Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will | Robert M. Sapolsky
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- In his best-selling book Behave, Dr. Robert Sapolsky argued that while we may not grasp the precise marriage of nature and nurture that creates the physics and chemistry at the base of human behavior, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Out of this comes a perspective that as biological organisms, we have far less free will than we usually assume.
Join us with Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, the acclaimed author, stress expert, biologist, and neuroscientist. His latest book, Determined, plumbs the depths of the science and philosophy of decision-making to mount a devastating case against free will, an argument with profound consequences. Sapolsky applies the new understanding of life beyond free will to some of our most essential questions around punishment, morality, and living well together.
Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky is the best-selling author of several works of nonfiction, including A Primate’s Memoir, The Trouble with Testosterone, and Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Dr. Sapolsky is a MacArthur “Genius” Fellow; a professor of biology, neurology, and neurosurgery at Stanford University; and a research associate at the National Museum of Kenya. He lectures on topics as diverse as stress and stress-related diseases, biology and the free will debate, the biology of our individuality, the biology of religious belief, depression, memory, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Thank you.
The book is brilliant.
People are scared of the truth and people love to feel they have control over their lives so it's no wonder people are going against Robert Sapolsky finally Robert Sapolsky is saying the truth which I agree with and has helped me accept myself as I've struggled with addictions and have always been interested in human behaviour and why I ended up being the type of person I became well done Robert Sapolsky
Excellent, gentlemen!
Even though I would want revenge upon someone who harmed me or mine, Dr. Sap's comments make good sense, and I wish they didn't.
38:05 I strongly agree! Research!
So, his interpretation of determinism is not at the quantum or atomic level, but at the brain structure/chemistry/hormonal level? Is he saying that we cannot even control our own thoughts?
I greatly respect Mr. Sapolsky as a professor, having enjoyed many of his lectures. So I would be very curious to know, with all of his knowledge regarding neuroscience... How can he be so certain that there is not some mechanism of autonomy and genuine volition that has evolved within our complex brain structure, that might allow us to actually make a bona fide decision capable of overriding all of the "deterministic" aspects of our brain structure and chemistry? Is he convinced that such a mechanism definitely cannot exist?
He has stated in other interviews, it’s asking neurons to do something they cannot.
The brain is a system made various parts, the closest to the mechanism and brain region you are suggesting is the frontal cortex, more specifically the prefrontal cortex made up of the…
“lateral PFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex) and the ventromedial PFC (also known as the orbitofrontal PFC)”
What the PFC dose…
“regulates our thoughts, actions and emotions through extensive connections with other brain regions”
(Side note: or as Robert has put it, it’s the part of the brain that does the harder thing is the right thing to do.)
He said something along the lines of. Humans have the most frontal cortex out of all other primates and other mammals. It is the brain region that is the “freest” from genetics. It is shaped and developed by interactions with environment and social interactions. PFC also develops until around the age of 25 and sometimes even to 30. It’s definitely not the path to “free will” the PFC it still shaped by deterministic cause and effect (interactions with environment and social interactions). So how well or not well it works for impulse control, emotional regulation, actions…ect. Is determined by outside of the “self” factors (causes).
Everything I said is based on his most recent book.
Rewards and punishments aren't administered because they are morally deserved, but rather because they are causal. They operate effectively because they stand-in for free will, causing better behavior than we get if we rely on people's "free will" choice of moral behavior. As Lao Tzu said 2,500 years ago, abandon morality and legality and just do the right thing because you already know what that is. Rightness is predetermined, not constructed from free will choices.
Sapolsky has in other interviews spoken about how reward and punishment are useful tools for behavior modification. He’s not outright opposed to that. What he’s advocating is untangling the concepts from morality, because there are people who moralize it. Especially when one compares themselves to others.
Precision is not Accuracy is a typical mono-dualistic continuous flash-fractal In-form-ation creation of Form following 1-0-infinity instantaneous e-Pi-i Fusion-Fission Function, in which relative-timing determines unique temporal superposition substantiation holography vanishing-into-no-thing Perspective derivatives.
Precision identification of unique positioning in Eternity-now uniqueness is WYSIWYG self-defining QM-TIME Completeness Actuality.
All of which is a variation on the theme of aspect-versions held by individual POV, in parallel coexistence, not necessarily opposed to Professor Sapolsky's analysis other than in proportion, where it is relevant to do the Sciencing in situ.
Omg one guy said i have schizophrenia and the other mentioned the grad. students laptop! Omg how did they know i was going to watch it. I am terrified.
You already have a wonderful name, there is no need to change it to Terry Fied.
Some do the "crimes" and some do the judging and I observe the goings on smiling in most cases.
