Just praise? I question his silly notion of calling primates people. Typical empiricist failing recognize the significant difference between us and all existence. more than meets the eye to not just the human being…but all the natural world.
I much enjoy learning from his discoveries and stories in behavioral biology, but his ideas on philosophy, economics, history, and justice are fairly underdeveloped and i hope he doesn’t try to deviate too far from his academic expertise. The future will not look back kindly on Maoism either, which is something like what he suggests by doing away with a merit-based society. Also, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and trauma to the prefrontal-cortex, are neurological disorders not intrinsically psychiatric / mental illness. They are born, or fell into these not by intent, and are nothing at all like sociopathy which is a controllable and curable state of mind. Rather convenient omission. Nevertheless a society that tried to filter for all of these in our criminal system, for not having an implicit sense of self control / agency / freewill, would be cost prohibitive for any modern society. We didn’t do so because it was ‘right’, but because it’s too costly to do what’s right, by having a tiered system of incarceration. And, it would likely be gamed and abused beyond recognition even if we did
I try my best to get as many people who have any interest in human behavior to watch his 25 part lecture series. I was so floored when I first went through it, I had to go back and listen to it again and again.
He has a great style where, apparently without referring to notes, he is practically telling stories about what he is teaching. And aside from the subject matter at hand he shows the students as things were learned along the way by researchers, as soon as it seems you nail something down, other evidence will show up showing you missed something. Then sometimes the focus on the field might even reverse itself. And then shown that's not quite right either and while gathering all this information, it's time to go down another rabbit hole and learn something completely unexpected on the subject... It's a way of not only learning how to learn but develop an awareness that there's something you have overlooked as a life lesson as well. Beyond only pursuing research, learning how to expect that life will throw you curve balls. And to not stress about catching them but over time figuring that out, with the right attitude you can juggle those curve balls as well. And have some fun with the unexpected, and maybe you'll get some brilliant insights into your life as a bonus Lecture after lecture.
@@1eviledy Likewise! It's hands down the best 40 hours or so I've ever spent, and the most enjoyable. I really appreciate Stanford having those up. In an ideal world, I'd wish that everyone that pursues a degree in psychology (or medicine) would watch it. It's such a good primer on the different ways in which behavioral theory can be and has been approached, and the ways in which cognition is a biological process, not simply a matter of freely chosen thoughts. AND a reminder that psychology and mental health practice is still evolving, and should not be regarded as if it's got everything figured out.
Absolutely! What an amazing class. I loved how he would ‘sell’ an idea or perspective for the first half of the class and then tear it apart for the remainder. Excellent thinker, writer, researcher, and philoosopher. A true renaissance man.
People will continue to deny this and continue to be "crueler". I'm not a scientist but I figured this free will out at age 12 because it's intuitive and always felt it ever since and challenged myself to see where it was wrong without doing any studies. Determinist factors of biology and environment just make sense. This is what makes religions extra-cruel.. they think man has free will. I call it something less imposing - free choice. But it means little as "free choice" is just a term to avoid bad arguments with crazy bible believers. There is no Free Will. You don't need to be a genius to know. I figured out that people all thought they were better than they actually were through self-illusion. I also knew that the importance of looks is downplayed age of 6. Intelligence is way more important in life than Niceness. It's a cruel world we live in from that perspective.
Because usually @kenpanderz those ,passive aggressive included, who think theY know best , but don't , and hide their nastiness UNder the entitlement of victim hood, or worse, of being defenders of all victims alike ARE THE CRUELEST AND MOST SADISTIC ONES, LIKE TRUE HISTORY HAS SHOWN US TIME AND TIME AGAIN...Amen.
"Abolish the Criminal Justice System" is complete nonsense. You would have to be an ugly bearded academic priest to believe that. Here we are the new priest class to tell you what is true.
Whatever we might mean by "free will", it has to be "compatible" with determinism We do make choices freely as long as no one is pointing a gun at our head, but all those choices are 100% determined by antecedent conditions; our needs, wants, perceptions, volition, education, preferences.. ad infinitem. Were the world to go back 1 second then our choices would be exactly the same. If they were not, in an effort to preserve a notion of free will, then choices would be random and capricious- useless. Decisions can only be of any use if they are perfectly deterministic.
