Free will is an illusion | Robert Sapolsky | The Middle Way EP1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2024
- Prof @Robert.Sapolsky discusses the illusion of free will. The host challenges him to integrate the compatibilist perspective on free will, attempting diplomacy between the major positions of hard incompatibilism and compatibilism (which are actually pretty much the same position when they both reject the kind of free will most people think they have - libertarian). Free will is discussed in further depth in a closing monologue.
Brilliant. Exciting to see this idea being discussed, and with such granularity. Rare to see someone able to reconcile compatibilism with hard incompatibilism, a worthy endeavor indeed, they both have important perspectives. We need the word to spread that free will is an illusion. Then hate makes no sense, forgiveness and compassion for others and ourselves becomes easier, less anxiety over our choices, more humility, more self-transcendence, etc.
Haven't yet watched but I've been playing with the idea that seemingly compatibilist interpretations depend on a lack of sufficient granularity in the hard incompatibilist content. It would be insufferable to actually analyze the concatenating contextual impact streams of any single tightly defined behavior of a subject let alone a whole lifetime. I think Sapolsky's answer is that every impacting event on a behavioral action could be traced back to prior events completely out of control of the subject of that behavior. The complexity alone pretty much demands a faith based on there never having been any contravening evidence to the contrary having been demonstrated.
35:05 This finding is fascinating to me because when struggling to understand the compatibilst view I landed on maybe it makes sense to think of others as not having free will but to still view youself as having it for self regulatory reasons.
Wow, what a way to start a podcast! Kudos to you
Thank you for the question of what happens to humanity in three billion years!
It releases the idea that we dont need to cling to the human form, hence human existence essense or even ecological life or even complex systems. Lets give up life in all forms and at the same time lets keep on living and celebrate life while we're in this form!🦖
No free will is pretty liberating ❤
I like the name of the channel. Robert Sapolsky is a bad ass. 😃
I hope Robert feels at least a bit smug about the fact that he has, with science, put to shame every single religion and philosophy that has ever existed. I love this man so much. People waist there whole lives pondering about the meaning of life and driveling on about nonsense, but this guy is a human treasure. Currently working through he’s free Stanford lectures and it’s just amazing. Those lectures should have to viewed by every single elected official, but of course that won’t happen.
I'm not sure if anyone ought to take notice of a comment by someone who typed THREE misspelt words in succession.
Incidentally, Slave, in your own words, define "RELIGION".
@@TheWorldTeacher well you took note… so talk to yourself I guess.
I can't imagine him feeling smug. He seems above that
@@TheWorldTeacher You misspelled misspelled. Plus, they are spelled correctly. They are used incorrectly. How embarrassing for you.
And yes, I know you can use "misspelt". But since the words were in fact NOT misspelt, you needed to be taken down a notch. I knew you were arrogant enough that it would get your attention.
@@TheWorldTeacher is your schtick really to go around the internet pointing our spelling and grammar mistakes as if that's a blight on someone's argument? Again, you do you homie, but do you think there could be a better use of your time?
The building blocks of life! Sapolsky certainly has an advantage on this front versus philosophers who go all ad hominem because he has no training/ knowledge in philosophy and has the multi-silo approach par excellence. So hats off, he's slightly before his time, as the pushback for this innovative thinking is sizable! But, of our all biases and beliefs past, it's always noise and signal, (political) spin and: It's turtles all the way down!
Love this discussion. So much more to discuss. Thank you. PS, Daniel Dennet passed away recently. Maybe you recorded this before.
There are better conversations with Dr Sopolsky out there.
And yes, it was jarring to keep hearing the references to Dr Dennet in the present tense.
Exceptionally engaging discussion. What an excellent kickoff for your podcast series. You adeptly matched Robert’s intellectual rigor and displayed a remarkable talent for elucidating intricate concepts in a way that makes them comprehensible to listeners who might be unfamiliar with the topic. Congratulations. Looking forward to additional content as your scheduled permits. 👏
And very few persons are as intellectually-rigorous as Bobby Boy Sapolsky (even though he considers the sexual binary to be on a SPECTRUM).
