception for 'buddhist bombers' because they are buddhist and not muslim lol. It's the concept of being able to be convinced of something fictitious that can cause suffering to people that don't have the same beliefs. I'm not agreeing with bigotry either. I see the conundrum where if you don't draw a line somewhere in what people ought to or ought not to believe, it can severely effect the lives of others. He is not using a broad generalization to dehumanize everyone, he is using it as an example of where religion can be harmful and misguiding for humanity on collectively good level. I think it's a fairly simple concept and stands on its own two legs. The fact that someone could be the smartest person in the world, but believe that if they destroy the entire planet they are fulfilling their god's wishes -- this is an extreme example, but hopefully this gets the point across of why there could be a problem here (if religion is never checked).
@guttergrown was here I think he's just exploring what he believes to be true. I don't like the idea of picking on a group of people, but it's also not okay for certain things to have immunity to criticism. I see potential for abuse and I think it's better to debate about this topic now than wait for someone to really abuse religion as a way deceive people into harming others outside their tribe (knowingly or unknowingly).
If I'm understanding this correctly, I cannot simply choose or will myself to feel better, more motivated, etc. However, the RUclips algorithm that exposed me to Huberman led to the awareness of, for instance, early morning sunlight's effect on dopamine. That consolidated memory may affect my behavior tomorrow, thus resulting in my feeling better and more motivated. Thus, I'm changing my behavior and brain chemistry, but all of it is due solely to external inputs and does not require a will separate from that.
If material reality results from consciousness, and there is evidence that this is so (eg non local perception, near death experiences), then no matter how far back we follow the chain of material causation, we can act independently of it - ie free will.
Well, did you listen carefully to the end from 7:09 to the end? I think he mostly plays a word game. We can chose (!) to condition ourselfs in such ways that we will respond differently next time to a stimulus. So because the route to change interjects "self conditioning" then we are no longer talking about free will. Really? I think that is equivalent to saying: Because I can not will my self to become stronger it is not an expression of free will to go the gym and VIA that become stronger. I think the choice to self training and self conditioning IS free will. I understand why 95 procent of philosophers disagree with him :-)
I ❤ this excerpt of the discussion with Huberman and Sapolsky. Huberman is so humble and focused during the discussion and Sapolsky, per usual, is one of the best science communicators.
@@JTheTeach Not a loophole; he just makes unscientific assumptions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is not deterministic as far as we know. In order to prove that, we would need to find hidden variables. And so far, there have been two separate experiments that have shown there are no hidden variables (Bell’s theorem and the 2022 physics noble prize). Also, he seems to have never heard of the free will theorem, which proves that free will is compatible with currently known physics. For some reason, so many educated people are totally clueless on this issue.
I was just thinking about this recently, about how indeterministic things get when looking at it from a quantum scale. So far I don't know the surrounding perspectives on it from the scientific community, and it also makes it quite difficult to grasp because I've only been well versed in philosophy and not the intricacies of science.
Oh my god this was one of my most favourite podcast from the Hubermanlab podcasts. I can't wait to read Determined when it gets published. Thank you Dr Huberman
"Striving to be better human beings is still a worthwhile endeavor, do I have that correct?" Robert Sapolsky says "Absolutely" to this question. I think Sapolsky should've said "I guess striving to be a better human being is a worthwhile endeavor. But whether you have the desire to strive to be a better human being isn't up to you, though."
Hippies with PhDs wanting to not feel guilty about anything. What a disfuncional world they and the brainwashed lemmings who lap up their ludicrous lies will build.
Striving to be better human beings is a worthwhile endeavor, to the extent that you're capable of learning that, capable of acting on it, and how you do so. Still, it all comes down to circumstances, internal and external, and not some causally independent free will.
i am a firm believer in situational ethics. it is only a matter of which side of a weapon you are on. either way, i will side step out of the way. i mean no one any harm.☮
i am a firm believer in situational ethics. it is only a matter of which side of a weapon you are on. either way, i will side step out of the way. i mean no one any harm.☮
i am a firm believer in situational ethics. it is only a matter of which side of a weapon you are on. either way, i will side step out of the way. i mean no one any harm.☮
The knowledge of determinism is very useful and is itself a cause. Once you realize your choices are determined by the your circumstance and more importanyly, the information your brain has, then it can cause you to start choosing better for yourself. It will cause you to seek more information before making a choice. Knowledge is the true freedom we have to gain. Only then can we rise above our lesser and misinformed selves.
Not at all. If everything is determined, so as it is claim, then nothing matters and we shouldn't strive to be anything more than what we are "destined" to be.
@Somberdemure Yes I agree that we would still be subject to the circumstances that determine what knowledge we have. Perhaps free will lies in the unsolvable quantum mystery of why electrons appear in multiple places at once. Perhaps free will is nonphysical and our consciousness is what drives everything. Either way, we make choices. Determinism would not make life meaningless. It would just mean that it means nothing to us, but it may mean a great deal to whatever put us here.
The argument against free will is generally explained as, either the universe is causally deterministic, (the past state determines our "choice") or it is chaotic (our state or "choice" can't have any predictable affect on the future). The problem with this form of the argument is that quantum physics currently only allows the possibility that the future, while limited by the present, can NOT be determined by the present state. The determinations of the Bell theorem demonstrate that there are no local hidden variables present that determine the probabilistic paths of particles through the universe. So there are myriad of different paths that all of the particles in the universe can actually take and the information required to determine those paths is not hidden somewhere in physical reality. If we appeal to non-local hidden variables, then we violate relativity and vivify retro-causality which has the same problem since the paths of particles could be determined by some information that isn't present in the universe "yet". If we appeal to the multiverse model then we can have a physicalistically deterministic manifold, but we can't explain or determine which path through that manifold our conscious awareness will observe. So, our experience of the universe is NOT and can not be physicalistically deterministic. That doesn't mean we have free will, but it does undo the general form of the argument against free will since our state is probabilistically limited by the past AND our state probabilistically limits the future. Our state is not physicalistically determined and our state is not merely chaotically effective on the future. Sapolsky starts with a biased presupposition that our thoughts and awareness is completely explainable by the physical state of our mind which is a) circular (he is using the physically limited mind to prove the physically limited mind) and b) not true, there is randomness in our thoughts that is not determined by the physical history of the universe prior to those thoughts. If Saploski's statement "I don't think we have a shred of free will" is true, then his conclusion was either inevitable, or random. Both of those invalidate the concept of someone having a "true" or "rational" conclusion because it makes those terms logically superfluous. There is no test that Sapolski had been free to perform prior to making that statement that could have distinguished between his statement being "True/rational and inevitable" or merely "Inevitable." Doesn't make it false, but puts it outside of the realm of rationalism. At any rate, he clearly holds to a form of physicalistic determinsim which is excluded by randomness. The real argument against free will is one of agency, but all physical models today make a universe with free will indistinguishable from one without it.
Yes, Saploski doesn’t get quantum physics. On top of that, even if free will was an illusion, it does not matter for us as human being. We still need to put hard work in order for our brain to come up with the best ideas.
I don't quite follow some of your reasoning. Using a tool to measure how inadequate the tool is is not circular fallace, its a fact of life that happens and has happened. Thats how we come up with better tools. I understand the analogy was to the brain examining its own processes, but the Premise of this process being comparable to a circular argument is not good in construction. Secondly I don't think your premise that there are random actions of thought in the brain is a given. Every single thought may indeed be able to be traced to first particle movements. I know that would be an incredibly complicated thing to model but it seems computationally possible.
@@JTheTeach This is something that I used to think about when I was a child “Where do thoughts come from”? I mean that initial spark that sets it in motion. if you trace it back far enough it’s source is undoubtedly immaterial. It is “information”. So then, what is “information”? Whenever I ponder this I am left with only more questions.
@@JTheTeach 1) I am not saying he is using his physically limited mind to deduce a physically limited mind. I am saying that his premise that he is positing that the mind is utterly physically deterministic by positing that the mind is utterly physically deterministic. That's purely presuppositional, but can only be confirmed by showing that the outputs of the mind can be determined by the state of that mind/universe system at any point prior to that output. 2) The experiments regarding the Bell inequality have shown that the state of the universe does not deterministically cause probabilistic outcomes unless they violated general relativity, and also enabled retro-causality (faster than light action). The processes of the mind can be traced to particles, but can not be determined by particles/fields without getting rid of general relativity and requiring retro-causality.
"Either from experience or making to the end of the right neurobiology class has thought you that change can happen within a framework of a mechanistic neurobiology. You are now more open to being made optimistic by the good news in the world. You are more likely to be inspired by this or that. You are more resistant to getting discouraged by bad news - simply because you know understand, it's possible."
So much human cruelty could be avoided if we really embraced this idea. Every person whose ever done something bad is on some level just unlucky and still worthy of love and every good thing we’ve ever done isn’t something we need to take credit for as being better but something to be grateful for because of the good luck of having the right combo of genes and environment.
Exactly! It seems so simple to me, but people want so bad to think they are better than others because of "insert answer here", or those people are poor because they didn't work as hard as me...on and on and on. I feel like if someone can understand why more tall people are good at basketball than short people, they should be able to possibly comprehend this point.
Why does believing in determinism make people think they will be more empathetic. People still are morally responsible. They made the conscious decision and action despite possibly not having control of what led them to make such decision.
This just implies that bad people are bad because they were raised or were in an environment that way. It’s not a far leap to then conclude to eliminate deviants then an elimination of people i those circumstances seem logical
How would this end human cruelty? According to this guy- they would have no choice to choose to end cruelty. Also then r we not suppose to punish and jail those who commit crimes
@@Rowe104 Sapolsky still believes people make choices and that the consequences of those choices can have meaningful significance. He just doesn't think people can make choices in a way that's ever not entirely the result of things they had no ultimate control over. He also thinks we can justify punishment when it's necessary for the sake of deterrence or keeping dangerous people away from harming ppl but that it can't be justified on grounds of basic deserts or anything other than the goal of harm reduction.
At seventeen, I seriously questioned free will, and by thirty-six, I knew. After beginning my quest to truly internalize the idea, I moved on to discover we are not separate but one, and not a perceiver but perception itself, a single consciousness being squeezed through the divided pores of water and stardust. Now, to address the Fermi Paradox- they'll come when we're ready, when the large majority of us (as opposed to
I think there is an omitted strand of the determinist position here, which is that this implied capacity to become "more sensitized to optimistic stimuli" is itself fully determined by the set of prior conditions in one's anatomy (neurochemistry, psychology, etc) in its interactions with the external world. Therefore it's not possible for all, and such experienced optimism is therefore no more a choice than the experienced pessimism that preceded it ( but conditions the shift IN SOME PEOPLE towards optimism). Our desire to feel better about me, about the world, etc is not something I MADE, but something arising in the construction that neurobiology and its environment have created. Those engines are not "MINE" from some supervening place.
As long as we dont understand the brain, we cannot say if we have free will or not. Even when it sounds super logical to not have free will. We cannot prove it.
And as long as we cannot "predict" what someone else's behavior will be even if we were by some unfathomable miracle of modern science (or otherwise) have access to all (or even a fraction of) the data necessary to lay out enough causal chains leading to what their "next step" will be, we must act as if that other person has "free will" and that they alone are responsible for their actions - to the extent that it would be indeed foolhardy, or even potentially deadly otherwise. Any other argument seems merely academic, and has no utility whatsoever. I don't even think we know what "free will" is, for that matter, let alone how the brain or consciousness works. Anybody who takes a firm stance on these issue is, in my opinion, merely doubling down on their own self-serving entrenched beliefs on the matter.
We kind of can, because the concept itself makes no logical or consistent sense, even on a philosophical level - and when you introduce materialism, it just compounds the issue.
@@TeChNoWC7 this is at it's essence the "hard problem" of consciousness - I cannot know your innermost endogenous experiences, including your thoughts (and you cannot know mine) no matter how many empirical measurements you can make if you take a strictly materialist/physicalist view You may be able to make a "statistical" prediction, but no more - after all, what is the length/mass/electromagnetic frequency and amplitude of my experience of the color blue, or my insightful thought? Bernardo Kastrup goes into this at length.
@@crazy1gadgets1 totally agree with your definition of qualia essentially, but not sure what that has to do with free will being an impossible concept.
@@TeChNoWC7 I am still wrestling with this, I admit. What might be closer to the truth is that while I don't have personal "free will", and neither do you, it is effectively "impossible", even in principle, for either you or me, to know the other's thoughts or qualia, making pursuit of the concept of "free will" impractical and meaningless, like chasing after the wind, in my opinion. What we are left with is that to function in this world we must act "as if" the other has free will, otherwise we may not thrive, or even survive.
I agree he has me with the "show me the free will neuron" but as a recovering alcoholic and addict am also curious about how I was able to break those patterns, If not for free will.
Congratulations!! I think that your wonderful and positive change was due to your wish for your well-being and your loved ones was more powerful than the suffering you had to stand for stoping drinking. Same as any other decision, a matter of how strong different impulses are. Congratulations again for your ability, stamina, and ressistance.
Hope you’re recovering well now :) A lack of free will doesn’t mean you can’t desire something, e.g. recovering from addiction and having a better life, it just means that the fact that you have this desire, this determination, is the result of some external influences, as Sapolsky said, changed by circumstances. Basically, you can decide to think/act a certain way, but this decision must be influenced by something before, even without you knowing it. Fortunately you already have this desire to quit! Good luck with your recovery :)
I have a similar history and I like to think of it in this way. Compare the addiction to a Cancer. There are people walking around today with Cancer who have no knowledge of it as it has not yet impacted their lives. I have suffered as a result of my own behaviour. I found help, had my problem diagnosed, then sought treatment. Knowledge of a problem and that it IS a problem is the driver of change. Some things have to be experienced, I hope that doesnt diminish the effort you have gone to, to make such a positive move. Well done for coming out the other side 👍
Were you exposed to any new information, experiences, therapies, help groups, books etc. that helped you achieve sobriety? If you hadn’t had those experiences or been exposed to that new information would you still have gotten sober? It’s not to take away from what you did, as someone who struggled with addictions themselves its definitely not easy but did you choose to become an addict? If not why do you think you can choose not to be an addict? You might have chosen to try a certain substance or behavior, but the vast majority of people who try an addictive substance don’t become addicted. I don’t think the people who do are simply “choosing it”
@@manelsalido thank you! I didn't do it alone, and it is a continuous process and effort that will likely never end for me, but my life is so much richer for the true friendships I've gained on my journey. Thank you so much for such a lovely comment!