Causality is the thing-action relation, not the prior event-later event relation. Wood burns because can burn. If wood could not burn, no prior event could cause it to burn. A thing acting is the properties of the thing acting. Volitional Consciousness-N. Branden, in Psy Self-Esteem
There actually are very few current physicists who believe in determinism in the strict sense of the word. That doesn't mean we have free will, of course, but there might be a sense in which there really is an element of randomness in our decisions. Randomness has nohting to do with capriciousness or uselessness, though. A choice determined by strict causes can be capricious and useless. And if we had free will, that would not mean we would act randomly : that would mean we could be moved by maxims and principles (motives) rather than physical causes. Actually, in itself, an act determined by an exterior necessity seems quite "random" to me.
@@freyc1 Causality is the thing/action relation, not the action/reaction relation. Wood acts in a specific way because it is wood, not a frog. Ive never heard a tree croak, nor seen a frog w/leaves. There are 3 types of stuff in the universe, each w/a specific type of action. Matter, life and mind. And action/reaction, purpose and free will. Free will is mans unique power to initiate an action within the mind. Specifically, its the power to focus or evade focus. Focusing is necessary to reasoning. Evading focus is necessary to rationalizing. This is known via common human experience, prior to and the context of science. A man who did not, somehow, experience the concrete, matterial universe and his mental power to initiate reasoning and control his reasoning about the universe could not be a scientist. Volitional Consciousness-N. Branden, in _Psy. Of Self-Esteem_, online
the world is not proven to be deterministic as we cannot predict what a single particle will do next, only the likeliness. (And it certainly hasnt been rewound) Thats all you need though, the brain doesnt need exactness. Determinism is a non-issue
Free will is such a tricky topic. It's very easy (and understandable) to be triggered by someone telling you that you have no free will. I encourage everyone to deeply consider the nature of consciousness, I've been diving deep into the subject and it's liberating. Let me ask you (free will believers) this: Did you choose to think the particular first thought you had when you woke up this morning?
Causal explanations cannot account for how humans reason. There is no causal explanation for causal explanations as such. Free will, or freedom, is the ability to reason. If free will does not exist, then truth is not possible. The pursuit of truth is a social activity of giving and asking for reasons. By giving reasons for the nonexistence of free will, you are exercising your own free will. It’s quite a paradox.
@dannyholland7462 Everything is pretty absurd without free will. But strictly speaking, a person's encouragement does become part of another person's causal chain.
I read Dr Sapolsky in the 1990's when I was at College. I have heard him give presentations that are always fascinating. A question I would have loved you to ask him is about people on the Autism spectrum, what he thinks it is? Why does it manifest? Would he consider himself to be on it, and is this an issue?
Sapolsky doesn't cover autism as much as I would like in his Human Behavioral Biology lecture series (Stanford UA-cam channel), but certain sections gave me a lot of insight into myself. Molecular Genetics gets into the complexities of heritability and gene expression, the Limbic System is a great primer on the biology of an overactive amygdala and sympathetic nervous system. The whole series left me feeling much more grounded in the neurological underpinnings of who I am, which is handy when dealing with a society that tends to suppose that all behaviors are the result of freely made decisions.
@@jimwilliams3816 autism seemed very conspicuously absent in his lectures. Particularly when he discussed the symptoms of schizophrenia, some of which were identical to ASD.
I don’t know who this concept is so hard for people to understand. Your heart beats without having to thin about it. You breath without having to think about it. Your body fighting infections. You body turns food into waste. So many things without you doing a thing. Yet we think we can actually make decisions independently? Everything we do is influenced by stimuli. Sight, sound, smell, touch, etc. All of that factors into what we do. We feel we have a choice which is enough. The consequences of this fact is that we probably should learn not to judge others too harshly. The kindest man and worst man are trying their best.