I like where you're going with no self helping relieve suffering.
It's determined I would tune out this otherwise awesome interview, when you brought the cringe factor meditation practice into it.
Also determined I can't share this on other formats, because of the cringe
🔥🔥🔥
I could be wrong but I believe Sapolsky says that the car and sick child example are devoid of moral blame, which would be the same for a scientifically sound justice system: you did not choose to be born to the circumstances that led you to grow into/become the person who would make the "choice" that you did that was harmful to others.
Throw Morals and Ethics out the window and dig the world your own way .
Hopefully, with ongoing research, the right medicine will be found to cure the epidemic of people who do not have free will in this modern era

Why does the interviewer keep using the word diplomacy? It makes it seem like his goal is political rather than seeking accuracy. Here's your diplomacy, the compatabilst version of free will still means no one is *deserving* of praise or blame, the feedback loop of a human modifying their environment to be in harmony with their desires can be called whatever you want but it isn't sufficient for moral culpability.
Daniel Dennett RIP
We're all wandering around nature without a clue ?
an illusion of what
And then suddenly Love because a magical force? Instead of the internal biological process it actually is? Well, I like the first hour at least.
Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I'd have a heart attack if I did any meditation stuff... so I left as soon as that meditation stuff started so I shouldn't leave with a bad impression, 'cause the dialogue was so good. I really don't know what possesses people to get into the meditation craze but... suit yourself.
If you run the program back to the beginning, then yes it's pretty obvious there is no free will... but what happens without a beginning?
Is that a dumb thought? Why does nobody talk about this? It just seems like a paradox...
Without a beginning, I assume we are part of and witnessing an infinite casual chain of events.
Who knows ?
@@JB.zero.zero.1 I do.
@@TheWorldTeacher Please explain? How can a limited being comprehend eternity? Hey, maybe you do know... Feel like sharing?
But it sounds like you both are saying that having gratitude is a matter of volition. If mindset is predetermined I don’t see how choosing to be grateful does not contradict the no free will stance
the problem with dennett's contribution is the hubris in insisting that 'the only 'free will' worth wanting' is just what he means when he uses that word. that's ridiculous. for dennett, FW=degrees of freedom afforded through control mechanisms in a deterministic world. why call that 'free will'? the idea of free will was just made up by some ancient theologian apologetic who noticed that uh-oh, his religion's god can seem a little brutal, a tad like a moral monster, so he conjured some goofy thought-terminating word magic that we 'have free will' (?).
we can clearly construe freedom from coercive control, control mechanisms, degrees of freedom without 'free will' talk. why on earth would i call my disposition/preference to avoid coercive control 'free will' instead of what it is; my preference to avoid coercive control. why would i call degrees of freedom 'free will' instead just what it is; degrees of freedom? why would i call our affordances through control mechanisms 'free will' instead of control mechanisms? just doesn't make sense. those are all perfectly good phrases, and non-experts don't think that 'free will' stands for those concepts, nor that those concepts are 'the only FW worth wanting.' why would we accommodate dennett's unempirical and--frankly--arrogant, indulgences?
No one ever talks about the new knowledge on bio and geneitic mechanics of behavior. How does behavior happen - bio mechanically? Suppose no one is up on the latest papers, etc.
So these folks end up swapping pop psychology tropes of the moment and semantics. Pretty low brow stuff...
BTW, biology, like physics works one way. Animals/primates/humans can control their behavior with "mind over matter" or not.
