There's No Free Will. What Now? - Robert Sapolsky
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Robert Sapolsky is an American neuroendocrinology researcher and author. He is a professor of biology, neurology, neurological sciences, and neurosurgery at Stanford University.
He is the author of "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will", which you can purchase here: amzn.to/3SATa4j
- TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Sapolsky’s case against free will
5:32 Why you never want a hungry judge
9:53 Do we have any free will?
22:02 The man with the hole in his head
26:42 How your ancestors determined who you are
30:57 Is it a bad thing that there’s no free will?
47:59 What changes if there’s no free will?
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Get early access to episodes, and get them ad-free, by supporting the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
pseudo intellectualism run amok.
Someone gave a thought experiment and a bunch of twats created a field of study around it and are now acting as if its settled science. It isnt. Having a limited number of choices because of lifes or the minds limits does not equal no free will.
My choice to eat fish tonight was made even though my only other choice was chicken, it WAS a choice and my FREE WILL made the decision...not having an infinite selection to choose from has nothing to do with free will or not. Because I had no beef at the time, does not remove free will. Not having the time or money to go out has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
There was a choice. I made that choice.
Here's an argument that freewill is unique to humans and only humanity has free will. Theologically understood. What that means is that you have to have what is truly unique to only humanity to see apparent submergence of freewill. The ability to learn, but the ability to learn wasn't what gives us freewill either because our level of learning is hypothetically an adaptation. though the ability to learn is what is unique in an un- unique sense to humanity it can appear as free will, but our communicative properties are unique; and that are brought about by those adaptive capabilities is unique about us humanity. The things we study is purely environmentally decided but the way we communicate, write, and talk has to become freewill against the odds of all science because law.
Consistently covering vital topics with more reliability than the overwhelming vast majority. Including subjects that most matter, e.g., non-woo ethical veganism (multiple notable), secular, sentio-centric AN (David Benatar), causal determinism (Robert Sapolsky) and so on...This is among the better channels on YT. Please keep up such good work, CS ✅️
A more sane, ethical, intelligent map of the territory.
@drumstruck751 "because law" was that the punchline/logical 'basis'? Or did I miss it? What is the evidential and logical basis (or bases) for "free will" (whatever you mean by that antiquated notion lol, folks' defintitions vary)
If we decide to not complete an action that will benefit out evolution and survival would that demonstrate Free will?
how does he explain this stuff with such enthusiasm over and over a million times
it's almost like he has no choice...
It’s his life’s work and passion.
Beginner's mindset.
This is what it looks like to actually love your work. I'm deeply envious 😅
I've listened to so many of Sapolsky's interviews regarding 'Determined' and find most of the interviewers lacking in imagination. They always talk about intending to move their hand or pick up a pencil. The topic is so much richer than such simplistic examples! I really liked the H.G. Moeller interview of Sapolsky. Moeller tried to understand and imagine the complexity of the situation. So far it's the best one I've heard.
His Stanford lectures were the first I was ever obsessed with learning about Humanity and human psychology in the 2000s as a kid. Glad he’s still around to discuss topics ❤
His Stanford lecture on depression was a classic! 👍
@@IdeologieUK My favourite is his lecture on Schizophrenia.
Life long learner here.
I’m so glad some of his lectures are on youtube. He’s so interesting.
We would be friends lol
@@IdeologieUK I thought I'd seen him before, I loved that lecture, allowed me to understand depression so well, to the point where most therapists I've seen sadly seem to know less about the science of depression than me.
We are free to do as we will, but we are not free to will what we will.
Exactly
Like addiction?
@@dustinkfc6633 That's a good example, but also just any of our desires aren't chosen. They are the result of genetic and environmental influences. Much like how our thoughts arise spontaneously. Christianity attaches guilt and shame to our thoughts and desires, sometimes even claiming they occur from demon possession.
I think his point about hating someone’s guts for a few moments and then moving on is a great explanation of why social media just seems to provoke outrage:
On X, when you see something you disagree with, in that moment when you hate their guts, you can tell them and send a message directly to them. Something you would normally have just forgotten about and moved on from.
Most importantly there is no true social interaction. Society isn't instances of interaction. It's continued interaction with the same people over time. That does not happen on social media, so individuals don't understand other individuals
And there's less risk associated with holding a grudge. If you're angry with someone at work, or a family member, you can have a civil discussion to settle your issues. When it gets heated, that can end badly and lead to an incident that changes your respective lives, so it's in both parties best interest to sort it out gracefully. Online, there's no penalty to overreacting, holding a grudge, and letting that hatred grow inside you, since you can choose when to observe and interact with that person anonymously. And people get addicted to that hatred and sense of superiority. The impersonal aspect of social media also makes it a lot easier to ignore the good things about a person, and project only negative traits onto them.
@adamcummings20 i think the problem with modern social media is that its too manufactured and cross culturally big now. Compared to back then, when it was easier to get a better sense of community
If you "hate someone's gut for a few moments" you are a very emotionally unstable person to begin with.
@@felixmidas3245 When I'm exhausted towards the end of a long shift at work, and my boss keeps making the same irritating joke about me, which normally I'd brush off, but because of the fatigue I genuinely despise him. Until I have a break, a smoke and some water, then it's chill.
It's normal to have these feelings. Why would it make someone unstable?
Robert Sapolsky is the antidote to Jordan Peterson.
What do you mean by this?
@@davidmatthewkellyThat Robert Sapolsky has no idea what he's talking about.
Jordan Peterson is what dumb people think intelligence looks like. He is the king of the word salad. If you actually listen to what that in cell says, you quickly realize how stupid he really is.
@@bobhill4364quite the contrary, actually...
@@thane732you say this out of ignorance
Sapolsky is EVERYWHERE at the moment and this is one of the best places to be. Can't wait to have my existential crisis again.
Why would you have an existential crisis about something that can’t be proven?
@@SolveForX Huh?
I wouldn't have an existential crisis over determinism because it doesn't really change things. We still experience things the way we do. Though personally it helps me accept things in my life that have already happened, because it couldn't be different.
@@SolveForX I think that’s the real issue. It’s all theory. Interesting nevertheless.
@@Kimbie I think thats wrong, because it could have been different since there is an element of randomness even if full determinism is true. Also you are supposed to learn from your past so that you can face the future better equipped so that you can make better choices and that at least temporarily involves being unsettled about potential bad choices of the past.
