"This is a book about the garbage collector." Have watched a few interviews with Professor Sapolsky about Determinism and thought this was the most original insight about the book so far. Good work Michael.
C'mon- Sapolsky blames the very thing free will is dependent up, which is external stimuli, as that which negates it. He's saying that since free will doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's not free will. He ignores the fact that absolutely nothing can exist independently from everything else. It's a circular argument. He's an absolutist.
Atheist religion: Men can menstruate and give birth Me: I believe in men giving birth as much as I believe in atheists _not_ being genocidal incestous pdf files. I have seen zero evidence for either being true.
I am grateful for the collective sequence of events that led to Robert Sapolsky's always fascinating, clear, and entertaining delivery of important information.
Chapters (Powered by ChapterMe) - 00:00 - Intro 03:14 - Sapolsky's book "Determined" explores determinism's challenges and social justice impacts. 10:17 - The book's focus: life's unfairness, luck's role, and debunking meritocracy myths. 18:23 - Criticizes compatibilists for holding onto free will for comfort over coherence. 20:29 - Thought experiment on infidelity admission highlights determinism's emotional conflict. 22:46 - Struggle between determinism's acceptance and human need for agency. 23:41 - Exploring life rewind: deterministic universe versus learning from the past. 26:23 - Chaotic ISM's role in unpredictability and determinism. 28:42 - Learning influences future behavior within a determined past. 32:14 - Genetics, environment's impact on behavior, exemplified by addiction. 43:42 - Challenging free will by questioning intent and understanding causality. 47:20 - Brain injuries, tumors, ACE impact on antisocial behavior. 48:53 - Higher ACE scores increase antisocial behavior likelihood. 52:24 - Stress's effect on emotional regulation and long-term impact. 54:30 - Socioeconomic status affects early-life brain development. 56:03 - Brain scans of criminals reveal biological factors in behavior. 01:11:09 - Decisions influenced by external factors like stress, beyond consciousness. 01:19:23 - Empathy over judgment for issues like obesity, considering genetics. 01:20:47 - Life aspects often influenced by uncontrollable factors. 01:26:59 - Myth of closure through capital punishment; complexity of emotions. 01:31:50 - Public health approach to violence: containment and root cause understanding. 01:33:41 - Sapolsky's opposition to capital punishment, citing wrongful convictions. 01:34:55 - Advocacy for humane criminal justice, focusing on understanding, not punishment. 01:37:08 - Promoting a Scandinavian model for dealing with dangerous individuals. 01:40:02 - Advocating rationality in societal problem-solving, emphasizing empathy. 01:41:23 - Existential view: no ultimate meaning in an indifferent causal universe. 01:44:54 - Different levels of analysis 01:46:34 - Feynman point on nature adding instead of taking away anything 01:47:47 - What's the bigger picture here? Utopia 01:49:38 - Good justice now when alive and Free will issue 01:52:02 - Outro
Mr. Shermer, thank you for what you do. I don’t always agree with you, but I love your consistency and authenticity. The world needs people like you; you’re a reliable compass of sorts. 🙏
Blame and praise make no sense whatsoever. How long will it take for that realization and understanding to percolate through society and have a significant impact on how we deal with each other?
When I was a kid my mom had a small plaque which had a saying from a Native American. It said, “never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins.” And since we can never really be another person we must drop praise and blame and revenge. Society and individuals can still protect themselves by dealing with dangerous people and encouraging those with talent. Just get the moralizing and religion out of it. It’s a matter of function.
Of course, if people continue moralizing or referencing religion it's only because they have to. They have no choice in the matter because they have no free will.
@@davidhouse195yeah, the argument seems recursive. We should stop moralizing and praising and blaming, and instead start moralizing and praising and blaming BUT NICELY. To paraphrase Conan the Barbarian, if free will is an illusion, then I am part of that illusion. There doesn't seem to be any way to behave as if the universe is deterministic that is functionality any different than believing in free will.
I drove out of the work carpark just after turning 40 and thought to myself "if I keep drinking like this, I'll be a diabetic by 50". Now 60, I haven't had a drink for 20 years. I often wonder where that thought came from.
That was a fortunate thought! I haven't had a single big revelation like that, but I do remember thinking, "Instead of berating myself over not having enough willpower to do the things I want to do, I have to figure out how to make what I want easier than doing what I don't want."
Thirty-three years ago, when he was six years old, my son was diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome by a well regarded pediatric neurologist. (It was an early age for diagnosis at that time.) The doctor said to me "he has absolutely no control over anything he does." He also advised me that "he can benefit most from an extremely structured environment." In the following years when I met with school advisors or talked with close friends I would advise them that my son had "absolutely no control over anything he does" and that an extremely structured environment had to be created for him, they would look at me with horror and disbelief to the point where I stopped saying it because everyone, without exception, looked at me as being an aberrant mother.
Free will is an illusion and here is the argumentation: From the lense of neuroscience:
Marcus Du Sautoy (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science) participates in an experiment conducted by John-Dylan Haynes (Professor at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin) that attempts to find the neurological basis for decision making. Short summary: The experiment explores the relationship between free will, decision-making, and brain activity. Marcus Du Sautoy participates in an experiment in Berlin where they have to randomly decide to press either a left or right button. Brain scans and computer records track when the decision is made in the brain and when the button is physically pressed. The results reveal that up to six seconds before Marcus Du Sautoy consciously makes a decision, their brain has already made that choice. Specific patterns of brain activity can even predict which button will be pressed. This finding challenges the notion of free will, suggesting that unconscious brain activity significantly shapes our decisions before we become consciously aware of them. The experiment also delves into the nature of consciousness. It argues against dualism-the idea that the mind and brain are separate entities. Instead, it posits that consciousness is an aspect of brain activity. The unconscious brain activity is in harmony with a person's beliefs and desires, so it's not forcing you to do something against your will. Marcus Du Sautoy finds the results shocking, especially the idea that someone else can predict their decision six seconds before they are consciously aware of making it. The experiment raises profound questions about the nature of free will, consciousness, and the deterministic mechanisms that may govern our decisions. From the lense of pysics: In order to question the belief in free will, one can conduct experiments and contemplations. Take an action you are convinced you performed and reverse-engineer it until you realize you had no control over it. This leads to the conclusion that all actions in life are the same, and the notion of claiming ownership falls away, so free will is non-existent. By 'reverse-engineering an action,' I mean tracing back the steps that led you to make a specific decision. Upon close examination, you'll find that your choice was influenced by a series of past events and conditions over which you had no control, and that your choice didn't originate from a single point. One could argue that everything originates from the Big Bang, making us essentially biological robots. This realization may prompt you to reconsider how much 'free will' you actually possess, as your actions are shaped by factors beyond your control, both in the past and likely in the future as well. So you can summarize everything is a happening according to cosmic laws.
It came out last Tuesday Oct 17 but I got a head start a week before. (I work in a bookstore, we received it a few days earlier.) It is a compelling, quite convincing read, for me anyway. @@bc7026
We worship the monetarily wealthy criminals while criminalizing the poor unsuccessful ones, while at the same time instilling the mantra that greed is good! & we wonder why we're so effed up!!!
Hello to you both Love your work Robert. Currently think we are wee waves looking to connect with the magnificence of the ocean. Super grateful for these shared conversations. 💜
The story is told that George Mitchell who was sent to broker peace in Northern Ireland discovered that Ian Paisley who led the Protestants and John Hume, the Catholics both loved fishing. He was able to bring them together and out of the “othering” that separated them and their communities because he found something that they both loved in common. It humanised each in the eyes of the other. After which, both men discovered that they each passionately cared about the people of Northern Ireland and even if they argued about how to govern neither doubted the others integrity so, they never fell out. I wonder who can do the same today in the conflict in the Middle East. Where would we find a statesman of the ilk of George Mitchell today? Because that statesman or woman is sorely needed.
Well Robert, you have succeeded by at least a third, as having read Behave a few years ago, my mind has been unravelling all sorts of revelations around having no free will. This idea is soooo clear in my mind. I’m a failed feature film writer/director (in that I still, at 51, have not managed to get a feature film off the ground despite getting very close three times) and my interest in human behaviour that led me to reading your book, came from wanting to write and tell better stories. Character was my weakest skill in writing. It took me a while to get it. Most screenwriting books explained it in a way I struggled to comprehend. I’m somewhat dyslexic and have a much more dominant right hemisphere (I’m convinced some of my left hemisphere is damaged or defected). Lisa Croll’s book Wired For Story however, was the first book on storytelling that explained ‘character’ in a way I understood immediately …and it’s not a coincidence that she used brain science to hook me. To me writing characters is very much about understanding no free will, but in reverse, in the sense that if you want your character to behave in a certain way, you have to understand their key past experiences and/or biological traits that would convincingly lead them to inevitable behaviours. The better you get at doing this the more emotive the story, because the more human and true to life it becomes. This is just one of many thoughts I have and want to share with you. Hearing you talk about your new book, which I can’t wait to read, has compelled me to write this comment in a rambling stream of excited adrenaline. I’m so grateful that the universe unravelled in such a way that it compelled you to pursue such a proposition. Despite its controversy, I’m convinced you are on to something here and look forward to hearing more from you on this topic in the future! ❤😊
Keep writing. It took me 40 years to unravel a dream that led me to the origin of my anxiety neurosis. 🙃 Our minds work and interpret our conflicts and reality at the pace of snails. I'm older than you - you have ample time. ❤
Your description of how difficult it is to write characters inhibited by your dyslexia which I can relate to I flashed on the fact that many of the greatest actors to enhance their performance invent highly detailed backstories on their characters.
@@HkFinn83 I enjoyed it. I appreciate how the author explored a wide array of angles so it wouldn't just be like every other book on free will. As for the sleep book, that's amazing.
@@noeditbookreviews sounds interesting, did you read that popular book on sleep a couple years ago, Matthew something was the author. Was on a lot of podcasts.
Bravo. Thank you for helping with actually getting closer to the truth of our behavior. What hubris we have that we are actually choosing what we will. What we will is a consequence of everything before we were even manifested. 🙏🏾❤️🔥 thank you Michael and Robert. I bow down in reverence.
