I reached out to Dr. Sapolski (a stranger) for help via email a few years ago while undergoing a psychotic break. He responded by encouraging me generally and advising me how to access mental health and neurological care. Class guy.
@@meghan42 Sure...about six years ago I was experiencing odd symptoms of the constalation of psych differences I received as military retirement benefits. I flipped and put my hands on someone in public and got arrested for it. By the time I got released on bond I had no idea what was going on. I didn't know what to do. Then I found a video of a lecture Prof. Sapolski gave to undergraduates at Stanford on the topic of depression. During the lecture I thought he sounded like a kind fellow who might just take the time to write back about how to get started fixing all this. Spoiler alert: everything worked out fine charges dropped and I retired and raise Grandkids full time. In the care of doctors now.
Good for you for recognizing a problem and then reaching out to get help for it. We all need to realize that mental health issues should have no more stigma than say, a broken arm. We also need to recognize that asking for help from others is not a negative, it's actually a strength.
This is up there with some of the best content I have seen from Pakman. Sapolsky is so incredibly clear and precise here. Grappling with the idea of determinism is tough for people who have never been exposed to it, but the way that Sapolsky breaks it down here is top notch. Also, the questions that Pakman asked perfectly probe what people on the fence would ask themselves while watching this.
It's been revealed that 60% of the Act Blue donations are coming from China. This literally means the Communist Chinese are funding the Democrat Party & are interfering in U.S. elections.
Clear and precise? off course. A lot of cr@p can be "Clear and precise". Now, here is the simple fact. Humans do have free will. How come? Because it is not free will between choosing eating an ice cream or a pizza. It is the ability to choose between doing good or evil.
@@Besthinktwice It's been revealed that 60% of the Act Blue donations are coming from China. This literally means the Communist Chinese are funding the Democrat Party & are interfering in U.S. elections.
Top notch Pakman. You've shown off your intelligence and introduced millions to one of our greatest scientists. Opening minds, not beating the drum for an outdated political duality, that's the ticket! Good for you.
Dr. Sapolsky inspired me to pursue my career in research studying biodemography and cortisol as related to PTSD, racism and psychopathy. He's the best of minds. Thank you for showing him off❤
@@randyorr9443 The main reason there is no such thing as "free will" or "choice", is because they are ephemeral, vague, poorly thought out concepts. The reason they are that way, is because people invented them with a primarily egocentric and identity-driven motivation. They are not real, because we invented them. For reasosn. So stop lying to yourself.
@@randyorr9443 A "choice" they might not have made of they didn't come across Sapolsky, or if they were born in a different region and had a different education, or if their mother smoked while they were in the womb, or if countless other determinate factors had gone differently. There's no magical moment where the laws of physics are put on pause for a person to make a choice free of the causal chain.
I always get teary-eyed when I listen to Dr. Sapolsky. Whether you believe in free will or not, his solutions to many of our societal woes should, at the very least, be LISTENED TO and DISCUSSED. Thanks for having the predetermined charcteristics for asking this guest to be on your channel, David! 🥳
I read the book and it is extremely thought provoking. I’m not sure where I stand on free will, but I’m looking forward to hearing more arguments on both sides of this fascinating subject. Thanks for the interview,
You can get more on this topic from Sam Harris podcast Making Sense, episode #91 "The Biology of Good and Evil" where he interviews Robert Sapolsky. Robert also mentioned Sam briefly in the Pakman interview.
Thank you for having Dr. Sapolsky on for an interview. I find that what I learn from his research and explanations brings me a lot of peace. Now the problem of talking about these topics with people who feel as if they are experiencing a rug pull and don't react well to the concept. "We have been treating people for better or worse than we should based on things they had nothing to do with."
But to Treat people for the better or worse then we should based on things they had nothing to do with was predetermined, and if keeps happening is pre-determined.
@@destruction1928 The postdetermination defined reality, too (FOX-news). So I just obligatorily shrug my should---er. The pain of others (and my own pain) is real as are the needs (biological) and the physical limitations. Sometimes, I succeed in reaching the toilet before the bladder bursts.
So great that you are branching out into other very interesting topics. I have several of his books; he’s a fantastic author, teacher and science communicator.
The way I look at it is: can you think a thought before you think it? Or do thoughts merely arise into view? Can you prethink thinking? The answer is obviously not, and if you don't control your very thoughts, how in the world do you even think you have free will and choice?...
Causality only works at light speed, your brain is spread across a nanosecond in time where now does not exist for the rest. Your own two eyes are both at the center of the visible universe each seeing a few inches further than the other at a point in time. The reality is we only exist in the past even if thinking was instant. It’s also entirely possible the uncertainty quantum measurement along with the many worlds hypothesis means we simultaneously don’t and do have free will. You find yourself in the universe that is consistent with your desired choice, and yet are completely bound to a stochastic determinism.
@@hugegamer5988 I think (if I understand you correctly) that you are correct. There are an infinite number of universes in which everything that CAN happen does happen. A human being travels, not through time/space, which don't even exist in the way that we imagine, but we progress from one universe to another based on our mindset. We are always in a universe that is a match for our mindset. This is why all those "nutjob" "manifest the things you want" are actually correct. "Be the change you want to see" is exactly right. You are always in the universe that matches your mind. You aren't moving forward through space and time, you are "moving" to different universes that more accurately reflect your ever changing mindset.
This is drivel! I agree with having no free will in the sense we commonly understand it. But this guy talks as if we're still in the middle ages or smth. His kind of thinking about this topic is extremely simplistic and the solution is even worse than what we have now. If we take ANY notion of self responsibility out of the equation then therapy is useless too. So then we would have to lock up anyone that we don't like but do it in the most humane way? Being locked up in a golden cage is still horrible. I'm Swiss and here we try to make criminals want to have therapy and over time try to change their behavior. (Not their personality) It doesn't work with anyone and I agree that those should be kept away from society - but in a much more humane way. But for those that it does work, it's a lifechanger and they can and do add value to society. What I don't like about Sapolsky's radical simplicity is that it can lead to a kind of thinking that NOTHING would help since no one has free will in any form but forget that self-responsibility is still a thing, then it could lead to a kind of fatal reductionism. Also the way he talks here doesn't imply a really deeper and more nuanced knowledge on a philosophical level about this topic.
Huge fan of sapolssky and his work. In particular, the research he’s done on primates and social structure, and the excellent lectures from his classes that I have watched whenever available. So first of all, thank you for you contributions to science professor. The main point I want to make is that I often find the free will argument to get very circular, and even in this brief interview, with two intelligent individuals, it seems they either missed or did not address the circularity of the no free will stance. It’s one thing to say that we don’t have free will, and to use evidence from science to support that, but this leaves us in a strange position when we then speak of what we should change as a result. It’s a bit like the liars paradox, or the halting problem, or the Gödel incompleteness theorems. If we don’t have free will, and we accept that science proves this, then where is the leverage coming from that would enable us to then make changes in the world to accommodate that reality? In other words, if there was no free will in any of the steps that lead to us discovering there is no free will, how would we ever use that information to do anything other than what the laws of physics have already determined would happen?
If it is determined that people will share Sapolsky's ideas and that people will incorporate them into their thinking, then it is probably determined that we will make a more humane world. If it is determined that people will rather share the idea that if everything is determined, we cannot change the predetermined causal chain, then people are probably predetermined to do less to reach a more humane world. Sapolsky was predetermined to share these ideas and his ideas will influence other people's views on this topic. Even though his influences were also predetirmined, he is a part of the causal chain, that might lead to a more humane world. I hope there are lots of us who are predetermined to join this causal chain too.
Change may occur ,it may not,when the body receives the information.Not so much the hard programming of behavior but a general acceptance of what happens is meant to happen,note you may still not like whats happening,but there might not be the monologue of I should'nt have done that,they should'nt have done that,so resentment,regret,blame and pride may indded happen.So its not that change cant happen,its there is no you to bring it about.So act as if you have free will and whatever happens is meant to happen,this may bring more peace and acceptance in daily life.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this conversation and having not previously heard of Robert I think about this topic frequently. Such a fascinating topic and so good to hear from someone with such incredible thoughts and experience in this area. 🤩🤩🤩
Now, that was a really great interview. Thank you! That said, Dr. Sapolsky is one of my favorite scientists and a great inspiration in my work with dogs - work that is based on canine neurobiology. With everything I have learned about the brain in the last few years, I couldn't agree more: there is no free will. But there was one viewpoint in this interview that excited me even more, and that is how wrong our with is in regards to punishments. I have never (nor even as a child) believed in a system of punishment. I believe that harmful or dangerous people should be separated; i believe that we need to learn more about what caused them to become that way, but all without the element of punishment. To hear Dr. Sapolsky voice some of my viewpoints was wonderful. I do want to say, though, that I am also a very firm believer in rehabilitation - not through horrible and dramatic, sometimes barbaric treatments, but through therapy. Again, thank you for this interview
Wow! I have been reading more and more scientists' view on why we really don't have free will and this interview really solidified the argument for me - while I really appreciate your political perspectives on Yankee and world politics (I mostly agree), I really appreciate your interviews with other people talking about very interesting stuff that is not directly labelled "politics" - great job!
When your father won the Visa lottery, he was inspired to do what he was doing by his life events that brought him to that moment, as his peers before theirs, and so on and so on. The Visa Lottery ended up with his name in their pile, and pulled it. The events leading up to that moment all needed to happen before the name was in the pile. Everything affects everything.
And too many people confuse a priori and a posteriori probabilities. What do philosophers know anyway? They still prattle about nonsenses such as Buridan's Ass and the Ship of Theseus. Post-Bacon science has given us the modern world. Philosophers want to maroon us in ancient Greece.
@@DJF1947 Suppose two similar dates in front of a man, who has a strong desire for them but who is unable to take them both. Surely he will take one of them, through a quality in him, the nature of which is to differentiate between two similar things.
@@DJF1947 I was talking about this with myself last night A discrete decision based upon an input having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a bounded length of time. just because we do not see asses or people starving to death through indecision, or other examples of Buridan's undecided states in real life, does not disprove the principle. The persistence of a Buridan's undecided state for a perceptible length of time may just be sufficiently improbable that it has not been observed.
@@gwilymyddraig A physicist, like myself, will point out that the Buridan's Ass state is an unstable one, in that any deviation will strengthen (larger percentage of visual field, stronger odour, etc.) the appeal of one of the choices. The status quo cannot persist moreover, because of quantum mechanical uncertainty. QM, via the Planck limit. also undermines the entirely new field of philosophical waffling known as 'supertasks'.
Hey I watch his lectures here on UA-cam as well as many others do. He would have been an awesome professor to take live courses from. Thanks David for having him on.
I think free will and determinism are the same thing from the universe’s perspective. If God is infinite and everything, everything that can be done, will be done, and yet it is Infinitely free in the context of infinity. No restrictions.