Alex is sooo good as an interviewer, especially on these complex topics.
You shouldn't praise him too much, he is just the product of the Big Bang like you. He did absolutely nothing to become a great interviewer.
"Deserves" is a pretty strange thing to say about receiving love and admiration. You may not be uniquely deserving of it, but everyone is deserving of it. Similarly, people are deserving of praise because receiving praise is part of the human experience and feeling fulfilled-- it's just that we should do it to meet people where we are, not reserve it for a special few.
And regarding falling in love not being free will, I think we have always sort of known that to be the case, I mean that's why we "fall" in love, and use a metaphor for Cupid's arrows, etc.
Anyhow, Happy Valentine's Day!
No one to have ever existed, alive now or who will ever exist has ever, nor will ever deserve anything in particular. Things just happen and everything just is. There is no such thing as deserving one thing or another. Good and evil, righteous and unrighteous, justice, all delusions
@@djzip9231 To deem something undeserving is still a value judgement and not a neutral statement, as it implies a justification for deprivation.
This isn't a matter of good and evil, but a decision on how to allocate the limited time we have to exist. We can make it more or less pleasant, and limit suffering to the best of our ability, even if on a limited level. Deeming everyone deserving of love and affection and treating the people in our lives this way is one such way.
There is nothing delusional about this because there is no objective reality being claimed, just a rough consensus of people trying their best.
@@djzip9231 That is not entirely correct. Those statements are only accurate when taking an _objective_ perspective. From an inter-subjective perspective, which is arguably the only relevant perspective to humanity, both good and evil exist, rigtheousness is valued and justice is important for social cohesion. They all are important concepts - just not concepts with any meaning independent of subjective experience. But what _is_ meaning beyond the value of and in subjective experience? I'd argue 'meaning' itself is meaningless when you take away subjectivity.
"You may not be uniquely deserving of it, but everyone is deserving of it."
You are not uniquely wrong but you are utterly wrong.
What the hell, I've been listening to both Alex and Sapolsky nonstop for the past month, this is literally so perfect !!
It's not like you had a choice in the matter
@@OkRake Whatever the algorithm decides
@@OkRake - »Of course we have free will. We have no choice but to have it.«
(obligatory Christopher Hitchens quote, borrowed from a Buddhist discussion thread of all things).
That post goes on:
»Free will has to be assumed.
In other words, it’s conventionally real.
Try to find it ultimately though and you can’t.
The same with anything else.«
@@TheMuserguy algorithms do not have the free will to decide alone. Mecha Jesus affords them this with its singularity of blessings. (1 of 3, trademark Nvidia)
Not anything really. I've just found an apple I want to eat.@@dipi71
What a reassuring voice and a comforting beard.
oh yeaaaaah it's comforting alright
@@Saritabanana coming in terms with things you don't want to be true can be comforting sometimes
@@godassasin8097 oh I meant comforting in a sexual way but yes all his words are comforting too
So if he shaves his beard off, is that free will?😂
You can't be comforted - you don't have free will.
I've done some very subjective experiments on this subject.
1. I've noticed that every action is preceded by intention. But if you observe clearly you can see that intention arises all on its own without you making the choice for its arising.
2. The choice of what we're conscious about is also not in our control. I've set up an experiment where I observe a single phenomenon like the rising and falling of my stomach and make the commitment to not look away from it whatsoever. Eventually, my mind (consciousness) moves on its own to another object like a sound or a feeling somewhere in the body.
This has led me to conclude that neither intentions nor consciousness are under my control. They're completely impersonal.
This is essentially what the Buddha did when he realized his desire to breathe was not his own. So instead of trying to control it, he went with the flow.
How are you setting up experiments if your not in control? You were controlled to set up those experiments so why do you keep acting like that was a choice, because you were controlled to think it was a choice but decided to tell yourself it wasn't a choice because you were induced to do that. Go down that chain ad infinitum
@@cabellocorto5586I’m always impressed when I see other people make these kinds of connections. You’re spot on. I teach the “path to enlightenment” and this kind of understanding is so incredibly rare out in the wild and I get very excited when I see it. The guy you responded to is also right on the money.
@@stevepenn2582 Through no free will of your own, you made the mistake of drawing the conclusion that making a choice implies free will when it doesn't. You can make choices, they're just not freely made.
@@DiNozzo431 Look up compatiblism, anyways the implication of saying "what do we do about it" means that there is some level of free will being enacted. Even if you could perfectly predict someones action every time doesnt mean their will isn't free
I hunger for what it means to live without free will. This could have been a 6 hours discussion, I would have listened to it all.
Go to prison. You'll love it.
I think if we know what will make our life the most fulfilling to live and makes others lives fulfilling to live regardless of sort term sacrifice we should act on that, I don’t think these spiritual ideas contradict living with an understanding of no free will, we have emotions and that means something to us, we feel get others to feel and so on, it’s our subjective opinion that life is worth preserving therefore it’s worth it, I don’t think we have to be an nihilistic at all, I mean I think it’s beautiful that we’ve left our mark on this universe and that’s good enough for now, I’m not saying I’m not a person who’s not prone to depression, etc. but hope and all these things exist for a reason I think they’re biological functions such as society to keep us self-actualizing to keep us feeling meaning so that we survive and we have no reason to not follow that, I think we can find our own personal reasons that may conflict with truth and that’s ok, I also do believe discouragement, through the form of holding people accountable for those they influence, and encouragement to do things that will benefit you and others is also a great societal mechanism, I don’t see why these can’t exist together, I don’t think of responsibility as relying on Will, but rather relying on choice, I think we can make any choice and that doesn’t mean we have free will and making a choice but we made the choice and it’s ours and we should be reasonable as to determine what lines should generally be drawn where based on the humanitarian approach above life is complicated. Life is not simple. There’s beauty in that there is beauty in us and I love you all 💕💕💕
It’s all arbitrary but that’s part of the fun ay, my existence breaks so many societal norms but I got through it and I don’t see a reason why we can’t be proud of facing diversity head on, since around 15 or so I’ve always thought of my personality as a gift. I’m happy I’m open I’m happy I’m agreeable. I’m happy I’m conscientious. I am a little neurotic which is so so it’s given me a challenge to navigate and im a bit introverted which allows me to be in my inner world which I obviously subjectively enjoy, to be fair. I do feel a false sensitive proudness, because these are traits that I think are inter subjectively considered good overall, even though they have been bad towards me before they’ve caused very bad outcomes, especially as someone with a history that can take advantage of these traits and lead to development that isn’t so productive towards myself, but we ball we try, hopefully this helps, and even if I don’t agree with how someone behaves or don’t enjoy their traits, I don’t necessarily fault them but I don’t see how that excludes me from pointing the finger at them as responsible but maybe that’s because my definition of responsible is not like everyone else’s or something idk
💕💕💕
Humans love stories let’s enjoy our own and this is coming from a person who is not in fact optimistic, but I’m still young at at least can see where I go ig, my advice is find your reasons and hold them dear 💕💕
Edit: I didn’t see the last 10min of the vid before commenting here but that’s exactly how I view it i’m grateful for the luck bestowed upon me, the luck to be able to have a humanitarian view, I like being agreeable and open etc… because even if I didn’t have these traits there is a fair chance I might view them as positive, but I don’t think this excludes us from being human in the sense that we will still play blame. We will still feel proud etc… and I don’t think that’s terrible human nature is feelings and drives, I also didn’t realize he was gonna touch on we still have basic needs and it feels good to fulfill them even without a spiritual reason xd, but I do like spirituality and wish I could be more spiritual by spirituality I’m referring to it loosely to describe supernatural ideas, beliefs, or ideals mainly, that’s said the idea of no free will is sad because we have an expectation for something better and essential and it puts into question our identity and what makes us us something we want to be stable in is shattered, but I try not to dwell on it
Ignorance really is bliss sometimes when we accept that we are “machines” and we think of machines as furthest from human it really can make us feel alien in our own skin
These folks are all making it out to be something more than it is. Just the way brains work. So what? Your experience is the same regardless. Very interesting topic though. Have fun.