@@RefinedQualia Indeed we shouldn't. Because the atoms of his body were just behaving according to the Schroedinger Equation. And so are mine and yours.
Biological causaality is a different type of causality than volitional causality. Choices indirectly cause psychology. Thats a scary fact for many. "Man is a being of self-made soul," said Aristotle. Many people flee that self-responsibility. The basic choice is focus or evasion, an immediate experience prior to proof. Only afterr the choice to focus is proof possible. The unfocused mind cannot prove or refute.
I feel like a mathematical fact of the universe. If everything that happened before me happened, then I will appear and happen too.. if I had free will I would not be here responding to a UA-cam post about free will. Free will would mean I could for go back in time infinite amounts of time and make decision differently every time to see which option is the best for me
Loved this lecture. Very interesting, I did feel him walking on eggshells for Christian/catholic religion, as he didn’t mention and or explain much as he did for other religions which I was a bit disappointed about but I get it because of the times. Also there is no fresh comments so if you’re here in 2023 drop down to say hi!
Ya I would like to hear him flesh that out a bit. He mentions morals but where do these morals come from if we are just biological organisms, just damn luck. If al we are is just matter in motion then there is no moral standard.
@@markxivlxii1390matter follows unwritten laws though... in another example: our cells don't attack each other because of chemical / physical barriers evolution has created for them to cooperate. In a single organism when these rules fail to be followed by the cells of the organism in which they have no control over, the organism would otherwise be considered to have some sort of autoimmune disease which will subsequently lead them to perish soon without medical intervention. This is just one example of how what our language defines as "morals" exists in other dimensions of our reality.
I am so happy to have met you this incredible human being. I totally agree that we do not have freedom. We have to find our own freedom within our selves. So clear and true is his philosophy. I must read his books. At last I can relate someone who thinks like I do. Thank you. More talks please.
How can you do anything but what is determined for you."We should" "I should" nah if you (choose) to believe this it can only be "We must do" "I must do"
By your own statement, you have no choice but to "agree" and you are not free to "find you freedom". Before you can be a philosopher you have to use concepts correctly, including the concepts that underlie them. There is no such thing as knowledge without choice, and there is no such thing as choice without free will.
@@i.ehrenfest349 A legal term that has nothing to do with science, it has to do with morals. Something Saposlki and the new priests of the age have deemed "Old and Mistaken".
We have as much free will as a dog in a kennel. Some dogs have bigger nicer kennels and others less, thus is our astrology chart and our free will scope
Yeah, Abolish the criminal justice system is click bait BS. He should be ashamed, but I doubt he has those emotions, as he is so much better and smarter. I have heard enough from the new priests of our age.
Agreed. The desire for retribution is a natural reaction when someone has suffered a terrible loss at the hands of another, but it's not an instinct that the criminal justice system should be endorsing, much less codifying. That's why the admonition against "cruel and unusual punishment" exists.
A fantastic example of mental gymnastics.... if we are pointless machines with no freewill... then no potential, no regrets, no responsibility, no crime.... it's like the problem of evil for the classical theist. No way around the obvious.
Welcome to the grand stage everyone. It’s a written script, your whole life is already written and you get to be an actor in it. Oh, what’s that you say? You don’t want to be in this drama, comedy, action flick… too bad, you’re in it anyway. Relax knowing we are all from the same source and will return to it momentarily. How comforting knowing the self doesn’t exist at all, we are just expressions of whatever this energy is. We are all the same stupid thing experiencing itself through this reality. Beyond dumb and incredibly hilarious.
No, we are not the same. If you ever had the chance to grow up while still remembering your childhood self, then you will know that you are not the same person today that you were at age three, five, ten or fifteen. So why would a person who is not you be like you? Of course they are not.
But what if you don’t want to be in this script, and so you decide to opt out via self deletion, but wait, you can’t do that because you don’t have the free will to make that decision unless your preprogrammed life decides that is the direction you’ll take. Around and around we go.