Great interview, probably my favorite on this channel. I’ve become a huge fan of Dr Sapolski and his work this year, and I’ve watched many interviews that he’s done over the last ten years. Despite being only a 20 minute interview, it still managed to get to topics that I had yet to see covered, at least in the few hours of Sapolsky interviews that I’ve seen so far. Sir, you did an excellent job.
David, I have always loved your show. Your guest today took your show to a new intellectual level. It gave me nothing but respect for your line of questioning an absolute excellent job. Such enquiry rocks the very foundation of our shared card house and the rekindles the humility our modern world is so often lacking. This conversation makes our current political narrative, absolutely laughable if it wasn’t so costly to humanity, all creatures and the earth it’s self. The paradoxes, even though we may be mechanical it matters. Thanks for the great show.
As someone that majored in Philosophy, free will and determinism was one of my most favorite topics. Being forced to write papers on what I thought and why really helped me flesh out my beliefs. I came down on the side of determinism, but argued why that doesn't mean there can't be accountability for actions too.
@@lifeiswonderful22 we're still uncertain about that but if the Universe is deterministic presumably we humans are determined to be free. what's your take on it?
@dannyholland7462I don’t think we have enough information on the topic to confidently preach determinism but I don’t think it negates responsibility. You still are who you are, and choose to do what you do. The claim is that the atoms were a certain way so you always were going to be that person that would choose the thing you do.
Having been a free will absolutist I am slowly coming around to realizing that there are so many factors which influence our thoughts and ideas that are beyond our control. Having had an accident that put me in chronic pain completely changed my thinking patterns similar to how torture changes your mind, Then another drug changed them again and another drug changed them even more convincing me that a large part of my thoughts are biochemically and biologically controlled.
I agree you're on the right track (not sure a position of 'free will absolutism' whatever it means makes any sense), but don't get carried away. The pain and the drugs impaired your ability to act as a free agent, but it didn't prove that free will doesn't exist. On the contrary, having your free will impaired points to the existence of that which is impaired. It doesn't exist in the way the interview defined it, but just because they came up with a rubbish definition doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can believe EVERYTHING Sapolsky says about determinism and still believe free will is an important and useful concept ... I do.
@@NevilleSmith61 If pain can impair an ability to act as a "free agent" then it's not free. It's not free, rather an organism that is free of stressors, in this example pain, has a greater range of choice. But those choices are still not free. "Free" implies uncaused, and that is an incoherent concept.
@@NevilleSmith61 That is what it implies. Because when someone makes a decision that is based on their biology, people's innate understanding is that even if biology informs one's decisions, those decisions are still theirs to make. Which is the argument that there is some metaphysical soul that does the deciding that precedes over biology. Otherwise what does the "free" mean in the term free will? What is the will free from?
My favorite response to the question of whether we have free will is from God of War Ragnarok when Brock says "The fucks it matter? It feels like we're making choices."
@Vlasko60 what my answer implies is that it's irrelavent whether we have it or not, something we will never really know because the fact is in our every day lives it feels like we do, we still make choices. We have to, otherwise you just exist as a vegetable until you die. So since our experience is that of making choices as if we have some sort of free will, we are going to act as if we do. Therefore it makes no difference what the true answer actually is.
@Vlasko60 yeah, you don't know what I want. What I want to know is irrelavent. We have a question that does not have an answer. We live our lives as if we have free will correct? We don't plan on doing anything different correct? Like is there any further information we can reasonably assume we coild learn at any moment, short of a definitive answer that would change the way you live your life on a daily basis?
@Vlasko60 how is any of that relavent? I wanted an answer to my question. Do you think we are on the cusp of soon being able to learn for sure whether or not we have free will? Like, do you think we are as close to that as we are to curing cancer, something we expect to be able to do probably within a matter of generations of humans. Are we that close in your opinion to learning the truth about free will? Is it something you're waiting on and think you will know before you die (hopefully of natural causes in old age)? Because my point is, unless you think we are like, moments away (scientifically speaking) from learning the truth, where your world sort of revolves around the issue, the question of free will is irrelavent to how humans live our daily lives and interact with our reality. For example nobody is waiting for this answer before deciding what to do with their lives. Nobody becomes aware of the arguments surrounding the concept of free will and then fucking pauses their lives, or alter the way in which they exist because they realize they don't know if what they're doing is truly a free choice of theirs. It doesn't happen. That's not how people function. In conclusion, my original response about how it doesn't matter still stands. Because it doesn't. Nobody bases how they act or interact with reality based on what they think of the issue or existence of free will. We make choices. Whether they are truly free choices or determined by genetic factors passed on through thousands of millions of years of evolution, it FEELS to us as if we are making that choice. Society is constructed with the idea that people are making their own choices. THAT'S what matters to people in a meaningful way, not the debates and philosophical arguments. Some of us enjoy engaging in those, and that's fine. But it's ultimately unimportant to every day life and highly likely we will never know the truth about free will.
Such a breath of fresh air away from politics. I know this is a political channel, but it is nice to mx it up once and a while. Sapolsky is a great way to do that. Thanks Pakman!
8:07 "How do you wind up becoming the sort of person who would form that intent?" There it is, Free Will proponents: the question to ask yourselves whenever you're fooling yourself into believing you have Free Will. How did you become the sort of person to narrow down the selection of potential choices that occur to you, and how did you become the sort of person who made the choice you did?
I don't think you understand the argument at all. The thing that calsl itself you, the ego, is mostly formed by nature vs nurture, not yourself. Your capacity as a human is mostly out of your control because you do not control the formation of yourself. Its like telling someone who has just had a stroke to just talk normally. The way our brains gets wired is not controlled by you. Therefore you do not have self control.
Pakman interviews Sapolsky? Best Christmas present ever. Been a Sapolsky fan for a few years now. I was so excited for his new book Determined. It’s shorter than Behave and a little bit more to the point. It lines up a lot with Sam Harris’s view on the notion of freewill but it does a lot of the research heavy lifting. Have him back on if you can, David!
David is an excellent interviewer. I've listened to a variety of interviews regarding Dr. Sapolsky's book. This one was the best, as David facilitated (versus hindered) Dr. Sapolsky's ability to effectively explain the complexities of free-will versus determinism (at least as much as possible within a brief period).
Sapolsky is one of the modern intellectuals I admire most. His book Behave is currently my favorite book in the sciences genre and I have his new book on my reading list. Sapolsky touched on free will in Behave, which caused me to develop my own ideas a little more. Looking forward to see what he has to say in the new book.
Very difficult concept for people to understand and accept, but I do think it's the truth. I guess you could be a compatibilist, but that just seems even more mind boggling to me.
Yes I went to a Sam Harris lecture years back and lost respect for him when he flipped a mental switch and negated everything he said before that. Because people cant stand the idea of no free will, despite the fact it would absolutely lead to a better world if we operated under that assumption. The only argument against it is religion, which is not shocking when Determinist policies would all be Liberal (maternal care, universal pre-k and free school lunches, etc).
Yes, it can seem mind boggling. Take into consideration that there is no permanent self and that all consciousness is conditioned. Acts are based on skillful or unskillful decisions. This takes a person whose consciousness is in the present and understands the root motivation all people act upon.
Compatibilism was mischaracterized. The idea is that all events are determined. There's no wiggle room. But the concept of free will isn't inconsistent with that. To put it crudely, "free will" might be defined more as whether or not there are constraints on your desires coming to fruition.
Welcome to the real world Robert Sapolsky absolutely your best guest so far! ! I know it’s tough to wrap your head around it and it’ll take some time to absorb some how , I know He is on the right track!
You could go bonkers thinking about this. I tried an experiment based on his example. Chocolate ice-cream verses rocky road. I love chocolate, hate rocky road, so I choose chocolate. Right? But I didn't *choose* to *love* chocolate. I just do. So I'm gonna eat the rocky road just to prove I have free will dammit! But that's driven by my desire to prove free will being greater than my love of chocolate ice-cream and all because I watched this video. Now I have a headache and it isn't from eating yummy ice-cream.
@noself7889 Modern? Philosophers have been talking about this for centuries. Besides, I haven't "fallen for" anything. Like everyone else, free will seems self evident to me but you cannot make a good argument that we actually have it. Whatever you "decide" to do next, you have no way of knowing if you could have "chosen" differently.
David always does a great job on interviews. There may be no more valuable content on UA-cam than Sapolsky's lecture series on human behavioral biology. His lecture on depression is also one of the best videos on the subject. Massive respect.
I love his vision. Anything that extinguishes such ludicrous concepts like damnation & hellfire get a thumb up. I believe these ideas are undeniable, from what we understand about the mechanistic nature of proceedings.
Wow David it was to my surprise and delight that you had Robert Sapolsky on as a guest. I have been watching his lectures and reading his books for some time now and it's great to see him on your show, your interview is as good as it gets. thank you
If there is no free will, there is no self. No one has ever been able to find a self anywhere in the universe. The buck doesn’t stop anywhere so to speak, causation just goes on and on. Nobody’s home! The confusing part is we all know there is ‘something’ perceiving all of this. We call it ‘I’ and try to jam it somewhere within causation but wherever it is it ain’t in there or else ‘it’ wouldn’t be able to perceive the endless chain of causation.
Wouldn't the absence of free will heavily imply the existence of a self? Temperament, personality, behavior etc. are all much more concrete under this model vs. the infinite plasticity of identity that's implied when you can make any choice imaginable, and your choices ultimately affect who you are.
It's physically painful to watch someone as smart as Pakman ask the questions he does here about freewill, responsibility and criminality. If Pakman struggles with this what hope do the people around me have.
@@marksmiley7644 I am by no means a smart person, in general I think people like Sapolsky are smarter than say people like Rachel Maddow, John Stewart or Pakman and people like Maddow, Stewart and Pakman are more intelligent and informed than the average person. I think I'm probably below average and I don't find this topic to be super complex and challenging. It's a paradigm shift to be sure, like going from thinking that the world is flat to thinking of it as a globe, or zooming in on a dark patch of night sky only to realize just how much bigger the universe is than we supposed, or going from thinking of animals as something simple that probably doesn't feel pain to realizing how rich their inner worlds actually are. These things are paradigm shifting and uncomfortable or awe inspiring and there is a complexity there in each of these to be discovered for sure, but understanding the underlying complexities are rarely required in order to think with and through the new paradigm. Perhaps Pakman is merely presenting the most basic questions that are likely to come to mind for his audience so they are prepared to ask better questions of the material should they seek it.
oh God this comment resonated with me and hurt so much this xmas. May God have Mercy on us. Coz if he aint real and won't, we are soooo fukt. -an atheist.
Dr. Sopolsky is brilliant. I wish David you had talked to him about the correlation between certain brain structures and transgender identity. He can provide the science.