I guess I would ask why? So you can be "released" from taking responsibilty? So that you can do whayever ypu want and dissolve consequence in your own mind? It's an honest question.
What makes our life the most fulfilling might be "to make other's lives fulfilling" or, of course, pontificate about it. You can actually make a lot of money that way.@@LaFemmFatal
I wasn’t aware that Sapolsky had a new book out; now that I am, I’m determined to get it.
You just cant control yourself can you?
@@kernalfleak You just couldn't control yourself could you?
@@bingbong2179
You just couldn't control yourself could you?
@@calebr7199You jus... UGh! I can't not! You just couldn't control yourself could you?
@@ryanthomas7119 Heh. You just couldn't control yourself, could you? 😏
I don’t find it nihilistic. There’s a beauty and freedom to stepping back and observing the machine. Becoming the observer. The machine doesn’t stop working when you become aware of it. We don’t have that kind of power.
Buts it’s not true..
Do you think that when we do attain awareness of the machine itself, that that awareness in and of itself is a way out of the chain of events that may give us the choice to have "Free Will" ?
I’m fascinated that you call it a machine. Who then designed that machine? who then made that machine, who then maintains that machine. The regulation of the machine cannot be by humans if we have no free will. Sapolsky offers you a potential surface level solution but inevitably this will lead to a multitude of vastly more complex questions.
The amazing part is the machine is able to modify itself, simply by thought. He's right in that we can't exceed our hardware limitations, for instance we can't think faster than our neural pathways allow. But we do imagine things that don't exist and then make them real or come up with approaches that don't exist. The weirdest part is that consciousness feels separate from our bodies... like it's outside the brain, but we now for a fact that it's all biological processes in our skull because we can alter and effect it.
I don't know... maybe he's right, but then how could that affect us if we have no free will? We would just carry on as usual as we have choice.
Clearly (and correctly) you are speaking of two distinct entities here (a subject and an object) or the observer and the observed. If the observed is our neurobiological machine, then what exactly is the observer? I'll give you a hint. The observer is the one in whom the "seat of free will" resides. The observer CHOOSES if, how, when or why he/she would want to observe the machine.
Thank you for holding ontellectual conversations without having the whole "gotta be the winner" pompousness most youtubers have. Really fills in the gap ive been looking for.
Oh snap. Awesome to see him on here. Cool to catch, going to watch this tonight.
Hell YES I've been listening to this guy's Stanford lectures on Behavioral Biology. So glad you're interviewing him!
Same. My favourite background lectures while doing the dishes :)
me too!
When I get really high, those lectures are one of my go-tos.
They are exceptional aren't they. I really can't recommend them highly enough!
His lectures are awesome, they opened my mind to a lot
I studied discovered Sapolsky's Stanford lectures during the pandemic. I recommend his book 'Behave'. The most fascinating read ever!
try biological underpinnings of religiosity and think again about 'pandemic'. He is sometimes deluded esp in his press comments .
@@godislove8740your username tells us everything we need to know about you! Keep at it go on hating reason and logic.
@@knight794 I didn't know twas a club. Sorry.
@@knight794 its just a bad argument, thats all.
What a beautiful conversation! I really enjoyed it. 👌👌👌👌🙏🙏🙏
This talk is so beautiful on both ends that it gives me goosebumps and ASMR💚
His Stanford lectures are a gold mine. I love them
Because you love them or because they are right?
his beard alone proves there is no free will.
@@timgreenglassLol
This is basically my Superbowl, thanks so much for doing this interview! Reading Sapolsky helped me make concrete my kind of loosey goosey, half informed stance on (the absence of) free will.
It's still loosey goosey and so are his arguments.
Your arguments are non existent@@ichtozavuzovsky8370
Very nerdy! Hopefully you just don't like nfl but prefer other sports.
@@Pilkie101 Why "hopefully?" What does it matter if one cares about sports?
😅@@ichtozavuzovsky8370
What all of this points out is that there is no "you" and with the cessation of self a bunch of the dilemmas also disappear, even if for a second.
The belief of self i guess is utilitarian in motivation for most instances.
But also, sometimes its not.
The opposite of the nihilistic view is not randomness, that is the nihilistic view, that is a mischaracterisation of the other side. The other side is believing that one is seperate entity that makes its decisions on the fact that it is real and seperate with innate good qualities that are identifiably them, not subject to any of the other forces of nature.
That one is a noun, not a verb.
There's a you, but you are riding a roller coaster that's not in your control.