I've realized that I may have no free will, but knowing that has allowed me to "guide" the way I react and grow from new variables. Thank you Robert for being an influence in my life that has sparked self reflection.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 the future can be guided. Since we know that everything is the result of the moments before, we can guide those moments to in influence the future of today. If you get really high and think it through, it'll make a lot of sense! Edit: we can be the variables of the future. We have to be, but having this knowledge allows me to at least attempt to be a positive influence on those I interact with, and by extension everything else they interact with. Just because it's a determined world doesn't mean we can't influence it for the better. Determinism is proof that we can change. This could allow us to change with intent. It's all about seeing the present as the futures past. Perspective! Use it or lose it! One more edit to clarify: if no one had ever figured out that epilepsy wasn't caused by demonic possession our present would be different. Those pioneers of the human condition had an affect on our present. What were the conditions that allowed them to figure it out and to convince others? Those are the types of conditions we need to foster so the future can grow in a positive direction. Are you really saying that we can't change future conditions? EVERYTHING changes future conditions! Sorry, I'm ranting, but I think on this a lot. I will say one more thing. I'm grateful for everything in my collective past that allows me to think this way.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 but when you read a book those ideas changes your brain in a sense everything is guiding your brain including what you hear and read . Some ideas tend to be convincing to some people bc how their brain was built up to that time due to outside factors since they were born but still its convincing to them and they feel guided by those ideas
I grew up lower middle class, with working class parents. My mom finished high school when I was a kid & my dad never finished. I’m an Emmy winning television writer & playwright who only went to grad school on a fellowship. Oh, and I’m bipolar. How did that happen?
I suppose the question you could ask is - why do 100s or 1000s of other people in what appear to be disadvantaged positions with mental health issues fail to be Emmy winning TV writers?
@@JB.zero.zero.1 I was driven to make narrative order out of chaos because of the violence & adversity I grew up with. And I was also diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder. All of it contributed to my compulsion to write. Would you just call me lucky?
I enjoy Micheal’s interview style in this video, you can tell his brain developed a good sense of placing bias aside, it makes for a good conversation.
00:00 🎙️ Michael Shermer promotes the December 1st-3rd weekend conference by the Skeptic Society, featuring live podcast episodes and discussions with notable figures like Jared Diamond and Michael Shellenberger. 00:28 🌍 Michael Shellenberger, a controversial figure, has expertise in environmentalism, nuclear power, homelessness, and more, making him a significant voice in today's issues. 01:09 🗞️ Michael Shellenberger's focus on independent journalism versus mainstream media aligns with the conference's theme of evaluating trustworthiness in journalism. 01:54 👥 The conversation shifts to a previous encounter between Michael Shermer and Robert Sapolsky at a conference in Mexico, reflecting on the unique atmosphereof the event. 02:20 🌐 The discussion touches on attempts to replicate the TED conference model and explores other successful events like "How the Light Gets In" in England, blending various elements. 03:14 📚 Introduction of Robert Sapolsky, a distinguished author and professor at Stanford University, known for works like "A Primate’s Memoir" and "Behave." 05:05 🧠 Wrestling with the concept of free will and determinism, Sapolsky acknowledges the complex folk intuitions surrounding the topic, emphasizing its implications on criminality and personal achievements. 08:17 🌎 Sapolsky presents a thought-provoking scenario at a graduation ceremony, illustrating the role of luck and circumstances in shaping individuals' lives. 10:17 🧬 Determinism, as defined by Sapolsky, encapsulates the influence of biological and environmental factors, emphasizing the lack of conscious control over one's trajectory in life. 11:09 💡 Sam Harris echoes Sapolsky's stance, asserting that thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes beyond conscious control, challenging the notion of free will. 16:59 🤯 Sapolsky explores the tension between accepting determinism intellectually and navigating day-to-day life, highlighting the deep-rooted human desire for agency and its impact on mental well-being. 18:52 🎭 The thought experiment involving John and Jane Doe vividly illustrates the challenge of reconciling determinism with emotional reactions, showcasing the difficulty in fully embracing the concept. 23:56 🔄 Determinism vs. Free Will: Sapolsky delves into the debate of determinism versus free will, considering if the universe operates in a predetermined way or if individuals have the capacity to make independent choices based on learning and reflection. 24:23 🌌 Block Universe Theory: Sapolsky introduces the concept of the "Block Universe," where past, present, and future events are fixed, suggesting that every possible outcome has already occurred, and we are simply experiencing a predetermined trajectory. 25:03 🔄 Learning from Experience: Sapolsky highlights the potential for personal growth and change through learning from past experiences. He emphasizes that even though the past is determined, individuals can alter their future behavior by reflecting on and applying new insights. 26:23 🌪 Chaotic Systems and Unpredictability: Sapolsky explores chaotic systems as a source of unpredictability in the universe. He distinguishes unpredictability from true undetermined outcomes, emphasizing that chaotic systems remain deterministic despite their complexity. 28:42 🔄 Self-Determination: Sapolsky argues that individuals play a role in determining their future behavior by engaging with their environment, learning, and adapting. While the past is determined, the process of learning and reflection allows for self-determination. 30:50 🧬 Biological Influences on Behavior: Sapolsky illustrates how biological factors, such as genetics, brain structure, and neural connections, contribute to an individual's behavioral tendencies. These factors influence how one responds to external stimuli and experiences. 35:51 🏠 Environmental and Upbringing Impact: Sapolsky emphasizes the significant role of one's environment, upbringing, and early experiences in shaping behavior. He provides examples of how these factors influence decisions and reactions later in life. 43:16 📚 Dan Dennett's Definition of Free Will: Sapolsky critiques Christian List's definition of free will, emphasizing that it focuses on proximal notions of intent, intention formation, and alternative actions. He contends that this definition overlooks the crucial question of where intent originates. 47:20 🧠 Individuals on Death Row with concussive head trauma history: 25-75% have frontal cortex damage, potentially influencing behavior. 47:34 👥 "Edge case" scenarios: Factors like brain tumors or head injuries can influence behavior, especially in certain legal contexts. 47:57 🩸 Early-life experiences and antisocial behavior: Those growing up in harsh conditions can show similar predispositions as those with brain tumors, but it's harder to pinpoint specific causes. 49:08 📋 Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) score: A higher score correlates with increased likelihood of antisocial behavior, unplanned pregnancies, substance abuse, and mood disorders. 50:04 🧠 Singular vs. Multiple causes: It's easier to attribute behavior to one significant cause (e.g., brain tumor) than to multiple complex factors. 52:24 🧠 Stress effects on frontal cortex: Stress leads to frontal cortex atrophy, impacting impulse control and decision-making. 53:50 🤰 Prenatal influence on brain development: Socioeconomic status and maternal stress levels affect fetal brain development. 54:30 🧠 Influence of socioeconomic status on fetal brain development: Early-life stress levels are a significant predictor of later frontal cortex development. 56:32 🤔 The concept of "higher order volition": Some argue that free will emerges at a higher level from convergent neural networks and complex interactions. 57:50 🥊 Example of George Foreman's transformation: He redirected his violent tendencies towards boxing, demonstrating the role of individual decisions in the faceof adversity. 58:33 💡 Emergent complexity: Emergence is a powerful concept, but it doesn't provide a basis for free will at the individual neuronal level. 01:06:49 🔄 Emergence and individual building blocks: Emergence relies on simple, predictable rules applied to individual components, not enhanced abilities of the components themselves. 01:10:54 🧠 Our decisions are influenced by complex factors beyond consciousness and self-awareness. Stress, for example, can significantly impact our choices, demonstrating that our actions are not solely driven by deliberate thought. 01:12:19 🧪 Neuronal energetics play a crucial role in decision-making. Different brain regions have varying energy demands, with the frontal cortex being particularly resource-intensive. This understanding sheds light on why certain choices are made. 01:17:21 🚫 The concept of "closure" through capital punishment is complex and not universally effective. While some victims' families may find relief, others may not, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the emotional impact. 01:22:11 ⚖️ Balancing retributive and restorative justice is a delicate task. Understanding the underlying causes of criminal behavior is crucial for creating effective preventative measures, in addition to addressing immediate concerns of public safety. 01:33 📜 The death penalty is mostly abolished worldwide, except in some U.S. states like Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, and Florida. 01:34 ⚖️ Sapolsky opposes capital punishment due to its potential for error and reluctance to grant the state power over life and death. 01:36 🔄 Sapolsky advocates for a more humane approach to dealing with dangerous individuals, based on research and understanding rather than punishment. 01:39 🌍 Sapolsky suggests adopting a Truth and Reconciliation model to resolve conflicts, similar to what was implemented in Northern Ireland and South Africa. 01:41 📚 He emphasizes the importance of recognizing the inherent value of individuals and promoting empathy, even in the absence of ultimate cosmic meaning. 01:44 💡 Sapolsky encourages embracing feelings and experiences without over-analyzing them, as they contribute to our humanity and enrich our lives. 01:47 💭 He acknowledges the dualistic nature of humans, capable of understanding mechanistic explanations while still valuing emotional experiences and moral imperatives. 01:50 🧠 Sapolsky discusses the challenge of perceiving our own brain activity and how it contributes to the sense of agency and free will. 01:51 🆓 He contends that recognizing the limitations of free will can lead to greater empathy and a more compassionate society. 01:53 🔍 Sapolsky advocates for continuous self-reflection, even when it challenges established beliefs, as a means to foster personal growth and understanding.
I think luck and circumstance plays a huge role too. Being trapped forces people to make decisions they would not have made if they had other options. Drinking may be the only source of escape from pain for soneone.
I dont agree, I am assuming you are talking about becoming a millionaire for example. Somebody that is grit will become millionaire anyway, luck is there after, luck is about making $120 million instead of $70 million. I am trying to simplify but I dont like my previous example... Lets use example of becoming a pilot, I believe 90% of people can do that, only difference is that somebody will take 9 months, somebody 4.5 years, somebody 82 months... At the end whats the difference?
@@maksim_arsic i disagree. Not even 1% of people that want to be a pilot can. Think of the 5 billion people living in poverty in india, all of africa and other regions of the 3rd world and even the US. They can't even find food and shelter. And, the 90% of females in Islamic countries forced into marriage and motherhood by the age of 12. No matter how much they may want an education, it will never happen. No, not everyone has a chance in hell of becomming a millionairre no matter how hard they try. It requires people giving you opportunities and being in the right place at the right time. For instance, most women, obese people, unattractive people and introverts have substantial bias against them being given opportunities even for hiring. Research has proven it.
@@user-qm4pw7dc9n There is 1.4 billion in India, not 5. They speak english since childhood. I agree with difficulties you mention, and this book doesnt explain how should you live, it only explains to you that there is no scientific proof of free will, therefore I agree that people should tell each other what to fix and advices, for example from get a haircut to that they should break up or save money there invest there... Same as monkey clean each other from hair bugs... But in India standard is different, therefore having $100 000 there might make person happier then 100 billion in USA. And still I think that grit is gonna make a person more succesful then others no matter where. Another thing is how to fix procrastination, same method as in military, however you can, once you done hard thing, every next time you gonna feel less and less lazy... Another example from my life, I was once at Arnold Swarcenegers house, and security told me and to another 10 workers that he think none of ous will have house like Arnold. I was like: the house is 10000sq feet and it's worth 20 million because of location, made of wood... For $200k-400k I can make the same house in Europe or even for less in India for example...