I'm really having a hard time determining whether we as a species have free will or not, and I often find myself having a difficulty even at conceptualizing the problem at hand. There is particularly a fact that bothers me, because I know it's true but I don't know what to do with it; it seems to me that the more we see into humans as 'lots of similar selves', which is totally objective for it involves generalisation of the same laws and qualities throughout all the species, we tend to realize an absence of free will, but the more we focus the lens and see into 'ourselves', which is totally subjective, we realize a presence of free will. And I don't know what to do with this fact and where does it fit amongst the other facts surrounding this subject. Also, I find it very difficult to give up my belief in free will. I must be honest but I don't see a way to live fully aware that I'm not free, I don't know if I'm right or wrong, if I'm avoiding the truth or wrestling with it, but I MUST believe in free will.
Honestly, it all becomes a matter of semantics at some point. The answer to "do we have free will?" heavily depends on what we understand of it as a concept that we humans created in the first place. Personally, I don't believe in "free will" as we understand it since there are always a series of variables that influence your decision-making process at all times. The problem with this idea is that these variables are so many in number and so hard to measure that it becomes impossible to determine the when, how, and what we do when presented a specific situation in life. You may think you are "free" when you choose but in reality you are being influenced by your genetics, your upbringing, your education, your experiences... Hell, you might even be influenced by how you woke up that day and watched on the news before leaving your house. So, are you "free" in the sense nobody is pointing a gun at your head? Yes, but that's about it. If all variables are exactly the same, the outcome will always be the same; we simply don't have the technology to replicate these variables to be exactly the same. For example, if you were able to throw the same set of dice under exactly the same conditions, you would always get the same results, but we simply cannot replicate these conditions up to a 100% accuracy since even the slightest change in, say, your hand movement throwing the dice, may affect the outcome. We would need to have control of these variables to an atomic level. This is also the reason there is no truly randomness in programming, but the illusion of it, and the same happens with free will. If you think of the brain as an incredibly complex computer, you would come to the same conclusion: nothing is truly random, there is always something, somewhere affecting how it works.
I'd like to think of it as, the more knowledge we have on how the laws of nature operate/how our brains work, the more we can have a certain degree of control. And that minuscule control that we have, I'd like to think of that as our "freewill." In other words, the more we expose ourselves to different POVs, scientific concepts, philosophies, etc., the more we can make better, informed decisions.
I totally get you and I am impressed that you still challenge yourself :) I have some thoughts you can play around with. 1. Objective and Subjective "Reality" can still coexist. If it feels like you have free will, why bother. Just enjoy the "illusion". Subjectively it really doesn't make a difference. 2. This one is a little crossover to another topic, mainly the definition of oneself. People are often talking about this hypothetical teleport Experiment. If you beam your atoms one by one and you are built apart, at which point you aren't you anymore? So maybe you might think it's just when you hit the nervous system or brain you slowly change into not being you anymore? I think it already begins with your fingernails, perhaps even your Ideas which can spread onto other people. So if you don't really exist at all as you might feel it and you just are a thought, behaviors or a way of thinking... You are not really "trapped" into one organism, you are just one small expression of all beings and possibly even beyond. (Like Stars, Astroids, Galaxies, etc. which slowly but surely change and influence each other) This is a little open ended and probably not really well explained, but maybe it sparkles a great new Idea in someone else :)
We may not have independent "free" will but we do have the ability to sculpt our persona (over a lifetime) to become more than the base hand we were dealt....we do have conscious choice
and that conscious choice has been made by a concoction of your genetics and impact from surroundings. I don’t believe there is any “self” that can have even the slightest bit of impact on choice. What do you think it would be? The conscious choice is directed by your moral compass most often, which you have been given at birth and then developed over your upbringing
Yes, I believe that circumstances, our past, our physiology & neurology, our genes, our brains, our environment and so on, can boldly influence our choices. But I believe we can always choose unconditional love and forgiveness over fear and hatred. Some people are more ready than others. It may be our only real choice in life. But that choice is our birthright and always will be.
If determinism is true, the way that you interpret any peice of evidence is predetermined by factors outside of your knowledge and control, which means you can never be sure that you are interpreting any given peice of information rightly, which should undermine your confidence in any conclusion you come to, including your belief in determinism. Appealing to evidence to prove determinism is self-defeating.
yes but thats not contradictory at all. Thats all of science, believing in something until you find a better explanation with the understanding that your initial idea is probably incomplete.
Whether or not I do or do not have free will is irrelevant. I am conscious and self aware. I perceive myself as having free will. I perceive myself as being in control of my actions and choices.
It can make a great difference in how we emotionally react to the actions of others, and as a society how we treat them when their actions are unacceptable. We don't get angry or seek revenge against natural forces regardless of how harmful they might be. We no longer burn witches for being possessed. Understanding the causes of behavior can allow a more humane society.
The place of "free will" in our considerations is "holding" 5 thoughts. And while those options and the tendency of choosing any one of the 5 is completely without your control, you do still have a choice. It will feel like a "free choice" or "no choice" depending of the situation and all the way back to the past. So, If you are looking for "free will" you should do the research and look from the now to the past, and learn about yourself and how to encourage more "free will" rather than the other.
@@mealtime5091 The conversation should move to "how to encourage?", If you have successfully found a way to generate the auto-feeling of freedom within those 5 options in all situations..... you should (as far as I know) be saturated by "feeling you have options and you are the one making them" -"free will". To the question of how to encourage? 1. consider a repeating situation in life, and one that lacks the feeling of free choice. 2. investigate the event - over the spectrum of influence from the past to the now. 3. maybe you need to fix an "understanding" to feel more free 4. maybe you need to change your behavior within the situation to open up options... myself is still investigating hope it helps
I want to add a reference that I feel is one of the keys to be able to generate the feeling of free will: Check out "Hunter X Hunter" chapter 8, "Decision × By × Majority?" Gon & his friends faced a "no good option" situation, Gon mind state provided him a vision of a "new option" that was not only missed by his friends but also they were not open to the possibility of a new option. One can understand something new that completely changes his feeling about being free. amazing human quality.
I learnt from Dr Sapolsky that we are still within the grip of mechanistic neurobiology though we can learn to change our response to environmental stimuli. So we have no free will. But it is still worthwhile to learn to change our response. It is enough for me.
Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
"Although Sapolsky highlights the influence of neural processes on decision-making, the brain's complexity can also contribute to the emergence of novel thoughts and actions. The brain's ability to integrate information from various sources and generate unique patterns of thought might be a source of human agency and free will."
This exact same thing could be said about an AI. The only difference in humans is the personal moral and ethical background they have from their upbringing or even genetically.
A friend of mine changed his whole life path from a decision of his own free will. He was a drug addict for 10years and decided to change his life. Now he is a millionaire with a beautiful family. Imo he was literally pre-determined to be junkie and end up dead or in jail , but he made a choice to change his circumstances of his own free will. Many of his friends from that neighbourhood ended up in jail or dead but he chose to change his life.
But what MADE him make the choice to change his circumstances? Probably an almost infinite number of environmental / external inputs, (from infancy if not before, running all the way throuh to experiences within active addiction), combined with his particular neurology & genetics, at a time he was receptive to them & the 'decision' was made to change. Then he was lucky enough to enter a field at the right economic time, with a determined (ha) attitude, in a country which allowed his financial success. You think he was pre-determined to be a junkie but maybe he was pre-determined to be a millionaire? Also, I'm not sure determinism says nobody can change but that the want to change is driven by factors beyond our control. Honestly, I'm not 100% sold on determinism because it's uncomfortable to think that we're not in control & can easily lead me to spiral but if we remove societal conditioning, ego & individualism & try to be clinical & objective, it makes a lot of sense. (Happy for your friend, regardless. Free will or not, the changes he made must have been very difficult indeed). Wow, sorry for the ramble!
you know these kind of facts at first seem to be disturbing but a knowledgeable person explains these things beautifully you can imagine how much were are connected to this world it is fascinating how our brain just tricks us to change and go beyond limits by just looking at algorithms we in the of video i came up with this idea that our perception of world is very permeable and there is no stop point in getting information from the environment.thank you professor it was the first time i was watching you previously i had listened to your podcasts😄
It's why we don't consciously observe most of the constant stream of data our sensory perceptions are taking in, at any one time. The external world is perpetual. Thus, your perceptions (even during sleep, except the eyes) are always noticing and sending electrical signals to your brain, which in turn creates the 'world' that you experience. A neato controlled hallucination based on electron transmission, reception, encoding, decoding, recoding, visual playback, pattern insertion, etc. And... we still have no idea how that really works. The Hard Problem of Consciousness. A really interesting, and maybe disturbing, subject matter within neuroscience and philosophy.
Once you figure out that your choices are predetermined down to the breakfast you ate this morning, a huge sense of weight is lifted off your shoulders as you slowly learn to “let go” and allow the world around you to take form. It truly is fascinating to watch, as I have learned to take a “back seat” role in my life, in some ways at least.
@@edgarzuluaga4896 free will is a gift from God. But one can reject this “pearl of great price,” as you apparently have. Thus are the dogs and worms, the robots and the clods of dirt.
Yes. Entirely deterministic but so complex that it is unpredictable. I think even the idea that QM is not deterministic comes from our ignorance about mechanisms at the subatomic level.
No, I don’t think so: Not having free will does not imply determinism (the inverse, however, is true). Counterexample: if everything in the universe was completely random, we wouldn’t have free will then either.
Of course Dr. Sapolsky is correct IF one considers that "free will" means 100% free from all influences when one makes a choice or other types of decisions. That's a no-brainer. Free will usually means "could I have decided otherwise?" Yes, in most cases, given a healthy brain, we could have decided otherwise. A healthy brain seeks what is good for the organism, for its survival. But, other brain mechanisms based memory, emotions, and drives cause us to overrule what the healthy decision-making algorithms in the brain are strongly "suggesting." To our demise, we make a decision based on lust, love, greed, revenge, etc., and we live to regret it. Hopefully, the brain records all that and our decision-making is healthier for the organism. Humans do have free will under the constraints of genetics, early childhood experiences, life experiences, and biases present at the time of decisions. We could have made a different decision, given a healthy brain.
Except you couldn't have made a different decision, why on earth would you think that? The only decisions that are unclear are the future. Do you have the ability to go back and change the past? No you don't.
@@noah5291 Given what is known about the brain, if you were faced with the same decision and with all other things being equal, you could have made a different decision. That is the essence of free will. Some claim that under that scenario, you could not have decided differently. If that is true, then what can be said of personal responsibility? If I could not have decided differently than to shoot someone, am I guilty of a crime?
@@neilcreamer8207 True, no way to prove it. An approach would be to set up a controlled situation whereby a subject could choose either A or B. The experiment could be run say 100 times with the subject told to choose A or B as it suited him or her. We can never replicate any decision situation, but we can demonstrate overwhelming evidence that one can decide otherwise.
Having no free will is essentially saying choice is an illusion because a person will always default to their best choice. This is not true anytime someone makes a choice that goes against their better judgment.
Robert comes off as if he has 100% certain knowledge that absolute determinism is an absolute truth. Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate there is always room for doubt. It seems people like this are either ignorant or ill intentioned.
People who don't want accountability for their wrongdoings make an excuse of lack of free will to prove they have no fault. Everybody can have two or more options in their mind and they choose to act positively or negatively because they make a choice according to free will. Sometimes free will doesn't exist during unconscious actions and extreme anger but many time free will exists. People will disagree who can relate to it but I won't read replies and engage in futile debates.
The word "choose" preassumes that theres no chain reaction that led to the crime, so just by using that word youre blocking your own understanding. Dont worry about it its not your fault ;)
Sapolsky and Lisa Feldman Barrett are in alignment. essentially, if you give yourself a new stimulus from the environment that supports a new way of thinking, your biology will align in that direction, your neurology will align in that direction. From what I understand.
‘Will’ is pre shaped by bio psycho socio human elements…free will requires self awareness and motivation to do what we determine to be of highest value. ( master or servant)
Mechanistic axioms lead to mechanistic conclusions. If anyone agrees with this, try treating yourself or a loved one like they're a product of circumstance and incapable of change or independent choices. See how long that works. Really disappointing that all that external knowledge hasn't led to any looking inward and understanding what it means to be human.
He just says that whatever happens now is a consequence of what happened before. And in that sense it’s obvious there is no “free will” in the strict sense. We cannot “will” our way into a certain behaviour and violate the laws of physics, when they would predict a different outcome. The only fundamental uncertainty might be in quantum mechanics, but it’s impossible for a “soul” to steer your body into certain behaviour by determining the quantum outcomes of particle interactions. The interesting thing Sapolsky says is that he believes we are determined, not just on a particle scale, but by our biology and psychology. Our current self is an inescapable product of our past. Even when we are born, we are not a blank slate, because of the species we are, the genes we inherit and the culture we are born into. We are determined. Fully. On the other hand, there is chaos and undetermined, or rather unpredictable, outcomes because of the complexity of things. If we roll a couple of dice, we don’t know the outcome. We can never fully know or understand our past and the illusion of free will is created because our brain is constantly in a state of unstable equilibrium. Our thoughts can wander one way or another. This keeps it interesting. I think chaos leads to the illusion of real chance, of real undeterminism and of free will, but in fact it’s just practical unpredictability.
There are some things that we humans have a hard time wrapping our minds around. 1. Free will and predestination. 2. The law and grace. One does not exist without the other, but somehow they coexist together.
I can't really imagine anyone arguing for Free Will, if it is meant to be "to act independently of any sort of environmental or biological determination". But if we define "free will" as the fact that, given the same virtually infinite determined causes, two different actions can follow (and be determininstically explained a posteriori), then I don't see how Sapolsky's last example is not a plea for Free Will.