And what formal education do you have to make that assessment? The whole point here is that there is an illusion of free well, you think you are doing things of your own accord, but you've already made the decision before you've taken action on anything in life.
Dr. Sapolsky is awesome. I have watched and rewatched all of his lectures here on UA-cam so to see him on TDPS is a delight! I’ve always disliked the entire topic and debate about free will but I knew Sapolsky could get me to listen. Very interesting. I think we could get there if religion wasn’t such a cultural force in the US. Europe, Australia, and pockets of Asia have a better chance.
More people need to understand that this. Narcissism and stupidity work together to convince people that they get the credit for their actions. This isn't an excuse to be lazy. It's complicated.
@@shlockofgod they can be. There is no free will buy the messages you surround yourself with influence the machine. It's complicated. But the individual isn't is responsible for their own laziness.
@@shlockofgodthe fact that you took the time out of your day to write a comment that does nothing for you materially, proves the point. I guarantee you did not make a conscious decision to come here , maybe or maybe not watch the interview, and anonymously post your thought less analysis. If that was on your schedule I’ve got a 20k check with your name on it. It wasn’t though , you’re a product of your environment, and apparently your environment doesn’t include critical thought, since your environment has somehow convinced you that this was the best way to spend your time. Guessing you vote Republican .
i am a compatibalist, i think Robert also is, but the issue is that under that umbrella free will is not possible to define as something on opposition to determined evolution of the world. the problem with the discussion about compatibilism so to speak is that people want free will to mean something more than correlation between mental states and then how the system evolves. which is a more technical way to say agency is the correlation between what you think and what you end up doing. that is perfectly compatible with determinism, what is not compatible is a notion of freedom from the worlds evolution, and the more rigorous to try to be about defining a notion like that, the more impossible it becomes to know what you are even talking about. so the debate always sort of derails into an argument about freedom from what, which really doesn't end up being very useful in my opinion.
Clear example of False memory is Responding more actually of January 6 being peaceful Protest is . Claiming they watched 5 minutes of all day replayed video live.
I'm at 3:40 and already I have to object to the description of "compatiblism". A strict determinist says that every action one takes is completely determined by all the history of that organism, without any idea of a soul that somehow causes the rules of physics to be violated and allows a brain to decide things other than what the physics of the neurons would otherwise conclude, and thus there is no free will. A compatiblist (such as the notable Dan Dennett) agrees with all of that except they define "free will" differently. As I understand it, they mean "free will" in the sense that viewed externally, the organism has a range of apparent choices to make, and it makes one without coercion (which even non-determinists agree is no free will). But the choice it makes via its arcane internal logic, is still deterministic. As someone once said, "You are free to choose, but you are not free to choose which option you choose."
@@michaelenquist3728 -- michael, based on your description, you don't understand what determinists are saying. nobody claims to know what is inside your brain. let's take a step back. have you ever seen those lottery machines with numbered ping pong balls flying around that get drawn to pick that week's winning numbers? Do you agree that the system is purely physical, with the motion of the balls completely determined by physics, yet nobody (if the game isn't rigged) can compute what the output will be even if they get to inspect the initial state of the balls to any degree physically possible? As a determinist, I see the brain like that. It is hugely complex and nobody can tell other than with statistical guesswork what you are likely to pick when you are making choices. To claim that determinists know what you are thinking is just a strawman that deflects from the actual claim. Yes, you are making choices, but which one you choose is determined by the present state of your mind at that moment, and that state is determined by everything in your history that led up to that moment. Surely you agree that this is at least partly true, that your choices are influenced, sometimes strongly, by your previous experiences. Say you are choosing between watching two movies, one a comedy and one a drama. Nobody is forcing you which to pick (coercion) so you feel your choice (say, the drama) is the result of free will. So let's inspect that. Say the comedy features Woody Allen, and you don't like Woody Allen, so it pushes you away from making that choice. That is a brute fact of your experience at that moment, yes? Or say you are interested in Spain, maybe you vacationed there once, and the drama is set in Spain. Do you agree that the predisposition to learning about Spain influenced your choice? You might say, yes, that influences it, but it doesn't fully determine it, why, it was your own choice to go to Spain and so that is just a product of your earlier free will. But then you'd have to step back in time to when you made that choice and see what influenced why you made it. All the determinist is saying is that not only do your previous experiences influence your decisions, every single one is the result of the network of all your previous experiences along with whatever neural biases you inherited from your parents -- which of course you also didn't choose. Finally, here is a completely different take on why determinists believe what we do. Presumably you believe that much of your body is a biomechanical system -- however you determine to say "yes" or "no" to some question, it is just a physiological sequence of events which follow the laws of physics that fire a sequence of nerve impulses that travel down the length of those nerves, leading to muscles that contract, also following the laws of physics, causing your mouth to form a shape and utter "no". Agreed? So work in reverse? At which point in your nervous system/brain is there an event which does something different than what physics dictates? Because what free will requires is that physics is violated somewhere along the line.
@@michaelenquist3728 -- Michael, I love having conversations with people who have an opinion different than mine if they can express themselves well. But if you label me as a liar instead of simply someone who has a different opinion on a topic, well, we're done.
It’s not only that “free will” doesn’t exist, it’s that the term has no meaning. It’s two words that sound nice together, but any useful definition is lacking. It’s a nebulous, unformed idea.
My thoughts exactly. our language doesn’t really describe this properly and that free will agency etc we seem to lack the words or language, to describe what he’s trying to get to
I think there's a useful definition, but that definition is one under which free will doesn't exist. I think that that definition is useful, because it serves as a way to make it explicit that everything has a cause and that we're able to research the root causes of issues in our society and work to fix them, that we're capable of solving systemic issues instead of just chalking them all up to individual responsibility.
I had a crisis thinking determinism leads to pointlessness but it is actually relaxing to know you're not guilty of anything. I don't take it as an excuse to behave bad, since consequences are still there. But I have stopped hating people for what they do
Wow!! You got Dr. Sapolsky on, so cool. I was just looking for something good to listen to and I can say this is it without even giving it a preview, perfect timing. Thank you, I so needed this 😁🙏🏽✨Happy Merry Christmas Holidays 😏 😎🤘🏼🎄🥂✨
I'm an agent that is part of the universe. My will is a force among many greater and lesser forces. Free will, as limited as it is and as thwarted as it so often is, is also a product of biology. For me the best way to express free will is changing the angle of direction and this has impacts in the future. But the question is really --- who is it that has or doesn't have free will?
This is So Unbelievably Important and Revolutionary for Us All to Realize and Understand! Thank You for doing this Interview! Robert Sapolsky might just be a Genius!
I get that we are a mixer to which ingredients are added, and following the proscribed recipe, come out “perfect brownies” every time, but the things happening around us, over which we have no control, bring the possibility of randomness, I believe. So it’s true…we really are who we are! My thoughts on this subject is that it still IS good to be a good person even if we don’t do it because we have used “free will” to make the decision to be helpful. I am also concerned to the level some people may take this….some sitting down and doing nothing the rest of their lives, bereft at the thought they have no ability to make their own decisions. What we need to take from this, is that they really are our decisions…because of who we are!
I feel like this would be an extremely difficult concept for society as a whole to accept because everyone wants to keep believing deep down that they’re special and unique (you can probably thank Abrahamic religion for playing a role in that).
I would say we're special and unique to the fellow humans who like us or love us but other than that we're not really different from other mammals that live in herds. Nature doesn't think humans are any better than, say, a kangaroo. Nature doesn't give a shit about humans.
I never believed is was unique. I believe however that I'm a product of my upbringing together with karakter and personality. Which also depends on the chemical balance in my body.
Sure, lump it to solely the Abrahamic religions. That seems like an odd scapegoat when plenty of non Islam/Judaism/Christian sources advocate for self centeredness, being your own god/goddess (new age), being special because of your ancestry, or the self development industry for example
@@chibu3212 actually, I don’t believe it’s an odd scapegoat when you consider the Abraham make religions, both Christian and Muslim dominate societies all over the world, and they preach exclusively free will and punishment for making bad choices. So actually, I believe it’s spot on but hey, what do I know since I don’t have free will. Lol. Actually, I haven’t believed in free wheel for a long time. When you consider where your thoughts come from, out of the deep dark well, that is my mind, and the way random thoughts just popped into existence, and I may or may not act upon them.
I wrote this elsewhere (with edits): To the compatibilists/determinists: It's a probabilistic universe if it's infinite. (It's not just classical mechanics.) You are trying to apply determinism/finiteness to a probabilistic/infinite universe. The problem with causality is that infinity (and quantum instantaneousness) breaks it, fundamentally, because you cannot go far back enough to determine all the initial conditions (that lead to you/your behavior) because there are none with infinity! Infinity breaks determinism. To add: The Uncertainty Principle suggests that you cannot say for certain that we have no free will. To add for this video's context: Sure, you have no control in some senses, like classical mechanics (upbringing, gravity, etc.), but not necessarily from a fundamental/quantum sense. The universe goes beyond classical mechanics. Think also of 'spooky action at a distance.' This doesn't appear causal, but, rather, instantaneous. If the universe created you, then so did infinity if the universe is infinite.
I feel like the whole argument for determinism hinges on the basic premise that our current scientific understanding is more or less complete. Yes, we might have some minor things wrong here or there, but no major “gaps” remain in our understanding that could make something like free will possible. Here’s the problem with this… Imagine if we create an intelligent machine so complicated that no one can tell if it’s a robot or a human. With current advances in AI, this seems even more plausible than ever. Now, is this machine conscious? From everything we understand about computers, it’s probably not conscious. So this machine is basically something that can perfectly imitate the behavior of a human, without actually having human consciousness, it’s some kind of “philosophical zombie” (Chalmers). And this shows the gap in our understanding. Determinists view humans as deterministic “biological machines.” But as we just showed, you can have a machine that acts just like a human but is missing probably the primary defining attribute of humanity, consciousness. To me, this illustrates a pretty profound gap in our scientific understanding. We can conceive if how to create an intelligence so complex that it’s indistinguishable from a human. But not only would this intelligence likely lack consciousness, we couldn’t even measure it to see if it’s conscious. So I think it’s a bit too early to throw out free will.
How do we know other people experience consciousness any more than a machine? Thatś part of the problem. We have no way of knowing a machine is not conscious at some point. That is going to be an interesting discussion years from now (but current tech they call AI is nowhere near it).
Your argument falls apart in one fundamental way: prove to me you are conscious. Likewise, how could I prove to you that I am conscious? What makes us any different from the machine that “mimics” consciousness? Aren’t we all mimicking behaviours that lead to the illusion of consciousness? What is consciousness anyways?