"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." -Albert Einstein
@@emmettochrach-konradi2785, Yeah, that's a nope. Absolutely none of this data supports a supernatural magic man fantasy conclusion. In fact the neuroscience involved refutes most of what theists think about the brain and the soul. Keep your made up fantasies out of science. They don't have and business being there.
I love how Mr Shermer is so studious and the prof is so focused and the dog is just going crazy making all that noise with the toy. Why did humans and dogs evolve so parallel and how lucky are we that they did? Notice, no one corrected the dog, they just accepted his behavior as dog normal behavior and ignored it.
Yeah, I'm still not sold. It's possible but, there's just too much assumption on things we don't yet understand. My favourite stance is dualistic in nature but, this still all boils down to; I don't smegging know.
@@oscarcorbiere2899Lol. And in the time before that, courts would 'report' and 'assess' witches, lepers and epileptics and 'treat' them with a death sentence, with public approval. As time goes by, the science and zeitgeist is moving in one direction, the direction towards the reality of determinism.
I would do anything to make the idea Sapolsky is putting forth main stream. If you truly believe what’s he’s arguing then there’s no one who ever has or will live that deserves to be hated or suffer just for the sake of it. Everyone who’s ever done anything wrong is just sort of sick and unlucky on a very deep level and if we can help them have good lives without hurting others then we should. I’d do anything for us to live in a world where that was the main position. So much cruelty and horror could be avoided.
Such a great conversation. I've been thinking about this for the last 10 years. My family and friends don't seem to know what the fuck im talking about. Best one sentence I've heard (from Sam Harris' book and lectures) ... "in order to control your next thought... you would have to think it ... before you think it".
Alternatively, your choice to focus your attention is where your free will primarily sits. So, you didn't control what thought turned up out of your sub-conscious, but you did decide to think or not, and that decision will lead to different thoughts. Harris is refuting a type of free will that no-one is advocating.
Sapolsky is a materialist buh foon. He doesn't understand anything about consciousness. Even the simple difference between witnessing and choosing eludes him.
I haven't read Shellenberger's 'Apocalypse Never' yet, but from what I know about it, I find it confusing as hell. But based on your endorsement(?), I'll give it a fair hearing.
Damn, Shermer brushed right up to the question I was most interested in hearing Sapolsky's answer and then he muddied the waters. I really wanted to hear about Free Will in regards to the Block Theory Time.🤔
Free will is a mental state; it embodies a Coexistent Conscious Awareness of Contingent Freedom, situated almost at the ground zero of consciousness. This awareness often dissolves during meditation practices or intense mental activities, as the focus of consciousness shifts. Recognizing the existence of such a mental state is crucial; its functions warrant thorough research, and its societal impact, especially in terms of cultivating autonomy, responsibility, and law, should be extensively debated.
Sapolsky isn’t arguing against the idea that people choose to do things. He’s arguing against the idea that anyone can choose to do things in a way where that choice isn’t a product of factors over which one had no control over.
Even though we're deteministic machines, we can behave non-deterministicly by taking a random input source and use that in decision making process. When such random addition changes our decision against our training, we have the illusion of free will. The random behaviors throughout our life gives us extra training points and is essential to our training. When the source of randomness is affected by quantum randomness, our behavior is not deterministic. Regular randomness with deteministic nature ( a coin toss for example) is enough to help us train better and still give us illusion of free will that in occasion we act against our training or what the deteministic part of us suggests.
I dont agree, that random input source is short term. I can give you some random book and tell you that is the best book and all rules of life are in this book and you just need to follow and you will be a millionaire, investor, family guy, friend, etc. It is still about your predetirmin genes that would make you, or not, to trust me, to base your life on that book, to follow thru, or not. Thank you!
@@maksim_arsic when you make a binary decision, you calculate the cost of taking an action or not taking the action. The randomness here is to add a random value to calculations of costs, a value you could not know a priori. Once you get book and read it, at time of making any decision based on your new morals, you still add a random value to your cost calculation. The weight you put on the value of such randomness could also deterministic. Nevertheless, your behavior given your state of mind is non-deterministic. In cases where the cost differences are large, your actions are mostly deterministic.
@@JesterMax24 an observer may know the deterministic nature of a random input you use and still that input be random from your point of view. Only quantum randomness is not deterministic most likely not even for your god. Random processes are affecting our evolution of our universe and without them, intelligent life is not possible.
I wonder how Joscha Bach’s idea of the self as a simulation fits into the topics discussion? I’m leaning towards the idea that the “self” simulation, itself runs simulations of possible futures and then ‘decides’ which to go with. So yes, no real free will but ability to change future behaviour?
(1:43:18) "This strikes me as an outrageous thing to suggest. It doesn't really matter ? Surely it matters to the torture victims whether they're being tortured. It doesn't require that this make some cosmic difference to the internal significance of the universe for it to matter whether a human being is tortured. It matters to them. It matters to their family". - Shelly Kagan
I did not smoke; I did not drink, and I was not diabetic when I gave birth to my children. My mom the same for her childbirths. If you're rating success by how much money one has, I'm not exactly broke. I have absolutely everything that I want. Literally things for me just falls out of the sky. I picked a really great husband to work with. 38 yrs together. I convinced my mom to move in with me. Gave her a floor in our house. Thank you God, most important need is love. I got plenty love. Free will lol, Nobody tells me or my soul what to do. I have mental disorder. A.D.H.D and O.C.P.D= crazy connection lol The obsessive-compulsive personality disorder literally makes me have more ideas than any library. I constantly have an influx of ideas. . I can't make up my mind whether I like something or don't like something. So I just keep everything and bounce back-and-forth it makes me look like a pack rat, but I'm not. Need something I got it. My family loves how I do things. From campfire cooking to gourmet cooking I got it. I am not afraid of death because we do not die; We shed this body like snake skin, and move on. Best vacation I have ever had is traveling through my third eye.
It's because we don't have free will that we can have freedom.to envision who we could could be within the settled boundaries of our moral instincts Who would want to turn off their conscience and collectively have the pursuit of evil for it's own self gratifying sake a norm to live by.
Thankbyou both for a brilliant talk. If anyone imagines that he/she has freewill prove it by using it to fall in love or fall out of love, or become a theist or atheist at will.
I was kicked out of graduate school at MIT and got a job as a technician with Smith Kline Galaxo, (French then) .l decided l will get a PhD even if l am 80 years old. Within 5 years Smith Kline sent me to lmperial College London to obtain a PhD..Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal gold medalist Cambridge USA.
Michael, great identification of the book being about the garbage collector. Exactly. I don't personally think Sapolsky's argument is actually about the existence of free will as much as it is about a desire to be kinder and more understanding. Ironically, if we truly have no free will, then we cannot choose to do otherwise than be mean and domineering and judgmental. But I don't think that's the case. I think that, thankfully, we CAN choose to treat people better, BECAUSE we have free will.
I’m listening to this podcast having had many unfortunate things happen to me. So this makes me feel way better. I do still wish there were a god though, so that makes me feel bad. I like the idea of having a second chance and living forever.
I’m beginning to understand this. Makes me wonder how then does one get control over an unhealthy relationship. Seem to keep doing the same things over and over
“He also accepts that Buddhist no-self notion entails the absence of the possibility of free will: 'If ultimately there are no persons but only physical and mental events in a complex causal series, then the ultimate truth about “us” must be that “we” are not free”
If I recall, it was sri nisargadatta maharaj who talked about "the absolute" ... a step above god, that nothing is happening and no one is witnessing anything
Great video, and as always Robert is fantastic. Thing that I always notice in any discussion around free will, is people will almost always (always) slip in the words `mostly have no control over` or `very little`. Surely, it is all, or nothing, assuming that the reasoning behind the apparent impossibility of having `free will` is correct (physics). This must surely also extend to thoughts and feelings. Down to the last detail. If not, we have invoked something which exists outside the realm of physics as we think we know it. Quantum physics however could prove to be more relevant in the realms of consciousness than we might imagine currently. It's fair to say we should be beginning to know enough to know how very little we know. Dark matter is another rather massive elephant in the room. Everything seems inextricably connected. Spooky (at a distance :))
This theory does offer a charitable view of shortcomings. But it also takes away a self improvement option from a self reflective person. As when a person can observe their own shortcomings and have a sense of a realistic option to improve themselve at their own will. Giving that up is a very big price that this theory is asking for.
Having the capacity for self-reflection with an ability to make meaningful change is built into the understanding. A person who is predisposed to push in a specific direction will do so regardless.
@@toriokras1582 I haven't heard him deny self-reflection; when a mind is exposed to "new information" and "has the capacity" to make that kind of analysis/change. A mind predisposed to analyse information in that way would clearly be necessary - along with the ability to change. He talks at length about predetermining factors that directly influence the mind and it's functioning in this regard. I understand it's confounding 🙃🙂
@@JB.zero.zero.1 his argument has a glitch that's the only reason it sounds confounding. Neocortex is the part that enables choice and free will. Free from what? Free from the default decisions that older parts of the brain below neocortex make. When neocortex work well a willful choice can interviene and change a default decision. Sometimes neocortex tissue is not allowing all the neocortex functions. But that doesn't mean that neocortex in general doesn't work. Same as if the tissue in the part of the brain that participates in forming speech is damaged a person will have trouble with speech but it doesn't mean that brains in general don't have a capacity for speech. Choice and free will are also a function of a certain part of the brain in this sense similar to speech. One can track how it developed through evolution. His theory contradicts among other things evolution which is strange for a biologist that he is.
Your individualism programming is short circuiting your brains ability to understand the scope of this topic. You are being hurt by cognitive dissonance. This is about how "WE" can help other people, and they can help us. You can't change your own statistical probabilities. But the factors which create those probabilities can be manipulated by the people around you. You can't save yourself. Nobody can save themselves. (statistically) But "WE" can save everybody. if we bother the political will to do so. Individualism is a cancer, and it is destroying humanity.
It doesn't matter what version of Free Will we do or don't have, except in blaming. For everything else including interpersonal behavior standards and social policy, the question should be: WHAT WORKS? If your spouse cheats on you, whether you want to work it out or get a divorce, what gets you there most efficiently and least painfully? Does a punitive and revenge-driven legal system decrease The most damaging criminal behavior? Even if you believe you're a pre-programmed robot, you are still going to be faced with countless decisions every day and you're actually going to have to think about at least some of them with your limited, ambivalent, emotion-plagued human brain. You can't just say: "Everything is determined, so I'm just going to coast," or you'll see how long it takes to starve to death.