There’s a lot of validity in his arguments RE the various contributions to behavior. But his argument doesn’t successfully argue against the possibility of choice simply because one can be aware of the factors making something or someone “determined”. And then it’s hard to distinguish which action is influenced by what, when the elements of consciousness, awareness, and intentional intentionally are brought into the picture. There are more reasons his argument isn’t fully successful, such as what you pointed out. Also being able to break down the elements of behavior to its microscopic parts is fun and all but I’d love to see a similar account of consciousness. Which hasn’t been done by neither philosophers nor scientists. *Which probably means the causation he is so enamored with might not apply in the same way to consciousness and thus decisions*
True, such debates often feel like a play of words. To reiterate what you said in a different way : if we can choose to be more receptive to positive stimuli, hey, it means there's free will
He is saying that the circumstance of you being exposed to the information that change is possible will determine you being more prone to engage in certain type behaviors (eg seeking to overcome certain patterns). This does not mean that there is a separate “you” that can intervene in that process independently from it
I think it requires a belief in a diety or a soul. Otherwise your left with a deterministic scientific paradigm that most people have these days and there is no room in that for free will
I don't understand the last part of the video. Can somebody explain how can one become more optimistic by knowing that its possible? How can one possibly influence change by just knowing that change is possible?
What he is arguing for is that everything you do has been determined by something else (brain chemistry, surroundings etc.), which is quite literally the definition of not having free will, aka determinism.
sentience and consciousness arent well understood. its probable that free will (if it exists) is an emergent phenomenon, not a fundamental one... so its not likely you would find a special cell or sub-structure that mediates free will
Since there's no evidence of free will it's more likely that the idea is a compelling illusion. If you think there is free will try to control which thoughts you have.
Is there language missing here to describe the semi-conscious capacity that humans have to impact and take part in the process of 'choice'. In listening to both Dr. Huberman and Dr. Sapolsky, perhaps we need to consider taking a species within this environment approach. As a collective, our choices over time in the environments we inhabit create a genetic change...and perhaps in this we have conscious influence? Would this require to consider our neurology working together in a collective level as opposed to the individual level? Do we have a greater impact on the evolution of our wiring as a collective than as an individual and if so, over what periods of time for what types of changes?
@@AlvaroPeralta There’s no language missing. We don’t really have free will but outside stimulus can influence and change us. Free will is an illusion.
@@kieransoregaard-utt8 if outside stimulus can influence and change us, is it possible that we can be the stimulus for change and influence for extremal and internal things as well?
@@kieransoregaard-utt8 my suggestion here is that the use of 'will' is blinding us to potential that does exist. 'Will power' and 'free will' are archane ways of articulating how we make sense of the world... like a flat earth that is the centre of the universe.
He forgot that thoughts and neurons can be the environment/circumstance/influence of another thought and neuron. And then some of those neurons basically embody "you". That's where the "degree" of free will come from. That's why people who are known to be brainy give the impression of possessing more free will.
There is Freewill. Martin Heisenberg in his Essay ‘Is free will an illusion?’ (Nature 459, 164-165; 2009), argues that humans must have free will because freedom of action has been demonstrated in other animals - including those as small as fruitflies and bacteria.
The concept of free will is akin to a movie production. The producer (representing a higher power or fate) writes a script with a predetermined ending. The actors, though following the script, may seem to exercise free will within the narrative. However, their choices are ultimately bound by the script's constraints. Similarly, in life, we may feel like we have free will, but our choices might be predetermined by factors like genetics, environment, or past experiences. Just as viewers can become emotionally invested in a movie, we often become deeply invested in our own lives, forgetting that our choices may be part of a larger, predetermined script. The actors' performances mirror the illusion of free will we experience in reality, while the producer represents the forces that shape our destinies.
Swami Vivekananda defines a free entity in the following sentence: “Who is free? The free must certainly be beyond cause and effect.” For an entity to be free, it must not be caused by something. Why? Because if it is caused, it is then bound by the cause. The effect can be nothing apart from the cause. With clay as the cause, one cannot get a golden pot - it is bound to be a clay pot. The cause being there, the effect must follow, there is no other way. The unity of the cause and the effect is an accepted fact in Vedanta philosophy. Thus, as long as a thing is within the realm of causation, there is no freedom. We may talk about freedom in the relative sense. For instance, we may say that a man is more free compared to an animal, as he is less influenced by his surroundings than an animal. However, the same animal is more free compared to tree or stone. Relative bondage or freedom is a matter of perspective, it is not absolute. What is freedom from one point of view becomes bondage with a change in perspective. Thus, that cannot really be called freedom. As said by Vivekananda, only that which is beyond causality can be free. That is the contextual definition of freedom. So when we are talking about freedom of the Will, we are seeing if the Will is an uncaused phenomenon, for only then can it be free." Quoting - N Krishna Bhardwaj - Dept of Yoga, SVYASA Bangalore
Very based. I definitely agree with this. You cannot be free as long as you exist within causality. It doesn't matter how free you feel, no matter what, something influences what you do, which makes any action you do not free from those circumstances.
@@daviddeida If you mean are a persons goals successful that they pursue through there own effort of will. then i would say it is about considering all factors when setting out on a goal. The fact that some people fail doesn't demonstrate that free will does not exists. It just means we lack knowledge or take risks that are not in our favor.
@@mn5499 If you think factors can predict outcomes that is pretty deterministic. Cause and consequence. The outcome is like that because of those factors. No person would take a risk if they knew it wasn't in their favor which again goes to lack of knowledge and no-one would do something if they thought they could get better results by obtaining more knowledge and if they knew how to do that so it leads to them being unaware of their lack of knowledge and how can you be aware of what you're unaware of? So while the choice is not directly predetermined, there are factors and events which led to the person not having been aware of their lack of knowledge which caused them to make a bad choice. No-one is saying people are forced to do things. They're saying their choices align with how they think and how they think(how they calculate those factors) is caused by what they've experienced, how they've processed that experience, their innate traits and their circumstances. If that wasn't true it would mean that the way they think is random which goes against what you said about factors determining outcomes. And idk what responsibility has to do with it. If I don't believe in free will, I also don't believe that other people have the option of not holding me responsible for my actions. Excusing my actions would only work in a world where I only didn't have free will
@@mn5499 So my reply was deleted,a good example of case in point.Nothing is in our control,not even what we will.We just claim authorship after the action is already decided.
Hi Dr. Huberman, I am a C2 ESL Ukrainian, in Ukraine since day 1 of the war. Plugging into your topic of the brain being influenced by environment and uplifting/depressing news - does feeling hopeless living under the risk of death from rockets and being unable to leave build and deepen my neural circuitry in the direction of perceiving life in general as traumatic and option-less? Would I have to rework myself again after the war? I feel stuck in limbo without feeling the world outside. Feeling a direction and being motivated is hard under these circumstances. Thank you.
From a scientific standpoint, colors do not exist independently, but are instead creations of our own brain. However, given the reality we perceive is filled with colors, it is reasonable and enjoyable to appreciate and present vibrant red roses, pure white pearls, and marvel at the stunning beauty of azure skies, fluffy white clouds, verdant grass, and lush trees. Indeed, the scientific fact remains that the sun is perpetually shining and does not actually descend. Nevertheless, due to the Earth's rotation, we experience phenomena such as sunsets, sunrises, days, and nights, along with varying intensities of sunlight. Acknowledging and respecting these experiences and living as though sunrises, sunsets, days, and nights are real is a sensible approach. It is a scientific reality that both iron and oxygen are primarily empty space with a small portion of energy. However, considering their unique properties and the distinct ways we experience them, it makes sense to interact with them differently based on their observable traits. Scientifically speaking, there is no concrete "I" or self. Yet, to successfully navigate daily life and foster meaningful connections, it seems practical to behave as though there is a definite "I". In a similar vein, while science tells us there is no actual "free will," in our present experience, it seems judicious to act as if "free will" does exist to make choices, assume responsibility, and engage with the world. Comprehending the scientific truths behind these phenomena doesn't diminish the significance of our experiences and perceptions. It is crucial to strike a balance between our scientific understanding and the pragmatic aspects of existing in our perceived reality.
I’ve thought for a long time that we don’t have free will. I had a really vivid lucid dream one night where I was very conscious of what I was doing and felt like I was in control. Then when I woke I realised it was just like any other dream. The consciousness of the dream was just part of the story like any other dream and I thought this is how waking life is too.
"Change can happen but where people go off the rails is translating that into: we can change ourselves. We don't. We can't. cause there's no free will. however we can be changed by circumstance." Beautiful
I think saying there's no free will is silly IMHO. On the one hand, he says we can't change ourselves, because there's no free will. On the other hand, he says we can be changed by circumstance. It seems to be that the second statement is antithetical to the first. Most behavioural scientists agree that changing the environment can help us change our behaviour and habits. And if this were possible, then it should be possible for one to choose to change their circumstance in the process or for the goal of changing themselves.
@@nnanwa529 Follow up question : what motivates a change in environment? Follow up to the follow-up question: What motivates the person(s)' motivation to change the environment? We can regress infinitely in this vein.
Год назад
I had a spiritual awakening one evening. Absolutely nothing changed outside of me or in my life, but everything changed inside of me.
@egonmaric So your brain thought of something and you felt good about it? Those are called emotions, and they are caused by hormones and neurotransmitters like dopamine. Usually things like "spiritual awakenings" are during development of the brain when hormones are flying all over the place left and right. So this example really just furthers the point that we have no free will. This awakening that you had no control over, could determine the trajectory of the rest of your life.
I am willing to accept this largely because Dr Saplosky descriptions are understandable if you possess the vocabulary you know what he knows. I used to work in corrections. I retired there. I am now thinking about the interactions with these insights, and it makes a lot of sense.
Free will has nothing to do with actions you do or do not take. We have an infinite number of realities that we can experience. Free will is is making that choice. It's made by our non physical self , the real us.
Both Dr. Sapolsky and Dr. Huberman are prolific authors and lecturers. They have written several books and articles on their research, and they give talks at conferences and on podcasts. They are both passionate about using their research to help people understand and manage stress. I think that both Dr. Sapolsky and Dr. Huberman are doing important work in the field of neuroscience. Their research is helping us to understand the biological basis of stress and its effects on the brain and body. This knowledge can help us to develop better treatments for stress-related disorders and to prevent stress from causing damage to our health.
Basically the moment you deny free will you deny existence of God, soul and consciousness, to me God, soul and consciousness is the same, that is the agent of free will. Of course they are going to claim that consciousness comes from the matter, the matter has to arrange itself randomly into a very complex and complicated way to form a conscious brain, what are the odds for it? But if we consider consciousness to be precursor for all of it, it solves all the problems.. Conveniently for them they ignore the problem of Consciousness completely
There are many “created” beings without a soul, and they do not have “freewill” and are more of a robot than a living being, and this explains the conflict between the souled and non-souled. There is no point in arguing whether or not freewill exists, it does with some, and doesn’t with others. Unfortunately people believe we are all the same, and conflict ensues
I like this guy. No one is responsible for their actions, because the notion of responsibility requires morality, which if one were to understand good and bad for a living organism, as life as the standard, then nothing nature does ( I can't say you do because there is no you, remember ) is just what nature does. You're simply a collection of atoms, determined by some superior thing ( god, nature, movement, etc ) to act the way you do. So this professor is letting everyone know that loving and killing is the same thing - nothing but a breeze on the back of you head. If you attend his lectures and go to his college, just don't pay. Show up, and sit in the class. You didn't choose to do that. Put you money where your mouth is, and "do whatever nature forces you to do".
Clearly the professor is NOT saying loving and killing are the same thing. That's you leaping to an unfounded conclusion. Clearly the takeaway is that some set of conditions facilitate love and a different set of conditions make it possible for one to kill. The whole point being that we don't get to choose which conditions we're saddled with.
Many things influence our behavior, but I think we still have free will. We always have a choice. To think otherwise is extremely dangerous on many levels
Just to clarify, "will" and "freewill" are two very different things. "Will" has to do with willing something to happen, e.g., deciding to go for a walk, picking up a pencil, etc. (And a case could be made for that being largely deterministic.) "Freewill" has to do with making a moral decision, choosing between right and wrong. If one were to argue that freewill doesn't exist, then by implication they would be also advocating for there being no difference between right and wrong, or by extension, no difference between truth and error. Does anyone seriously believe that?
@smeeself- if you read all of my original comment, truth and error were included in that. It sounds like you’re one of those atheists who care not about morality. How’s your love life?
"Since then [age 13] I have had zero capacity for religiosity, spirituality, or for believing that the universe is anything other than cold, empty, unempathic, and pointless. And I've been depressed ever since" (Sapolsky December 2020). Perhaps Sapolsky's adolescent rebellion against an overly strict religious upbringing, and the resultant depression concomitant upon those decisions have drawn him into an obsessive need to rationalize those materialist presuppositions which he may be unwilling to discard. One’s adolescent rebellion against legalism together with a cultural predisposition which adamantly refutes any hint of theological syncretism should not blind a brilliant mind to that which is. The learned professor it seems has determined not only that there is no God, but oddly enough, that there are no scientists.
You could take an entirely different metaphysics from Sapolsky’s and reach the same conclusion. Imagine that there is nothing but experience. After all, there’s no evidence of anything else. Then what ‘you’ are is the experiencing of something which you cannot understand and which arises by mechanisms of which you are not aware from something which you cannot know. Expressed in (Eastern) religious terms, all is a dream in the mind of God. What you believe yourself to be is actually a character in a dream. Where’s the free will in that?
@@A-X-25 "He never said that there is no god" ------ He said: "the universe is.... cold, empty, unempathic, and pointless" Which is indeed ironic coming from a professor of profound intellect, will, and passion--- and who is of course part of that universe.
@@A-X-25 "330 millions gods and goddesses. You can create another one right now in your mind" ----- The term "God" in Judaeo-Christian theology refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. It is incoherent to posit being to not be. There are, indeed, some who would suggest that existence in and of itself is a product of their own mind. Such inhabit madhouses who are unwilling or unable to escape that small universe of their own design.
To me the question of free will has more to do with the question of what “I” am. I’ve always seen it as a question like, “Do I have control over my decisions?” And taken “I” to be a persistent agent composed of the matter in your person and especially your brain, the answer is usually some degree of yes.
True or not (likely we will never have proof either way). Pragmatically, the belief that one does not have free will over their own actions is extremely harmful to our everyday lives. It can be used to excuse ourselves from chasing goals, setting goals, or even behaving in whatever neurotic way leads us into despair. This is an important feature that is often left out of the philosophical debate. Not to mention, determinism is absolutely contradictory to the entire field of ethics. Should rapists and murderers be excused for their actions? Since after all, they did not have a choice. Are racists and nazis simply unable to break free from their psychopathic behaviors? Or is it more likely a plethora of societal conditioning that one needs to CHOOSE to break free from.