@easymoney1464 more like a river that keeps on flowing and changing
@@interdimensionalsailboat There is no way that anyone can say that emergent intent does not exist in the universe. You know everything about infinity using your limited brain and senses? Yeah, sure... Honesty is saying that you don't actually know because you really don't know. Science proves nothing while it is merely based on our limited, subjective senses within infinity. We are not seeing the full picture of infinity. But he received a Nobel Prize! who cares, haha. Maybe the human brain doesn't have free will, but that doesn't mean that emergent intent doesn't exist in the universe.
Btw love that u 2 Clashed at last! favorite team up! Need more of it, in some sense!
Duuuuude!!!…..Sapolsky and O’Connor this is going to be LIT! Two of my favorite minds coming together.
Is it fair to say this is a miracle in deterministic randomness? 😁
If that happened the video would've been censored
@@AudunWangendeterministic randomness?
@@bobsdaman1632 I know it sounds like a contradiction, but that is sort of what I believe.
I think Sapolsky and O'Connor are right in that we have no free will, which would suggest determinism.
But quantum mechanics suggest that some things happen randomly and are not pre-determined. I'm not sure what else to call it 🤷♂️
I am beyond excited for this conversation. Two of my favorites talking about a top tier subject! P.S. Robert, in case you happen to see this, I contacted your people to try and get you on my show as well, but it didn't work out. If there is anything I can do to make that more possible, I hope you'll let me know. Thank you both for all your great work!
Yes please try to see if you can make that happen! Love your channel🎉!
I really hope it can be lined up!
Chiming in just in case it helps this come to fruition!
Would love to see this happen. And hi, Brandon!
You are excited because your brain cells and genetics predetermined this response. Your excitement is nothing to be excited about if you believe what these two are selling.
I missed the "where do you go for wisdom" question. I think the answer could potentially be really interesting. But despite that, this was excellent. I really appreciate Sapolsky's work and you made very interesting questions and remarks, as always. Good stuff. Thank you both!
I've sat on this question for some time to the point where it's become clear and relevant in my search for meaning and knowledge. There comes a point where you begin to appreciate being aware of certain patterns of behaviour. We can draw wisdom from understanding ourselves and how we've come to be, this coincidentally results in the removal of oneself from the center of everything, which gives me hope.
This was an incredible discussion.
NO WAYYY, WHAT AN ICONIC PAIRING
okay calm down.
@@Danuxsy I WILL NOT
No need to remain calm! This is going to be a hit!👌🏼
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@gailism But you CAN'T WILL it!
I'm relatively new to Sapolsky - but I've noticed he's seemingly buzzing around everywhere at the moment. Good on Alex to snag him for a discussion. Great stuff!
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
“Behave” and “Determined” are two great reads.
I go back to his lectures on behavioral biology all the time!! fun to see someone so enthusiastic about their field and share so much knowledge.
It's beautiful, nature learrning about itself.
Sapolsky!!! What an absolute legend. Got to meet him briefly after a talk he gave at my university. Such an amazing educator
>> What an absolute legend
Agreed! I was introduced to him through his 29 video series on the biological underpinnings of human behavior. This was a video series on his Stanford course. And I highly recommend it.
@@Rick_Cavallaro
I’d second that playlist; iirc it’s called “Human Behavioral Biology”. If I went to Stanford, I’d have taken that class as an elective just for the hell of it…couldn’t care less if it counts for anything, just to be there and learn would’ve been a joy.
Again -you use words like legend and amazing to describe a man who has only acted out what his genetics and environment allowed him to do. Why is this praiseworthy?
Praise can only be given when a person had a choice in what they did. We can no longer call someone courageous or cowardly because that implies choice. If no other outcome is possible due to the biological affects directing our choices, then why is this praiseworthy?
We praise the young boy for not stealing biscuits from the jar while our back was turned.
We praise the girl for handing in the bag of cash she found in the street.
Why? Because they could have kept the money or eaten the biscuits but chose not to do those things.
If you discovered the girl was in fact a robot with a setting which ensured she handed in lost property, would you praise her?
@@markmooroolbark252 if my car breaks down every day on the way to the office, it's a P.O.S. - and I hate it. I don't *blame* it because it's not sentient, and clearly doesn't have free will. But I still hate the P.O.S.
There are great actors and there are bad actors. I enjoy the great ones. I don't care how they got that way.
>> Praise can only be given when a person had a choice in what they did.
Praise can be given whenever I like. Praise reinforces desired behavior. That's part of what goes into making the person who they are, and ultimately factors into the decisions they make. Besides, you pretend as if we have some choice in whether to praise him.
@@markmooroolbark252
If someone gives a lecture you like, you can call the lecture good or amazing. Same wit if they are a good educator, not all educators are very good at their job so it makes sense to call some of them amazing. This has nothing to do with free will.
No, praise can be given to further encourage someone to behave a certain way.
If a child does something you want them to do, then praise, especially from a parent or authoritative figure, can go a long way in causing that child to act that way in the future.
Sapolsky seems to be the most honest materialist. He comes to the obvious conclusions that others avoid when you presume that consciousness comes from the brain and there is no mind / soul. No free will.
Personally the way I see it is even if there is a "soul", there's still no free will. Nothing in the equation changes. Free will is just an incoherent concept no matter what
It’s crazy how he is so honest and makes the obvious conclusions like “you being rich had nothing to do with you, your efforts aren’t actually your efforts, therefore we must all be egalitarian” lol. Yall just love to pick and choose the “facts of the facts cooming science yum 🎉🎉🎉”.
To deny free will in the circumstance that you point to will be to deny human rationality. I think this is the craziest idea to even entertain. Here's an example that illustrates this point. My education has taught me that wicked, cruel, evil, monstrous, fiendish, devilish, heinous, odious, satanic, barbarous, and brutal are different ways of saying the same thing. How can it be that the decision to use one of these words rather than the other isn't mine, and yet I don't keep using any of them all of the time?
@@mathewsamuel1386 I will do you one better, how’s it possible to be moral without free will? It seems like our most basic foundations relies on not just the sense of agency, but true culpability of not only our actions, but our overall character. Not denying we aren’t influenced by several factors however to take this extreme position such as Robert’s is just cultural suicide.
@@mathewsamuel1386there is a difference between will and free will.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that, because some words can be used as synonyms for other words, they cannot have different definitions.
This is wrong.