So glad I watched this. Two of my favorite people being their genuine selves, marveling with dogged curiosity at the mechanisms of living and being human - two incredibly intelligent and accomplished guys who simply want to understand as much as possible before its over. 😌
I've been a Saploski fan boy for years. Only a few chapters in and seems like a bit of a rehash of behave. Perhaps just because I've read and listened to him so much. Anyhow. I think it's almost impossible for even the most ardent determinists to talk about free will without implying some volition. Even the great Dr Robert. Looking forward to getting deeper into the book
How is it one can contemplate putting themselves in environments that are likely to foster specific changes in their hardware/subconscious/etc, if freewill on some level is non existent.
doesn't free will imply that of the many conditioned responses that one can justify given the epistemic understanding of collective experience provide for the choice amongst all those possibilities. and what of the many worlds interpretation , that may give credence to choice as free will, when the schrodeinger equation says that all probabilities exist, and that other choice exists in a seperate universe, which "we" do not have access to?
I need a bit of help with 'luck'. I had 'bad luck' growing up, now I have good 'luck'. What role did the choices I made to get here have to play in the paradigm? None? Some?
What's fascinating it´s this take us to the biggest question for mankind: how and when it all started? ( I mean life on earth, different species, human beings...) If everything has a cause that preceds, therefore B is a product of A so if there´s no A there is no B. Then again: what was the first step of that domino?
Will shoud be understod as subjective with a very subtile, but still existing, objective underpinning. People need a way to talk about the subtile difference of objective states we describe as will and a way to underline the degree of compulsion. A fairer justice system shoud not rely on denying that people want things or that some act under some form of compulsion. Try to focus on how we treat humans and if punishment work, instead of denying useful concepts.
He has a process of thinking that goes this way "Yes I know I have no free will over what I am doing "but" let's go with it anyway bc it made total sense that it might help humanity in a positive way "
Not sure that anyone thinks free will is as simple as just deciding to do something in the moment (and being able to successfully carry that decision to completion). Deciding, or living as though one has free will, may iyself be an ultimately deterministic phenomenon. Howver, its arguably one that should be nurtured in society, as the "belief" in free will gives one a greater sense of agency,empowering at least in part, more effectiveness, tebacity, etc in one's life. I soppose Ijust dont reaaly get the utility of this entire topic
We’ve been able to determine behaviour from individuals history, culture and religions of decades now. A simple questionaire is all that is needed. Our egos want us to believe we are untethered but the reality is we pull everything along with us. They talked about Hitler not being judged but who really made Hitler? The story I heard was a violent Jewish uncle. Who is really culpable. Hitler was just a deranged individual who was able to bring together the war machine he did. Just imagine the industrial complex Germany may have been if the uncle hadn’t entered his life
If there is no free will there is no personal responsibility, no accountability, or morals. That's not a world anyone wants to live in. It's the fierce, ferocious world every animal besides humans live in. Mama bear eats her own cubs, spiders mate then consume their partner, etc...Game out a world in which humans have no free will and it gets very ugly, very quickly.
I don't get the whole punishment issue. If a violent criminal was only partialy responsible for their actions due to their upbringing, does the crime hurt the victims less? Don't we need to be protected from further violence in the future? How should this protection come about without incarceration?
He makes this clear in numerous interviews that we should protect ourselves from these types of people, but the way in which we treat these people and morally comprehend them and ourselves should be taken into account in “rehabilitating” these folks and structure society!!
@@milesgrooms7343 The funny thing is that it's "us" or "society" that has to do the integration or rehab, just like with immigration. I believe the responsibility lies with the people themselves to adapt. You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped.
@@theinnerlight8016 I used the word “rehabilitation” somewhat ironically because that’s what our (American) prison system claims are it’s goals. Of course people (individuals) have personal responsibility/culpability, but there is a collective responsibility to ensure society can help create the “best” potential individuals because you and I deal with one another. This whole podcast is exposing that the “self” is not an atomized it, that any “one” of us has some kind of magical control of!! “You” are the outcome of an infinitely complex array of factors that have nothing to do with an atomized “you” in control of it all. We have no choice to protest ourselves from “troubled”, “criminal” people. But why not structure communities/societies in a way that doesn’t create as many “troubled” “criminal” people?
I was always going to find rhis video because I'm not content to hear about a book from vitriolic memes. Watching now. Are we finally on track to keep pursuing positivism?
Would you say determinism can also apply to someone in the family realizes that there has been narcissistic abuse going on in the clan and decides to stand up against because one can discern the difference of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors?
19:16 I think Robert sees the difficulties of "acting determinist" as much worse than they are. As someone who's never held strong convictions about free will (including what that phrase even means), I feel it's not incorrect to feel good about good things, nor to shun bad things--"things" meaning everything, physical and nonphysical, human and animal. When it comes to people, we should forgive those who harm us, but that doesn't mean we should welcome harm. Likewise, we can praise good deeds without making mistakes like elevating someone to godhood or praising their very existence. Doing all of this is rather easy as long as we remember that questions of goodness are distinct from questions of justice.
I haven't read any of Sapolsky's work yet, but I do find it difficult to understand how someone weighing out possible decisions, and then choosing one (or the other) is not free will.
Simply because it's causal. Free means that it wasn't caused by anything, that's why in the free will concept, only you are responsible. The cause begins with you, your decision was not caused by anything prior, so only you are examined and only you are punished and/or rewarded, as if you are the sole origin of your behavior. Basically what the concept means is that suddenly the laws of physics don't apply to you, as if humans are some completely unique object that doesn't work like anything else in the universe. Something akin to magic happens within you. An analogy to help you out what "decision making" is in a simplified form : Imagine you have 3 tubes in your head. Each of them represents ice cream, chocolate with nuts, and a cake. Lets say due to past experience you like ice cream the most, so that would mean the ice cream tube is wider than the rest. Now, lets say you have an incoming stimuli. You have finished eating and someone says "would you like some dessert?" . Now notice they didn't say ice cream, chocolate, or cake or any other specific thing. Now since it's not specific, at this point people might claim "I'll make a decision". No, you're not making a decision, as in something that just happened within you strictly. Remember the tubes? The ice cream tube is the widest one. The ice cream, chocolate, cake and many other things are "desserts". And the question "would you like some dessert" is the stimuli , which we will represent by a ball that will ''roll over'' your "dessert tubes" in the brain. Since your ''ice cream''' tube is the widest, the ball has a higher probability to fall within the ice cream tube, and you might say "some ice cream please". The 'weights' were already set by previous experience, and which weights will be activated is done by the current environment. In other words, your neuronal associations about anything are always at varying strength. Some are more numerous than others, and some more connected than others. And you are constantly bombarded by stimuli through your sensory organs which constantly changes the number and strength of said brain associations. So in essence, the decision wasn't within you, it was in the environment. Past environment has shaped your current brain associations, and current environment stimulates which ones will be activated, which ones will be strengthened and/or weakened. So the 'decision' was dictated by past and present environment, not something within you completely separated from everything else in the universe . You are getting constantly programmed without interruption. Computers for example are programmed and then they only execute, but organic beings are much more complex than a computer and we are both programmed and made to execute a program constantly, all the time, because there isn't a moment when you are not receiving stimuli from the environment . You constantly see, feel and hear things non-stop.
Think about your decision-making process - how do you actually "make" the ultimate decision? Have you ever been surprised by a decision you made? Where do your thoughts originate? It's all biological in your brain, and you trick yourself into thinking the decision was made after careful deliberation but in reality, in your mind, is the process of making the decision, which is how your brain brings the decision into consciousness. You cannot know ahead of time what the decision will be, because it is DETERMINED in part by the biochemical processes involved in "making" the decision, but the decision and the process in your mind is entirely biological and beyond your control. Read the book, it's fascinating!
From my vantage point, a discussion between Antonio Damasio (somatic markers) and Professor Sapolsky (Deterministic Neurobiology) would likely prove enlightening.
"This is a book about the garbage collector." Have watched a few interviews with Professor Sapolsky about Determinism and thought this was the most original insight about the book so far. Good work Michael.
I agree
I was literally just thinking that, I enjoyed the interview style his brain developed. Good conversation.
Ordered ‘Behave’ and ‘Determined’ while listening to this. Love Sapolsky’s candid style and genuine enthusiasm.
C'mon- Sapolsky blames the very thing free will is dependent up, which is external stimuli, as that which negates it. He's saying that since free will doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's not free will. He ignores the fact that absolutely nothing can exist independently from everything else. It's a circular argument. He's an absolutist.
Atheist religion: Men can menstruate and give birth
Me: I believe in men giving birth as much as I believe in atheists _not_ being genocidal incestous pdf files. I have seen zero evidence for either being true.
Outwardly Robert is knowledge, inwardly he is pure love. ❤
Is that what you think hive mind collectivism is?
I am grateful for the collective sequence of events that led to Robert Sapolsky's always fascinating, clear, and entertaining delivery of important information.
Chapters (Powered by ChapterMe) -
00:00 - Intro
03:14 - Sapolsky's book "Determined" explores determinism's challenges and social justice impacts.
10:17 - The book's focus: life's unfairness, luck's role, and debunking meritocracy myths.
18:23 - Criticizes compatibilists for holding onto free will for comfort over coherence.
20:29 - Thought experiment on infidelity admission highlights determinism's emotional conflict.
22:46 - Struggle between determinism's acceptance and human need for agency.
23:41 - Exploring life rewind: deterministic universe versus learning from the past.
26:23 - Chaotic ISM's role in unpredictability and determinism.
28:42 - Learning influences future behavior within a determined past.
32:14 - Genetics, environment's impact on behavior, exemplified by addiction.
43:42 - Challenging free will by questioning intent and understanding causality.
47:20 - Brain injuries, tumors, ACE impact on antisocial behavior.
48:53 - Higher ACE scores increase antisocial behavior likelihood.
52:24 - Stress's effect on emotional regulation and long-term impact.
54:30 - Socioeconomic status affects early-life brain development.
56:03 - Brain scans of criminals reveal biological factors in behavior.
01:11:09 - Decisions influenced by external factors like stress, beyond consciousness.
01:19:23 - Empathy over judgment for issues like obesity, considering genetics.
01:20:47 - Life aspects often influenced by uncontrollable factors.
01:26:59 - Myth of closure through capital punishment; complexity of emotions.
01:31:50 - Public health approach to violence: containment and root cause understanding.
01:33:41 - Sapolsky's opposition to capital punishment, citing wrongful convictions.
01:34:55 - Advocacy for humane criminal justice, focusing on understanding, not punishment.
01:37:08 - Promoting a Scandinavian model for dealing with dangerous individuals.
01:40:02 - Advocating rationality in societal problem-solving, emphasizing empathy.
01:41:23 - Existential view: no ultimate meaning in an indifferent causal universe.