If you don't believe in free will you also would believe that people have no choice but to hold you responsible for your actions. Idk why everyone misses that part
It's interesting to hear Dr Sapolsky suggest we have no free will and to some extent, I think he’s right. Unless we have the intention to change. To dig in, explore and shift how we’ve been experiencing our worlds. To create better stories. That process of what Jung called Individuation is challenging yet possible.
Saying there is no free will because physics is deterministic. There are questions that should be answered: 1) Why are you so sure that we live in the laplacian world? Today It's clear that we are not 2) Why do you think that the world of physics is complete? While experiencing subjective stuff or qualia every second of your life 3) Why is that the ontology of the mind is determined by the ontology of physics? It's the same as saying that quantum processes determine how the economy works. No, it's the different ontology with the different rules
I stumbled upon this realisation quite late actually (mid 30s). Despite interest in philosophy and religion since I was a teen, I never thought much about free will. It seems so obvious now.
So there is no free will. Isn’t this an easy argument for forgiveness and compassion? Acceptance of human kind, openness to our frailty and fallibility,…the notion that we can be vulnerable and creative and open to criticism…?
It doesn't matter whether we have free will or not. We still feel like we make choices, and those choices decide how happy and healthy we are. Just teaching logical thought processes to children would lead to a happier world.
@waylonbarrett3456 He/She is just at a point in their life where they have a certain level of consciousness that focuses on themselves and their needs, and you're at another point, where you take into account other people's needs and opinions and carefully think about your points because you know they have an impact on the environment around you. That being said, 3 years from now, you might change your point of view due to a traumatic experience or something similar, and they might change because of some meaningful conversations with other people. Being aware that everybody is constantly changing and in a different state of consciousness is also another level of consciousness. I hope someone replies to my comment saying that there's another level of consciousness that takes into account even more stuff, then we can continue this trend forever.
But who is "You" in this equation? "You" is a section of the universe. That section has a lot more of what we call "free will" than a rock, a star, or pretty much any other section of the universe, all of which is ONE THING. No?
@@Basilfilmer I don't believe so, because we consider ourselves separate entities from a whole. So I don't believe the concept of the Self can coexist with the conception that we are all part of the universe. I don't know if it is possible for us to really see things the latter way experientially due to the way our egos are wired.
In my opinion the question isn’t wether we have free will or not, but rather how much do we have? I think everything that every happened to you has an affect on what you choose to do next and it’s sort of built into you. The structure which was built from the ground up is what controls you for the most part and decided who you are to some degree. But you can break out of this structure at will and with sacrifice and suffering! Your structure that likes to control everything loses control and fights inside you. Your free will is your mind/soul and it’s limited by your body. I think it’s too pre deterministic to say everything just happens on accord and it’s all ‘written in the books’ meaning everything that happens was just supposed to happen and nobody could have ever controlled that. It’s easy to say this because we always see only one outcome and not the rest. Like what the God of War Ragnarok game teaches you: you can’t rely on profecies! You must write you own story in between the borders you are limited to!
Exactly. I think saying there's no free will is silly IMHO. On the one hand, he says we can't change ourselves, because there's no freewill. On the other hand, he says we can be changed by circumstance. It seems to be that the second statement is antithetical to the first. Most behavioural scientists agree that changing the environmental can help us change our behaviour and habits. And if this were possible, then it should be possible for one to choose to change their circumstance in the process or for the goal of changing themselves.
Imagine that you have a rock. You hit the rock and split it in two. Inside, you see a message. It could be any message you like, perhaps it says "free will is a myth". Does this image that you recognize as a written message have any standing as evidence about what the message purports to be about? Remember. This in an inanimate rock, formed by natural processes, stacked one on another since the beginning of the universe itself. If the message has no standing (which it doesn't), then the same applies to anything else in the universe, including the thoughts and words of Dr Robert Sapolsky. This is the fallacy of self-exclusion. Where in this case, we try to reason that something cannot exist by using a method (reason) that relies upon the very phenomena we are attempting to refute. The rational animal trying to prove that he is not rational.
There is a boundary condition that is proposed: If there is anything that one relates to then freedom (undefined) is not possible because one's decisions have to be very specific. They are about what we interact with. The only way to have some level of freedom would be to live in a world emptied out of anything to relate to since this is not possible then freedom cannot arise. It cannot be the result of interacting from very constraint conditions to being less constraint given ones solutions to specific obstacles. The more one solves obstacles that constraint/limit the less one can claim ones reach has increased. Hmmmm, don't know.
@@r-type4945 it doesn't matter that they're part of the illusion, the point is choices can be made (for some A LOT more easily than others, unfortunately) that have an impact large or small, short term or long term individually or globally.
Intuition sparks revelations, inspirations, and, insights. Intuition is the mother of everything. But how does intuition emerge? What does it influence and how does it vanish?
@@tess55 we have will, but it's not completely free. But what is free at all? What truly does not exist is freedom. But it doesn't mean we can't affect our choices by our rationality. The will is not free but not determined either. At least for subjective point of view. If choices can be affected, then they do exist. And if a human has ability to choose, then they can do it with rationality, and thus, responsibility, morals and etc do exist and play a big role in what happens. That's the thing: freedom does not exist, everything happens for a reason, but humans can use rationality to affect it. That's what we call free will. But i think not many people actually think freedom is possible. So it's just about wording, not about concept. We have will, it's not 100% free, but it exists and morals exist too.
I goes further than this. The real reason that free will does not exist isn't only because external and internal factors influence your decision making. It is because there is no self to begin with.
Let’s figure out what CONSCIOUSNESS is first and begin to solve the mind-body problem before we make mistakes about free will. Also we are only looking at this from a linear perspective which can also be challenged.
I absolutely agree, reductionist approach is not always a satisfying explanation. The hard problem of consciousness must be solved before stating "there is no free will", since it's possible that there is a connection between those two.
@@waronreason You're completely confused. How much do we need to learn about weddings to know whether married bachelors exist? Imagine someone studying wedding dresses to find out an answer to that question.
Exactly, these people are building a whole argument off of an unproven basis. They assume the mind creates consciousness/awareness through neurons firing and hop on from there. Nobody can explain what consciousness is yet especially after the recent boom of research around near death experiences and DMT. Only arrogant athiests brush those off to defend their deterministic mechanistic religion by any means necessary. There has been zero self respecting scientist that can adequately explain what consciousness even is. His entire argument being built of the "show me which neuron is responsible for said action" is dumb and these people are just eating it up.
For the most part he's correct in that our brain's are just running scripts based on all the factors he says. But, we do have free will to chose right from wrong and other choices too. It's just that in some instances it is really hard to do so. As we are so heavily influenced by those neural circuits.
No disrespect, but apparently you didn't get the point of the guy in the video because free will is not about you making choices, but about the WILL itself behind it. As he is asking in the video, what is it that is left if you leave out your biology (like genes, hormones etc.) and your environment (like how you were raised, which experiences you made etc.)? His and the answer is there is nothing left. The problem which most people are having when they're advocating for free will is, that it feels intuitive to believe we have it and it feels wrong/counterintuitive to believe that we're just like passengers of our own brain. Of course it's also a question of how you define free will, but his point is that having free will would mean that we can choose to want what we want. Which we simply can't. You could say we can decide to follow or not follow these desires, but then again, it's just about how much you want it and/or how much you don't want to experience the consequences. To put it simple: person a decides to rob a bank, person b decides not to. What was the difference between those 2? Person a wanted it more and this desire was bigger than his desire not to be criminal. Person b was the opposite. He maybe wanted to rob the bank as well, but his will not to be a criminal was stronger. But both couldn't choose which desire of these was stronger. That's what it's about.
@@hevelish3242 Thanks for the interesting comment. Free will is defined as voluntary choice or decision, and/or freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. From that, we do have free will. And it seems more like you're talking about and maybe the speaker in the video too, about not having a solid identifiable self. Which, I don't think we have. So, there's no self that actually experiences the free will. to me anyway. But from the definition of free will, we do have it. If he chooses to redefine free will, then that's not free will that he's talking about.
@@willp9226 it's definetely about how you define it. But making decisions comes down to what you want more. let's call it the volume/power of each of your desires/fears etc. You can't choose them. That's your will. And the question no free will advocate is able to answer is: what is it that makes you want things other than your biological and your environmental factors? What is left to be called free will? Which part other than these 2 can you point to? A funny note: I don't blame anyone who believes or doesn't believe it. You simply can't help it :)
@@hevelish3242 I think for the most part there isn't really free will, no matter how its defined. As many people tend to go off something other than the rational choice, when making a decision. Most are controlled by other factors. I also don't believe there is a solid, unchanging self. Whatever a person wants to call it. Which seems related to the lack of free will we have. But, as you say with free will, its something that seems to exist or humans feel it exists. I believe the brain fools the individual into believing there is a self, (and free will) but more so with the self, as a preservation measure. As for free will, people often express their inability to make a decision, and just go along with the same old. It happens socially, culturally, politically, pretty much everywhere life is. Which again, suggests free will is lacking.
This clip is from the Huberman Lab episode "Dr. Robert Sapolsky: Science of Stress, Testosterone & Free Will." The full episode can be found on RUclips here: ruclips.net/video/DtmwtjOoSYU/видео.html
Why are scientists so ignorant?
Dr. Sapolsky’s grave misattributions of persistence and consequentiality demand that he respond in this manner…”He has NO CHOICE but to do so…he can do NOTHING ELSE. His agenda is recognized, understood, noble, and his method to accomplish his goal, flawed. There are no “NPCs” but he is caught in a mosh that he can’t escape. Good luck!!😘
Ider u believe in destiny or free will, both are impossible to prove one must exist.
Someone told me that Baruch Spinoza said (around 1650) that people believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their actions but unconscious of the causes of those actions. Makes sense to me! And I also like how Sapolsky explains it. It's quite liberating, actually. Less internal conflict.
No. ^^ Its rubbish and makes no sense whatsoever if you think serious about it. And that is also the reason why nearly every philosopher believes it.
And just one question to you? Don't you feel that you have agency and freedom to what you choose? So why do you believe the opposite, although you clearly *experience* (!!!!) the opposite every day? And why does he discard those experiences? On what grounds? Only because it conflicts with his materialistic and nihilistic worldview.
@@MiauZi69 It seems you would agree that our subjective experience is shaped by belief, just as belief is shaped by experience. My beliefs have changed over the years, as has my experience of 'agency' and 'freedom'. Far from a nihilistic worldview, this change has increased empathy and my ability to deal with pain, as the person below states. This change has not resulted in a belief in determinism, and I think that is a crucial point. Determinism implies a self which is a static entity. I've looked very carefully over many years and I see no such self. Do you?
@@patriciaadducci6549 Yes. Very clearly.
And your statement, you don't see /experience your own self and you do not suffer from nihilism, is quite some mental gymnastics.
@@MiauZi69 The tangled web of lies which has indoctrinated our thinking has us living in a constant struggle of mental gymnastics until we surrender to the obvious fact that there is no independently existing self. Nature simply doesn't work that way. Decisions are made through complex processes which are largely unconscious. Having faith in those processes leads to effortless action. A very nice way to live! What does your 'self' look like? Is it a static entity, a collection of memories, a flow of events which are constantly shifting and changing? Or -- ???
@@patriciaadducci6549 whatever. You just chose to ignore the obvious fact in front of you, by having trained yourself to ignore and reframe it. I once also believed things similar to what you stated, hence I know I can't reach you.
To everyone who’s read his book, listened to this podcast and Sam Harris’ on the same topic, congratulations on being at a new historical viewpoint, much like the realisation of the earth not being the centre of the universe. I think it’s vital for us to get this knowledge out there for increasing empathy and dealing with pain.
I completely believe this too!
So true 💫
@guttergrown was here He's only 'oppressive towards muslims' because he uses them as an example (and usually it's extremism). His point surrounding it makes a lot of sense. The general idea being that believing in imaginary things has been a healthy thing for the human species, but today it can be a brainwashing mechanism to do more harm than good, on an objective level.
@guttergrown was here I'm pretty sure he wouldn't make an exception for 'buddhist bombers' because they are buddhist and not muslim lol. It's the concept of being able to be convinced of something fictitious that can cause suffering to people that don't have the same beliefs. I'm not agreeing with bigotry either. I see the conundrum where if you don't draw a line somewhere in what people ought to or ought not to believe, it can severely effect the lives of others. He is not using a broad generalization to dehumanize everyone, he is using it as an example of where religion can be harmful and misguiding for humanity on collectively good level. I think it's a fairly simple concept and stands on its own two legs. The fact that someone could be the smartest person in the world, but believe that if they destroy the entire planet they are fulfilling their god's wishes -- this is an extreme example, but hopefully this gets the point across of why there could be a problem here (if religion is never checked).
@guttergrown was here I think he's just exploring what he believes to be true. I don't like the idea of picking on a group of people, but it's also not okay for certain things to have immunity to criticism. I see potential for abuse and I think it's better to debate about this topic now than wait for someone to really abuse religion as a way deceive people into harming others outside their tribe (knowingly or unknowingly).
If I'm understanding this correctly, I cannot simply choose or will myself to feel better, more motivated, etc. However, the RUclips algorithm that exposed me to Huberman led to the awareness of, for instance, early morning sunlight's effect on dopamine. That consolidated memory may affect my behavior tomorrow, thus resulting in my feeling better and more motivated. Thus, I'm changing my behavior and brain chemistry, but all of it is due solely to external inputs and does not require a will separate from that.
Did u even listen?
If material reality results from consciousness, and there is evidence that this is so (eg non local perception, near death experiences), then no matter how far back we follow the chain of material causation, we can act independently of it - ie free will.
@@susanfletcher5564????????? Is this implying the universe was created by consciousness?
YES @@honkbrother8000
Well, did you listen carefully to the end from 7:09 to the end? I think he mostly plays a word game. We can chose (!) to condition ourselfs in such ways that we will respond differently next time to a stimulus. So because the route to change interjects "self conditioning" then we are no longer talking about free will. Really? I think that is equivalent to saying: Because I can not will my self to become stronger it is not an expression of free will to go the gym and VIA that become stronger. I think the choice to self training and self conditioning IS free will. I understand why 95 procent of philosophers disagree with him :-)
I ❤ this excerpt of the discussion with Huberman and Sapolsky. Huberman is so humble and focused during the discussion and Sapolsky, per usual, is one of the best science communicators.