Monstrous- like an animalistic monster
Barbarous- like an uncivilised human
Satanic- like an imaginary demon creature
These words are not the same. You should get a refund on that education.
love this dude, great discussion!
this has to be a thumbs up from me. best interview i saw in months. a topic with huge consequences👍
What a delight having Robert Sapolsky on my screen again, years after watching his Stanford Course on Behavioural Biology.
And with Alex. Lovely!
WHAT A DELIGHT! INDEED! RATHER INDUBLIOUSLY!
Wow! What a fantastic conversation. Thank you.
So glad you got Sapolsky on! This is great.
Awesome episode! Thank you.
Perfect gift for my birthday today! Absolutely love Sapolsky's works.
Happy birthday!🥳🎁🎂🎈
Happy Birthday. Well, try to be happy anyway? free will aslifjbasg
Thank you! And @guest9836 I will try to be happy ;)
Happy birthday.
Happy birthday! 🎊
This is one of the best podcasts I have ever listened to. Thank you Alex and Robert!
Very interesting conversation. Thank you.
thank you so much alex
I've found out about prof. Sapolsky a few months ago while I was studying abroad. With nothing to do, I decided to give his lectures a go even though I am much more mathematically inclined and subjects like biology were always my weakside. Needless to say, I found them astoundingly interesting. I've been following your channel since the "wavy chest of drawers" days and I've gotta say, this is probably the most excited I've been in regards to one of your videos. You're very well informed when it comes to picking the right people to interview. Good job!
You should check out some of the work Kahneman and Tversky did together. I think you’d appreciate the mathematic and economic aspects of their work.
Wow, your interest is my polar opposite. I found biology pretty "easy" to understand and pleasant whilst I struggled with math-heavy sciences.
I always thought about if the opposite can happen or maybe I was just "mentally limited", but I am glad it is just a difference of perspective. Many kudos to you and your interest, which is very precious to this world.
@@SannaJankarin
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
I discovered him a few years ago and not a day too soon, because he's the popular version of that one professor who changes the course of your life.
He made me realize I only cared about abstract concepts in terms of their practical applicability. Mathematics for example only insofar as it's relevant to physics, or philosophy only insofar as it's relevant to ethics.
Actually made me switch majors and thus determined the rest of my life. :)
Amazing collaboration!
Great interview!
Absolutely brilliant!
What a great interview. I wish I could have a talk with Sapolsky, too. He's amazing and a great speaker.
One of my favourite scientists and a wonderful mind.
Alex well done on getting him on your channel. #Kudos.
Wow. I was hesitant to listen to this because I didn’t take the topic seriously. I have been pleasantly surprised. This was good. This is a very interesting topic and conversation
A good metaphor on the same level is we know scientifically, that love is just a series of hormonal reactions in the brain that we've evolved to have, but at the same time, even knowing that, we can still be in love and enjoy love.
I assume you are talking about romantic love here but the realization that there is no free will opens up the doors for unconditional love toward all beings.
Holy cow damn man this is really really great convo! Thanks to both Alex and Robert!!
I was just reading 'Determined' and I thought, id love to see Alex and Robert talk hahahahaha unreal
Denying free will seems self-defeating. Here's a concise argument inspired by Alvin Plantinga, targeting determinism:
- **Premise 1**: If atheism and determinism hold, beliefs are determined by physical processes, not their truth.
- **Premise 2**: If beliefs stem solely from physical processes, their truth reliability is undermined.
- **Conclusion**: Hence, atheism and determinism create a self-defeating skepticism about our beliefs, including the denial of free will.
I understand that there are an innumerable amount of factors that determine our actions. Our brains and bodies are wired to react in specific ways, tailored over centuries of human evolution. Yet, I am not a hard determinist. I am my brain, my body. A part of me is what has come before me. And this guides the way that I (my brain and body) feel and react. I can deliberate over the most trivial things. I can push myself to accomplish something for mostly selfless reasons. My body and brain has the ability to impact society in a plethora of ways. Choice exists regardless of whether it is determined or not. Hard work exists or motivating one's self to get out of bed exists, regardless of it being a neurological response in our brains. A rod goes through my skull, and I change because I have lost a part of myself.
In which ways are you not a hard determinist? In which ways do you differ from hard determinists?
I guess I tend to be more of a compatibilist. I don't deny determinism in any means, but it is the perspective I take on determinism that differs. I'll quote Joscha Bach here in saying that "the opposite of free will is not determinism but compulsion." If we heighten our awareness, even if we do not have any option but to follow a specific path, we deliberate, we take into account our past and our psychological tendencies and base our choices from that. If we never strive to become aware of our tendencies, then we will rely on innate/unconscious decisions. That is compulsion. @@Dragumix
@@benjaminbohannon4432 you never had a choice to be aware of your own tendencies.
Not necessarily true. We are met with different choices each day, but what I will choose is determined. [There are 5 items on a menu. Thus, there are five choices. My choice is already determined, but this does not mean that I was not given 5 options. In fact, I might choose one menu item one day and another the next.] Regardless of whether that choice is determined does not mean choice does not exist. I observe. I contemplate. Deliberation is a taxing process-something that takes effort. It feels like a choice, so then why should it not be considered one? @@toonyandfriends1915
Evolution isn’t real
The books of Sapolsky are worth reading. "Behave", and "Determined" should've been read by everyone.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
I am so thankful for you Alex
I am older than you but your list of topics and characters that you discuss and interview could all be of my wishlist.
Best wishes on your consistently increasing success. I look forward to your future.
When I first heard from Mr Sapolsky I rejected his thesis. Yet I was intrigued enough to keep listening. One thing I thought was missing from the subsequent interviews was putting it in a real world personal context. This interview has gone a long way towards filling in that missing piece. Kudos to Alex for an excellent interview. 👍
Weird because as a physicist I hear the statement "there is no free will" and I immediately know someone is not operating in reality.
I think his theory is like how people felt about genetics a decade or two ago when scientists talked about finding "the gay gene", or "the fat gene", etc. Now we know things are way more complicated than that and while genetics explains a lot of things, there are environmental and random effects that matter just as much.
Hearing him here practically making the old argument "the murderer had a bad childhood therefore we can't judge" argument is just more than disappointing. It might have been the dumbest thing I have heard him say ever.
@@EbonyPope He's right though. We can't judge the person, as practically nothing can be their fault, but we should protect society from murderers. Prison is currrently a terrible system for that
@@EbonyPope& he would probably ask you "What made you the type of person to think that?" 🤔
Just watched this video after studying for my upcoming physiological psych exam. Absolutely amazing video and it tied very well into the content I'm studying right now
That's pretty cool, what have you been able to associate from what you're studying?