01:44:54 - Different levels of analysis
01:46:34 - Feynman point on nature adding instead of taking away anything
01:47:47 - What's the bigger picture here? Utopia
01:49:38 - Good justice now when alive and Free will issue
01:52:02 - Outro
Thank you
Thanks for your effort !
@@dandybufo9664 Always happy to help 😎
You neglected to add the canine incursion 😂
Mr. Shermer, thank you for what you do. I don’t always agree with you, but I love your consistency and authenticity. The world needs people like you; you’re a reliable compass of sorts.
🙏
Blame and praise make no sense whatsoever. How long will it take for that realization and understanding to percolate through society and have a significant impact on how we deal with each other?
When I was a kid my mom had a small plaque which had a saying from a Native American.
It said, “never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins.”
And since we can never really be another person we must drop praise and blame and revenge.
Society and individuals can still protect themselves by dealing with dangerous people and encouraging those with talent.
Just get the moralizing and religion out of it. It’s a matter of function.
Of course, if people continue moralizing or referencing religion it's only because they have to. They have no choice in the matter because they have no free will.
@@davidhouse195yeah, the argument seems recursive. We should stop moralizing and praising and blaming, and instead start moralizing and praising and blaming BUT NICELY.
To paraphrase Conan the Barbarian, if free will is an illusion, then I am part of that illusion. There doesn't seem to be any way to behave as if the universe is deterministic that is functionality any different than believing in free will.
where is that in the film, i haven't seen it in awhile@@kebsis
@@davidhouse195 that’s why, education…
@@kebsis but with exposure, people can change, so it’s not hopeless. Those who see must act.
I drove out of the work carpark just after turning 40 and thought to myself "if I keep drinking like this, I'll be a diabetic by 50".
Now 60, I haven't had a drink for 20 years. I often wonder where that thought came from.
That was a fortunate thought! I haven't had a single big revelation like that, but I do remember thinking, "Instead of berating myself over not having enough willpower to do the things I want to do, I have to figure out how to make what I want easier than doing what I don't want."
isn't it obvious?
your ancestors were wheat farmers
At some point you learned that drinking could result in diabetes
I dont think you should simply attribute it to a simple thought. Many other addicts have that thought aswell without being able to quit
@@dogberry20 That is quite a big revelation though.
This is the absolute best talk I have heard from Sapolsky. Shermer really brought him out.
Great interview! Appreciated Shermer’s thoughtful questions
Indeed.
Thirty-three years ago, when he was six years old, my son was diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome by a well regarded pediatric neurologist. (It was an early age for diagnosis at that time.) The doctor said to me "he has absolutely no control over anything he does." He also advised me that "he can benefit most from an extremely structured environment." In the following years when I met with school advisors or talked with close friends I would advise them that my son had "absolutely no control over anything he does" and that an extremely structured environment had to be created for him, they would look at me with horror and disbelief to the point where I stopped saying it because everyone, without exception, looked at me as being an aberrant mother.
I need closure; how is your son doing now? He's 39, has he found a community, his own family, and an environment he can thrive in?
hope he is doing well today
How is your son doing now?
I would have said, “join the club”. 😂
GOOD DAY Gentlemen.
I've been patiently waiting for you to have Robert sapolsky on the show.
🔥 Rock on 🔥
Gratitude and compassion. Thanks for sharing.
I'm halfway through Determined and expect the 2nd half to be just as wonderful. Great interview.
Free will is an illusion and here is the argumentation:
From the lense of neuroscience:
Marcus Du Sautoy (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science) participates in an experiment conducted by John-Dylan Haynes (Professor at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin) that attempts to find the neurological basis for decision making.
Short summary:
The experiment explores the relationship between free will, decision-making, and brain activity. Marcus Du Sautoy participates in an experiment in Berlin where they have to randomly decide to press either a left or right button. Brain scans and computer records track when the decision is made in the brain and when the button is physically pressed.
The results reveal that up to six seconds before Marcus Du Sautoy consciously makes a decision, their brain has already made that choice. Specific patterns of brain activity can even predict which button will be pressed. This finding challenges the notion of free will, suggesting that unconscious brain activity significantly shapes our decisions before we become consciously aware of them.
The experiment also delves into the nature of consciousness. It argues against dualism-the idea that the mind and brain are separate entities. Instead, it posits that consciousness is an aspect of brain activity. The unconscious brain activity is in harmony with a person's beliefs and desires, so it's not forcing you to do something against your will.
Marcus Du Sautoy finds the results shocking, especially the idea that someone else can predict their decision six seconds before they are consciously aware of making it. The experiment raises profound questions about the nature of free will, consciousness, and the deterministic mechanisms that may govern our decisions.
From the lense of pysics:
In order to question the belief in free will, one can conduct experiments and contemplations. Take an action you are convinced you performed and reverse-engineer it until you realize you had no control over it. This leads to the conclusion that all actions in life are the same, and the notion of claiming ownership falls away, so free will is non-existent.
By 'reverse-engineering an action,' I mean tracing back the steps that led you to make a specific decision. Upon close examination, you'll find that your choice was influenced by a series of past events and conditions over which you had no control, and that your choice didn't originate from a single point. One could argue that everything originates from the Big Bang, making us essentially biological robots. This realization may prompt you to reconsider how much 'free will' you actually possess, as your actions are shaped by factors beyond your control, both in the past and likely in the future as well.
So you can summarize everything is a happening according to cosmic laws.
What? When I tried to order it I was told it didn’t come out until next year
It came out last Tuesday Oct 17 but I got a head start a week before. (I work in a bookstore, we received it a few days earlier.) It is a compelling, quite convincing read, for me anyway. @@bc7026
@@bc7026 it was released October 17th, 2023
Also half way through the audiobook. Much better than I expected. Systematically eliminating "free will of the gaps". Highly recommended.
We worship the monetarily wealthy criminals while criminalizing the poor unsuccessful ones, while at the same time instilling the mantra that greed is good! & we wonder why we're so effed up!!!
Very well said. I agree with you.
But we have no free will, so we must be sympathetic to all involved 😊
We have no free will duh mash, everything is determined according to the stew pyd 🥜 job Sapolsky
@@ubik5453
That would be you 😃👍
And we can't change that because: no free will.
GOAT guest, thanks to you both
Just received Dr. Sapolsky’s book yesterday. This is a great intro to it!
Hello to you both
Love your work Robert.
Currently think we are wee waves looking to connect with the magnificence of the ocean.
Super grateful for these shared conversations.
💜
The story is told that George Mitchell who was sent to broker peace in Northern Ireland discovered that Ian Paisley who led the Protestants and John Hume, the Catholics both loved fishing. He was able to bring them together and out of the “othering” that separated them and their communities because he found something that they both loved in common. It humanised each in the eyes of the other. After which, both men discovered that they each passionately cared about the people of Northern Ireland and even if they argued about how to govern neither doubted the others integrity so, they never fell out. I wonder who can do the same today in the conflict in the Middle East. Where would we find a statesman of the ilk of George Mitchell today? Because that statesman or woman is sorely needed.
Well Robert, you have succeeded by at least a third, as having read Behave a few years ago, my mind has been unravelling all sorts of revelations around having no free will.
This idea is soooo clear in my mind. I’m a failed feature film writer/director (in that I still, at 51, have not managed to get a feature film off the ground despite getting very close three times) and my interest in human behaviour that led me to reading your book, came from wanting to write and tell better stories.
Character was my weakest skill in writing. It took me a while to get it. Most screenwriting books explained it in a way I struggled to comprehend. I’m somewhat dyslexic and have a much more dominant right hemisphere (I’m convinced some of my left hemisphere is damaged or defected). Lisa Croll’s book Wired For Story however, was the first book on storytelling that explained ‘character’ in a way I understood immediately …and it’s not a coincidence that she used brain science to hook me.
To me writing characters is very much about understanding no free will, but in reverse, in the sense that if you want your character to behave in a certain way, you have to understand their key past experiences and/or biological traits that would convincingly lead them to inevitable behaviours.
The better you get at doing this the more emotive the story, because the more human and true to life it becomes.
This is just one of many thoughts I have and want to share with you. Hearing you talk about your new book, which I can’t wait to read, has compelled me to write this comment in a rambling stream of excited adrenaline.
I’m so grateful that the universe unravelled in such a way that it compelled you to pursue such a proposition. Despite its controversy, I’m convinced you are on to something here and look forward to hearing more from you on this topic in the future! ❤😊
You might enjoy Bernardo Kastrup on freewill.
Keep writing. It took me 40 years to unravel a dream that led me to the origin of my anxiety neurosis. 🙃
Our minds work and interpret our conflicts and reality at the pace of snails. I'm older than you - you have ample time. ❤
Your description of how difficult it is to write characters inhibited by your dyslexia which I can relate to I flashed on the fact that many of the greatest actors to enhance their performance invent highly detailed backstories on their characters.
Hell yeah! I was almost done with The Trouble With Testosterone, and this book arrived in the mail! The 2nd thing I've ever pre-ordered in my life.
What was the first thing?
@@HkFinn83 practice of sleep medicine by Boris Stuck, Et al.
@@noeditbookreviews was it good?
@@HkFinn83 I enjoyed it. I appreciate how the author explored a wide array of angles so it wouldn't just be like every other book on free will. As for the sleep book, that's amazing.
@@noeditbookreviews sounds interesting, did you read that popular book on sleep a couple years ago, Matthew something was the author. Was on a lot of podcasts.
Great conversation, it was a joyful experience to listen to you two! Thanks a lot :)
I'm reading this book now. And this is deterministic pleasure!
Bravo. Thank you for helping with actually getting closer to the truth of our behavior. What hubris we have that we are actually choosing what we will. What we will is a consequence of everything before we were even manifested. 🙏🏾❤️🔥 thank you Michael and Robert. I bow down in reverence.
I've realized that I may have no free will, but knowing that has allowed me to "guide" the way I react and grow from new variables. Thank you Robert for being an influence in my life that has sparked self reflection.
that makes no sense. To "guide" is to exercise intentionality, which you claim isn't possible
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 the future can be guided. Since we know that everything is the result of the moments before, we can guide those moments to in influence the future of today. If you get really high and think it through, it'll make a lot of sense!
Edit: we can be the variables of the future. We have to be, but having this knowledge allows me to at least attempt to be a positive influence on those I interact with, and by extension everything else they interact with. Just because it's a determined world doesn't mean we can't influence it for the better. Determinism is proof that we can change. This could allow us to change with intent. It's all about seeing the present as the futures past. Perspective! Use it or lose it!
One more edit to clarify: if no one had ever figured out that epilepsy wasn't caused by demonic possession our present would be different. Those pioneers of the human condition had an affect on our present. What were the conditions that allowed them to figure it out and to convince others? Those are the types of conditions we need to foster so the future can grow in a positive direction. Are you really saying that we can't change future conditions? EVERYTHING changes future conditions! Sorry, I'm ranting, but I think on this a lot.