We're all in the same boat, none of us built our character but because we're all in the same boat we're all sort of equal... What are you talking about? This is so obviously untrue I don't see how you go on without retracting it.
"Hey young black child whose character has been genetically, hormonally and environmentally ravaged by stress, you're in the same boat as the white child that grew up in a low stress environment and having all their needs met. Doesnt matter that the boat is stratified and you're on the bottom, all the same rules apply to you irrespective of the data because I erroneously think your suffering is the glue that hold society together "
It is a lot to ask from hard working achievers to try and grasp the scientific fact that we don't have free will. When they would come to that insight they can, within logical reasoning, no longer belittle or judge harshly their underachieving lazy counterparts. I have both types in the family and of course non have free will. I am myself so much under the influence of the future that I have even less than no free will. When I made a robot out of myself I knew I was a bionic robot already.
Robert lays down the idea that all things we think, do, and say are predicated on all things leading to that moment essentially from the dawn of existence. Due to that, we have no free will as something always preexisted in the biological machine culminating in the action you do. I loved how this video covered multiple topics including the implications of a world with no free will. I was hoping that they would address additional criticism and rebuttals to Robert's idea including that we have the ability to alter the way that we will think and act by preemptively desiding how we will respond within given scenarios. I can just hear Robert repeat himself again in his original idea. It seems like he is incapable of thinking that his idea could be wrong even slightly and set up the idea to be inherently not falsifiable based on his definition of free will.
But it's not free will if you can preemptively decide how you will respond within scenarios. First, you need alot of different parts of your brain to work together for you to think about scenarios and plan what you will do. And what you will decide to do is decided by what you think is smart or right to do, which is something you get from your culture, friends, familiy, media and so on. There is no room for "free will" anywhere. Everything is decided by how your brain works and what experiences you've had in your life. There is no room for magic.
@@TheGreentomato123Precisely! How did person X become the kind of person that does Y.
why are MOST of Sapolsky's streams so so so SCUFFED dude
So, we are all just “Biological Machines” and our bodily actions are merely expressions of causal chains in our neurons.
That’s not science. That’s Misanthropy, because it diminishes human value down to that of a machine.
It’s the same value profile as religion. For religion, human value is far below that of God. Humans are born with Original Sin. As “sinners” we are nothing compared to the God Who made us.
This guy takes the same value structure as religion, but he reduces human value to that of a machine. A machine is useful for a while, then it becomes trash which can be thrown away as worthless.
He would substitute religion’s system of praise and blame, for the permanent evaluation of humans as machines. Like he said at 1:01:49, its better to dehumanize humanity than to demonize it. He actually thinks he's making "progress" with such repulsive balderdash.
Dr. Sap is full of s**t.
the metaphysics of physicalism has nothing to do with science.
stop your 8yo level propaganda and get a clue, learn to actually rigorously observe the phenomenon you are talking about ie. mind.
lmao
Let's now explore how we can apply logic, math, and physics to formalize the relationship between determinism and indeterminism in causality within the monadological framework.
First, let's define our basic entities and relations:
- Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities).
- Let T be a set of "time points" or "moments."
- Let S be a function from M × T to some set of "states," where S(m, t) represents the state of monad m at time t.
- Let C be a relation on M × M × T, where (m1, m2, t) ∈ C means monad m1 "causes" or "influences" monad m2 at time t.
Now, let's formalize the idea of determinism and indeterminism in causality:
- Determinism: ∀m ∈ M, ∀t ∈ T, S(m, t) is uniquely determined by {S(m', t') : (m', m, t') ∈ C}.
- Indeterminism: ∃m ∈ M, ∃t ∈ T, such that S(m, t) is not uniquely determined by {S(m', t') : (m', m, t') ∈ C}.
In other words, determinism means that the state of each monad at each time is uniquely determined by its causal influences, while indeterminism means that there are some monads whose states are not uniquely determined by their causal influences.
We can formalize this further using the mathematical framework of graph theory and probability theory:
- Let (M, E) be a directed graph, where E ⊆ M × M represents the "causal edges" between monads.
- Let (Ω, F, P) be a probability space, where Ω represents the set of all possible "outcomes" or "histories," F is a σ-algebra on Ω, and P is a probability measure on F.
- The determinism and indeterminism of causality can be expressed as:
- Determinism: ∀m ∈ M, ∀t ∈ T, ∃f : Ω → S, such that S(m, t) = f(ω) for all ω ∈ Ω.
- Indeterminism: ∃m ∈ M, ∃t ∈ T, such that ∀f : Ω → S, P({ω ∈ Ω : S(m, t) ≠ f(ω)}) > 0.