YES YES YES... BEEN WATING FOR THIS FOREVER. Thank you!
One point I haven't heard anyone make is the possibility that free will is an _emergent_ property. Let me use an analogy to explain what I mean. Music is a type of sound, and sound is a rapid fluctuation in local air pressure, so you could say that music is just a bunch of pressure waves arriving at our ears. Yet it would be absurdly difficult to have a meaningful discussion about music and music theory strictly in terms of pressure variations. Musicality _emerges_ as a property of those variations, but it exists in its own realm and has to be discussed independently from its origins in physical sound. I see the deterministic elements of consciousness and choice as being at the same level as the pressure variations. Yes, choices _emerge_ from deterministic phenomena, but they exist in their own realm just like musicality does. So it's reasonable both to acknowledge the existence of the deterministic elements and to engage with choices and free will at a higher level, independently of their deterministic basis.
Determinism and free will? How? Determinism is the opposite of free will.
@@pythondrink It is possible to define "determinism" and "free will" in a way that will make them mutually exclusive alternatives, however I'm not convinced that such definitions are correct. I believe that the actual phenomena we typically describe by such terms are in separate domains in much the same way that music theory and Boyle's Law are different domains even though both concern air pressure, as I described above. If we understand that determinism describes things as they happen at a very low/fundamental level, and free will describes emergent phenomena at a much higher level, we achieve two things: we avoid the conflict, and we gain a meaningful understanding of how both operate within their own spheres. Or at least it becomes possible to gain such an understanding.
@@TheBarelyBearableAtheist so define free will. And be aware that you're redefining it.
@@pythondrinkFree will is an emergent property of consciousness, which is an emergent property of perception, which is an emergent property of evolving organisms. Possibly a bit oversimplified, but that's the gist of it.
@@TheBarelyBearableAtheist what exactly is that property?
Alright, I was curious and have just been doing some quick googling about the robustness of the 'hungry judge' study. I haven't found any recent academic papers on it, sadly, but there's a pretty plausible-sounding refutation of it in a 2011 paper (essentially, defendants are not randomly scheduled, so a priori less-paroleable defendants were scheduled more often near lunch breaks - it's the scheduling causing the observed correlation between proximity to meal and release rate, not judge hunger). Anyone got any more up to date info on this?
They absolutely figure out their docket, and plan their day as such. There is no randomness to this “hungry judge” assertion, using it as evidence refutes his argument.
I was actually going around last week hoping Sapolsky would come on for a conversation, sometime in the future. Wonderful, thanks!
thank you so much. This really helped me get out of a downward spiral
Awesome! Awareness of oneself helps with being in the present.
fascinating interview and discussion, thank you Alex
I disagree with Sapolsky when he says that praise does not make sense. Why? Because as he says, our genes and our experiences make us who we are. By extension our behaviour towards others helps make them who they are. Therefore it makes sense to praise goodness in others, not because they deserve it (they had no free will in deciding to be good) but because their experience with us will make an imprint on them and influence the choices they will make (without free will) in the future.
I see your point, perhaps it wouldn't be to be too different in principle to the utilitarian measures taken to prevent certain individuals from negatively affecting others, however one could take your line of reasoning even further to conclude it'd be beneficial to treat others well at all times. If so, could there be any further advantage from a strategic / utilitarian standpoint in still treating some "more well" than others? It could perhaps remain nonetheless useful to enforce an incentive/reward system like the one you mentioned to more efficiently bring about change. Or maybe treating better those "trailing behind" in thoughtfulness would better serve this purpose instead.
@shanehoustein: I had precisely the same reaction to Sapolsky’s comments about praise, since praise becomes a part of the recipients’ experience and can influence their future behavior for the better. But I believe his point was that praise is not *earned* - which is an important distinction.
These are great comments. I think we can think about, as a culture, how we believe some of us deserve better treatment than others--punishment and reward. Praise is reward. If we extend that idea to "pride" or to "I deserve, therefore someone else does not deserve" we can better understand how he is using the example of praise. The idea is to have gratitude and hopefully create empathy for those who cannot complete tasks that are deemed praise-worthy. Of course praise feels good and can evoke a desire to repeat a task, etc. I think this is great for understanding privilege and creating space for empathy for those who do not have the abilities or opportunities that we do. We praise what we admire, and praise is a kind of nurturing kindness, but it doesn't mean we are "better than" or that we "work harder" than another or that we "deserve more". Isn't this sort of the point he is making?
Thats nice, but probably doesnt have sense as an argument for free will. We will do whats in apparent interest of our genes anyway. Sometimes that means that we will be able to convince people to praise children for their acconplishmnets. But in practice, people would only(or more) praise only children they like(for any or myriad reasons mentioned). Or just their own children,cousins, grandchildren and so on.
I don't think he is saying praise doesn't work or help create emotions. In fact, praise probably functions as one of those things that later becomes ways in which we make decisions that limit (or he would say negate) free will. Praise absolutely has a function. What he is saying is that it makes no sense. Think of Einstein's quote, "If you grade a fish on how well it climbs a tree, it will fail." To praise someone because they have ability feels good, yes, is a form of nurturing, but does it really "make sense"? If someone praises your appearance, are you responsible for the genetics and the ways in which our culture defines beauty?
Already know this is gonna be great!
I loved his book 'Why zebra's don't get ulcers' and I love the free will debate. Thanks for this, can't wait to listen to it!
So interesting. Can you tell me, I mean summarize why zebras don't get ulcer and how it is connected to free will? Free will is an illusions. We are monkeys..highly evolved monkeys, but monkeys nonetheless.
Noting that title down. Sounds like a book on biology.
It's mostly about stress, and why it's so detrimental to humans as opposed to other animals. It's quite interesting. I believe there are some talks about the book on RUclips as well@@pythondrink
This is the best explanation I have heard on the absence of free will. There is more work to do on understanding motivation and acts of kindness but Robert has obviously thought this through so deeply.
We use a map to represent the whole world. Map is just a lower-level representation of the world. If that map is destroyed, the world will not be destroyed because of being represneted in that map (even if all parts of world are included in that map). Similarly brain activities represent their higher level counterparts. If our brain is destroyed, our soul will not be destroyed because of being represented in brain activities.