I will say one more thing. I'm grateful for everything in my collective past that allows me to think this way.
You can't "guide" anything without free will. There is no point in existence in which 'you' decide/influence/guide anything according to Sapolsky
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Okay. So, how's the weather? Is your favorite sports team winning?
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 but when you read a book those ideas changes your brain in a sense everything is guiding your brain including what you hear and read . Some ideas tend to be convincing to some people bc how their brain was built up to that time due to outside factors since they were born but still its convincing to them and they feel guided by those ideas
Behave was such a good book. Can’t wait to read this one.
I've been anticipating this book ever since I read Behave. Excited it's finally out.
I grew up lower middle class, with working class parents. My mom finished high school when I was a kid & my dad never finished. I’m an Emmy winning television writer & playwright who only went to grad school on a fellowship. Oh, and I’m bipolar. How did that happen?
I suppose the question you could ask is - why do 100s or 1000s of other people in what appear to be disadvantaged positions with mental health issues fail to be Emmy winning TV writers?
@@JB.zero.zero.1 I was driven to make narrative order out of chaos because of the violence & adversity I grew up with. And I was also diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder. All of it contributed to my compulsion to write. Would you just call me lucky?
Loved this. I actually listened twice and found it so worth my investment. Thank you!
You're not a tree, you can leave. The attitude of gratitude. These guys are really smart.
Whether you leave or not isn't up to you
I enjoy Micheal’s interview style in this video, you can tell his brain developed a good sense of placing bias aside, it makes for a good conversation.
This conversation shoukd really be shared. So go share it.
Excellent interview. 👍I'm going to have to buy the book now.
Thank you for this interview! Havent read unfortunately any of R. Sapolsky's books yet, but sure I will!
How could you be sure of a future event when you have no decisional power
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 😀😁👍cool comment
One of the things that I always say is something Linus Van Pelt said, “Pain Hurts!” So do Saplolsky and Shermer!
At about 11:40 Shermer says “it’s mostly stuff we don’t control”. The point is it’s ONLY stuff we don’t control. “Mostly” suggests compatabilism.
What can do to level the playing field. The sermon on the Mount.
Looking forward to listening to the audiobook!
00:00 🎙️ Michael Shermer promotes the December 1st-3rd weekend conference by the Skeptic Society, featuring live podcast episodes and discussions with notable figures like Jared Diamond and Michael Shellenberger.
00:28 🌍 Michael Shellenberger, a controversial figure, has expertise in environmentalism, nuclear power, homelessness, and more, making him a significant voice in today's issues.
01:09 🗞️ Michael Shellenberger's focus on independent journalism versus mainstream media aligns with the conference's theme of evaluating trustworthiness in journalism.
01:54 👥 The conversation shifts to a previous encounter between Michael Shermer and Robert Sapolsky at a conference in Mexico, reflecting on the unique atmosphereof the event.
02:20 🌐 The discussion touches on attempts to replicate the TED conference model and explores other successful events like "How the Light Gets In" in England, blending various elements.
03:14 📚 Introduction of Robert Sapolsky, a distinguished author and professor at Stanford University, known for works like "A Primate’s Memoir" and "Behave."
05:05 🧠 Wrestling with the concept of free will and determinism, Sapolsky acknowledges the complex folk intuitions surrounding the topic, emphasizing its implications on criminality and personal achievements.
08:17 🌎 Sapolsky presents a thought-provoking scenario at a graduation ceremony, illustrating the role of luck and circumstances in shaping individuals' lives.
10:17 🧬 Determinism, as defined by Sapolsky, encapsulates the influence of biological and environmental factors, emphasizing the lack of conscious control over one's trajectory in life.
11:09 💡 Sam Harris echoes Sapolsky's stance, asserting that thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes beyond conscious control, challenging the notion of free will.
16:59 🤯 Sapolsky explores the tension between accepting determinism intellectually and navigating day-to-day life, highlighting the deep-rooted human desire for agency and its impact on mental well-being.
18:52 🎭 The thought experiment involving John and Jane Doe vividly illustrates the challenge of reconciling determinism with emotional reactions, showcasing the difficulty in fully embracing the concept.
23:56 🔄 Determinism vs. Free Will: Sapolsky delves into the debate of determinism versus free will, considering if the universe operates in a predetermined way or if individuals have the capacity to make independent choices based on learning and reflection.
24:23 🌌 Block Universe Theory: Sapolsky introduces the concept of the "Block Universe," where past, present, and future events are fixed, suggesting that every possible outcome has already occurred, and we are simply experiencing a predetermined trajectory.
25:03 🔄 Learning from Experience: Sapolsky highlights the potential for personal growth and change through learning from past experiences. He emphasizes that even though the past is determined, individuals can alter their future behavior by reflecting on and applying new insights.
26:23 🌪 Chaotic Systems and Unpredictability: Sapolsky explores chaotic systems as a source of unpredictability in the universe. He distinguishes unpredictability from true undetermined outcomes, emphasizing that chaotic systems remain deterministic despite their complexity.
28:42 🔄 Self-Determination: Sapolsky argues that individuals play a role in determining their future behavior by engaging with their environment, learning, and adapting. While the past is determined, the process of learning and reflection allows for self-determination.
30:50 🧬 Biological Influences on Behavior: Sapolsky illustrates how biological factors, such as genetics, brain structure, and neural connections, contribute to an individual's behavioral tendencies. These factors influence how one responds to external stimuli and experiences.
35:51 🏠 Environmental and Upbringing Impact: Sapolsky emphasizes the significant role of one's environment, upbringing, and early experiences in shaping behavior. He provides examples of how these factors influence decisions and reactions later in life.
43:16 📚 Dan Dennett's Definition of Free Will: Sapolsky critiques Christian List's definition of free will, emphasizing that it focuses on proximal notions of intent, intention formation, and alternative actions. He contends that this definition overlooks the crucial question of where intent originates.
47:20 🧠 Individuals on Death Row with concussive head trauma history: 25-75% have frontal cortex damage, potentially influencing behavior.
47:34 👥 "Edge case" scenarios: Factors like brain tumors or head injuries can influence behavior, especially in certain legal contexts.
47:57 🩸 Early-life experiences and antisocial behavior: Those growing up in harsh conditions can show similar predispositions as those with brain tumors, but it's harder to pinpoint specific causes.
49:08 📋 Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) score: A higher score correlates with increased likelihood of antisocial behavior, unplanned pregnancies, substance abuse, and mood disorders.
50:04 🧠 Singular vs. Multiple causes: It's easier to attribute behavior to one significant cause (e.g., brain tumor) than to multiple complex factors.
52:24 🧠 Stress effects on frontal cortex: Stress leads to frontal cortex atrophy, impacting impulse control and decision-making.
53:50 🤰 Prenatal influence on brain development: Socioeconomic status and maternal stress levels affect fetal brain development.
54:30 🧠 Influence of socioeconomic status on fetal brain development: Early-life stress levels are a significant predictor of later frontal cortex development.
56:32 🤔 The concept of "higher order volition": Some argue that free will emerges at a higher level from convergent neural networks and complex interactions.
57:50 🥊 Example of George Foreman's transformation: He redirected his violent tendencies towards boxing, demonstrating the role of individual decisions in the faceof adversity.
58:33 💡 Emergent complexity: Emergence is a powerful concept, but it doesn't provide a basis for free will at the individual neuronal level.
01:06:49 🔄 Emergence and individual building blocks: Emergence relies on simple, predictable rules applied to individual components, not enhanced abilities of the components themselves.
01:10:54 🧠 Our decisions are influenced by complex factors beyond consciousness and self-awareness. Stress, for example, can significantly impact our choices, demonstrating that our actions are not solely driven by deliberate thought.
01:12:19 🧪 Neuronal energetics play a crucial role in decision-making. Different brain regions have varying energy demands, with the frontal cortex being particularly resource-intensive. This understanding sheds light on why certain choices are made.
01:17:21 🚫 The concept of "closure" through capital punishment is complex and not universally effective. While some victims' families may find relief, others may not, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the emotional impact.
01:22:11 ⚖️ Balancing retributive and restorative justice is a delicate task. Understanding the underlying causes of criminal behavior is crucial for creating effective preventative measures, in addition to addressing immediate concerns of public safety.
01:33 📜 The death penalty is mostly abolished worldwide, except in some U.S. states like Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, and Florida.
01:34 ⚖️ Sapolsky opposes capital punishment due to its potential for error and reluctance to grant the state power over life and death.
01:36 🔄 Sapolsky advocates for a more humane approach to dealing with dangerous individuals, based on research and understanding rather than punishment.
01:39 🌍 Sapolsky suggests adopting a Truth and Reconciliation model to resolve conflicts, similar to what was implemented in Northern Ireland and South Africa.
01:41 📚 He emphasizes the importance of recognizing the inherent value of individuals and promoting empathy, even in the absence of ultimate cosmic meaning.
01:44 💡 Sapolsky encourages embracing feelings and experiences without over-analyzing them, as they contribute to our humanity and enrich our lives.
01:47 💭 He acknowledges the dualistic nature of humans, capable of understanding mechanistic explanations while still valuing emotional experiences and moral imperatives.
01:50 🧠 Sapolsky discusses the challenge of perceiving our own brain activity and how it contributes to the sense of agency and free will.
01:51 🆓 He contends that recognizing the limitations of free will can lead to greater empathy and a more compassionate society.
01:53 🔍 Sapolsky advocates for continuous self-reflection, even when it challenges established beliefs, as a means to foster personal growth and understanding.
Hopefully this gets a pin, thanks so much!
asdf
Tnx
I think luck and circumstance plays a huge role too. Being trapped forces people to make decisions they would not have made if they had other options. Drinking may be the only source of escape from pain for soneone.
I dont agree, I am assuming you are talking about becoming a millionaire for example.
Somebody that is grit will become millionaire anyway,
luck is there after, luck is about making $120 million instead of $70 million.
I am trying to simplify but I dont like my previous example...
Lets use example of becoming a pilot, I believe 90% of people can do that, only difference is that somebody will take 9 months, somebody 4.5 years, somebody 82 months...
At the end whats the difference?
@@maksim_arsic i disagree. Not even 1% of people that want to be a pilot can. Think of the 5 billion people living in poverty in india, all of africa and other regions of the 3rd world and even the US. They can't even find food and shelter. And, the 90% of females in Islamic countries forced into marriage and motherhood by the age of 12. No matter how much they may want an education, it will never happen. No, not everyone has a chance in hell of becomming a millionairre no matter how hard they try. It requires people giving you opportunities and being in the right place at the right time. For instance, most women, obese people, unattractive people and introverts have substantial bias against them being given opportunities even for hiring. Research has proven it.