Here, determinism is formalized as the existence of a function f that maps each possible outcome ω to a unique state for each monad at each time, while indeterminism is formalized as the non-existence of such a function (i.e., there are some monads whose states have a non-zero probability of differing from any given function).
Finally, we can connect this to physics by noting that this formalism is compatible with both deterministic and indeterministic approaches to causality:
- Deterministic models like classical mechanics describe the evolution of physical systems as uniquely determined by initial conditions and dynamical laws.
- Indeterministic models like quantum mechanics describe the evolution of physical systems as inherently probabilistic, with outcomes determined only probabilistically by initial conditions and dynamical laws.
The monadological framework accommodates both perspectives by treating determinism and indeterminism as emergent properties arising from the complex web of causal relations between fundamental monads.
In summary, by using tools from logic, math (graph theory and probability theory), and physics (classical and quantum mechanics), we can formalize the both/and nature of determinism and indeterminism in causality within the monadological framework:
- Causality is a relational structure arising from the web of causal influences between fundamental monads.
- Causality exhibits both deterministic and indeterministic properties, depending on the scale and perspective of observation.
- This formalism is compatible with both deterministic and indeterministic approaches to causality in physics.
This showcases the potential of the monadological framework to provide a unified language for expressing and reconciling the complex, often seemingly contradictory nature of reality. By embracing a both/and perspective and drawing on the tools of logic, mathematics, and physics, we can develop a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the world and our place within it.
Let's now explore how we can apply logic, math, and physics to formalize the relationship between reductionism and holism in scientific explanation within the monadological framework.
First, let's define our basic entities and relations:
- Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities).
- Let P be a set of "properties" or "phenomena."
- Let H be a function from P(M) (the power set of M) to P, where H(S) represents the "higher-level" or "emergent" property arising from the set of monads S.
- Let L be a function from M to P, where L(m) represents the "lower-level" or "constituent" properties of monad m.
Now, let's formalize the idea of reductionism and holism in scientific explanation:
- Reductionism: ∀S ⊆ M, H(S) is fully explained by {L(m) : m ∈ S}.
- Holism: ∃S ⊆ M, such that H(S) is not fully explained by {L(m) : m ∈ S}.
In other words, reductionism means that every higher-level property can be fully explained by the lower-level properties of its constituent monads, while holism means that there are some higher-level properties that cannot be fully explained by the lower-level properties of their constituents.
We can formalize this further using the mathematical framework of category theory and emergence theory:
- Let C be a category, where the objects are sets of monads and the morphisms are "explanatory" relationships between sets of monads.
- Let F : C → P be a functor, where F(S) represents the set of properties (both lower-level and higher-level) associated with the set of monads S.
- The reductionism and holism of scientific explanation can be expressed as:
- Reductionism: F preserves colimits, i.e., ∀S ⊆ M, F(S) ≅ colim({F({m}) : m ∈ S}).
- Holism: F does not preserve colimits, i.e., ∃S ⊆ M, such that F(S) ≇ colim({F({m}) : m ∈ S}).
Here, reductionism is formalized as the preservation of colimits by the functor F, meaning that the properties of a set of monads can be fully reconstructed from the properties of its constituent monads, while holism is formalized as the non-preservation of colimits, meaning that there are some sets of monads whose properties cannot be fully reconstructed from the properties of their constituents.
Finally, we can connect this to physics by noting that this formalism is compatible with both reductionist and holistic approaches to scientific explanation:
- Reductionist models like statistical mechanics aim to explain macroscopic properties of systems in terms of the microscopic properties of their constituent particles.
- Holistic models like systems biology and complexity theory emphasize the importance of emergent properties and the irreducibility of higher-level phenomena to lower-level descriptions.
The monadological framework accommodates both perspectives by recognizing that while some phenomena may be reductively explained, others may exhibit irreducible emergent properties arising from the complex interactions between monads.
In summary, by using tools from logic, math (category theory and emergence theory), and physics (statistical mechanics and complexity theory), we can formalize the both/and nature of reductionism and holism in scientific explanation within the monadological framework:
- Scientific explanation involves understanding the relationships between lower-level and higher-level properties of systems.
- Some phenomena may be reductively explained in terms of their constituent parts, while others may exhibit irreducible emergent properties.
- This formalism is compatible with both reductionist and holistic approaches to scientific explanation in physics and other fields.
This further illustrates the power of the monadological framework to provide a nuanced and integrative perspective on the nature of reality and the process of scientific understanding. By embracing a both/and approach and drawing on the tools of logic, mathematics, and physics, we can develop a more comprehensive and effective framework for investigating and explaining the complexities of the natural world.