@@NemosUA-cam If you say that, then I will go back to Descartes and say that actually my own consciousness is the ONLY thing that I can be sure actually exists. Everything else that I perceive in the world could in fact be an illusion or an elaborate simulation. I’ve always found it strange that some conscious beings will seriously argue that they in fact, do not exist. It makes me wonder if there really are P zombies out there…
respectfully, none of this is relevant to his argument. the fact that science has gaps in understanding isn’t a counter to his point either. you aren’t engaging on his points. to be clear, he does believe that on a practical level, you are making choices as a thinking agent.
Humans have free will in their reactions to any and every situation. We are free to choose how we react to something that is not predetermined nor defined.
Do we? Suppose I copied someone in the instant before they make a decision, and paste them and their surroundings perfectly. Up to the last quark, photon, and their states. Now we press play. Will the copies vary in their choice? If we take a hard deterministic view, then every particle will act identically to each other copy of itself, meaning that every brain will make the same decision. If we take into account probabilistic quantum behaviours, then the copies will eventually act differently. But is that free choice or simply a machine that drew a different number from its RNG?
If your brain became damaged so that the left side of your body is paralyzed, are you choosing not to ever move those muscles again, or is that something that is imposed on you by physical circumstances that are external to your mind?
Great direction David ! Sapolski is a psychological dynamo on YT. I see you pull in political viewership and throw out a consciousness determination lesson is just fantastic rhetoric to grow your channel. Cheers and Happy holidays !
A fascinating discourse. Habits change us better than trying to be "strong-willed". Changing actions now will produce a different set of inputs to our future "decisions".
Free will is like a train on a track. There are points where the track switches directions. If you are the train and the tracks represent the choices and experience associated with them, then that is a choice taken freely by the conductor of the train
@@babybutchie He or she makes the decision on which track to go. I would say that humans don't have as much free will as they think, but we are not just programmed biological robots.
- Raised in a religious upbringing - Becomes an atheist as a teen - Blames God for everything - Spends rest of existence desperately trying to explain life without God (lol) So typical.
God is omniscient, meaning he knows every detail and outcome of every possible scenario. E.g., He knew everything about Satan and what that specific arrangement of particles (it doesn't matter he's nonmaterial, but whatever he is) called "Satan" would do before he created him, and still decided to make Satan the specific way he was which resulted in him doing exactly what he did. You cannot blame a car for being faulty, if an engineer beforehand purposely created a faulty car, knowing he could have done otherwise. Therefore, God knew and purposely designed Satan to rebel, everything is Gods fault, including evil. God could have altered him so he wouldn't rebel. He's omnipotent so he could have, and omnibenevolent so would have. But he didn't, therefore God wanted Satan to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all suffering and is malevolent. And if every variant of Satan was “freely” evil regardless of how you designed him, then God shouldn't have created Satan to begin with. There were angels like Michael Demiurges that knew and did not rebel that he could have replaced him with or just leave blank. Divine foreknowledge and creation both preclude "free will". He's omnipotent, which means he could create a world all good, without suffering, without inflicting on the free will of others. It seems like God created the problem and takes credit for fixing it, even though it would never have occurred if he didn't allow or want it to. This is ignoring the fact, that Yahweh committed/ commanded 7 genocides/ infanticide, condoned slavery, rape, homophobia, sexism and racism. Not to mention condemns people to eternal suffering for simply, not knowing he exists, despite the fact he knows what it would take to convince and save everyone, and decides not to. He's a malevolent cunt. And no, there is not free will, that is an incoherent concept. Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them. Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression. Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction. If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason? A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them?
If we don't have free will, why do we even bother discussing whether we have free will or not in the first place since the outcome of the entire discussion is supposedly already predetermined by our lack of free will? Well, I guess there's no reason in asking that question in the first place since this free will discussion was already predetermined to occur in the first place anyways. As was me apparently writing this comment on this UA-cam video regarding this whole issue as well. As is you reading this comment and in turn so is whatever reply you may or may not make about it. It's all just predetermined I guess and I'm only a self-aware consciousness passenger in my free will-less mind and body.
@@unluckygamer692 Yeah exactly. If we don’t have “free” will then there must be something (or I guess hypothetically someone) that has the free agency to determine what our will’s course of action is overall. I guess scientists just chock that up to genetics and brain chemistry determining one’s behavior, but the very fact that we can be self aware of and question our own instinctual behavior means we can defy it as well, hard as that may often be.
Sapolskys souring determinism not fatalism. He thinks the our actions and behaviors are wholly the product of things we have no control over but also believes that what actions and behaviors and choices we make can affect outcomes.
Getting sick and committing a crime are definitively the same. I believe this man to be the smartest I have ever seen, and will ever see. I am humbled by his superior abilities of reason. Shalom.
Perhaps science will totally figure out how our brains work. I realize I have no real reason to believe in total free will, but I can't help but believe in some sort of limited free will. I do understand that there is some combination of basic programming in the human brain and some level of environmental conditioning, I just think there is something more than science has or maybe even can figure out.
There is no way you have freewill, because you don't control your upbringing which completely sets the floor and ceiling for your capacity. Also do I have free will if I didn't choose to exist?
@@peterhorton9063 You have some control over your upbringing. Your choices do -- it's just that you don't by any stretch of the imagination have total free will or total control. For those who believe humans don't have free will -- give me an example of something that would have free will.
@@peterhorton9063 If everything is 100% totally deterministic, we'd have learned to control things a lot more than we have. There'd be no surprises. Human consciousness may have its roots in biology, but there is something within it that totally confounds scientific interrogation. While WE might not be surprised by our actions, people that believe they have us figured out are very often surprised by our actions. How often have we heard someone going off the deep end and people who knew them their whole lives saying, "I never saw this coming"? I liken free will to a greenhouse. There is only so much space, water, sunlight available, limiting the plants you can grow. You might not be able to grow a tree, but once you see the limitations, there are still a nearly infinite set of possibilities within those limitations. A small infinity is still infinity.
@@toddjohnson7572 so do you believe people who live in a totalitarian government are free, where are the information is controlled? Probably not, your conscious brain is only provided information via the subconscious. You don't actually experience reality but what your subconscious process and provides to you. Just like a totalitarian government gives you the illusion of choice your subconscious does the same.
I think we all innately know this. Why do we love humble people so much? Because we sub-consciously know that the correct attitude is to not take too much credit. Why do we hate arrogance? Because that is someone taking too much personal credit. Why do we love forgiveness so much? Because we have always just "known" that people are not as bad as they seem.
I found this video very helpful as a juror in a criminal trial. An inmate inadvertently killed an inmate (he says that he only intended on warning the guy to back off). In the course of "checking" him, one stab in the back killed the dude. It was either "check" or be victimized and possibly be killed. Behind bars, there is nowhere to run. You either take action to defend yourself or suffer the consequences. After listening to the defense arguments, it happens that the defendant is a prime example of determinism. Sad, fascinating, and irrational all at the same time.
So if randomness does not mean we are free agents, then how a do we account for randomness? Any choice I make is because of my biology and events I have no control over, and therefore are "predetermined"; and choices I do not make, or random things that occur, are also not indicative of free will ... so please give a definition of free-will that we can test to see if we have free will. Let me guess: the lack of a definition of free-will is also not evidence of free-will. So what we are left with is a pointless exercise in even having this debate.
I reached out to Dr. Sapolski (a stranger) for help via email a few years ago while undergoing a psychotic break. He responded by encouraging me generally and advising me how to access mental health and neurological care. Class guy.
❤
Hate to pry but also can't stop myself. What brought it on?
@@meghan42 Sure...about six years ago I was experiencing odd symptoms of the constalation of psych differences I received as military retirement benefits. I flipped and put my hands on someone in public and got arrested for it. By the time I got released on bond I had no idea what was going on. I didn't know what to do. Then I found a video of a lecture Prof. Sapolski gave to undergraduates at Stanford on the topic of depression. During the lecture I thought he sounded like a kind fellow who might just take the time to write back about how to get started fixing all this. Spoiler alert: everything worked out fine charges dropped and I retired and raise Grandkids full time. In the care of doctors now.
Good for you for recognizing a problem and then reaching out to get help for it. We all need to realize that mental health issues should have no more stigma than say, a broken arm. We also need to recognize that asking for help from others is not a negative, it's actually a strength.
Can you do me a favor and please give me info on how to contact Saposlky? Thank you 🙏
Great interview. My favorite quote on this is from the late, great Hitchens -- "Of course we have free will, we have no choice".
Droll and funny......he's missed
This is up there with some of the best content I have seen from Pakman. Sapolsky is so incredibly clear and precise here. Grappling with the idea of determinism is tough for people who have never been exposed to it, but the way that Sapolsky breaks it down here is top notch. Also, the questions that Pakman asked perfectly probe what people on the fence would ask themselves while watching this.
It's been revealed that 60% of the Act Blue donations are coming from China. This literally means the Communist Chinese are funding the Democrat Party & are interfering in U.S. elections.
Clear and precise? off course. A lot of cr@p can be "Clear and precise".
Now, here is the simple fact. Humans do have free will.
How come? Because it is not free will between choosing eating an ice cream or a pizza. It is the ability to choose between doing good or evil.
@@Besthinktwice It's been revealed that 60% of the Act Blue donations are coming from China. This literally means the Communist Chinese are funding the Democrat Party & are interfering in U.S. elections.
Top notch Pakman. You've shown off your intelligence and introduced millions to one of our greatest scientists. Opening minds, not beating the drum for an outdated political duality, that's the ticket! Good for you.
Dr. Sapolsky inspired me to pursue my career in research studying biodemography and cortisol as related to PTSD, racism and psychopathy. He's the best of minds. Thank you for showing him off❤
A good thing he inspired you to make that CHOICE.
@@randyorr9443 The main reason there is no such thing as "free will" or "choice", is because they are ephemeral, vague, poorly thought out concepts. The reason they are that way, is because people invented them with a primarily egocentric and identity-driven motivation. They are not real, because we invented them. For reasosn.
So stop lying to yourself.
@@randyorr9443 A "choice" they might not have made of they didn't come across Sapolsky, or if they were born in a different region and had a different education, or if their mother smoked while they were in the womb, or if countless other determinate factors had gone differently. There's no magical moment where the laws of physics are put on pause for a person to make a choice free of the causal chain.
@@ALForb
The mystery of CHOICE and FREE WILL is still a baffling phenomenon.
He’s a quack. Seems to be nice enough and very easy to listen to, but a quack nonetheless.
I always get teary-eyed when I listen to Dr. Sapolsky. Whether you believe in free will or not, his solutions to many of our societal woes should, at the very least, be LISTENED TO and DISCUSSED. Thanks for having the predetermined charcteristics for asking this guest to be on your channel, David! 🥳
I read the book and it is extremely thought provoking. I’m not sure where I stand on free will, but I’m looking forward to hearing more arguments on both sides of this fascinating subject. Thanks for the interview,
Love his lectures, awesome teacher, thanks a lot.
I wish this convo was 2 hours instead of 20 mins. Awesome content.