@@user-qm4pw7dc9n There is 1.4 billion in India, not 5.
They speak english since childhood.
I agree with difficulties you mention, and this book doesnt explain how should you live, it only explains to you that there is no scientific proof of free will, therefore I agree that people should tell each other what to fix and advices, for example from get a haircut to that they should break up or save money there invest there... Same as monkey clean each other from hair bugs...
But in India standard is different, therefore having $100 000 there might make person happier then 100 billion in USA.
And still I think that grit is gonna make a person more succesful then others no matter where.
Another thing is how to fix procrastination, same method as in military, however you can, once you done hard thing, every next time you gonna feel less and less lazy...
Another example from my life, I was once at Arnold Swarcenegers house, and security told me and to another 10 workers that he think none of ous will have house like Arnold. I was like: the house is 10000sq feet and it's worth 20 million because of location, made of wood...
For $200k-400k I can make the same house in Europe or even for less in India for example...
Perhaps happiness is the most important thing. 🤔
I was DETERMINED to watch this video 😮. I did no choose anything 😅
"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."
-Albert Einstein
Wow! Thanks for that
That’s good to know.
Why does it have to be yes or no?
Can it be that some people have 5% free will, some 0,
some 17%, some 2.4% etc...?
Any amount implies some magic in the system
@@emmettochrach-konradi2785, Yeah, that's a nope.
Absolutely none of this data supports a supernatural magic man fantasy conclusion.
In fact the neuroscience involved refutes most of what theists think about the brain and the soul.
Keep your made up fantasies out of science. They don't have and business being there.
I love how Mr Shermer is so studious and the prof is so focused and the dog is just going crazy making all that noise with the toy. Why did humans and dogs evolve so parallel and how lucky are we that they did? Notice, no one corrected the dog, they just accepted his behavior as dog normal behavior and ignored it.
❤😂. I am in with this comment too
Does the dog have free will?
I enjoyed the dogs contributions 🙂
Yeah, I'm still not sold.
It's possible but, there's just too much assumption on things we don't yet understand.
My favourite stance is dualistic in nature but, this still all boils down to; I don't smegging know.
Lol. Courts and psychologists have known this for decades. That why we ask for pre sentence reports and history assessments before treatment.
@@oscarcorbiere2899Lol. And in the time before that, courts would 'report' and 'assess' witches, lepers and epileptics and 'treat' them with a death sentence, with public approval. As time goes by, the science and zeitgeist is moving in one direction, the direction towards the reality of determinism.
I would do anything to make the idea Sapolsky is putting forth main stream. If you truly believe what’s he’s arguing then there’s no one who ever has or will live that deserves to be hated or suffer just for the sake of it. Everyone who’s ever done anything wrong is just sort of sick and unlucky on a very deep level and if we can help them have good lives without hurting others then we should. I’d do anything for us to live in a world where that was the main position. So much cruelty and horror could be avoided.
What you say is how I feel. BUT, we live among others who do not.
Such a great conversation. I've been thinking about this for the last 10 years. My family and friends don't seem to know what the fuck im talking about. Best one sentence I've heard (from Sam Harris' book and lectures) ... "in order to control your next thought... you would have to think it ... before you think it".
Alternatively, your choice to focus your attention is where your free will primarily sits. So, you didn't control what thought turned up out of your sub-conscious, but you did decide to think or not, and that decision will lead to different thoughts. Harris is refuting a type of free will that no-one is advocating.
Sapolsky is a materialist buh foon. He doesn't understand anything about consciousness. Even the simple difference between witnessing and choosing eludes him.
Great program ; ed. & science = facts to grow and adjust to change.
Thanks .
I haven't read Shellenberger's 'Apocalypse Never' yet, but from what I know about it, I find it confusing as hell. But based on your endorsement(?), I'll give it a fair hearing.
One of the better interviews on this book so far.
Damn, Shermer brushed right up to the question I was most interested in hearing Sapolsky's answer and then he muddied the waters. I really wanted to hear about Free Will in regards to the Block Theory Time.🤔
I learn something every time i hear mr sapolsky.
Excellent interview!
Great interview, thanks!
Take a look at the ENVE Melee and ENVE MOG. Great bikes. Di2 tubeless ride flat insert.
Great conversation between two fine minds !
8:25 to pick up on that is amazing. Kudos!
Free will is a mental state; it embodies a Coexistent Conscious Awareness of Contingent Freedom, situated almost at the ground zero of consciousness. This awareness often dissolves during meditation practices or intense mental activities, as the focus of consciousness shifts. Recognizing the existence of such a mental state is crucial; its functions warrant thorough research, and its societal impact, especially in terms of cultivating autonomy, responsibility, and law, should be extensively debated.
So who is choosing to write the book and who is choosing to read it?
Sapolsky isn’t arguing against the idea that people choose to do things. He’s arguing against the idea that anyone can choose to do things in a way where that choice isn’t a product of factors over which one had no control over.
Even though we're deteministic machines, we can behave non-deterministicly by taking a random input source and use that in decision making process. When such random addition changes our decision against our training, we have the illusion of free will. The random behaviors throughout our life gives us extra training points and is essential to our training. When the source of randomness is affected by quantum randomness, our behavior is not deterministic. Regular randomness with deteministic nature ( a coin toss for example) is enough to help us train better and still give us illusion of free will that in occasion we act against our training or what the deteministic part of us suggests.
I dont agree, that random input source is short term.
I can give you some random book and tell you that is the best book and all rules of life are in this book and you just need to follow and you will be a millionaire, investor, family guy, friend, etc.
It is still about your predetirmin genes that would make you, or not, to trust me, to base your life on that book, to follow thru,
or not.
Thank you!
@@maksim_arsic when you make a binary decision, you calculate the cost of taking an action or not taking the action. The randomness here is to add a random value to calculations of costs, a value you could not know a priori. Once you get book and read it, at time of making any decision based on your new morals, you still add a random value to your cost calculation. The weight you put on the value of such randomness could also deterministic. Nevertheless, your behavior given your state of mind is non-deterministic. In cases where the cost differences are large, your actions are mostly deterministic.
@@JesterMax24 an observer may know the deterministic nature of a random input you use and still that input be random from your point of view. Only quantum randomness is not deterministic most likely not even for your god. Random processes are affecting our evolution of our universe and without them, intelligent life is not possible.
I wonder how Joscha Bach’s idea of the self as a simulation fits into the topics discussion?
I’m leaning towards the idea that the “self” simulation, itself runs simulations of possible futures and then ‘decides’ which to go with. So yes, no real free will but ability to change future behaviour?
(1:43:18) "This strikes me as an outrageous thing to suggest. It doesn't really matter ? Surely it matters to the torture victims whether they're being tortured. It doesn't require that this make some cosmic difference to the internal significance of the universe for it to matter whether a human being is tortured. It matters to them. It matters to their family". - Shelly Kagan
All Michael's videos should be hitting over 1 million views. There is no justice😢
I did not smoke; I did not drink, and I was not diabetic when I gave birth to my children. My mom the same for her childbirths. If you're rating success by how much money one has, I'm not exactly broke. I have absolutely everything that I want. Literally things for me just falls out of the sky. I picked a really great husband to work with. 38 yrs together. I convinced my mom to move in with me. Gave her a floor in our house. Thank you God, most important need is love. I got plenty love. Free will lol, Nobody tells me or my soul what to do. I have mental disorder. A.D.H.D and O.C.P.D= crazy connection lol The obsessive-compulsive personality disorder literally makes me have more ideas than any library. I constantly have an influx of ideas. . I can't make up my mind whether I like something or don't like something. So I just keep everything and bounce back-and-forth it makes me look like a pack rat, but I'm not. Need something I got it. My family loves how I do things. From campfire cooking to gourmet cooking I got it. I am not afraid of death because we do not die; We shed this body like snake skin, and move on. Best vacation I have ever had is traveling through my third eye.
It's because we don't have free will that we can have freedom.to envision who we could could be within the settled boundaries of our moral instincts Who would want to turn off their conscience and collectively have the pursuit of evil for it's own self gratifying sake a norm to live by.
the fact you did not ask him to show his dog is very upsetting. :P
Like your content. Keep it going 👍
Thankbyou both for a brilliant talk.
If anyone imagines that he/she has freewill prove it by using it to fall in love or fall out of love, or become a theist or atheist at will.
I just did. Its in my head . Can't show you though
Love is just a hormonal
I was kicked out of graduate school at MIT and got a job as a technician with Smith Kline Galaxo, (French then) .l decided l will get a PhD even if l am 80 years old. Within 5 years Smith Kline sent me to lmperial College London to obtain a PhD..Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal gold medalist Cambridge USA.
Michael, great identification of the book being about the garbage collector. Exactly. I don't personally think Sapolsky's argument is actually about the existence of free will as much as it is about a desire to be kinder and more understanding. Ironically, if we truly have no free will, then we cannot choose to do otherwise than be mean and domineering and judgmental. But I don't think that's the case. I think that, thankfully, we CAN choose to treat people better, BECAUSE we have free will.
They just go around in circles. Very frustrating with no conclusion.
Thank You Robert!!!
When Professor Sapolsky is at the house, there's always a little bit of chaos in the background. He's adorably unbothered by it. 😊
I’m listening to this podcast having had many unfortunate things happen to me. So this makes me feel way better. I do still wish there were a god though, so that makes me feel bad. I like the idea of having a second chance and living forever.
I’m beginning to understand this. Makes me wonder how then does one get control over an unhealthy relationship. Seem to keep doing the same things over and over
“He also accepts that Buddhist no-self notion entails the absence of the possibility of free will: 'If ultimately there are no persons but only physical and mental events in a complex causal series, then the ultimate truth about “us” must be that “we” are not free”
If I recall, it was sri nisargadatta maharaj who talked about "the absolute" ... a step above god, that nothing is happening and no one is witnessing anything
Great video, and as always Robert is fantastic. Thing that I always notice in any discussion around free will, is people will almost always (always) slip in the words `mostly have no control over` or `very little`. Surely, it is all, or nothing, assuming that the reasoning behind the apparent impossibility of having `free will` is correct (physics). This must surely also extend to thoughts and feelings. Down to the last detail. If not, we have invoked something which exists outside the realm of physics as we think we know it.
Quantum physics however could prove to be more relevant in the realms of consciousness than we might imagine currently. It's fair to say we should be beginning to know enough to know how very little we know. Dark matter is another rather massive elephant in the room. Everything seems inextricably connected. Spooky (at a distance :))
This theory does offer a charitable view of shortcomings. But it also takes away a self improvement option from a self reflective person. As when a person can observe their own shortcomings and have a sense of a realistic option to improve themselve at their own will. Giving that up is a very big price that this theory is asking for.