The only thing low brow is you entirely missing the point being discussed :P However biology works ultimately matters exactly none to the main point being discussed here. This is a crucial philosophical discussion about the kind of freedom we do not have (and the kind we do) - enormously important given the false belief in the kind of freedom we don't have has profound consequences. If you want to discuss the deeper biology of behavior somewhere else go for it (or maybe talk to Sapolsky, who is a professor in biology at Stanford), but this is a different discussion. Animals/primates/humans CANNOT control their behaviour in the way that most people think they can - ie such that they could deliberately do different given the same state of the universe.
@@SamWhitley Ad hominem personal attack, lol The bad faith tactic of the uninformed...block...
@@SamWhitley So the question of "free will" is not about the biomechanics of how behavior happens? ! Huh
Define"philosophy." Can any statement in "philosophy" - whatever that is - be proven true or false? How different from pop culture semantics?
@@brainmoleculemarketing801 Yes, the question of free will (and by that I mean whether or not it exists) is not about the biomechanics of how behaviour happens (ultimately) because there is no possible way that behavior COULD happen whereby it would be free in the libertarian sense. It's useful in the free will space to understand the biomechanics of behaviour because it will help us explain how it is that free will happens to not exist in this reality (the empirical evidence to support the logical conclusion), but were the biomechanics different then it would matter none, it would just be a different explanation of how free will doesn't exist. Yes, we can philosophically (or logically, or whatever word you want to use) disprove things. Free will (libertarian or contra causal free will) is one such thing. It's like a (2D) square circle. What do you mean by "pop culture semantics"?
@@KevinKindSongs actually 1) it was not an ad hominem, it was saying that the act of you missing the point was low brow - you attacked this conversation as low brow, I was directly addressing that critique by critiquing your critique as low brow 2) I hoped the tongue out face would give the impression of not taking my comment with malice against you, but against your point. Genuinely sorry if I offended you. But I found it offensive how badly you missed the point :P
I came for Dr Sopolsky, and got too much of the host. Notwithstanding that it is his podcast, the host spent so much time asking and then answering his own question, that at one point Dr Sopolsky asked "why am I even here?"
My understanding of meditation does not involve closing my eyes and listening to someone talk. That to me is the opposite of what meditation is.
Overall this was disappointing and not at all stimulating. You did not let Dr Sopolsky elaborate on anything, and this interview added nothing to what is already available for the interested viewer; it fact it contains far less than other interviews and podcasts.
(I also believed the term "middle way" has been co-opted.)
No further interest.
This Deterministic view is so illogical, it just feels like an old man grasping at straws to give his life choices (or lack thereof) meaning. Complete absence of free-will is a shallow idea, and a cop-out to real understanding. What are you so afraid of? In my opinion, evolving consciousness is the only way to perceive a greater understanding and awareness of the Universe we are in. The rest is (boring) speculatory drivel like this. This philosophy aids no one.
"A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved" - Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
"grasping at straws" ...
Maybe you don't understand where he is coming from.
Read his book maybe and gain insight into the research that informs these ideas.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 I don't need to buy another book to see the same conclusion every Hard Determinist comes to, which is blind faith that there is zero randomness to the Universe.
@@TheFinalGob "Maybe you don't understand where he is coming from." Maybe you don't understand where modern neuroscience is coming from... imho it almost completely depends on where you are coming from, social sciences, politics, medicine, engineering, religion etc. => the context differs widely... which is fine, but "everyone" talks past each other...
@@TMK1450 Lmfao what does that even mean? "Where modern neuroscience is coming from", LOL. There are degrees to biological determinism beliefs because not every researcher believes the same thing, obviously because so much is still not understood. These philosophies are just guesses and to imply a Hard Determinism reality with our current understanding is laughably short-sighted. This is what Sapolsky is pushing. The only people "talking past each other" are those who don't bother laying or reading context in their statements or discussions. Good luck though.
I could be wrong but I believe Sapolsky says that the car and sick child example are devoid of moral blame, which would be the same for a scientifically sound justice system: you did not choose to be born to the circumstances that led you to become the person to grow up to make the "choice" that you did that was harmful.