But… he’s not. He’s just over-confident.
He seems reasonable and to have deeply considered the issue. Is there some glaring loophole in his argument?@@anakides
@@JTheTeach
Not a loophole; he just makes unscientific assumptions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is not deterministic as far as we know. In order to prove that, we would need to find hidden variables. And so far, there have been two separate experiments that have shown there are no hidden variables (Bell’s theorem and the 2022 physics noble prize). Also, he seems to have never heard of the free will theorem, which proves that free will is compatible with currently known physics. For some reason, so many educated people are totally clueless on this issue.
I was just thinking about this recently, about how indeterministic things get when looking at it from a quantum scale. So far I don't know the surrounding perspectives on it from the scientific community, and it also makes it quite difficult to grasp because I've only been well versed in philosophy and not the intricacies of science.
Oh my god this was one of my most favourite podcast from the Hubermanlab podcasts. I can't wait to read Determined when it gets published. Thank you Dr Huberman
Whats "determined"? A book?
@@gabriellugmayr2871 yes
@@Ziifit I tried finding it. Cudnt. Would you pls link the book here? Thanks.
@@KODAMAS it hasn't been published yet.
It's finally out! Determined came out today! :)
Bob's response to Huberman''s question @ 2:51 is my favorite part. 😄
that's so simple indeed: you are free to learn, once you have learnt it becomes your nature, free will streched over time of life
think you meant 3:51
@@danzwku reaction @3:51; question start @2:51
"Striving to be better human beings is still a worthwhile endeavor, do I have that correct?"
Robert Sapolsky says "Absolutely" to this question.
I think Sapolsky should've said
"I guess striving to be a better human being is a worthwhile endeavor. But whether you have the desire to strive to be a better human being isn't up to you, though."
Hippies with PhDs wanting to not feel guilty about anything. What a disfuncional world they and the brainwashed lemmings who lap up their ludicrous lies will build.
Correct.
The guy is so advanced he was probably just humoring Andrew.
Agreed.
@@brh2222 Yep !
Striving to be better human beings is a worthwhile endeavor, to the extent that you're capable of learning that, capable of acting on it, and how you do so. Still, it all comes down to circumstances, internal and external, and not some causally independent free will.
i am a firm believer in situational ethics. it is only a matter of which side of a weapon you are on. either way, i will side step out of the way. i mean no one any harm.☮
i am a firm believer in situational ethics. it is only a matter of which side of a weapon you are on. either way, i will side step out of the way. i mean no one any harm.☮
i am a firm believer in situational ethics. it is only a matter of which side of a weapon you are on. either way, i will side step out of the way. i mean no one any harm.☮
The knowledge of determinism is very useful and is itself a cause. Once you realize your choices are determined by the your circumstance and more importanyly, the information your brain has, then it can cause you to start choosing better for yourself. It will cause you to seek more information before making a choice. Knowledge is the true freedom we have to gain. Only then can we rise above our lesser and misinformed selves.
Very interesting point.
Not at all. If everything is determined, so as it is claim, then nothing matters and we shouldn't strive to be anything more than what we are "destined" to be.
@Somberdemure Yes I agree that we would still be subject to the circumstances that determine what knowledge we have. Perhaps free will lies in the unsolvable quantum mystery of why electrons appear in multiple places at once. Perhaps free will is nonphysical and our consciousness is what drives everything. Either way, we make choices. Determinism would not make life meaningless. It would just mean that it means nothing to us, but it may mean a great deal to whatever put us here.
The argument against free will is generally explained as, either the universe is causally deterministic, (the past state determines our "choice") or it is chaotic (our state or "choice" can't have any predictable affect on the future).
The problem with this form of the argument is that quantum physics currently only allows the possibility that the future, while limited by the present, can NOT be determined by the present state. The determinations of the Bell theorem demonstrate that there are no local hidden variables present that determine the probabilistic paths of particles through the universe. So there are myriad of different paths that all of the particles in the universe can actually take and the information required to determine those paths is not hidden somewhere in physical reality. If we appeal to non-local hidden variables, then we violate relativity and vivify retro-causality which has the same problem since the paths of particles could be determined by some information that isn't present in the universe "yet". If we appeal to the multiverse model then we can have a physicalistically deterministic manifold, but we can't explain or determine which path through that manifold our conscious awareness will observe. So, our experience of the universe is NOT and can not be physicalistically deterministic. That doesn't mean we have free will, but it does undo the general form of the argument against free will since our state is probabilistically limited by the past AND our state probabilistically limits the future. Our state is not physicalistically determined and our state is not merely chaotically effective on the future. Sapolsky starts with a biased presupposition that our thoughts and awareness is completely explainable by the physical state of our mind which is a) circular (he is using the physically limited mind to prove the physically limited mind) and b) not true, there is randomness in our thoughts that is not determined by the physical history of the universe prior to those thoughts.
If Saploski's statement "I don't think we have a shred of free will" is true, then his conclusion was either inevitable, or random. Both of those invalidate the concept of someone having a "true" or "rational" conclusion because it makes those terms logically superfluous. There is no test that Sapolski had been free to perform prior to making that statement that could have distinguished between his statement being "True/rational and inevitable" or merely "Inevitable." Doesn't make it false, but puts it outside of the realm of rationalism.
At any rate, he clearly holds to a form of physicalistic determinsim which is excluded by randomness. The real argument against free will is one of agency, but all physical models today make a universe with free will indistinguishable from one without it.
Excellent!
Yes, Saploski doesn’t get quantum physics. On top of that, even if free will was an illusion, it does not matter for us as human being. We still need to put hard work in order for our brain to come up with the best ideas.
I don't quite follow some of your reasoning. Using a tool to measure how inadequate the tool is is not circular fallace, its a fact of life that happens and has happened. Thats how we come up with better tools. I understand the analogy was to the brain examining its own processes, but the Premise of this process being comparable to a circular argument is not good in construction.
Secondly I don't think your premise that there are random actions of thought in the brain is a given. Every single thought may indeed be able to be traced to first particle movements. I know that would be an incredibly complicated thing to model but it seems computationally possible.
@@JTheTeach This is something that I used to think about when I was a child “Where do thoughts come from”? I mean that initial spark that sets it in motion. if you trace it back far enough it’s source is undoubtedly immaterial. It is “information”. So then, what is “information”? Whenever I ponder this I am left with only more questions.
@@JTheTeach 1) I am not saying he is using his physically limited mind to deduce a physically limited mind. I am saying that his premise that he is positing that the mind is utterly physically deterministic by positing that the mind is utterly physically deterministic. That's purely presuppositional, but can only be confirmed by showing that the outputs of the mind can be determined by the state of that mind/universe system at any point prior to that output.
2) The experiments regarding the Bell inequality have shown that the state of the universe does not deterministically cause probabilistic outcomes unless they violated general relativity, and also enabled retro-causality (faster than light action). The processes of the mind can be traced to particles, but can not be determined by particles/fields without getting rid of general relativity and requiring retro-causality.
"Either from experience or making to the end of the right neurobiology class has thought you that change can happen within a framework of a mechanistic neurobiology. You are now more open to being made optimistic by the good news in the world. You are more likely to be inspired by this or that. You are more resistant to getting discouraged by bad news - simply because you know understand, it's possible."
So much human cruelty could be avoided if we really embraced this idea. Every person whose ever done something bad is on some level just unlucky and still worthy of love and every good thing we’ve ever done isn’t something we need to take credit for as being better but something to be grateful for because of the good luck of having the right combo of genes and environment.
Exactly! It seems so simple to me, but people want so bad to think they are better than others because of "insert answer here", or those people are poor because they didn't work as hard as me...on and on and on. I feel like if someone can understand why more tall people are good at basketball than short people, they should be able to possibly comprehend this point.
Why does believing in determinism make people think they will be more empathetic. People still are morally responsible. They made the conscious decision and action despite possibly not having control of what led them to make such decision.
This just implies that bad people are bad because they were raised or were in an environment that way. It’s not a far leap to then conclude to eliminate deviants then an elimination of people i those circumstances seem logical
How would this end human cruelty? According to this guy- they would have no choice to choose to end cruelty. Also then r we not suppose to punish and jail those who commit crimes
@@Rowe104 Sapolsky still believes people make choices and that the consequences of those choices can have meaningful significance. He just doesn't think people can make choices in a way that's ever not entirely the result of things they had no ultimate control over. He also thinks we can justify punishment when it's necessary for the sake of deterrence or keeping dangerous people away from harming ppl but that it can't be justified on grounds of basic deserts or anything other than the goal of harm reduction.
Love this convo from two of Stanford’s finest! Thanks for all you both do!
This is the most fascinating freewill explanation I've ever encountered!
It is utter rubbish.
Definitely changes the meaning of free will from the individual to a power greater than ourselves
@@MiauZi69 because...
@@JRheu He can't see how he definitely doesn't have free will. Here, ask him this: "Did you truly feel like you made a choice yourself?"
@MiauZi69 how? Please elaborate. You can't just call it rubbish without a proper argument.
At seventeen, I seriously questioned free will, and by thirty-six, I knew. After beginning my quest to truly internalize the idea, I moved on to discover we are not separate but one, and not a perceiver but perception itself, a single consciousness being squeezed through the divided pores of water and stardust. Now, to address the Fermi Paradox- they'll come when we're ready, when the large majority of us (as opposed to
True
Bro what's the purpose of your life and why is it the purpose of your life?
@@petersubbiahthere’s no “purpose”. that’s the freedom! nothing needs to happen.
I think there is an omitted strand of the determinist position here, which is that this implied capacity to become "more sensitized to optimistic stimuli" is itself fully determined by the set of prior conditions in one's anatomy (neurochemistry, psychology, etc) in its interactions with the external world. Therefore it's not possible for all, and such experienced optimism is therefore no more a choice than the experienced pessimism that preceded it ( but conditions the shift IN SOME PEOPLE towards optimism). Our desire to feel better about me, about the world, etc is not something I MADE, but something arising in the construction that neurobiology and its environment have created. Those engines are not "MINE" from some supervening place.
As long as we dont understand the brain, we cannot say if we have free will or not. Even when it sounds super logical to not have free will. We cannot prove it.
And as long as we cannot "predict" what someone else's behavior will be even if we were by some unfathomable miracle of modern science (or otherwise) have access to all (or even a fraction of) the data necessary to lay out enough causal chains leading to what their "next step" will be, we must act as if that other person has "free will" and that they alone are responsible for their actions - to the extent that it would be indeed foolhardy, or even potentially deadly otherwise. Any other argument seems merely academic, and has no utility whatsoever. I don't even think we know what "free will" is, for that matter, let alone how the brain or consciousness works. Anybody who takes a firm stance on these issue is, in my opinion, merely doubling down on their own self-serving entrenched beliefs on the matter.
We kind of can, because the concept itself makes no logical or consistent sense, even on a philosophical level - and when you introduce materialism, it just compounds the issue.
@@TeChNoWC7 this is at it's essence the "hard problem" of consciousness - I cannot know your innermost endogenous experiences, including your thoughts (and you cannot know mine) no matter how many empirical measurements you can make if you take a strictly materialist/physicalist view
You may be able to make a "statistical" prediction, but no more - after all, what is the length/mass/electromagnetic frequency and amplitude of my experience of the color blue, or my insightful thought? Bernardo Kastrup goes into this at length.
@@crazy1gadgets1 totally agree with your definition of qualia essentially, but not sure what that has to do with free will being an impossible concept.
@@TeChNoWC7 I am still wrestling with this, I admit. What might be closer to the truth is that while I don't have personal "free will", and neither do you, it is effectively "impossible", even in principle, for either you or me, to know the other's thoughts or qualia, making pursuit of the concept of "free will" impractical and meaningless, like chasing after the wind, in my opinion. What we are left with is that to function in this world we must act "as if" the other has free will, otherwise we may not thrive, or even survive.
I agree he has me with the "show me the free will neuron" but as a recovering alcoholic and addict am also curious about how I was able to break those patterns, If not for free will.
Congratulations!!
I think that your wonderful and positive change was due to your wish for your well-being and your loved ones was more powerful than the suffering you had to stand for stoping drinking. Same as any other decision, a matter of how strong different impulses are.
Congratulations again for your ability, stamina, and ressistance.
Hope you’re recovering well now :)
A lack of free will doesn’t mean you can’t desire something, e.g. recovering from addiction and having a better life, it just means that the fact that you have this desire, this determination, is the result of some external influences, as Sapolsky said, changed by circumstances. Basically, you can decide to think/act a certain way, but this decision must be influenced by something before, even without you knowing it.
Fortunately you already have this desire to quit! Good luck with your recovery :)
I have a similar history and I like to think of it in this way. Compare the addiction to a Cancer. There are people walking around today with Cancer who have no knowledge of it as it has not yet impacted their lives. I have suffered as a result of my own behaviour. I found help, had my problem diagnosed, then sought treatment. Knowledge of a problem and that it IS a problem is the driver of change. Some things have to be experienced, I hope that doesnt diminish the effort you have gone to, to make such a positive move. Well done for coming out the other side 👍
Were you exposed to any new information, experiences, therapies, help groups, books etc. that helped you achieve sobriety? If you hadn’t had those experiences or been exposed to that new information would you still have gotten sober? It’s not to take away from what you did, as someone who struggled with addictions themselves its definitely not easy but did you choose to become an addict? If not why do you think you can choose not to be an addict? You might have chosen to try a certain substance or behavior, but the vast majority of people who try an addictive substance don’t become addicted. I don’t think the people who do are simply “choosing it”
@@manelsalido thank you! I didn't do it alone, and it is a continuous process and effort that will likely never end for me, but my life is so much richer for the true friendships I've gained on my journey. Thank you so much for such a lovely comment!
I'm really having a hard time determining whether we as a species have free will or not, and I often find myself having a difficulty even at conceptualizing the problem at hand. There is particularly a fact that bothers me, because I know it's true but I don't know what to do with it; it seems to me that the more we see into humans as 'lots of similar selves', which is totally objective for it involves generalisation of the same laws and qualities throughout all the species, we tend to realize an absence of free will, but the more we focus the lens and see into 'ourselves', which is totally subjective, we realize a presence of free will. And I don't know what to do with this fact and where does it fit amongst the other facts surrounding this subject. Also, I find it very difficult to give up my belief in free will. I must be honest but I don't see a way to live fully aware that I'm not free, I don't know if I'm right or wrong, if I'm avoiding the truth or wrestling with it, but I MUST believe in free will.
