Freethought Matters - Robert Sapolsky
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- Robert Sapolsky is a professor of biology, neurological sciences and neurosurgery at Stanford University, and he's a recipient of a MacArthur Foundation genius grant. His many books include A Primates Memoir, Monkey Luv, The Trouble With Testosterone and Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers.
Robert Sapolsky’s 2017 book Behave was a New York Times best seller and was named Best Book of the Year by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. His newest book, just released in October by Penguin Press, is called Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.
![Robert Sapolsky: There is no free will. Now what? [Vert Dider] 2020](/img/n.gif)
As a retired psychologist who has published multiple papers on the free will/determinism issue, I strongly adhere to the "could not have done otherwise" perspective of determinism, that the person could not have chosen something different given their biology, their past environment (including their prenatal and very recent environment), their current environment, and the interactions among these determinants.I regard determinism as a positive perspective, since it should help us be more tolerant of others and realize that understanding a person is better than forgiving them. Consequences, from a Skinnerian viewpoint, are useful if they help shape the person or benefit society in a positive way. We make choices, but those choices are not "free."
Well said. Thank-you for your post.
Why are the facts about how behavior happens and "-ism?" Do we say cardiovascular-ism to describe the facts about the heart system? "-Isms" are ideologies and just semantic, solipsistic, and personal beliefs and can never be proven true of false, eg, the color blue is the best.
In fact, making the biology of behavior an "-ism (personal ideology) is another trick/dishonest rhetorical tactic of "philosophers" - whatever that is.
Determinism is wonderful, because it means we can commit crimes and immoral acts without guilt or shame.
Dr. Sapolsky's book explains, in great depth, how he reaches these conclusions that many of the commenters are finding difficult to accept. It is probably the most important book I have ever read and he comes close to addressing every argument that can be conceived of. I feel it is unwise to dismiss his ideas based on this interview before reading his book. That being said, of course this is a great interview. Thank you to the FFRF for bringing it to us. As a neurologist for the past 25 years, the notion of free will is now as ridiculous to me as the notion that the Christian God exists.
Hey - wait a minute - you mean the Christian God does not exist?😊😉
💯 a belief in free will is absolutely the same as a belief in god - both ridiculous. And even more so faking it for moral implications. Fear of god is an unnecessary and even hurtful moral compass. Again, same thing, the erroneous belief in free will is excessively more harmful than good. Once we drop the belief in free will children will be raised knowing that there is ZERO place for judgement blame or praise. In fact, it’s illogical. Anger resentment regret are no longer a thing, crime and depression as result diminish - truly the earth is a better place sans the ridiculous belief in both god and free will. I should add monetary rewards and capitalism most certainly will need to be rethought bc as it stands non of it makes sense bc we do not choose our successes or failures in the sense that we currently think we do. Same applies to our criminal justice system. Quarantine to the necessary extent to protect society from dangerous people and rehabilitation, nothing more. Many generations down the line we will seem like barbarians with how we are conducting our selves. Similar to how hundreds of years ago we were killing people for epileptic seizures due to believing they made a deal with devil. The sooner we accept truth of human hood being nothing more than complex machinery the less humans will suffer (and presumably animals too bc thankfully once no free will is digested/accepted animal rights seek to follow suit)
Annie Gaylor and Dan Barker, thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
I'm so happy he took over the internet❤❤❤ more videos and interviews with him, pls. He's a gem to our times!!
I love this guy!! Thanks for a great interview and a great guest!
fascinating! thank you ffrf.
This was very interesting I’m hoping I’m using my free will to post this comment I really enjoyed it ❤😂
Outstanding interview! ...and I've watched an embarrassing number of hours of Sapolsky lectures, talks, and interviews, as well as have read Behave. I've gained a tremendously deeper understanding of life in dong so. Perhaps because some of the fundamentals resonate with questions I've always had, but couldn't quite get my head around. He clarifies so many of those, and guides me on a path to greater insight.
What an interesting interview. Someday I’m going to try to understand him in greater depth. My head hurts. My brain resists the concepts, even though I believe they are true.
He has fascinating lectures online.
Have you seen his harvard university lectures?
Fascinating
I adore Dr. Sapolsky.
After listening to Sapolsky I am left with three questions:
1. What determinants result in a population of humans who express a belief in a concept of a free will?
2. What distinguishes the population of those humans who believe humans posses the human capacity of free will versus those humans who do not believe humans have the capacity for free will?3. If one accepts Sapolsky’s determinism what difference does it make, if any, with respect a society’s capacity to modify our punishment and rewards system? Can we really make a conscious decision (intent) to treat those who have committed a crime the same way we treat someone who publishes award-winning scholarly research?
Good interview.
Let me recommend reading the book. It is definitely focused on social justice. Could have been 100 pages if it focused on new knowledge in animal and human behavior, genomics, But, it is exhaustive in the kinds of research it covers. See it's selling well, that's a good thing.
I had no choice other than to leave a short comment that only says that I left a comment for the algorithm.
Love it👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻😁 I’m a pinball and I’m ok with it. The universe has a flow, so don’t swim upstream. Go with it.
Can we get Robert Sapolsky to dialogue with Dan Dennet to discuss "Compatibalism"?