And available from the cloud for ever for my awe!
You can get more on this topic from Sam Harris podcast Making Sense, episode #91 "The Biology of Good and Evil" where he interviews Robert Sapolsky. Robert also mentioned Sam briefly in the Pakman interview.
Get his audiobook
😊
Thank you for having Dr. Sapolsky on for an interview. I find that what I learn from his research and explanations brings me a lot of peace. Now the problem of talking about these topics with people who feel as if they are experiencing a rug pull and don't react well to the concept.
"We have been treating people for better or worse than we should based on things they had nothing to do with."
But to Treat people for the better or worse then we should based on things they had nothing to do with was predetermined, and if keeps happening is pre-determined.
Slavery was predetermined, rape, and if happens again, it's predetermined.
@@destruction1928 The postdetermination defined reality, too (FOX-news). So I just obligatorily shrug my should---er. The pain of others (and my own pain) is real as are the needs (biological) and the physical limitations. Sometimes, I succeed in reaching the toilet before the bladder bursts.
@@howardcohen6817I've been following Dr Sapolsky, his opposition for Free will is politically motivated.
Sapolsky is great. Always awesome to hear from him. Great interview David!
So great that you are branching out into other very interesting topics. I have several of his books; he’s a fantastic author, teacher and science communicator.
The way I look at it is: can you think a thought before you think it? Or do thoughts merely arise into view? Can you prethink thinking? The answer is obviously not, and if you don't control your very thoughts, how in the world do you even think you have free will and choice?...
Causality only works at light speed, your brain is spread across a nanosecond in time where now does not exist for the rest. Your own two eyes are both at the center of the visible universe each seeing a few inches further than the other at a point in time. The reality is we only exist in the past even if thinking was instant.
It’s also entirely possible the uncertainty quantum measurement along with the many worlds hypothesis means we simultaneously don’t and do have free will. You find yourself in the universe that is consistent with your desired choice, and yet are completely bound to a stochastic determinism.
You can't even practice thinking
@@hugegamer5988 I think (if I understand you correctly) that you are correct. There are an infinite number of universes in which everything that CAN happen does happen. A human being travels, not through time/space, which don't even exist in the way that we imagine, but we progress from one universe to another based on our mindset. We are always in a universe that is a match for our mindset. This is why all those "nutjob" "manifest the things you want" are actually correct. "Be the change you want to see" is exactly right. You are always in the universe that matches your mind. You aren't moving forward through space and time, you are "moving" to different universes that more accurately reflect your ever changing mindset.
I consider Dr. Sapolsky one of the best minds and a student of humanity that de bunks the simplicity of our views that tend to disparage others.
This is drivel! I agree with having no free will in the sense we commonly understand it. But this guy talks as if we're still in the middle ages or smth. His kind of thinking about this topic is extremely simplistic and the solution is even worse than what we have now. If we take ANY notion of self responsibility out of the equation then therapy is useless too. So then we would have to lock up anyone that we don't like but do it in the most humane way? Being locked up in a golden cage is still horrible.
I'm Swiss and here we try to make criminals want to have therapy and over time try to change their behavior. (Not their personality) It doesn't work with anyone and I agree that those should be kept away from society - but in a much more humane way. But for those that it does work, it's a lifechanger and they can and do add value to society.
What I don't like about Sapolsky's radical simplicity is that it can lead to a kind of thinking that NOTHING would help since no one has free will in any form but forget that self-responsibility is still a thing, then it could lead to a kind of fatal reductionism. Also the way he talks here doesn't imply a really deeper and more nuanced knowledge on a philosophical level about this topic.
And why should anyone care?
@@dmd7472Spoken like a true psychopath.
It is a pretty vapid statement.
I'm sorry you consider this guy one of the best minds 🤦
Huge fan of sapolssky and his work. In particular, the research he’s done on primates and social structure, and the excellent lectures from his classes that I have watched whenever available. So first of all, thank you for you contributions to science professor. The main point I want to make is that I often find the free will argument to get very circular, and even in this brief interview, with two intelligent individuals, it seems they either missed or did not address the circularity of the no free will stance. It’s one thing to say that we don’t have free will, and to use evidence from science to support that, but this leaves us in a strange position when we then speak of what we should change as a result. It’s a bit like the liars paradox, or the halting problem, or the Gödel incompleteness theorems. If we don’t have free will, and we accept that science proves this, then where is the leverage coming from that would enable us to then make changes in the world to accommodate that reality? In other words, if there was no free will in any of the steps that lead to us discovering there is no free will, how would we ever use that information to do anything other than what the laws of physics have already determined would happen?
If it is determined that people will share Sapolsky's ideas and that people will incorporate them into their thinking, then it is probably determined that we will make a more humane world. If it is determined that people will rather share the idea that if everything is determined, we cannot change the predetermined causal chain, then people are probably predetermined to do less to reach a more humane world. Sapolsky was predetermined to share these ideas and his ideas will influence other people's views on this topic. Even though his influences were also predetirmined, he is a part of the causal chain, that might lead to a more humane world. I hope there are lots of us who are predetermined to join this causal chain too.
Change may occur ,it may not,when the body receives the information.Not so much the hard programming of behavior but a general acceptance of what happens is meant to happen,note you may still not like whats happening,but there might not be the monologue of I should'nt have done that,they should'nt have done that,so resentment,regret,blame and pride may indded happen.So its not that change cant happen,its there is no you to bring it about.So act as if you have free will and whatever happens is meant to happen,this may bring more peace and acceptance in daily life.
No free will is hardly the same as determinism - unless you're a free-will-determinist. (Asta la vista, baby).
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this conversation and having not previously heard of Robert I think about this topic frequently. Such a fascinating topic and so good to hear from someone with such incredible thoughts and experience in this area. 🤩🤩🤩
Now, that was a really great interview. Thank you!
That said, Dr. Sapolsky is one of my favorite scientists and a great inspiration in my work with dogs - work that is based on canine neurobiology. With everything I have learned about the brain in the last few years, I couldn't agree more: there is no free will. But there was one viewpoint in this interview that excited me even more, and that is how wrong our with is in regards to punishments. I have never (nor even as a child) believed in a system of punishment. I believe that harmful or dangerous people should be separated; i believe that we need to learn more about what caused them to become that way, but all without the element of punishment. To hear Dr. Sapolsky voice some of my viewpoints was wonderful.
I do want to say, though, that I am also a very firm believer in rehabilitation - not through horrible and dramatic, sometimes barbaric treatments, but through therapy.
Again, thank you for this interview
Wow! I have been reading more and more scientists' view on why we really don't have free will and this interview really solidified the argument for me - while I really appreciate your political perspectives on Yankee and world politics (I mostly agree), I really appreciate your interviews with other people talking about very interesting stuff that is not directly labelled "politics" - great job!
When your father won the Visa lottery, he was inspired to do what he was doing by his life events that brought him to that moment, as his peers before theirs, and so on and so on. The Visa Lottery ended up with his name in their pile, and pulled it. The events leading up to that moment all needed to happen before the name was in the pile. Everything affects everything.
And too many people confuse a priori and a posteriori probabilities. What do philosophers know anyway? They still prattle about nonsenses such as Buridan's Ass and the Ship of Theseus. Post-Bacon science has given us the modern world. Philosophers want to maroon us in ancient Greece.
@@DJF1947 Suppose two similar dates in front of a man, who has a strong desire for them but who is unable to take them both. Surely he will take one of them, through a quality in him, the nature of which is to differentiate between two similar things.
@@DJF1947 I was talking about this with myself last night
A discrete decision based upon an input having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a bounded length of time.
just because we do not see asses or people starving to death through indecision, or other examples of Buridan's undecided states in real life, does not disprove the principle. The persistence of a Buridan's undecided state for a perceptible length of time may just be sufficiently improbable that it has not been observed.
@@DJF1947 In answer to your query, most philosophers will say they know nothing.
@@gwilymyddraig A physicist, like myself, will point out that the Buridan's Ass state is an unstable one, in that any deviation will strengthen (larger percentage of visual field, stronger odour, etc.) the appeal of one of the choices. The status quo cannot persist moreover, because of quantum mechanical uncertainty. QM, via the Planck limit. also undermines the entirely new field of philosophical waffling known as 'supertasks'.
Hey I watch his lectures here on UA-cam as well as many others do. He would have been an awesome professor to take live courses from. Thanks David for having him on.
Zei gezunt Dr. Sapolsky.
We enjoy the Dr.'s lectures & have learned many things from him.
I think free will and determinism are the same thing from the universe’s perspective. If God is infinite and everything, everything that can be done, will be done, and yet it is Infinitely free in the context of infinity. No restrictions.
Great interview, probably my favorite on this channel. I’ve become a huge fan of Dr Sapolski and his work this year, and I’ve watched many interviews that he’s done over the last ten years. Despite being only a 20 minute interview, it still managed to get to topics that I had yet to see covered, at least in the few hours of Sapolsky interviews that I’ve seen so far. Sir, you did an excellent job.
David, I have always loved your show. Your guest today took your show to a new intellectual level. It gave me nothing but respect for your line of questioning an absolute excellent job. Such enquiry rocks the very foundation of our shared card house and the rekindles the humility our modern world is so often lacking. This conversation makes our current political narrative, absolutely laughable if it wasn’t so costly to humanity, all creatures and the earth it’s self. The paradoxes, even though we may be mechanical it matters. Thanks for the great show.
As someone that majored in Philosophy, free will and determinism was one of my most favorite topics. Being forced to write papers on what I thought and why really helped me flesh out my beliefs. I came down on the side of determinism, but argued why that doesn't mean there can't be accountability for actions too.
What's your argument for the Shrodinger Uncertainty Principle?
@@lifeiswonderful22 we're still uncertain about that but if the Universe is deterministic presumably we humans are determined to be free. what's your take on it?
@@stunningkruger If humans have been determined to be free, the universe is no longer deterministic. Right?
Without free will, there can be no moral accountability.
@dannyholland7462I don’t think we have enough information on the topic to confidently preach determinism but I don’t think it negates responsibility. You still are who you are, and choose to do what you do. The claim is that the atoms were a certain way so you always were going to be that person that would choose the thing you do.
Wow! What a coup David, to have Robert Sapolsky as a guest. Beyond amazing!
Man is a legend of an author and narrator. Always inspired
Having been a free will absolutist I am slowly coming around to realizing that there are so many factors which influence our thoughts and ideas that are beyond our control. Having had an accident that put me in chronic pain completely changed my thinking patterns similar to how torture changes your mind, Then another drug changed them again and another drug changed them even more convincing me that a large part of my thoughts are biochemically and biologically controlled.