Because you can't directly communicate with your subconscious you only have the illusion of free will
Honestly, it all becomes a matter of semantics at some point. The answer to "do we have free will?" heavily depends on what we understand of it as a concept that we humans created in the first place. Personally, I don't believe in "free will" as we understand it since there are always a series of variables that influence your decision-making process at all times. The problem with this idea is that these variables are so many in number and so hard to measure that it becomes impossible to determine the when, how, and what we do when presented a specific situation in life. You may think you are "free" when you choose but in reality you are being influenced by your genetics, your upbringing, your education, your experiences... Hell, you might even be influenced by how you woke up that day and watched on the news before leaving your house. So, are you "free" in the sense nobody is pointing a gun at your head? Yes, but that's about it. If all variables are exactly the same, the outcome will always be the same; we simply don't have the technology to replicate these variables to be exactly the same. For example, if you were able to throw the same set of dice under exactly the same conditions, you would always get the same results, but we simply cannot replicate these conditions up to a 100% accuracy since even the slightest change in, say, your hand movement throwing the dice, may affect the outcome. We would need to have control of these variables to an atomic level. This is also the reason there is no truly randomness in programming, but the illusion of it, and the same happens with free will. If you think of the brain as an incredibly complex computer, you would come to the same conclusion: nothing is truly random, there is always something, somewhere affecting how it works.
I'd like to think of it as, the more knowledge we have on how the laws of nature operate/how our brains work, the more we can have a certain degree of control. And that minuscule control that we have, I'd like to think of that as our "freewill." In other words, the more we expose ourselves to different POVs, scientific concepts, philosophies, etc., the more we can make better, informed decisions.
Just show an un caused, caused in the brain and bang you've got free will.. Without it, you got nothing.
I totally get you and I am impressed that you still challenge yourself :) I have some thoughts you can play around with.
1. Objective and Subjective "Reality" can still coexist. If it feels like you have free will, why bother. Just enjoy the "illusion". Subjectively it really doesn't make a difference.
2. This one is a little crossover to another topic, mainly the definition of oneself. People are often talking about this hypothetical teleport Experiment. If you beam your atoms one by one and you are built apart, at which point you aren't you anymore? So maybe you might think it's just when you hit the nervous system or brain you slowly change into not being you anymore? I think it already begins with your fingernails, perhaps even your Ideas which can spread onto other people. So if you don't really exist at all as you might feel it and you just are a thought, behaviors or a way of thinking... You are not really "trapped" into one organism, you are just one small expression of all beings and possibly even beyond. (Like Stars, Astroids, Galaxies, etc. which slowly but surely change and influence each other)
This is a little open ended and probably not really well explained, but maybe it sparkles a great new Idea in someone else :)
We may not have independent "free" will but we do have the ability to sculpt our persona (over a lifetime) to become more than the base hand we were dealt....we do have conscious choice
Being able to sculpt your persona is the base hand you were dealt. Seems like a trait which are genetic.
and that conscious choice has been made by a concoction of your genetics and impact from surroundings. I don’t believe there is any “self” that can have even the slightest bit of impact on choice. What do you think it would be? The conscious choice is directed by your moral compass most often, which you have been given at birth and then developed over your upbringing
Yes, I believe that circumstances, our past, our physiology & neurology, our genes, our brains, our environment and so on, can boldly influence our choices. But I believe we can always choose unconditional love and forgiveness over fear and hatred. Some people are more ready than others. It may be our only real choice in life. But that choice is our birthright and always will be.
That sounds very nice but just isn't true.
Lucky Number 7
Brilliant - More of these clips please
If determinism is true, the way that you interpret any peice of evidence is predetermined by factors outside of your knowledge and control, which means you can never be sure that you are interpreting any given peice of information rightly, which should undermine your confidence in any conclusion you come to, including your belief in determinism. Appealing to evidence to prove determinism is self-defeating.
LOL good point
Sadness
yes but thats not contradictory at all. Thats all of science, believing in something until you find a better explanation with the understanding that your initial idea is probably incomplete.
solid mental gymnastics
"rightly" feels like a loaded term. Who defines what's the right if you can never be sure of that you are interpreting? :)
Whether or not I do or do not have free will is irrelevant. I am conscious and self aware. I perceive myself as having free will. I perceive myself as being in control of my actions and choices.
It can make a great difference in how we emotionally react to the actions of others, and as a society how we treat them when their actions are unacceptable. We don't get angry or seek revenge against natural forces regardless of how harmful they might be. We no longer burn witches for being possessed. Understanding the causes of behavior can allow a more humane society.
The place of "free will" in our considerations is "holding" 5 thoughts.
And while those options and the tendency of choosing any one of the 5 is completely without your control,
you do still have a choice.
It will feel like a "free choice" or "no choice" depending of the situation and all the way back to the past.
So,
If you are looking for "free will" you should do the research and look from the now to the past, and learn about yourself and how to encourage more "free will" rather than the other.
Ok I looked from now to the past and learned about myself and encouraged more "free" will rather than the other. Now what?
@@mealtime5091 The conversation should move to "how to encourage?",
If you have successfully found a way to generate the auto-feeling of freedom within those 5 options in all situations..... you should (as far as I know) be saturated by "feeling you have options and you are the one making them" -"free will".
To the question of how to encourage?
1. consider a repeating situation in life, and one that lacks the feeling of free choice.
2. investigate the event - over the spectrum of influence from the past to the now.
3. maybe you need to fix an "understanding" to feel more free
4. maybe you need to change your behavior within the situation to open up options...
myself is still investigating
hope it helps
I want to add a reference that I feel is one of the keys to be able to generate the feeling of free will:
Check out "Hunter X Hunter" chapter 8, "Decision × By × Majority?"
Gon & his friends faced a "no good option" situation, Gon mind state provided him a vision of a "new option" that was not only missed by his friends but also they were not open to the possibility of a new option.
One can understand something new that completely changes his feeling about being free. amazing human quality.
I learnt from Dr Sapolsky that we are still within the grip of mechanistic neurobiology though we can learn to change our response to environmental stimuli. So we have no free will. But it is still worthwhile to learn to change our response. It is enough for me.
Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
"Although Sapolsky highlights the influence of neural processes on decision-making, the brain's complexity can also contribute to the emergence of novel thoughts and actions. The brain's ability to integrate information from various sources and generate unique patterns of thought might be a source of human agency and free will."
This exact same thing could be said about an AI. The only difference in humans is the personal moral and ethical background they have from their upbringing or even genetically.
The video that freed me from almost all miseries of life. Thank you both
care to share/help me with the same?
You mean that now you can feel no guilt when you live to scratch whatever itch you may have and eat chips watching football till you die?
@@LuckyJackson2020 dropped all and any guilts. No free will, not responsible for anything
@@Ashish-nd3xj idk if I'd choose the word "responsible."
@@angelasands1643in Retrospect no responsibility. For future, We are supposed to be responsible. That’s how we can make it work
I absolutely adore Sapolsky's book Behave and I am preordering "Determined".
A friend of mine changed his whole life path from a decision of his own free will.
He was a drug addict for 10years and decided to change his life. Now he is a millionaire with a beautiful family.
Imo he was literally pre-determined to be junkie and end up dead or in jail , but he made a choice to change his circumstances of his own free will. Many of his friends from that neighbourhood ended up in jail or dead but he chose to change his life.
But what MADE him make the choice to change his circumstances?
Probably an almost infinite number of environmental / external inputs, (from infancy if not before, running all the way throuh to experiences within active addiction), combined with his particular neurology & genetics, at a time he was receptive to them & the 'decision' was made to change.
Then he was lucky enough to enter a field at the right economic time, with a determined (ha) attitude, in a country which allowed his financial success.
You think he was pre-determined to be a junkie but maybe he was pre-determined to be a millionaire?
Also, I'm not sure determinism says nobody can change but that the want to change is driven by factors beyond our control.
Honestly, I'm not 100% sold on determinism because it's uncomfortable to think that we're not in control & can easily lead me to spiral but if we remove societal conditioning, ego & individualism & try to be clinical & objective, it makes a lot of sense.
(Happy for your friend, regardless. Free will or not, the changes he made must have been very difficult indeed).
Wow, sorry for the ramble!
you know these kind of facts at first seem to be disturbing but a knowledgeable person explains these things beautifully you can imagine how much were are connected to this world it is fascinating how our brain just tricks us to change and go beyond limits by just looking at algorithms we in the of video i came up with this idea that our perception of world is very permeable and there is no stop point in getting information from the environment.thank you professor it was the first time i was watching you previously i had listened to your podcasts😄
It's why we don't consciously observe most of the constant stream of data our sensory perceptions are taking in, at any one time. The external world is perpetual. Thus, your perceptions (even during sleep, except the eyes) are always noticing and sending electrical signals to your brain, which in turn creates the 'world' that you experience. A neato controlled hallucination based on electron transmission, reception, encoding, decoding, recoding, visual playback, pattern insertion, etc. And... we still have no idea how that really works. The Hard Problem of Consciousness. A really interesting, and maybe disturbing, subject matter within neuroscience and philosophy.
Lack of Free Will is not Hopelessness. Having Free Will does not provide Hope.
Once you figure out that your choices are predetermined down to the breakfast you ate this morning, a huge sense of weight is lifted off your shoulders as you slowly learn to “let go” and allow the world around you to take form. It truly is fascinating to watch, as I have learned to take a “back seat” role in my life, in some ways at least.
I always enjoy listening to Robert sapolsky. I would love to hear a debate on free will between him and someone over it.
Why? If life is meaningless, I mean just go tickle yourself, eat, sleep, repeat. No?
@@RH-ti2dp 😂 tickle yourself wake up bro it’s yo subconscious that is god mind soul same thing remember your god only you
@@edgarzuluaga4896 free will is a gift from God. But one can reject this “pearl of great price,” as you apparently have. Thus are the dogs and worms, the robots and the clods of dirt.
This is such an interesting topic. If we have no free will, wouldn't that mean the entire planet and everything about life is 100% deterministic?
Yes. Entirely deterministic but so complex that it is unpredictable. I think even the idea that QM is not deterministic comes from our ignorance about mechanisms at the subatomic level.
No, I don’t think so: Not having free will does not imply determinism (the inverse, however, is true). Counterexample: if everything in the universe was completely random, we wouldn’t have free will then either.
That's the topic of his next book.
So if we have no free will, then who's talking and why and how are we talking about free will ??
@@iamduck.203 Your brain but doesn't have freewill is talking about free will
Of course Dr. Sapolsky is correct IF one considers that "free will" means 100% free from all influences when one makes a choice or other types of decisions. That's a no-brainer. Free will usually means "could I have decided otherwise?" Yes, in most cases, given a healthy brain, we could have decided otherwise.
A healthy brain seeks what is good for the organism, for its survival. But, other brain mechanisms based memory, emotions, and drives cause us to overrule what the healthy decision-making algorithms in the brain are strongly "suggesting." To our demise, we make a decision based on lust, love, greed, revenge, etc., and we live to regret it. Hopefully, the brain records all that and our decision-making is healthier for the organism.
Humans do have free will under the constraints of genetics, early childhood experiences, life experiences, and biases present at the time of decisions. We could have made a different decision, given a healthy brain.
@championchap Then, what does the exercise of the will? I recognize that "I" is simply a convenient label.
Except you couldn't have made a different decision, why on earth would you think that? The only decisions that are unclear are the future. Do you have the ability to go back and change the past? No you don't.
@@noah5291 Given what is known about the brain, if you were faced with the same decision and with all other things being equal, you could have made a different decision. That is the essence of free will. Some claim that under that scenario, you could not have decided differently. If that is true, then what can be said of personal responsibility? If I could not have decided differently than to shoot someone, am I guilty of a crime?
"we could have decided otherwise"
Prove it.
@@neilcreamer8207 True, no way to prove it. An approach would be to set up a controlled situation whereby a subject could choose either A or B. The experiment could be run say 100 times with the subject told to choose A or B as it suited him or her. We can never replicate any decision situation, but we can demonstrate overwhelming evidence that one can decide otherwise.
Having no free will is essentially saying choice is an illusion because a person will always default to their best choice. This is not true anytime someone makes a choice that goes against their better judgment.
Robert comes off as if he has 100% certain knowledge that absolute determinism is an absolute truth. Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate there is always room for doubt. It seems people like this are either ignorant or ill intentioned.
It’s not about our ability to make choices. We WILL make choices regardless.
Yes, but it doesn't mean the choice wasn't a perception created out of illusion/delusion from the constant deceptive information pushed as truth.
But the choice was constructed of before the thought. Maybe even by a randomness of choice? This can be programmed also.
People who don't want accountability for their wrongdoings make an excuse of lack of free will to prove they have no fault. Everybody can have two or more options in their mind and they choose to act positively or negatively because they make a choice according to free will. Sometimes free will doesn't exist during unconscious actions and extreme anger but many time free will exists. People will disagree who can relate to it but I won't read replies and engage in futile debates.
The word "choose" preassumes that theres no chain reaction that led to the crime, so just by using that word youre blocking your own understanding. Dont worry about it its not your fault ;)
You clearly didn't understand anything on this topic.
Sapolsky and Lisa Feldman Barrett are in alignment. essentially, if you give yourself a new stimulus from the environment that supports a new way of thinking, your biology will align in that direction, your neurology will align in that direction. From what I understand.
‘Will’ is pre shaped by bio psycho socio human elements…free will requires self awareness and motivation to do what we determine to be of highest value. ( master or servant)
>99% of our daily behavior is predetermined by habits to stimuli both external & internal, but there’s that
From where the will to act truthfully comes?
This is a bald assertion with no evidence to support it.
No.
Magic doesn't do anything, free will is still nonsense.
Mechanistic axioms lead to mechanistic conclusions.
If anyone agrees with this, try treating yourself or a loved one like they're a product of circumstance and incapable of change or independent choices. See how long that works.
Really disappointing that all that external knowledge hasn't led to any looking inward and understanding what it means to be human.
He just says that whatever happens now is a consequence of what happened before. And in that sense it’s obvious there is no “free will” in the strict sense. We cannot “will” our way into a certain behaviour and violate the laws of physics, when they would predict a different outcome. The only fundamental uncertainty might be in quantum mechanics, but it’s impossible for a “soul” to steer your body into certain behaviour by determining the quantum outcomes of particle interactions.