Stupid compared to what? That whole philosophy is weak-minded and anti-human. Human beings are magnificent creatures whose full potential hasn't even been reached yet in terms of what we can learn and achieve, materially and mentally speaking. To give up your "idea" of free is basically you saying "this world is too complex for me to understand, so I'll just pretend I'm a rock"
Free will denial is less rational than gravity denial, as it's impossible to charitably accept that anyone is as irrational as to deny that they're subject to gravity the only charitable response to free will deniers is to conclude that they do not understand what philosophers mean by "free will".
I think the closer one comes to a natural death, the less responsible they feel for anything. As they see friends and family, imagine, your spouse or longtime partner, come to an end, so much mortality staring you in the face, just how temporary things are, in a way making them unreal, even the self. If you are lucky you’ll get a grave stone. Perhaps even flowers for a generation or two. And then even the stone becomes unlegible. Not even a thought.
And then the church or the local council will sell the land you're buried in to a property developer, and your grave won't even exist anymore. Think on that, the next time you are feeling so self-important.
Remember your analogy next time you ponder whether to put your fork into either the beef steak or the potatoes. Choose one, then change your choice, then change it again, and then close your eyes so the choice is random. And then tell me that what you just ate was neurologically determined.
Very interesting. One thought that occurs is that courts in my country don’t see mentally ill people as suitable subjects for deterrence. We should perhaps scrap this distinction, or at least widen it to exclude those with some form of frontal lobe damage.
@@peopleunite3605 I honestly did not mean to be disrespectful. But as far as I know there has not been a single recorded event where prayers to the deities resulted in healing. If that were to be the case then the hospitals would be empty. But if it offers help as a crutch to lean on in difficult times, then that's fine.
That is not completely true actually. Some people are so hurt, say Traumatized by their past & really that's all that they "feel" inside. Their brain has been stunted. This is why you see so many domestic violence survivors stay with or example marry such abusive people. Men & women; it goes both ways. It's in a way, comfortable and familiar to them. ...But I get what you meant. If only everyone chose to not put themselves through such hell. It's bot a Concious & Subconscious decision simultaneously.
Free will is on a spectrum. Knowing you are separate from your mind is the first step in developing awareness that you have control, but you have to exercise free will just like a muscle. If you don't use it, you operate on base level primal impulses.
yep as we see now in the cult like rightwing movements globally, which resulted in the first genocidal war of choice in Europe since the worst calamity of all time, ww2. We must prevail against RU, the west MUST prevail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@jonomehigan451
Many people choose to evade focusing their minds, thus they cant control themselves. Modern culture is basically a nihilist attack on values and their base, the mind.
If free will doesn’t exist, those who hate also have no choice in the matter. This guy’s argument is incredibly biased and inconsistent on the most basic logical basis.
@@rolisreefranch they shouldn't be hated but the ones that did hate them didn't have any choice in hating them at that moment in time and space. It is in fact logical. This doesn't imply that they can't learn to not hate them and do differently the next time( after absorbing more info about the big picture).
In Christianity there is also the saying that you shouldn't judge anyone. This also implies that you shouldn't judge the one that is judging, and not judge the one that is judging the one that is judging and on and on..... this is a mess
No free will, no choice, I don't see anything I don't hear anything, as a matter of fact there is no "I". But seeing happens, hearing happens and all the rest of it happens within the consciousness as I-AM Being-Consciousness-Existence. I-AM the totality of the universe.
Humans are not the only ones who have affections toward pets. There have been many, be it exceptional, of non-human animals having affection toward animals other species.
Some would shy away from this kind of exposure. I have to give props to Dr. Sapolsky for deciding to do a podcast explaining to non-existence of free will. Kudos sir. Kudos.
I've thought about the free will question, and I've reached the conclusion that we have limited free will, and different people may have different amounts and types of it. Yes, you are a product of your genetics and experience. This give you some behavior options to choose from and some limitations in different situations. Neither total lack of free will nor total freedom, but probably less free will than we believe particularly in the important choices.