You're on the right track. Your thoughts are the results of your brain's activity. That's literally what the brain does. ✊🤓
I agree you're on the right track (not sure a position of 'free will absolutism' whatever it means makes any sense), but don't get carried away. The pain and the drugs impaired your ability to act as a free agent, but it didn't prove that free will doesn't exist. On the contrary, having your free will impaired points to the existence of that which is impaired. It doesn't exist in the way the interview defined it, but just because they came up with a rubbish definition doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can believe EVERYTHING Sapolsky says about determinism and still believe free will is an important and useful concept ... I do.
@@NevilleSmith61 If pain can impair an ability to act as a "free agent" then it's not free. It's not free, rather an organism that is free of stressors, in this example pain, has a greater range of choice. But those choices are still not free. "Free" implies uncaused, and that is an incoherent concept.
@@cabellocorto5586 To whom does 'free' imply uncaused? Not me.
@@NevilleSmith61 That is what it implies. Because when someone makes a decision that is based on their biology, people's innate understanding is that even if biology informs one's decisions, those decisions are still theirs to make. Which is the argument that there is some metaphysical soul that does the deciding that precedes over biology. Otherwise what does the "free" mean in the term free will? What is the will free from?
My favorite response to the question of whether we have free will is from God of War Ragnarok when Brock says "The fucks it matter? It feels like we're making choices."
@Vlasko60 and that changes or impacts my statement in what way?
@Vlasko60 what my answer implies is that it's irrelavent whether we have it or not, something we will never really know because the fact is in our every day lives it feels like we do, we still make choices. We have to, otherwise you just exist as a vegetable until you die. So since our experience is that of making choices as if we have some sort of free will, we are going to act as if we do. Therefore it makes no difference what the true answer actually is.
@Vlasko60 yeah, you don't know what I want. What I want to know is irrelavent. We have a question that does not have an answer. We live our lives as if we have free will correct? We don't plan on doing anything different correct? Like is there any further information we can reasonably assume we coild learn at any moment, short of a definitive answer that would change the way you live your life on a daily basis?
@Vlasko60 how is any of that relavent? I wanted an answer to my question. Do you think we are on the cusp of soon being able to learn for sure whether or not we have free will? Like, do you think we are as close to that as we are to curing cancer, something we expect to be able to do probably within a matter of generations of humans. Are we that close in your opinion to learning the truth about free will? Is it something you're waiting on and think you will know before you die (hopefully of natural causes in old age)?
Because my point is, unless you think we are like, moments away (scientifically speaking) from learning the truth, where your world sort of revolves around the issue, the question of free will is irrelavent to how humans live our daily lives and interact with our reality. For example nobody is waiting for this answer before deciding what to do with their lives. Nobody becomes aware of the arguments surrounding the concept of free will and then fucking pauses their lives, or alter the way in which they exist because they realize they don't know if what they're doing is truly a free choice of theirs. It doesn't happen. That's not how people function.
In conclusion, my original response about how it doesn't matter still stands. Because it doesn't. Nobody bases how they act or interact with reality based on what they think of the issue or existence of free will. We make choices. Whether they are truly free choices or determined by genetic factors passed on through thousands of millions of years of evolution, it FEELS to us as if we are making that choice. Society is constructed with the idea that people are making their own choices. THAT'S what matters to people in a meaningful way, not the debates and philosophical arguments. Some of us enjoy engaging in those, and that's fine. But it's ultimately unimportant to every day life and highly likely we will never know the truth about free will.
Such a breath of fresh air away from politics. I know this is a political channel, but it is nice to mx it up once and a while. Sapolsky is a great way to do that. Thanks Pakman!
It's funny. But Sapolsky is the worst politician there is.
Great guest!I love his work.
8:07 "How do you wind up becoming the sort of person who would form that intent?"
There it is, Free Will proponents: the question to ask yourselves whenever you're fooling yourself into believing you have Free Will.
How did you become the sort of person to narrow down the selection of potential choices that occur to you, and how did you become the sort of person who made the choice you did?
I have free will. Whether or not you exert your free will is up to you.
Nah. In the words of Schopenhauer, “you can do as you will, but you can’t will what you will.” There’s no escaping determinism.
@@yajy4501 in the words of an Imbecile 🤦
I don't think you understand the argument at all. The thing that calsl itself you, the ego, is mostly formed by nature vs nurture, not yourself. Your capacity as a human is mostly out of your control because you do not control the formation of yourself. Its like telling someone who has just had a stroke to just talk normally. The way our brains gets wired is not controlled by you. Therefore you do not have self control.
@@nickt2559lol you showed him. dummy!
this guy also agrees with you, that in practical terms, you have a will and exert it on the world.
he’s not contradicting that.
Pakman interviews Sapolsky? Best Christmas present ever. Been a Sapolsky fan for a few years now. I was so excited for his new book Determined. It’s shorter than Behave and a little bit more to the point. It lines up a lot with Sam Harris’s view on the notion of freewill but it does a lot of the research heavy lifting. Have him back on if you can, David!
David is an excellent interviewer. I've listened to a variety of interviews regarding Dr. Sapolsky's book. This one was the best, as David facilitated (versus hindered) Dr. Sapolsky's ability to effectively explain the complexities of free-will versus determinism (at least as much as possible within a brief period).
HINDER IS 1 A AUDIT WITH LEOS OVERTALKING THEIR VICTIM'S SUBMISSION TO SHEEPLED COMPLACECY TO GO ALONG-GET ALONG WITH A GLODEN STAR FOR BEING ON TIME.
Sapolsky is one of the modern intellectuals I admire most. His book Behave is currently my favorite book in the sciences genre and I have his new book on my reading list. Sapolsky touched on free will in Behave, which caused me to develop my own ideas a little more. Looking forward to see what he has to say in the new book.
Very difficult concept for people to understand and accept, but I do think it's the truth. I guess you could be a compatibilist, but that just seems even more mind boggling to me.
Yes I went to a Sam Harris lecture years back and lost respect for him when he flipped a mental switch and negated everything he said before that. Because people cant stand the idea of no free will, despite the fact it would absolutely lead to a better world if we operated under that assumption. The only argument against it is religion, which is not shocking when Determinist policies would all be Liberal (maternal care, universal pre-k and free school lunches, etc).
Yes, it can seem mind boggling. Take into consideration that there is no permanent self and that all consciousness is conditioned. Acts are based on skillful or unskillful decisions. This takes a person whose consciousness is in the present and understands the root motivation all people act upon.
Compatibilism was mischaracterized. The idea is that all events are determined. There's no wiggle room. But the concept of free will isn't inconsistent with that. To put it crudely, "free will" might be defined more as whether or not there are constraints on your desires coming to fruition.
Welcome to the real world
Robert Sapolsky absolutely your best guest so far! ! I know it’s tough to wrap your head around it and it’ll take some time to absorb some how , I know He is on the right track!
We must believe in free will, we have no choice
You could go bonkers thinking about this.
I tried an experiment based on his example.
Chocolate ice-cream verses rocky road.
I love chocolate, hate rocky road, so I choose chocolate. Right?
But I didn't *choose* to *love* chocolate. I just do.
So I'm gonna eat the rocky road just to prove I have free will dammit!
But that's driven by my desire to prove free will being greater than my love of chocolate ice-cream and all because I watched this video.
Now I have a headache and it isn't from eating yummy ice-cream.
What a cuck..so you don't have free will. You're a bitch?
@noself7889
Modern? Philosophers have been talking about this for centuries.
Besides, I haven't "fallen for" anything.
Like everyone else, free will seems self evident to me but you cannot make a good argument that we actually have it.
Whatever you "decide" to do next, you have no way of knowing if you could have "chosen" differently.
Life is not about agency. It's about the experience. To quote Dune “The mystery of life isn't a problem to solve, but a reality to experience.”
“You have free-will whether you want it or not. *The big guy says so* ”
-Christopher Hitchens
He had to say that.
Miss the Hitch.
Agreed.
Hitchens was right about this
For one, the big guy is a Spirit not a man in the sky...
David always does a great job on interviews. There may be no more valuable content on UA-cam than Sapolsky's lecture series on human behavioral biology. His lecture on depression is also one of the best videos on the subject. Massive respect.
Love this guy and generally agree with the ideas in his new book!
I love his vision.
Anything that extinguishes such ludicrous concepts like damnation & hellfire get a thumb up.
I believe these ideas are undeniable, from what we understand about the mechanistic nature of proceedings.
I disagree with wanting it to happen but there is no denying it is happening
You can deny it but you can't escape it.
Wow David it was to my surprise and delight that you had Robert Sapolsky on as a guest. I have been watching his lectures and reading his books for some time now and it's great to see him on your show, your interview is as good as it gets. thank you
Really appreciate this David, great guest!
In mathematics its called degrees of freedom.
Sapolski has no choice but to continue with that hair.
If there is no free will, there is no self. No one has ever been able to find a self anywhere in the universe. The buck doesn’t stop anywhere so to speak, causation just goes on and on. Nobody’s home! The confusing part is we all know there is ‘something’ perceiving all of this. We call it ‘I’ and try to jam it somewhere within causation but wherever it is it ain’t in there or else ‘it’ wouldn’t be able to perceive the endless chain of causation.
Buddhists call it no self too
Wouldn't the absence of free will heavily imply the existence of a self? Temperament, personality, behavior etc. are all much more concrete under this model vs. the infinite plasticity of identity that's implied when you can make any choice imaginable, and your choices ultimately affect who you are.
It's physically painful to watch someone as smart as Pakman ask the questions he does here about freewill, responsibility and criminality. If Pakman struggles with this what hope do the people around me have.
An interviewer asks questions to draw out the subject, it doesnt mean that David doesnt understand.
@@TheMageesa Right.... Its more of setting a foundation and removing ambiguity in a complex abract topic.
Very little. This is an extremely complicated subject, at least for me anyway.
@@marksmiley7644 I am by no means a smart person, in general I think people like Sapolsky are smarter than say people like Rachel Maddow, John Stewart or Pakman and people like Maddow, Stewart and Pakman are more intelligent and informed than the average person. I think I'm probably below average and I don't find this topic to be super complex and challenging. It's a paradigm shift to be sure, like going from thinking that the world is flat to thinking of it as a globe, or zooming in on a dark patch of night sky only to realize just how much bigger the universe is than we supposed, or going from thinking of animals as something simple that probably doesn't feel pain to realizing how rich their inner worlds actually are.
These things are paradigm shifting and uncomfortable or awe inspiring and there is a complexity there in each of these to be discovered for sure, but understanding the underlying complexities are rarely required in order to think with and through the new paradigm.
Perhaps Pakman is merely presenting the most basic questions that are likely to come to mind for his audience so they are prepared to ask better questions of the material should they seek it.
oh God this comment resonated with me and hurt so much this xmas.
May God have Mercy on us. Coz if he aint real and won't, we are soooo fukt.
-an atheist.
Dr. Sopolsky is brilliant. I wish David you had talked to him about the correlation between certain brain structures and transgender identity. He can provide the science.