The interesting thing Sapolsky says is that he believes we are determined, not just on a particle scale, but by our biology and psychology.
Our current self is an inescapable product of our past. Even when we are born, we are not a blank slate, because of the species we are, the genes we inherit and the culture we are born into.
We are determined. Fully.
On the other hand, there is chaos and undetermined, or rather unpredictable, outcomes because of the complexity of things. If we roll a couple of dice, we don’t know the outcome.
We can never fully know or understand our past and the illusion of free will is created because our brain is constantly in a state of unstable equilibrium. Our thoughts can wander one way or another. This keeps it interesting. I think chaos leads to the illusion of real chance, of real undeterminism and of free will, but in fact it’s just practical unpredictability.
There are some things that we humans have a hard time wrapping our minds around.
1. Free will and predestination.
2. The law and grace.
One does not exist without the other, but somehow they coexist together.
I can't really imagine anyone arguing for Free Will, if it is meant to be "to act independently of any sort of environmental or biological determination".
But if we define "free will" as the fact that, given the same virtually infinite determined causes, two different actions can follow (and be determininstically explained a posteriori), then I don't see how Sapolsky's last example is not a plea for Free Will.
Perfect explanation I love this thank you
There’s a lot of validity in his arguments RE the various contributions to behavior. But his argument doesn’t successfully argue against the possibility of choice simply because one can be aware of the factors making something or someone “determined”. And then it’s hard to distinguish which action is influenced by what, when the elements of consciousness, awareness, and intentional intentionally are brought into the picture.
There are more reasons his argument isn’t fully successful, such as what you pointed out.
Also being able to break down the elements of behavior to its microscopic parts is fun and all but I’d love to see a similar account of consciousness. Which hasn’t been done by neither philosophers nor scientists.
*Which probably means the causation he is so enamored with might not apply in the same way to consciousness and thus decisions*
True, such debates often feel like a play of words.
To reiterate what you said in a different way : if we can choose to be more receptive to positive stimuli, hey, it means there's free will
He is saying that the circumstance of you being exposed to the information that change is possible will determine you being more prone to engage in certain type behaviors (eg seeking to overcome certain patterns). This does not mean that there is a separate “you” that can intervene in that process independently from it
I think it requires a belief in a diety or a soul. Otherwise your left with a deterministic scientific paradigm that most people have these days and there is no room in that for free will
I don't understand the last part of the video. Can somebody explain how can one become more optimistic by knowing that its possible? How can one possibly influence change by just knowing that change is possible?
I think it’s the fact of knowing it is possible changes the behavior once we know the fact that it’s possible.
Free will does not need a requirement not to be influenced by something else.
What he is arguing for is that everything you do has been determined by something else (brain chemistry, surroundings etc.), which is quite literally the definition of not having free will, aka determinism.
sentience and consciousness arent well understood. its probable that free will (if it exists) is an emergent phenomenon, not a fundamental one... so its not likely you would find a special cell or sub-structure that mediates free will
Since there's no evidence of free will it's more likely that the idea is a compelling illusion. If you think there is free will try to control which thoughts you have.
I think realizing that free will is an incoherent concept can help clear things up a lot
Is there language missing here to describe the semi-conscious capacity that humans have to impact and take part in the process of 'choice'. In listening to both Dr. Huberman and Dr. Sapolsky, perhaps we need to consider taking a species within this environment approach. As a collective, our choices over time in the environments we inhabit create a genetic change...and perhaps in this we have conscious influence? Would this require to consider our neurology working together in a collective level as opposed to the individual level? Do we have a greater impact on the evolution of our wiring as a collective than as an individual and if so, over what periods of time for what types of changes?
No.
@@kieransoregaard-utt8 No to which part? And why 'no'?
@@AlvaroPeralta There’s no language missing. We don’t really have free will but outside stimulus can influence and change us. Free will is an illusion.
@@kieransoregaard-utt8 if outside stimulus can influence and change us, is it possible that we can be the stimulus for change and influence for extremal and internal things as well?
@@kieransoregaard-utt8 my suggestion here is that the use of 'will' is blinding us to potential that does exist. 'Will power' and 'free will' are archane ways of articulating how we make sense of the world... like a flat earth that is the centre of the universe.
He forgot that thoughts and neurons can be the environment/circumstance/influence of another thought and neuron. And then some of those neurons basically embody "you". That's where the "degree" of free will come from. That's why people who are known to be brainy give the impression of possessing more free will.
There is Freewill. Martin Heisenberg in his Essay ‘Is free will an illusion?’ (Nature 459, 164-165; 2009), argues that humans must have free will because freedom of action has been demonstrated in other animals - including those as small as fruitflies and bacteria.
The concept of free will is akin to a movie production. The producer (representing a higher power or fate) writes a script with a predetermined ending. The actors, though following the script, may seem to exercise free will within the narrative. However, their choices are ultimately bound by the script's constraints. Similarly, in life, we may feel like we have free will, but our choices might be predetermined by factors like genetics, environment, or past experiences. Just as viewers can become emotionally invested in a movie, we often become deeply invested in our own lives, forgetting that our choices may be part of a larger, predetermined script. The actors' performances mirror the illusion of free will we experience in reality, while the producer represents the forces that shape our destinies.
Swami Vivekananda defines a free entity in the following sentence:
“Who is free? The free must certainly be beyond cause and effect.”
For an entity to be free, it must not be caused by something. Why? Because if it is caused, it is then bound by the cause. The effect can be nothing apart from the cause. With clay as the cause, one cannot get a golden pot - it is bound to be a clay pot. The cause being there, the effect must follow, there is no other way. The unity of the cause and the effect is an accepted fact in Vedanta philosophy. Thus, as long as a thing is within the realm of causation, there is no freedom. We may talk about freedom in the relative sense. For instance, we may say that a man is more free compared to an animal, as he is less influenced by his surroundings than an animal. However, the same animal is more free compared to tree or stone. Relative bondage or freedom is a matter of perspective, it is not absolute. What is freedom from one point of view becomes bondage with a change in perspective. Thus, that cannot really be called freedom. As said by Vivekananda, only that which is beyond causality can be free. That is the contextual definition of freedom. So when we are talking about freedom of the Will, we are seeing if the Will is an uncaused phenomenon, for only then can it be free."
Quoting - N Krishna Bhardwaj - Dept of Yoga, SVYASA Bangalore
Very based. I definitely agree with this. You cannot be free as long as you exist within causality. It doesn't matter how free you feel, no matter what, something influences what you do, which makes any action you do not free from those circumstances.
Free will is self evident, what’s also evident is the shirking of responsibility that people can do by saying we don’t have free will.
Of course you are free to will all you want,how much plays out?
@@daviddeida If you mean are a persons goals successful that they pursue through there own effort of will. then i would say it is about considering all factors when setting out on a goal. The fact that some people fail doesn't demonstrate that free will does not exists. It just means we lack knowledge or take risks that are not in our favor.
@@mn5499 If you think factors can predict outcomes that is pretty deterministic. Cause and consequence. The outcome is like that because of those factors. No person would take a risk if they knew it wasn't in their favor which again goes to lack of knowledge and no-one would do something if they thought they could get better results by obtaining more knowledge and if they knew how to do that so it leads to them being unaware of their lack of knowledge and how can you be aware of what you're unaware of? So while the choice is not directly predetermined, there are factors and events which led to the person not having been aware of their lack of knowledge which caused them to make a bad choice. No-one is saying people are forced to do things. They're saying their choices align with how they think and how they think(how they calculate those factors) is caused by what they've experienced, how they've processed that experience, their innate traits and their circumstances. If that wasn't true it would mean that the way they think is random which goes against what you said about factors determining outcomes. And idk what responsibility has to do with it. If I don't believe in free will, I also don't believe that other people have the option of not holding me responsible for my actions. Excusing my actions would only work in a world where I only didn't have free will
Free will is not self-evident. Sorry.
@@mn5499 So my reply was deleted,a good example of case in point.Nothing is in our control,not even what we will.We just claim authorship after the action is already decided.
I love the answer to the long question "nehh!", followed by brilliance.
Hi Dr. Huberman,
I am a C2 ESL Ukrainian, in Ukraine since day 1 of the war. Plugging into your topic of the brain being influenced by environment and uplifting/depressing news - does feeling hopeless living under the risk of death from rockets and being unable to leave build and deepen my neural circuitry in the direction of perceiving life in general as traumatic and option-less? Would I have to rework myself again after the war? I feel stuck in limbo without feeling the world outside. Feeling a direction and being motivated is hard under these circumstances.
Thank you.
This is what hinduism and Buddhism have been saying thousands of years ago. There is no personal ego...
Turns out Buddhism and Hinduism were the right religions all along.
@@cabellocorto5586 Christianity points to the same thing. It's been misunderstood.
@@youngnbored
Augustin literally made up free will to make up excuses for the Christian god.
From a scientific standpoint, colors do not exist independently, but are instead creations of our own brain. However, given the reality we perceive is filled with colors, it is reasonable and enjoyable to appreciate and present vibrant red roses, pure white pearls, and marvel at the stunning beauty of azure skies, fluffy white clouds, verdant grass, and lush trees.
Indeed, the scientific fact remains that the sun is perpetually shining and does not actually descend. Nevertheless, due to the Earth's rotation, we experience phenomena such as sunsets, sunrises, days, and nights, along with varying intensities of sunlight. Acknowledging and respecting these experiences and living as though sunrises, sunsets, days, and nights are real is a sensible approach.
It is a scientific reality that both iron and oxygen are primarily empty space with a small portion of energy. However, considering their unique properties and the distinct ways we experience them, it makes sense to interact with them differently based on their observable traits.
Scientifically speaking, there is no concrete "I" or self. Yet, to successfully navigate daily life and foster meaningful connections, it seems practical to behave as though there is a definite "I".
In a similar vein, while science tells us there is no actual "free will," in our present experience, it seems judicious to act as if "free will" does exist to make choices, assume responsibility, and engage with the world.
Comprehending the scientific truths behind these phenomena doesn't diminish the significance of our experiences and perceptions. It is crucial to strike a balance between our scientific understanding and the pragmatic aspects of existing in our perceived reality.
I’ve thought for a long time that we don’t have free will. I had a really vivid lucid dream one night where I was very conscious of what I was doing and felt like I was in control. Then when I woke I realised it was just like any other dream. The consciousness of the dream was just part of the story like any other dream and I thought this is how waking life is too.
"Change can happen but where people go off the rails is translating that into: we can change ourselves. We don't. We can't. cause there's no free will. however we can be changed by circumstance."
Beautiful
I think saying there's no free will is silly IMHO. On the one hand, he says we can't change ourselves, because there's no free will. On the other hand, he says we can be changed by circumstance. It seems to be that the second statement is antithetical to the first. Most behavioural scientists agree that changing the environment can help us change our behaviour and habits. And if this were possible, then it should be possible for one to choose to change their circumstance in the process or for the goal of changing themselves.
@@nnanwa529 Follow up question : what motivates a change in environment?
Follow up to the follow-up question: What motivates the person(s)' motivation to change the environment?
We can regress infinitely in this vein.
I had a spiritual awakening one evening. Absolutely nothing changed outside of me or in my life, but everything changed inside of me.
@egonmaric So your brain thought of something and you felt good about it? Those are called emotions, and they are caused by hormones and neurotransmitters like dopamine. Usually things like "spiritual awakenings" are during development of the brain when hormones are flying all over the place left and right. So this example really just furthers the point that we have no free will. This awakening that you had no control over, could determine the trajectory of the rest of your life.
I am willing to accept this largely because Dr Saplosky descriptions are understandable if you possess the vocabulary you know what he knows. I used to work in corrections. I retired there. I am now thinking about the interactions with these insights, and it makes a lot of sense.
Free will has nothing to do with actions you do or do not take. We have an infinite number of realities that we can experience. Free will is is making that choice. It's made by our non physical self , the real us.
Both Dr. Sapolsky and Dr. Huberman are prolific authors and lecturers. They have written several books and articles on their research, and they give talks at conferences and on podcasts. They are both passionate about using their research to help people understand and manage stress.
I think that both Dr. Sapolsky and Dr. Huberman are doing important work in the field of neuroscience. Their research is helping us to understand the biological basis of stress and its effects on the brain and body. This knowledge can help us to develop better treatments for stress-related disorders and to prevent stress from causing damage to our health.
Huberman is a sophist and charlatan.
So first he says you can't change volitionally but then says you can because circumstances do change?
No he’s saying circumstances change you, not you change circumstances.
Basically the moment you deny free will you deny existence of God, soul and consciousness, to me God, soul and consciousness is the same, that is the agent of free will. Of course they are going to claim that consciousness comes from the matter, the matter has to arrange itself randomly into a very complex and complicated way to form a conscious brain, what are the odds for it?
But if we consider consciousness to be precursor for all of it, it solves all the problems.. Conveniently for them they ignore the problem of Consciousness completely
There are many “created” beings without a soul, and they do not have “freewill” and are more of a robot than a living being, and this explains the conflict between the souled and non-souled. There is no point in arguing whether or not freewill exists, it does with some, and doesn’t with others. Unfortunately people believe we are all the same, and conflict ensues
'Of course we have free will, we have no choice but to have it.'
I like this guy. No one is responsible for their actions, because the notion of responsibility requires morality, which if one were to understand good and bad for a living organism, as life as the standard, then nothing nature does ( I can't say you do because there is no you, remember ) is just what nature does. You're simply a collection of atoms, determined by some superior thing ( god, nature, movement, etc ) to act the way you do.
So this professor is letting everyone know that loving and killing is the same thing - nothing but a breeze on the back of you head.
If you attend his lectures and go to his college, just don't pay. Show up, and sit in the class. You didn't choose to do that. Put you money where your mouth is, and "do whatever nature forces you to do".
Spot on with your reductio ad absurdum of Sapolsky.
Clearly the professor is NOT saying loving and killing are the same thing. That's you leaping to an unfounded conclusion. Clearly the takeaway is that some set of conditions facilitate love and a different set of conditions make it possible for one to kill. The whole point being that we don't get to choose which conditions we're saddled with.
Saplosky's ideas are A. Based on anecdotal evidence. B. Incomplete science. But that doesn't stop him from selling them as truths.