In this region where there is this free will (the portion of choice that is free that you say is limited), according to what information and/or with what capacities/computational abilities do you do this deciding? If in a given moment you are free from your circumstantial fabrication (indoctrinations and up from there into the stratosphere of uber complexity, of the constantly recursive interplay of information, DNA, physiological events and cognitive experiences), then what is this separate being acting for - what does it believe, what "side" is it on, and why? By why, what I mean is, how did it get the way it got? If this is where freedom resides, then this entity must be free of prior setting, by the universe or deity, of proclivity, of (for the theists and those who are surreptitiously entranced by their work across the ages) good or evil. And then comes the differentiation - that which provides for free will its only place for employment - the existence of right and wrong choice. When you are there, feeling free from your "banal" or "mere" natural self, about to make an important decision, you say you are free from it, but yet the decision you're about to make does not - CANNOT - come from a void. There is stuff there. Stuff has to come from somewhere. Variability of stuff is how we explain both physical and cognitive differentiation in creatures, and so a non-free will version of the world is completely plausible, but for our feeling. But how do we explain variability in that which is said to be free of divine or cosmic interference (so that it can be called free)? When you try to come up with a way in which a thing once free of differentiation arrives at differentiation, nothing but circular logic, infante regressions and outright violations of freedom are available to explain it. There is zero free will. The setting of the free will cannot come from: 1) "You." By you we mean either the non-free will self or the free will self. The former cannot be, because this would make the qualities, proclivities, opinions and information of the free will the handi-work of the non-free will, thereby violating the free part. The latter cannot be because this is circular - a good free will making free will makes a good free will, and a bad free will making free will makes a bad free will. This grounds on an inherent state, and thereby violates free will. 2) A God. This violates freedom. 3) The universe. This violates freedom. 4) A third entity that makes free wills. This leads to an infinite regression, because a good free will making free will maker makes a good free will, and so in order to escape a potential inherency, we need a fourth entity, and on and on and on. The assertion that free will is not an entity, unique for each person and attached to each person, but capable of vetoing the natural self to which it is bound, but merely a property of the universe, does not work, because said property would be equally available to all people, making it background noise in the equations of all human choices, which in turn are made by the only thing we have to posit such a capacity (having put free will off to being a mere property of the universe) which is the naturally caused person. Entity versus property of the universe is the primary shell-game we play to swap back and forth between so as to protect what we feel to be the case (that we have free will) from logical destruction. In the history of our personal making are indeed choices that we made - to study something, to dedicate to something - but these are themselves the products of the aforementioned recursive soup and prior choices, which in turn are the products of the same, and the chain keeps going back, and never is a choice not a product of what came before, until we arrive back at the first choice, which itself has only causation without consciousness to have spelled it.
I have not seen or met a neuroscientist or a neurobiologist or a biologist who has not said that we are not all equal and that there is individual performance, every one of those guys says 'free will does not exist'. Don't let the biologists mislead you, of course there is free will. It would be wiser if they said that free will is useless.
@@usacut6968 We meet again. When you say "of course free will exists," based on the rest of your comment I don't think I need to go too deep into the matter and can skip to suggesting that instead of reforming to "free will is useless" change "of course we have free will" to "of course we have freedom (to choose, where we in fact do)" because free will does not simply refer to the freedom to choose, but refers instead specifically to that which exploits this freedom - is THAT thing subject to a creation of type - of proclivity, opinion, bias, as well as agility of discernment - that itself comes from anywhere but prior causation? Think of yourself in that moment where you feel yourself to be free, perhaps in a decision dilemma of some importance, and you've felt to have stood back and taken a view of what has been pulling on your psychology. Because you did this modicum of self-analysis, you feel like you are existing as a person outside of the causation - you are aloof and detached. Some in the no-free will crowd will try to use certain scientific diagnostical studies, or interactive thought games, to illustrate that there's no free will, but there's a more slam dunk way to do it. Simply look at that detached self and ask, Does it have a perspective - a point of view and a personality - proclivities, opinions, beliefs, a partisanship unto the good or the evil? If it does, then these things qualify as "stuff" - attributes that do not qualify as the emptiness and/or equality