Good interview. TY David.
Really thought provoking stuff.
Robert Sapolsky!! 🤩
To even say their is no free will is profoundly absurd.
The entire human condition is based on this exact thing.
And what formal education do you have to make that assessment? The whole point here is that there is an illusion of free well, you think you are doing things of your own accord, but you've already made the decision before you've taken action on anything in life.
Robert is an incredible teacher and a true gift to the world.
Dr. Sapolsky is awesome. I have watched and rewatched all of his lectures here on UA-cam so to see him on TDPS is a delight!
I’ve always disliked the entire topic and debate about free will but I knew Sapolsky could get me to listen. Very interesting. I think we could get there if religion wasn’t such a cultural force in the US. Europe, Australia, and pockets of Asia have a better chance.
More people need to understand that this. Narcissism and stupidity work together to convince people that they get the credit for their actions. This isn't an excuse to be lazy. It's complicated.
How can they be lazy if they have no free will?
@@shlockofgod they can be. There is no free will buy the messages you surround yourself with influence the machine. It's complicated.
But the individual isn't is responsible for their own laziness.
@@hystrionic "complicated" lol. It's fucking gibberish.
@@shlockofgod do you have any scientific training at all??
@@shlockofgodthe fact that you took the time out of your day to write a comment that does nothing for you materially, proves the point.
I guarantee you did not make a conscious decision to come here , maybe or maybe not watch the interview, and anonymously post your thought less analysis. If that was on your schedule I’ve got a 20k check with your name on it.
It wasn’t though , you’re a product of your environment, and apparently your environment doesn’t include critical thought, since your environment has somehow convinced you that this was the best way to spend your time.
Guessing you vote Republican .
i listened to a couple of this guys lectures on human behavioral biology. very fascinating stuff.
Clicked so fast when I saw sapolsky! Love his series
i am a compatibalist, i think Robert also is, but the issue is that under that umbrella free will is not possible to define as something on opposition to determined evolution of the world. the problem with the discussion about compatibilism so to speak is that people want free will to mean something more than correlation between mental states and then how the system evolves. which is a more technical way to say agency is the correlation between what you think and what you end up doing. that is perfectly compatible with determinism, what is not compatible is a notion of freedom from the worlds evolution, and the more rigorous to try to be about defining a notion like that, the more impossible it becomes to know what you are even talking about. so the debate always sort of derails into an argument about freedom from what, which really doesn't end up being very useful in my opinion.
Sam Harris talks a lot about this too. One of those things that sounds crazy at first but really makes sense when you sit and think about it
He convinces me that I can’t be human! 🤣 There must be free beings and human beings living alongside each other I guess.
Dr. Sapolsky is a great scientist. Love his work.
Yeah this guy is super interesting, I've watched his lectures on depression and stress. Super fascinating.
The arguments presented are a speculative interpretation with lots of wiggle room as stated by the guest himself. There's so much more to consider
like what, professor?
@@TheMageesa See replies
Great conversation! Thank you!
Clear example of False memory is Responding more actually of January 6 being peaceful Protest is .
Claiming they watched 5 minutes of all day replayed video live.
What?
I'm at 3:40 and already I have to object to the description of "compatiblism".
A strict determinist says that every action one takes is completely determined by all the history of that organism, without any idea of a soul that somehow causes the rules of physics to be violated and allows a brain to decide things other than what the physics of the neurons would otherwise conclude, and thus there is no free will.
A compatiblist (such as the notable Dan Dennett) agrees with all of that except they define "free will" differently. As I understand it, they mean "free will" in the sense that viewed externally, the organism has a range of apparent choices to make, and it makes one without coercion (which even non-determinists agree is no free will). But the choice it makes via its arcane internal logic, is still deterministic. As someone once said, "You are free to choose, but you are not free to choose which option you choose."
@@michaelenquist3728 -- michael, based on your description, you don't understand what determinists are saying. nobody claims to know what is inside your brain. let's take a step back. have you ever seen those lottery machines with numbered ping pong balls flying around that get drawn to pick that week's winning numbers? Do you agree that the system is purely physical, with the motion of the balls completely determined by physics, yet nobody (if the game isn't rigged) can compute what the output will be even if they get to inspect the initial state of the balls to any degree physically possible?
As a determinist, I see the brain like that. It is hugely complex and nobody can tell other than with statistical guesswork what you are likely to pick when you are making choices. To claim that determinists know what you are thinking is just a strawman that deflects from the actual claim. Yes, you are making choices, but which one you choose is determined by the present state of your mind at that moment, and that state is determined by everything in your history that led up to that moment. Surely you agree that this is at least partly true, that your choices are influenced, sometimes strongly, by your previous experiences. Say you are choosing between watching two movies, one a comedy and one a drama. Nobody is forcing you which to pick (coercion) so you feel your choice (say, the drama) is the result of free will. So let's inspect that.
Say the comedy features Woody Allen, and you don't like Woody Allen, so it pushes you away from making that choice. That is a brute fact of your experience at that moment, yes? Or say you are interested in Spain, maybe you vacationed there once, and the drama is set in Spain. Do you agree that the predisposition to learning about Spain influenced your choice? You might say, yes, that influences it, but it doesn't fully determine it, why, it was your own choice to go to Spain and so that is just a product of your earlier free will. But then you'd have to step back in time to when you made that choice and see what influenced why you made it.
All the determinist is saying is that not only do your previous experiences influence your decisions, every single one is the result of the network of all your previous experiences along with whatever neural biases you inherited from your parents -- which of course you also didn't choose.
Finally, here is a completely different take on why determinists believe what we do. Presumably you believe that much of your body is a biomechanical system -- however you determine to say "yes" or "no" to some question, it is just a physiological sequence of events which follow the laws of physics that fire a sequence of nerve impulses that travel down the length of those nerves, leading to muscles that contract, also following the laws of physics, causing your mouth to form a shape and utter "no". Agreed? So work in reverse? At which point in your nervous system/brain is there an event which does something different than what physics dictates? Because what free will requires is that physics is violated somewhere along the line.
@@michaelenquist3728 -- Michael, I love having conversations with people who have an opinion different than mine if they can express themselves well. But if you label me as a liar instead of simply someone who has a different opinion on a topic, well, we're done.
Michael never called you a liar, so why the question?
It’s not only that “free will” doesn’t exist, it’s that the term has no meaning.
It’s two words that sound nice together, but any useful definition is lacking. It’s a nebulous, unformed idea.
STFU. Free will is the ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
My thoughts exactly. our language doesn’t really describe this properly and that free will agency etc we seem to lack the words or language, to describe what he’s trying to get to
I think there's a useful definition, but that definition is one under which free will doesn't exist.
I think that that definition is useful, because it serves as a way to make it explicit that everything has a cause and that we're able to research the root causes of issues in our society and work to fix them, that we're capable of solving systemic issues instead of just chalking them all up to individual responsibility.
@@snapgab Free will would be a cause.
@@shlockofgoddefine it.
Terrific segment. Thank you.
I had a crisis thinking determinism leads to pointlessness but it is actually relaxing to know you're not guilty of anything. I don't take it as an excuse to behave bad, since consequences are still there. But I have stopped hating people for what they do
There is no self. You still don’t get it
@@Mtmonaghan I know there's no self as we usually mean. I get it
Dig it. Had to come over from the podcast just to catch the whole interview. Glad I did
Wow!! You got Dr. Sapolsky on, so cool. I was just looking for something good to listen to and I can say this is it without even giving it a preview, perfect timing. Thank you, I so needed this 😁🙏🏽✨Happy Merry Christmas Holidays 😏 😎🤘🏼🎄🥂✨
I'm an agent that is part of the universe. My will is a force among many greater and lesser forces. Free will, as limited as it is and as thwarted as it so often is, is also a product of biology. For me the best way to express free will is changing the angle of direction and this has impacts in the future.
But the question is really --- who is it that has or doesn't have free will?
Its amazing to discover someone that expresses ideas and feelings that I also have so succinctly. great video.
This is So Unbelievably Important and Revolutionary for Us All to Realize and Understand! Thank You for doing this Interview! Robert Sapolsky might just be a Genius!
I just love Sapolsky. He´s very inspiring! Great interview, David. Thank you ❤ Greatings from Norway.
I get that we are a mixer to which ingredients are added, and following the proscribed recipe, come out “perfect brownies” every time, but the things happening around us, over which we have no control, bring the possibility of randomness, I believe. So it’s true…we really are who we are! My thoughts on this subject is that it still IS good to be a good person even if we don’t do it because we have used “free will” to make the decision to be helpful. I am also concerned to the level some people may take this….some sitting down and doing nothing the rest of their lives, bereft at the thought they have no ability to make their own decisions. What we need to take from this, is that they really are our decisions…because of who we are!
I feel like this would be an extremely difficult concept for society as a whole to accept because everyone wants to keep believing deep down that they’re special and unique (you can probably thank Abrahamic religion for playing a role in that).
LET US UNDERSTAND THAT AS A WHOLE....... YOU THINK? THEREFORE IT IS?
I would say we're special and unique to the fellow humans who like us or love us but other than that we're not really different from other mammals that live in herds. Nature doesn't think humans are any better than, say, a kangaroo. Nature doesn't give a shit about humans.
I never believed is was unique. I believe however that I'm a product of my upbringing together with karakter and personality. Which also depends on the chemical balance in my body.
Sure, lump it to solely the Abrahamic religions. That seems like an odd scapegoat when plenty of non Islam/Judaism/Christian sources advocate for self centeredness, being your own god/goddess (new age), being special because of your ancestry, or the self development industry for example
@@chibu3212 actually, I don’t believe it’s an odd scapegoat when you consider the Abraham make religions, both Christian and Muslim dominate societies all over the world, and they preach exclusively free will and punishment for making bad choices. So actually, I believe it’s spot on but hey, what do I know since I don’t have free will. Lol.
Actually, I haven’t believed in free wheel for a long time. When you consider where your thoughts come from, out of the deep dark well, that is my mind, and the way random thoughts just popped into existence, and I may or may not act upon them.
I wrote this elsewhere (with edits):
To the compatibilists/determinists: It's a probabilistic universe if it's infinite. (It's not just classical mechanics.)
You are trying to apply determinism/finiteness to a probabilistic/infinite universe.
The problem with causality is that infinity (and quantum instantaneousness) breaks it, fundamentally, because you cannot go far back enough to determine all the initial conditions (that lead to you/your behavior) because there are none with infinity!
Infinity breaks determinism.
To add: The Uncertainty Principle suggests that you cannot say for certain that we have no free will.
To add for this video's context: Sure, you have no control in some senses, like classical mechanics (upbringing, gravity, etc.), but not necessarily from a fundamental/quantum sense. The universe goes beyond classical mechanics. Think also of 'spooky action at a distance.' This doesn't appear causal, but, rather, instantaneous.