Quite seriously. . . After watching several of Dr. Sapolsky's videos on "Free Will" not being real.. . . and after 10 months of sobriety, . . . I started drinking again. . . .and I love it. I love it because obviously I can't help but have another drink. . . .
Ya mon, "Friends of Bill" will be the biggest fans. "Friends of Lois", not so much...
Thanks for the interview.
Determinism seems correct to me. Creepy, but convincing nevertheless.
It reframes us as something like living dolls that nature’s playing with/as, or characters in a movie, or separate fingers of one huge hand…
Fascinating discussion that goes to the foundation of our secular "Freethought" philosophy.
I like to tell myself the ashkenazi Jews aren't any smarter than the rest of us, but then I see Professor Sapolsky, and it blows my bias right out of the water.
Omnipresent Greetingz my friendz
Excuse me please, in advance. There was a study where subjects were fitted with electrodes and asked to make binary choices. The research scientists were able to completely control the choices, while the test subjects reported complete free will in their choices. Powerful result, wish I could find the paper.
You are probably thinking of the work of Libet or of some of his followers. Sapolsky talks about it in his book, of course, but it's far from being the whole argument, or even the most important one, since you can only do that for very simple choices (and it's a bit more complicated than you remember, I'd say).
If you know Dr Sapolsky, the answer is no.
For most people, free will does exist.
Believe I will go fishing.
We are all amateurs when we try to 'correct' the behavior of someone else. We observe that nothing changes so we shout louder and longer. Then again nothing changes. Then the amateur escalates with force and fear. And then the amateur gets 'corrected'...
Oh the irony... After all Sapolsky said about praise and condemnation, they all praise and thank each other at the end... 😅
I am watching all his interviews and he says pretty much the same thing. His responses do seem to be focused more on social justice.
Too bad that the new and very cool research on animal/human behavior causes - down to the genomic level is subsumed under the social justice pitch, but suppose punishment/social justice is what triggers everyone's brains/genome the most - the revenge instinct.
There is no ULTIMATE contra causal free will. So what? That doesn't mean you can't hold people accountable as members of a social species for the purpose of cooperation and a sense of justice in society. Maybe we don't need to be cruel but you don't need to argue against "free will" to argue against cruelty.
Does it include freedom from woke also
Wow, like watching paint dry. All 3 of them are ready to be 6 feet under.
“Free” anything is an oxymoron in Professor Sapolsky’s view of the world it would seem. An interesting fact given that his life was completely dependent upon serendipity.
I am now pondering the entertainment acts of so called Magicians & Mentalists when they ask an audience member to select a card, a picture, an object (using free will) and later reveal the result at the end, showing the person’s choice. Everyone is amazed! But what the mentalist was doing was manipulating the person toward the choice made. Of course it wasn’t magic and certainly not free will. It proves there is no free will!
I do wish interviewers would rephrase the question, “why does this matter? Or why care?” Into something that correlates to the acknowledgment that the interviewee has been investigating a field for many years, so you asked them to be here, so, let’s ask questions that don’t ask why the fuck would anyone give a shit about the shit you give a shit about?
Excuse me, You asked him here.
I'm just a working chimp, but in my opinion, the effects of substrates (biological, situational, intellectual, etc.) may indeed be influential, but do not confirm or exclude free will.
The God of the Gaps problem is the same as the Free Will problem.
@@dspondikeI see some similarity. However, most discussions of the free will issue often focus on the brain and its functions. So we do at least have a chunk of meat to investigate.
We do not have a Free Will. We have a Compromised Will.
Everybody's "will" is compromised. Everybody's.
We should not punish people because they could have done better. However, we must mitigate people because they could not have done better.
😅 Dr sapolsky stated that we do have will. I think we can all agree upon that. Then he stated that it is a matter of our upbringing and environment and other factors which we also already know. His main message seemed to be not to be hypocritical and judging and doing other things that make people have a weird expectations or sub social
@@Iamjamessmith1 My cat has a "will". How free it is compared to mine isa matter of debate. We do not have a Free Will. We have a Compromised Will.
Everybody's "will" is compromised. Everybody's.
We should not punish people because they could have done better. However, we must mitigate people because they could not have done better.
Free thought doesn't exist. That's the conclusion. ;)
While I agree with his general conclusions about free will, after watching many of his interviews I think his social prescriptions are a bit of a non sequitur. Casting blame/shame & praise is an evolutionary game of resourcing the most fit (at least with the chimps he studied). While we should change our reasons for punishing the way we do, I’m not sure we have to change the actual punishments. That’s a separate topic about the most effective & practical methods/techniques, which he isn’t an expert on.
We have free will in so much we are self conscious beings. The fact that we arise in meat bodies with all the marks of our lowly origins is just something we have to deal with. You can’t strip everyone of agency by pretending you can just trace it back to hormones and neural transmitters. We’re more than the sum of our parts and no one can trace all the parts to begin with.
Consciousness does NOT necessitate free will. Sorry.
Consciousness is as problematic a concept as fee will. I think both of these ideas are swept away together. In that sense I agree with your first sentence
Jesus called it the forgiveness of sin.
Its impossible to have Free Will in a predestined world of God s making
Fortunately the God of the Bible does not exist