Many things influence our behavior, but I think we still have free will. We always have a choice. To think otherwise is extremely dangerous on many levels
Just to clarify, "will" and "freewill" are two very different things. "Will" has to do with willing something to happen, e.g., deciding to go for a walk, picking up a pencil, etc. (And a case could be made for that being largely deterministic.) "Freewill" has to do with making a moral decision, choosing between right and wrong. If one were to argue that freewill doesn't exist, then by implication they would be also advocating for there being no difference between right and wrong, or by extension, no difference between truth and error. Does anyone seriously believe that?
Yes, there is no objective difference between right and wrong. Inarguably so.
@@vaguepepper4028 - and no difference between truth and error? I guess that means there's no way to tell if this video is true or not, eh?
@@vaguepepper4028 I will pray for you
@smeeself- if you read all of my original comment, truth and error were included in that.
It sounds like you’re one of those atheists who care not about morality.
How’s your love life?
That's a nonsensical question. How could we know? What difference would it make if we could?
"Since then [age 13] I have had zero capacity for religiosity, spirituality, or for believing that the universe is anything other than cold, empty, unempathic, and pointless. And I've been depressed ever since" (Sapolsky December 2020).
Perhaps Sapolsky's adolescent rebellion against an overly strict religious upbringing, and the resultant depression concomitant upon those decisions have drawn him into an obsessive need to rationalize those materialist presuppositions which he may be unwilling to discard. One’s adolescent rebellion against legalism together with a cultural predisposition which adamantly refutes any hint of theological syncretism should not blind a brilliant mind to that which is. The learned professor it seems has determined not only that there is no God, but oddly enough, that there are no scientists.
You could take an entirely different metaphysics from Sapolsky’s and reach the same conclusion.
Imagine that there is nothing but experience. After all, there’s no evidence of anything else.
Then what ‘you’ are is the experiencing of something which you cannot understand and which arises by mechanisms of which you are not aware from something which you cannot know. Expressed in (Eastern) religious terms, all is a dream in the mind of God. What you believe yourself to be is actually a character in a dream.
Where’s the free will in that?
Hahaha, not very surprising to be honest.
@@A-X-25 "He never said that there is no god" ------
He said: "the universe is.... cold, empty, unempathic, and pointless"
Which is indeed ironic coming from a professor of profound intellect, will, and passion--- and who is of course part of that universe.
@@A-X-25 "You cannot know" -----
Indeed.
You are however responsible for that which can be known and has been made known to you.
@@A-X-25 "330 millions gods and goddesses. You can create another one right now in your mind" -----
The term "God" in Judaeo-Christian theology refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. It is incoherent to posit being to not be.
There are, indeed, some who would suggest that existence in and of itself is a product of their own mind. Such inhabit madhouses who are unwilling or unable to escape that small universe of their own design.
He's naming influences to our choices, not necessarily determinants
To me the question of free will has more to do with the question of what “I” am. I’ve always seen it as a question like, “Do I have control over my decisions?”
And taken “I” to be a persistent agent composed of the matter in your person and especially your brain, the answer is usually some degree of yes.
True or not (likely we will never have proof either way). Pragmatically, the belief that one does not have free will over their own actions is extremely harmful to our everyday lives. It can be used to excuse ourselves from chasing goals, setting goals, or even behaving in whatever neurotic way leads us into despair. This is an important feature that is often left out of the philosophical debate. Not to mention, determinism is absolutely contradictory to the entire field of ethics. Should rapists and murderers be excused for their actions? Since after all, they did not have a choice. Are racists and nazis simply unable to break free from their psychopathic behaviors? Or is it more likely a plethora of societal conditioning that one needs to CHOOSE to break free from.
No. You absolutely cannot blame any of those people because free will doesn't exist and the universe is always in flux.
The only thing belief in free will gives people is pride and hatred.
If you don't believe in free will you also would believe that people have no choice but to hold you responsible for your actions. Idk why everyone misses that part
It's interesting to hear Dr Sapolsky suggest we have no free will and to some extent, I think he’s right. Unless we have the intention to change. To dig in, explore and shift how we’ve been experiencing our worlds. To create better stories. That process of what Jung called Individuation is challenging yet possible.
It means that most people have the potential for free will, they don't have it easy/ right off the bat. It needs to be activated.
@@johnnyjustice please elaborate
The desire to "Dig In" is also predetermined.
Saying there is no free will because physics is deterministic. There are questions that should be answered:
1) Why are you so sure that we live in the laplacian world? Today It's clear that we are not
2) Why do you think that the world of physics is complete? While experiencing subjective stuff or qualia every second of your life
3) Why is that the ontology of the mind is determined by the ontology of physics? It's the same as saying that quantum processes determine how the economy works. No, it's the different ontology with the different rules
I stumbled upon this realisation quite late actually (mid 30s). Despite interest in philosophy and religion since I was a teen, I never thought much about free will. It seems so obvious now.
Me too,its so obvious
So there is no free will. Isn’t this an easy argument for forgiveness and compassion? Acceptance of human kind, openness to our frailty and fallibility,…the notion that we can be vulnerable and creative and open to criticism…?
It doesn't matter whether we have free will or not. We still feel like we make choices, and those choices decide how happy and healthy we are. Just teaching logical thought processes to children would lead to a happier world.
You don't feel strange just boldly asserting what matters and what doesn't? We're out here in this universe, too, ya know? 😂
@waylonbarrett3456 He/She is just at a point in their life where they have a certain level of consciousness that focuses on themselves and their needs, and you're at another point, where you take into account other people's needs and opinions and carefully think about your points because you know they have an impact on the environment around you. That being said, 3 years from now, you might change your point of view due to a traumatic experience or something similar, and they might change because of some meaningful conversations with other people. Being aware that everybody is constantly changing and in a different state of consciousness is also another level of consciousness. I hope someone replies to my comment saying that there's another level of consciousness that takes into account even more stuff, then we can continue this trend forever.
It matters that we present the truth to minimize confusion.
But who is "You" in this equation? "You" is a section of the universe. That section has a lot more of what we call "free will" than a rock, a star, or pretty much any other section of the universe, all of which is ONE THING. No?
Does an ant have free will?
@@jaythenihilist4689 relative to a pebble, absolutely!
The reality is that there is no 'you'. The capital S Self doesn't exist as an entity. It is a stream of processes.
@@cabellocorto5586 When I say "I" and when you say "I", isn't that The Whole Universe referring to itself? Isn't That the "Self"?
@@Basilfilmer I don't believe so, because we consider ourselves separate entities from a whole. So I don't believe the concept of the Self can coexist with the conception that we are all part of the universe. I don't know if it is possible for us to really see things the latter way experientially due to the way our egos are wired.
Yee, we love the good guys, and the happy world
Excellent dialog...I agree with Sapolsky.
In my opinion the question isn’t wether we have free will or not, but rather how much do we have?
I think everything that every happened to you has an affect on what you choose to do next and it’s sort of built into you. The structure which was built from the ground up is what controls you for the most part and decided who you are to some degree. But you can break out of this structure at will and with sacrifice and suffering! Your structure that likes to control everything loses control and fights inside you. Your free will is your mind/soul and it’s limited by your body. I think it’s too pre deterministic to say everything just happens on accord and it’s all ‘written in the books’ meaning everything that happens was just supposed to happen and nobody could have ever controlled that. It’s easy to say this because we always see only one outcome and not the rest. Like what the God of War Ragnarok game teaches you: you can’t rely on profecies! You must write you own story in between the borders you are limited to!
Exactly. I think saying there's no free will is silly IMHO. On the one hand, he says we can't change ourselves, because there's no freewill. On the other hand, he says we can be changed by circumstance. It seems to be that the second statement is antithetical to the first. Most behavioural scientists agree that changing the environmental can help us change our behaviour and habits. And if this were possible, then it should be possible for one to choose to change their circumstance in the process or for the goal of changing themselves.
I always say we can do what we will, but we cannot will what we will.
Imagine that you have a rock. You hit the rock and split it in two. Inside, you see a message. It could be any message you like, perhaps it says "free will is a myth". Does this image that you recognize as a written message have any standing as evidence about what the message purports to be about?
Remember. This in an inanimate rock, formed by natural processes, stacked one on another since the beginning of the universe itself.
If the message has no standing (which it doesn't), then the same applies to anything else in the universe, including the thoughts and words of Dr Robert Sapolsky.
This is the fallacy of self-exclusion. Where in this case, we try to reason that something cannot exist by using a method (reason) that relies upon the very phenomena we are attempting to refute. The rational animal trying to prove that he is not rational.
There is a boundary condition that is proposed: If there is anything that one relates to then freedom (undefined) is not possible because one's decisions have to be very specific. They are about what we interact with. The only way to have some level of freedom would be to live in a world emptied out of anything to relate to since this is not possible then freedom cannot arise. It cannot be the result of interacting from very constraint conditions to being less constraint given ones solutions to specific obstacles.
The more one solves obstacles that constraint/limit the less one can claim ones reach has increased. Hmmmm, don't know.
Love this thank you about Free will education.
Sapolsky is a Legend.
This video is only a tiny spec what this man contributed so far.
My first exposure to him. What do you recommend?
Whether free will exists or not. We have the capability of behaving as though it does. Which means we can make choices for the better.
Those "choices" are part of the illusion.
@@r-type4945 it doesn't matter that they're part of the illusion, the point is choices can be made (for some A LOT more easily than others, unfortunately) that have an impact large or small, short term or long term individually or globally.
@@fatiie If there is no free will there is no choosing. Everything that happens is inevitable.
Lol you have the capacity to act in the way in which your genetics and environmental lead you to act, that's about it lmao
I have no free will but to choose to behave in way that makes things better.
Intuition sparks revelations, inspirations, and, insights. Intuition is the mother of everything. But how does intuition emerge? What does it influence and how does it vanish?
So, we have free will within the confines of our biological, hereditary, cultural, and circumstantial situation.
Which is to say - we don’t have free will
That's not call free will. It's literally not having free will. It's just will. Choice.
@@tess55 we have will, but it's not completely free. But what is free at all? What truly does not exist is freedom. But it doesn't mean we can't affect our choices by our rationality. The will is not free but not determined either. At least for subjective point of view. If choices can be affected, then they do exist. And if a human has ability to choose, then they can do it with rationality, and thus, responsibility, morals and etc do exist and play a big role in what happens. That's the thing: freedom does not exist, everything happens for a reason, but humans can use rationality to affect it. That's what we call free will. But i think not many people actually think freedom is possible. So it's just about wording, not about concept.
We have will, it's not 100% free, but it exists and morals exist too.
No.
There is no confines.
There is causes of choices.
This makes it easier to leverage my nervous system 🚀☀️
The sense of self is the illusion here. There is no self. Without self, the concept of free will also goes away
I goes further than this.
The real reason that free will does not exist isn't only because external and internal factors influence your decision making.
It is because there is no self to begin with.
Let’s figure out what CONSCIOUSNESS is first and begin to solve the mind-body problem before we make mistakes about free will. Also we are only looking at this from a linear perspective which can also be challenged.
I absolutely agree, reductionist approach is not always a satisfying explanation. The hard problem of consciousness must be solved before stating "there is no free will", since it's possible that there is a connection between those two.
@@waronreason
You're completely confused.
How much do we need to learn about weddings to know whether married bachelors exist?
Imagine someone studying wedding dresses to find out an answer to that question.
Exactly, these people are building a whole argument off of an unproven basis. They assume the mind creates consciousness/awareness through neurons firing and hop on from there. Nobody can explain what consciousness is yet especially after the recent boom of research around near death experiences and DMT. Only arrogant athiests brush those off to defend their deterministic mechanistic religion by any means necessary. There has been zero self respecting scientist that can adequately explain what consciousness even is. His entire argument being built of the "show me which neuron is responsible for said action" is dumb and these people are just eating it up.
For the most part he's correct in that our brain's are just running scripts based on all the factors he says. But, we do have free will to chose right from wrong and other choices too. It's just that in some instances it is really hard to do so. As we are so heavily influenced by those neural circuits.
No disrespect, but apparently you didn't get the point of the guy in the video because free will is not about you making choices, but about the WILL itself behind it. As he is asking in the video, what is it that is left if you leave out your biology (like genes, hormones etc.) and your environment (like how you were raised, which experiences you made etc.)? His and the answer is there is nothing left.
The problem which most people are having when they're advocating for free will is, that it feels intuitive to believe we have it and it feels wrong/counterintuitive to believe that we're just like passengers of our own brain.
Of course it's also a question of how you define free will, but his point is that having free will would mean that we can choose to want what we want. Which we simply can't. You could say we can decide to follow or not follow these desires, but then again, it's just about how much you want it and/or how much you don't want to experience the consequences. To put it simple: person a decides to rob a bank, person b decides not to. What was the difference between those 2? Person a wanted it more and this desire was bigger than his desire not to be criminal. Person b was the opposite. He maybe wanted to rob the bank as well, but his will not to be a criminal was stronger. But both couldn't choose which desire of these was stronger. That's what it's about.
@@hevelish3242 Thanks for the interesting comment. Free will is defined as voluntary choice or decision, and/or freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.
From that, we do have free will. And it seems more like you're talking about and maybe the speaker in the video too, about not having a solid identifiable self. Which, I don't think we have. So, there's no self that actually experiences the free will. to me anyway.
But from the definition of free will, we do have it. If he chooses to redefine free will, then that's not free will that he's talking about.
@@willp9226 it's definetely about how you define it. But making decisions comes down to what you want more. let's call it the volume/power of each of your desires/fears etc. You can't choose them. That's your will.
And the question no free will advocate is able to answer is: what is it that makes you want things other than your biological and your environmental factors? What is left to be called free will? Which part other than these 2 can you point to?
A funny note: I don't blame anyone who believes or doesn't believe it. You simply can't help it :)
@@hevelish3242 I think for the most part there isn't really free will, no matter how its defined. As many people tend to go off something other than the rational choice, when making a decision. Most are controlled by other factors.
I also don't believe there is a solid, unchanging self. Whatever a person wants to call it. Which seems related to the lack of free will we have.
But, as you say with free will, its something that seems to exist or humans feel it exists. I believe the brain fools the individual into believing there is a self, (and free will) but more so with the self, as a preservation measure.
As for free will, people often express their inability to make a decision, and just go along with the same old. It happens socially, culturally, politically, pretty much everywhere life is. Which again, suggests free will is lacking.