If the universe created you, then so did infinity if the universe is infinite.
I feel like the whole argument for determinism hinges on the basic premise that our current scientific understanding is more or less complete. Yes, we might have some minor things wrong here or there, but no major “gaps” remain in our understanding that could make something like free will possible.
Here’s the problem with this…
Imagine if we create an intelligent machine so complicated that no one can tell if it’s a robot or a human. With current advances in AI, this seems even more plausible than ever.
Now, is this machine conscious? From everything we understand about computers, it’s probably not conscious. So this machine is basically something that can perfectly imitate the behavior of a human, without actually having human consciousness, it’s some kind of “philosophical zombie” (Chalmers).
And this shows the gap in our understanding. Determinists view humans as deterministic “biological machines.” But as we just showed, you can have a machine that acts just like a human but is missing probably the primary defining attribute of humanity, consciousness.
To me, this illustrates a pretty profound gap in our scientific understanding. We can conceive if how to create an intelligence so complex that it’s indistinguishable from a human. But not only would this intelligence likely lack consciousness, we couldn’t even measure it to see if it’s conscious.
So I think it’s a bit too early to throw out free will.
That's quite an original argument.
How do we know other people experience consciousness any more than a machine? Thatś part of the problem. We have no way of knowing a machine is not conscious at some point. That is going to be an interesting discussion years from now (but current tech they call AI is nowhere near it).
Your argument falls apart in one fundamental way: prove to me you are conscious. Likewise, how could I prove to you that I am conscious? What makes us any different from the machine that “mimics” consciousness? Aren’t we all mimicking behaviours that lead to the illusion of consciousness? What is consciousness anyways?
@@NemosUA-cam If you say that, then I will go back to Descartes and say that actually my own consciousness is the ONLY thing that I can be sure actually exists. Everything else that I perceive in the world could in fact be an illusion or an elaborate simulation.
I’ve always found it strange that some conscious beings will seriously argue that they in fact, do not exist. It makes me wonder if there really are P zombies out there…
respectfully, none of this is relevant to his argument.
the fact that science has gaps in understanding isn’t a counter to his point either.
you aren’t engaging on his points.
to be clear, he does believe that on a practical level, you are making choices as a thinking agent.
Humans have free will in their reactions to any and every situation. We are free to choose how we react to something that is not predetermined nor defined.
Do we?
Suppose I copied someone in the instant before they make a decision, and paste them and their surroundings perfectly. Up to the last quark, photon, and their states.
Now we press play. Will the copies vary in their choice?
If we take a hard deterministic view, then every particle will act identically to each other copy of itself, meaning that every brain will make the same decision.
If we take into account probabilistic quantum behaviours, then the copies will eventually act differently. But is that free choice or simply a machine that drew a different number from its RNG?
Define ‘free’
If your brain became damaged so that the left side of your body is paralyzed, are you choosing not to ever move those muscles again, or is that something that is imposed on you by physical circumstances that are external to your mind?
@@rodrigoma1350 You can't copy someone though. That's introducing a magical variable to a naturalistic thought experiment.
@@i.ehrenfest349 Not determined.
Great direction David ! Sapolski is a psychological dynamo on YT. I see you pull in political viewership and throw out a consciousness determination lesson is just fantastic rhetoric to grow your channel.
Cheers and Happy holidays !
A fascinating discourse. Habits change us better than trying to be "strong-willed". Changing actions now will produce a different set of inputs to our future "decisions".
Thanks David! Sabine & Robert in the same day!😇💙
Thanks for posting this. I've been watching his FREE lectures here on UA-cam. This guy is a genius - even if that was pre-determined.
Free will is like a train on a track. There are points where the track switches directions. If you are the train and the tracks represent the choices and experience associated with them, then that is a choice taken freely by the conductor of the train
What you are describing is compatibilism.
i think there are problems with that view.
but some people like to think of it that way, yes.
You missed the point entirely. So the conductor has free will because he directs a train???
@@babybutchie
He or she makes the decision on which track to go. I would say that humans don't have as much free will as they think, but we are not just programmed biological robots.
- Raised in a religious upbringing
- Becomes an atheist as a teen
- Blames God for everything
- Spends rest of existence desperately trying to explain life without God (lol)
So typical.
God is omniscient, meaning he knows every detail and outcome of every possible scenario. E.g., He knew everything about Satan and what that specific arrangement of particles (it doesn't matter he's nonmaterial, but whatever he is) called "Satan" would do before he created him, and still decided to make Satan the specific way he was which resulted in him doing exactly what he did. You cannot blame a car for being faulty, if an engineer beforehand purposely created a faulty car, knowing he could have done otherwise. Therefore, God knew and purposely designed Satan to rebel, everything is Gods fault, including evil. God could have altered him so he wouldn't rebel. He's omnipotent so he could have, and omnibenevolent so would have. But he didn't, therefore God wanted Satan to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all suffering and is malevolent. And if every variant of Satan was “freely” evil regardless of how you designed him, then God shouldn't have created Satan to begin with. There were angels like Michael Demiurges that knew and did not rebel that he could have replaced him with or just leave blank.
Divine foreknowledge and creation both preclude "free will". He's omnipotent, which means he could create a world all good, without suffering, without inflicting on the free will of others. It seems like God created the problem and takes credit for fixing it, even though it would never have occurred if he didn't allow or want it to.
This is ignoring the fact, that Yahweh committed/ commanded 7 genocides/ infanticide, condoned slavery, rape, homophobia, sexism and racism. Not to mention condemns people to eternal suffering for simply, not knowing he exists, despite the fact he knows what it would take to convince and save everyone, and decides not to. He's a malevolent cunt.
And no, there is not free will, that is an incoherent concept. Thoughts are either determined by prior causes (principle of sufficient reason/ cause and effect) in which you do not control them, or they are random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either case you do not control them. Every particle (further divisible to the wave function or possibly strings) in the universe, obeys the laws of physics, and your brain which constitutes of matter is no different; following the 4 fundamental forces, in which you do not control that was set off at a brute fact (the big bang) or infinite regression. Libertarian free will proponents insist that their choices are made for reasons, but also that those reasons do not determine their choices. Or that those reasons are not themselves determined, but also not a matter of chance, this is a contradiction. If it’s a false trichotomy, then what are the other options? Agent causation (of the soul)? But again, does something cause the agent to act, or does the agent act for no reason? A mixture of chance and determinism? Part of the decision-making process involves causal influences, and the rest has no prior cause. This doesn't solve it. Free will, described by its advocates imply a person has control over their decisions. If my decisions are predetermined; how do I have control over them? If my decisions have no cause, and occur for no reason, then how can I control them?
If we don't have free will, why do we even bother discussing whether we have free will or not in the first place since the outcome of the entire discussion is supposedly already predetermined by our lack of free will? Well, I guess there's no reason in asking that question in the first place since this free will discussion was already predetermined to occur in the first place anyways. As was me apparently writing this comment on this UA-cam video regarding this whole issue as well. As is you reading this comment and in turn so is whatever reply you may or may not make about it. It's all just predetermined I guess and I'm only a self-aware consciousness passenger in my free will-less mind and body.
These conversations always seem so silly when they never even define what we are exactly supposed to be "free" of.
Si
I didn't want to write this comment🤐♟️
@@unluckygamer692 Yeah exactly. If we don’t have “free” will then there must be something (or I guess hypothetically someone) that has the free agency to determine what our will’s course of action is overall. I guess scientists just chock that up to genetics and brain chemistry determining one’s behavior, but the very fact that we can be self aware of and question our own instinctual behavior means we can defy it as well, hard as that may often be.
Sapolskys souring determinism not fatalism. He thinks the our actions and behaviors are wholly the product of things we have no control over but also believes that what actions and behaviors and choices we make can affect outcomes.
Getting sick and committing a crime are definitively the same. I believe this man to be the smartest I have ever seen, and will ever see. I am humbled by his superior abilities of reason. Shalom.
Perhaps science will totally figure out how our brains work. I realize I have no real reason to believe in total free will, but I can't help but believe in some sort of limited free will. I do understand that there is some combination of basic programming in the human brain and some level of environmental conditioning, I just think there is something more than science has or maybe even can figure out.
There is no way you have freewill, because you don't control your upbringing which completely sets the floor and ceiling for your capacity. Also do I have free will if I didn't choose to exist?
@@peterhorton9063 You have some control over your upbringing. Your choices do -- it's just that you don't by any stretch of the imagination have total free will or total control.
For those who believe humans don't have free will -- give me an example of something that would have free will.
@@peterhorton9063 If everything is 100% totally deterministic, we'd have learned to control things a lot more than we have. There'd be no surprises. Human consciousness may have its roots in biology, but there is something within it that totally confounds scientific interrogation. While WE might not be surprised by our actions, people that believe they have us figured out are very often surprised by our actions. How often have we heard someone going off the deep end and people who knew them their whole lives saying, "I never saw this coming"?
I liken free will to a greenhouse. There is only so much space, water, sunlight available, limiting the plants you can grow. You might not be able to grow a tree, but once you see the limitations, there are still a nearly infinite set of possibilities within those limitations. A small infinity is still infinity.
@@Craxin01 I'm sorry you can have no free will and non determinism. The building blocks of reality are probabilistic.
@@toddjohnson7572 so do you believe people who live in a totalitarian government are free, where are the information is controlled? Probably not, your conscious brain is only provided information via the subconscious. You don't actually experience reality but what your subconscious process and provides to you. Just like a totalitarian government gives you the illusion of choice your subconscious does the same.
I think we all innately know this. Why do we love humble people so much? Because we sub-consciously know that the correct attitude is to not take too much credit. Why do we hate arrogance? Because that is someone taking too much personal credit. Why do we love forgiveness so much? Because we have always just "known" that people are not as bad as they seem.
If there's no free will, then please explain why you had no choice but to jump on the David Pakman Show.
So you choose to be born, and controlled your parents to form you into the person you are?
I found this video very helpful as a juror in a criminal trial. An inmate inadvertently killed an inmate (he says that he only intended on warning the guy to back off). In the course of "checking" him, one stab in the back killed the dude. It was either "check" or be victimized and possibly be killed. Behind bars, there is nowhere to run. You either take action to defend yourself or suffer the consequences. After listening to the defense arguments, it happens that the defendant is a prime example of determinism. Sad, fascinating, and irrational all at the same time.
Extremely interesting and powerful food for thought.
So if randomness does not mean we are free agents, then how a do we account for randomness?
Any choice I make is because of my biology and events I have no control over, and therefore are "predetermined"; and choices I do not make, or random things that occur, are also not indicative of free will ... so please give a definition of free-will that we can test to see if we have free will.
Let me guess: the lack of a definition of free-will is also not evidence of free-will. So what we are left with is a pointless exercise in even having this debate.