Having the capacity for self-reflection with an ability to make meaningful change is built into the understanding.
A person who is predisposed to push in a specific direction will do so regardless.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 built into what understanding? If we are taking about Sapolsky then that's what he says doesn't exist according to his theory.
@@toriokras1582
I haven't heard him deny self-reflection; when a mind is exposed to "new information" and "has the capacity" to make that kind of analysis/change.
A mind predisposed to analyse information in that way would clearly be necessary - along with the ability to change.
He talks at length about predetermining factors that directly influence the mind and it's functioning in this regard.
I understand it's confounding 🙃🙂
@@JB.zero.zero.1 his argument has a glitch that's the only reason it sounds confounding. Neocortex is the part that enables choice and free will. Free from what? Free from the default decisions that older parts of the brain below neocortex make. When neocortex work well a willful choice can interviene and change a default decision. Sometimes neocortex tissue is not allowing all the neocortex functions. But that doesn't mean that neocortex in general doesn't work. Same as if the tissue in the part of the brain that participates in forming speech is damaged a person will have trouble with speech but it doesn't mean that brains in general don't have a capacity for speech. Choice and free will are also a function of a certain part of the brain in this sense similar to speech. One can track how it developed through evolution. His theory contradicts among other things evolution which is strange for a biologist that he is.
Your individualism programming is short circuiting your brains ability to understand the scope of this topic.
You are being hurt by cognitive dissonance.
This is about how "WE" can help other people, and they can help us. You can't change your own statistical probabilities. But the factors which create those probabilities can be manipulated by the people around you.
You can't save yourself. Nobody can save themselves. (statistically)
But "WE" can save everybody. if we bother the political will to do so.
Individualism is a cancer, and it is destroying humanity.
It doesn't matter what version of Free Will we do or don't have, except in blaming. For everything else including interpersonal behavior standards and social policy, the question should be: WHAT WORKS?
If your spouse cheats on you, whether you want to work it out or get a divorce, what gets you there most efficiently and least painfully? Does a punitive and revenge-driven legal system decrease The most damaging criminal behavior?
Even if you believe you're a pre-programmed robot, you are still going to be faced with countless decisions every day and you're actually going to have to think about at least some of them with your limited, ambivalent, emotion-plagued human brain. You can't just say: "Everything is determined, so I'm just going to coast," or you'll see how long it takes to starve to death.
So glad I watched this. Two of my favorite people being their genuine selves, marveling with dogged curiosity at the mechanisms of living and being human - two incredibly intelligent and accomplished guys who simply want to understand as much as possible before its over. 😌
I've been a Saploski fan boy for years. Only a few chapters in and seems like a bit of a rehash of behave. Perhaps just because I've read and listened to him so much.
Anyhow. I think it's almost impossible for even the most ardent determinists to talk about free will without implying some volition. Even the great Dr Robert.
Looking forward to getting deeper into the book
If the universe is deterministic and the law of causality reigns supreme,
How is it one can contemplate putting themselves in environments that are likely to foster specific changes in their hardware/subconscious/etc, if freewill on some level is non existent.
doesn't free will imply that of the many conditioned responses that one can justify given the epistemic understanding of collective experience provide for the choice amongst all those possibilities. and what of the many worlds interpretation , that may give credence to choice as free will, when the schrodeinger equation says that all probabilities exist, and that other choice exists in a seperate universe, which "we" do not have access to?
I need a bit of help with 'luck'. I had 'bad luck' growing up, now I have good 'luck'. What role did the choices I made to get here have to play in the paradigm? None? Some?
What's fascinating it´s this take us to the biggest question for mankind: how and when it all started? ( I mean life on earth, different species, human beings...)
If everything has a cause that preceds, therefore B is a product of A so if there´s no A there is no B. Then again: what was the first step of that domino?
Will shoud be understod as subjective with a very subtile, but still existing, objective underpinning.
People need a way to talk about the subtile difference of objective states we describe as will and a way to underline the degree of compulsion.
A fairer justice system shoud not rely on denying that people want things or that some act under some form of compulsion.
Try to focus on how we treat humans and if punishment work, instead of denying useful concepts.
The amount we can incorporate this knowledge of no free will into our daily lives as Sapolsky suggests is predetermined, so why does he say to try?
Because he has no choice.
He has a process of thinking that goes this way "Yes I know I have no free will over what I am doing "but" let's go with it anyway bc it made total sense that it might help humanity in a positive way "
EVERYTHING is determined, the "try" and your criticism included
Not sure that anyone thinks free will is as simple as just deciding to do something in the moment (and being able to successfully carry that decision to completion).
Deciding, or living as though one has free will, may iyself be an ultimately deterministic phenomenon. Howver, its arguably one that should be nurtured in society, as the "belief" in free will gives one a greater sense of agency,empowering at least in part, more effectiveness, tebacity, etc in one's life.
I soppose Ijust dont reaaly get the utility of this entire topic
We’ve been able to determine behaviour from individuals history, culture and religions of decades now. A simple questionaire is all that is needed. Our egos want us to believe we are untethered but the reality is we pull everything along with us. They talked about Hitler not being judged but who really made Hitler? The story I heard was a violent Jewish uncle. Who is really culpable. Hitler was just a deranged individual who was able to bring together the war machine he did. Just imagine the industrial complex Germany may have been if the uncle hadn’t entered his life
If there is no free will there is no personal responsibility, no accountability, or morals. That's not a world anyone wants to live in. It's the fierce, ferocious world every animal besides humans live in. Mama bear eats her own cubs, spiders mate then consume their partner, etc...Game out a world in which humans have no free will and it gets very ugly, very quickly.
I don't get the whole punishment issue. If a violent criminal was only partialy responsible for their actions due to their upbringing, does the crime hurt the victims less? Don't we need to be protected from further violence in the future?
How should this protection come about without incarceration?
He makes this clear in numerous interviews that we should protect ourselves from these types of people, but the way in which we treat these people and morally comprehend them and ourselves should be taken into account in “rehabilitating” these folks and structure society!!
The point is to improve the conditions of unlucky people so they don't become criminals .
@@jamescareyyatesIII Punishment doesn't improve your conditions. You're totally off topic.
@@milesgrooms7343 The funny thing is that it's "us" or "society" that has to do the integration or rehab, just like with immigration.
I believe the responsibility lies with the people themselves to adapt. You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped.
@@theinnerlight8016 I used the word “rehabilitation” somewhat ironically because that’s what our (American) prison system claims are it’s goals. Of course people (individuals) have personal responsibility/culpability, but there is a collective responsibility to ensure society can help create the “best” potential individuals because you and I deal with one another. This whole podcast is exposing that the “self” is not an atomized it, that any “one” of us has some kind of magical control of!! “You” are the outcome of an infinitely complex array of factors that have nothing to do with an atomized “you” in control of it all.
We have no choice to protest ourselves from “troubled”, “criminal” people. But why not structure communities/societies in a way that doesn’t create as many “troubled” “criminal” people?
I was always going to find rhis video because I'm not content to hear about a book from vitriolic memes. Watching now. Are we finally on track to keep pursuing positivism?
So awesome! Appreciated! Keep 'em books coming Dr Robert!
Would you say determinism can also apply to someone in the family realizes that there has been narcissistic abuse going on in the clan and decides to stand up against because one can discern the difference of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors?
19:16 I think Robert sees the difficulties of "acting determinist" as much worse than they are. As someone who's never held strong convictions about free will (including what that phrase even means), I feel it's not incorrect to feel good about good things, nor to shun bad things--"things" meaning everything, physical and nonphysical, human and animal. When it comes to people, we should forgive those who harm us, but that doesn't mean we should welcome harm. Likewise, we can praise good deeds without making mistakes like elevating someone to godhood or praising their very existence. Doing all of this is rather easy as long as we remember that questions of goodness are distinct from questions of justice.
I haven't read any of Sapolsky's work yet, but I do find it difficult to understand how someone weighing out possible decisions, and then choosing one (or the other) is not free will.
Simply because it's causal. Free means that it wasn't caused by anything, that's why in the free will concept, only you are responsible. The cause begins with you, your decision was not caused by anything prior, so only you are examined and only you are punished and/or rewarded, as if you are the sole origin of your behavior. Basically what the concept means is that suddenly the laws of physics don't apply to you, as if humans are some completely unique object that doesn't work like anything else in the universe. Something akin to magic happens within you.
An analogy to help you out what "decision making" is in a simplified form : Imagine you have 3 tubes in your head. Each of them represents ice cream, chocolate with nuts, and a cake. Lets say due to past experience you like ice cream the most, so that would mean the ice cream tube is wider than the rest.
Now, lets say you have an incoming stimuli. You have finished eating and someone says "would you like some dessert?" . Now notice they didn't say ice cream, chocolate, or cake or any other specific thing. Now since it's not specific, at this point people might claim "I'll make a decision". No, you're not making a decision, as in something that just happened within you strictly. Remember the tubes? The ice cream tube is the widest one. The ice cream, chocolate, cake and many other things are "desserts". And the question "would you like some dessert" is the stimuli , which we will represent by a ball that will ''roll over'' your "dessert tubes" in the brain. Since your ''ice cream''' tube is the widest, the ball has a higher probability to fall within the ice cream tube, and you might say "some ice cream please". The 'weights' were already set by previous experience, and which weights will be activated is done by the current environment.
In other words, your neuronal associations about anything are always at varying strength. Some are more numerous than others, and some more connected than others. And you are constantly bombarded by stimuli through your sensory organs which constantly changes the number and strength of said brain associations. So in essence, the decision wasn't within you, it was in the environment. Past environment has shaped your current brain associations, and current environment stimulates which ones will be activated, which ones will be strengthened and/or weakened. So the 'decision' was dictated by past and present environment, not something within you completely separated from everything else in the universe . You are getting constantly programmed without interruption. Computers for example are programmed and then they only execute, but organic beings are much more complex than a computer and we are both programmed and made to execute a program constantly, all the time, because there isn't a moment when you are not receiving stimuli from the environment . You constantly see, feel and hear things non-stop.
Think about your decision-making process - how do you actually "make" the ultimate decision? Have you ever been surprised by a decision you made? Where do your thoughts originate? It's all biological in your brain, and you trick yourself into thinking the decision was made after careful deliberation but in reality, in your mind, is the process of making the decision, which is how your brain brings the decision into consciousness. You cannot know ahead of time what the decision will be, because it is DETERMINED in part by the biochemical processes involved in "making" the decision, but the decision and the process in your mind is entirely biological and beyond your control. Read the book, it's fascinating!
Really!!!, wife playing with the dog during this conversation 😂😂😂
From my vantage point, a discussion between Antonio Damasio (somatic markers) and Professor Sapolsky (Deterministic Neurobiology) would likely prove enlightening.