It's so cool hearing this perspective from Robert. I came in to this video with a very similar opinion, and found myself seeing if I could predict where the conversation was heading, and if the arguments were heading in the same direction(s) that they intuitively have for me. Most of the time, I did. Given that I have gone through far less schooling, it felt very validating and made me feel kind of smart. At the same time, it reminded me that just because those things happened, it doesn't make me worthy of praise. Lol. Good shit.
Fantastic guest, fantastic host!
This was a great conversation, much respect to both very intelligent people here. I might argue that when they were talking about the motivation changing but you’re still going to have the same outcome, I’m led to say that the motivation that you have for something does in fact, change the process and the outcome. 😅
I've seen countless interviews with Prof. Sapolsky on this subject. This was the best one.
Well, as always, this was excellent. PS: I was diagnosed with dyslexia when I was 6. But that abnormality has given me a tremendous gift- the ability to paint and do art.
I just had an excellent thought inspired by Alex saying "ask them: what do you mean by free will?". I think I know where we get the intuition we are "free". It's as a consequence of a sequence a similar actions. Here's an example:
You're hungry today. You were hungry yesterday. Yesterday you wanted an apple. Today you want a pear. If you mistakenly organise these two days and two desires according to the similar action of feeling hungry, you will create an illusion, through time, that when you’re hungry, you have a choice between an apple and a pear. I think this is why people believe they're free. The repetitious facet of our lives, coupled with the necessity of simplifying information by organising it. It's the organising that leads away from the sequential truth of determinism. It's like believing in probabilities, when probability is an organisation of a sequence of events, into a **category** of one event or another that has a probability of occuring. Choice is 4 dimensional entity involving time, just like probability is. I'd never thought of it like that. Thank you both for the inspiration!
I could have listened to another hour of this. It's a very interesting topic. Not often do i hear about this from the perspective of both people who agree there isn't free will. And as someone who doesn't believe in it either, it's nice to hear from intelligent minds the question of "what now?"
We do have free will, though. Most free will skeptics don’t understand levels of description.
Came across him yrs back in the Zeitgeist documentary. Always a brilliant listen.
Haven’t read a book for years but this conversation got me very curious to check out his free will book
Reading can change your life. Hope you try the book and many others
For years? How? Why?
I’m really understanding at least a part of this in my own life seeing how trauma effects people who desperately don’t want to act the way they do or be effected by their trauma but they literally can’t help it. Like your muscles tensing up and you have no way to untense them because the process is just automatic. You’re stuck and it takes a lot of help to break traumatic issues. Sometimes decades.
I see this confirming the idea of generational trauma as elucidated by Bessel Van der Kolk. Check out The Body Keeps The Score!
How do you “break traumatic issues”, if there is no free will?
@@restlessdiesel I assume a sequence of events would need to happen to will it for it to break.
I loved this conversation.
I do think there is a question of what happens to the many people who do good things because of the way society rewards it and will we increase or decrease the behaviours we want as a society.
I love Sapolsky. I own all his books. He’s a major reason why I’m a science teacher now
Brilliant scientist and human being, paragon of humbleness, this is how every scientist should be
Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Do more research
Yeah right, it is indeed very humble to claim that you have a solution to a pure mystery, without providing any evidence or making a sound argument, denying your most immediate experience and acting according to it, while claiming that you deny it, in line with bothering to give reasons that have a goal to convince people, while your thesis is eliminating reasons and the possibility that anybody can be convinced. Very humble indeed😂😂
@@oioi9372 You didn’t choose to write this, it was determined by forces outside of your control :)
@@oioi9372
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
I'm still not sure what he even means by "free will". Is he just advocating determinism...? Or just counter-arguing the concept of "soul"...? We never seem to go down to epistemology with Sapolsky, and that's the thing that annoys me most about these discussions. They seem to wander around a vague idea of free will without ever attempting to pin it down to what we actually mean by those words.
How much does one choose his own actions - in a nutshell
his arguments are the same as Bertrand Russell's view of determinism and the lack of free will, just he's used biological experiments to justify it. I think its very interesting discussion, but neither I nor it seems he knows what are the philosophical and physical lessons from this. The Nihilist question is really quite profound and disturbing
I'd argue it's a weak form of determinism.
the objective is to never drill down to the root, or else the obvious motive of this philosophy is to deny accountability. It is the ultimate victim of circumstances mentality.
"Theres no free will and what to do about that" we cant do anything about that if our will is not free. Its just such an odd thing to write
Read Spinoza… not easy , more than difficult .. but such a brillant mind . Free will does not exist but it does not mean that we are not responsible … it is not because we don’t know all the causes that determine who we are that we do not have to choose between different options…
As a depressed person I disagree with Alex's argument that being able to see getting up from bed as my accomplishment and I feeling like I deserve some kind of praise for that is motivating. For me it's quite the opposite: letting myself understand that me being powerless and laying in bed is not due to me being not motivated enough but simply having a shit luck with the circumstances that shaped my brain is way more helpful. It's like Dr Sapolsky says: it brings me up by not blaming me for my situation. Knowing that it's much easier for me to get up from the bed and get some fresh air. But that's just me.
👍🏻
All the best to you, with your depression. It's horrible. I hope you get some respite from it soon. I've been depressed for years, on and off. A simple, laughable-at-the-time, tip helped me get up in the mornings. Someone suggested setting an alarm on my phone for, in my case, 9am, and putting the phone in the kitchen, where I would have to either get up to, at least turn it off, and go back to bed; or to lie there suffering (further) with the annoying alarm ringing away in the kitchen. I opted, from the off, to get up to turn the thing off, and go back to bed. But before long I was just staying up once I'd get up to turn it off.
I've managed, somehow, to stick to this 9am rise. When I am tempted (often sorely) to go back to bed once I've got up and turned the alarm off, I tell myself to do three small tasks, and then, if I still feel the need to go and crawl back under the covers I will at least be three tasks ahead. The tasks could be as simple as; opening the bill I've been putting off opening, even if I don't actually deal with it fully; or putting the dirty dishes in an orderly pile by the sink (actually washing them might be too tall an order); going to the bathroom (this might sound crazy to some people but when depressed a person can lie there desperate for the bathroom but feeling so paralysed, so rooted to the spot, that they just don't go, sometimes for hours. I've heard of some poor souls who even end up soiling themselves.
That effect is so awesome, congrats! This is an example exactly in line with the witchcraft, epilepsy etc. examples from the video.
Atleast you are super intelligent. This is some good news for you beside your depression…
OMG I LOVE SAPOLSKY IVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS
This channel brought on Sapolsky say no more.
I came to this conclusion independently when I was coming of age. I myself am neurodivergent and that has caused a lot of issues in my life. For a long time I felt like something was wrong with me and that I had done something wrong to deserve all of it until I eventually realized it just was. No one was responsible, that's just how I came into this universe. It was a profound realization not only for it allowing me to forgive myself and move forward but for giving me that same compassion towards others.
But on a deeper metaphysical level it's true. From the beginning of the universe itself all things were set in motion. Stuff happened and we got quarks, gluons, electrons, photons, etc... trace the casal chain of everything that exists down to the electrons your neurons are using to communicate right now and it's not hard to see that the notion of free will is utterly ridiculous.
I'm not alone in that reasoning, in much more elegant terms than I did that's essentially the logic of Spinoza who Sapolsky himself has referenced on this topic a few times.
I think it's telling how we frame this discussion. Because as we do we are acting as if free will is the simple and obvious conclusion when it really isn't? So let's ask why do we have free will? And if you Google that you're going to get a whole lot of theological answers...
So God gave us free will and why is that? It's literally a gotcha, sorry your master and creator who is all powerful isn't responsible for your problems buddy nope that's completely on you. Um, what?
We wouldn't listen to people 2000 years ago about Healthcare or physics, so why should we not at least reflect on what answers they give us to such deep questions instead of taking their assumptions as obvious truth?
I think it's time we start openly discussing free will so God has no responsibility and also he's judging us to eternal punishment as the comical bullshit it is.
I don't care what you conclude about the unknowable, just use your fucking brain
@randomchannel-px6ho
I can't imagine how it is a to live with a dysfunction of the brain. Yes, to feel compassion is the least we can do.
it's the same as asking "why do we have consciousness?" and you get a bunch of theological answers.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
For what it's worth, the bible doesn't teach that we have free will, it is an inference some make, I agree that the concept is used to attribute blame.
The bible teaches Grace +Love
@@iaindcosta if your actions aren't free then why are you ultimately responsible for your choices?
This is the most awesome thing I've heard since the last thing I was determined to find awesome.
Haha, this determined me to rofl a little 😂
Encounter of a brilliant aged person and and a brilliant but ageing young man, is very interesting, thank you both.
I did research on cardiovascular epigenetics for some time. We studied hypertension in mice and sheep offspring after inducing forms of stress in their parents and even grandparents. It was quite interesting because we found some correlation between them. During my write up I recall reading about 2nd generation effects from people who underwent stress during the holocaust and finding that these people did indeed have a higher probability of having hypertension!
The irrational hungry judge effect revisited: Simulations reveal that the magnitude of the effect is overestimated
Andreas Glöckner
The hungry judge effect is certainly interesting but it's a bit overstated than what it really is.
So, judges being studied in a hangry simulator didn't act as hangry as judges who didn't know they'd be observed? This seems unsurprising? 🤔
If this still displayed the bias despite knowing they were being studied, that seems to indicate the effect on their behavior is comparatively powerful. 🤷♂
By “simulations reveal” you mean there exist some articles that posit that the magnitude is overstated. If you read them (the articles, not the useless web summaries), you’ll see they are interesting, but not overwhelmingly strong. No trump cards here. The judge effect is upheld.
@@petermsiegel573hardly… if you read them, you see that they are much more convincing than anything said on the matter in this interview.
I’m glad that the donkey is raised here. It needs no determining factor to choose which food because brains do not operate under classical computational principles. If they did, nothing would work.
@@captainskylight942 well that’s true, but immaterial- you can’t replicate a detailed set of papers in a short example. The question is whether the jury’s still out on the simulations: it is. I know quite a bit about the methodology and it IS suggestive (as I said) but there’s so much evidence to the contrary that I wouldn’t take it to court. Simulations are tricky- they can be very precise, without being representative of what they purport to simulate.
We don't make choices, we make up stories to explain what's happening.
As an empath that just put myself purposefully in harms way by working in a homeless shelter- I believe my "goodness" is randomness and the effects that trauma had on me. That fact doesn't make caring for people feel any less special for me. I can have intellectual thoughts and still be biologically human with emotions and motives that work against that intellect.
This is so unsettling and comforting at the same time. But like Alex said, facts don't care about my feelings. It is what it is.
Sabine Hossenfelder made a video on Free Will with the title: "You don't have free will, but don't worry" which is also great. Her anti-flat-earth video is also great as she doesn't just bash those idiots but actually tries to understand their position, where they come from and where they went wrong.
@@Bunny99snah, mid channel
@@Bunny99sisn't she a physicist though?
That was fun, unfortunately I disagree with most things here. Be accountable, be a better person, do the best you can possibly do.
He isn't saying not to
@@arcadia44445What he IS saying is that if you don’t choose to go the route the OP is suggesting, it’s okay because it was always going to happen that way and anything negative that comes from it isn’t your fault. That’s a terrible message to put out into society. The end point of that kind of logic is the abolition of justice and personal safety.
@@kevindavis5966 Sapolsky has never said not to put criminals in prison. Just that you don't view them as having chosen to do bad things, just that they are as much of a victim of circumstance as anyone else. If someone does things that disrupt society, it makes sense to take steps to prevent them from doing harm to society as a reaction to that. No spiritual moral judgement required.
@@cabellocorto5586 But separating someone from society is punishment, as it entails removing one’s freedom, even if it is for the good of society as a whole. So punishment IS required in a reality where there is no free will, so is society committing an immoral act in protecting itself from individuals whose actions were not their own responsibility? Claiming that free will does not exist and therefore punishment is not moral seems nonsensical in that regard.
@@kevindavis5966 There's a difference though. You're taking someone who has done evil things out of society so they cannot do evil things anymore, rather than taking retribution on a slight. You're not punishing the person because of an emotional desire to see them suffer, in this framework you're just removing them from where they can do harm. It's not about the punishment of the individual, it's about the collective and potential reduction of harm.
I F*cking love honest and humble scientists! The Darwin of our times- Robert Sapolsky
Great video.
Robert is definitely one of the greatest minds of the last 100 years. I would have like to hear a conversation between him, carl sagen, and christopher hitchens.