across peoples that's implied by free will. This entity is free, but free to do as it is designed to do, or, as it wants to do. The question then is: Are we free to change this? Or, alternatively put, where do changes to this come from, ultimately? When you try to come up with a way in which a thing once free of differentiation arrives at differentiation, nothing but circular logic, infinite regressions and outright violations of freedom are available to explain it. There is zero free will. The setting of the free will cannot come from: 1) "You." By you we mean either the non-free will self or the free will self. The former cannot be, because this would make the qualities, proclivities, opinions and information of the free will the handi-work - and only the handi-work - of the non-free will, thereby violating the free part. The latter cannot be because this is circular - a good free will making free will makes a good free will, and a bad free will making free will makes a bad free will. This grounds on an inherent state, and thereby violates free will. 2) A God. This violates freedom. 3) The universe. This violates freedom. 4) A third entity that makes free wills. This leads to an infinite regression, because a good free will making free will maker makes a good free will, and so in order to escape a potential inherency, we need a fourth entity, and on and on and on. The assertion that free will is not an entity, unique for each person and attached to each person, but capable of vetoing the natural self to which it is bound, but is instead merely a property of the universe, does not work, because said property would be equally available to all people, making it background noise in the equations of all human choices, which in turn are made by the only thing we have to posit such a capacity (having put free will off to being a mere property of the universe) which is the naturally caused person. Entity versus property of the universe is the primary shell-game we play to swap back and forth between so as to protect what we feel to be the case (that we have free will) from logical destruction. In the history of our personal making are indeed choices that we made - to study something, to dedicate to something - but these are themselves the products of the aforementioned recursive soup and prior choices, which in turn are the products of the same, and the chain keeps going back, and never is a choice not a product of what came before, until we arrive back at the first choice, which itself has only causation without consciousness to have spelled it. Now run the chain forward from there, and witness that there is no place for a pure and featureless entity to make its mark, and if it could, what would it even do, being featureless?
Well, having no free will is essentially saying choice is an illusion because a person will always default to their best choice. This is not true anytime someone makes a choice that goes against their better judgment.
@@chase_modugno It didn't go against their "better judgement" in the moment, but only in retrospect, even if it's valid to say that, given slightly different circumstances, they had some things on-board according to which they may have chosen "rightly." Circumstances being what they were, with countervailing desires being what they were, and with powers of rationalization being what they were, they chose "their best choice." The phenomenon of regret, and recognition that one was not so clearly predetermined to behave regretfully, does not substantiate free will. The devil is in the details of "not so clearly," the sum of which lay contrary to the assumed net motivation, proclivity or status on the evil/good spectrum. Alternatively, if one chooses "wrongly" and was fully aware of doing so at the moment, then they have an on-board sum of motivations to not do so that is insufficient to culminate in them subsuming the desire to do wrongly.
Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
Instead of pointing out that people do not possess what most people proudly imagine having and are hesitant to give up (meaning: free will), it might be more effective to point out the widely accepted fact that our decisions and actions are never entirely free from the influences of our past. One reaches more people that way. Baby steps.
Fascinating stuff to think about. Not sure if it changes anything fundamentally about how we live. Absolute free will may well turn out to be an illusion - but is it a useful and perhaps, even essential illusion we all agree to accept as at least functionally true? Significantly, criminal law is based on the assumption that individuals have free will, with exceptions made for the seriously mentally ill. Very interesting topic.
Atheists will say things like "Belief in God is idiotic because it is an unfalsifiable faith claim" but then say things like "I believe free will doesn't exist" or "I believe linear time is an illusion".
Yes, because everyone has a bias. They just think they are more intelligent and superior to believers but I guess they can’t help but feel that way since they don’t have free will. 😵💫
Maybe he knows more about us than I do, but I also think free will is over rated and never supported with evidence when people make fantastic claims about it. I see in my own life that I have choices within a limited range of possibilities, at any juncture in my life. I've also come to understand that as I age, the nuances and focal points that I choose affect greatly any desired outcomes I may have or want. Religionists often claim that a deity "gave us free will" but the argument doesn't stand up and is usually claimed without evidence. To say that our decision making capacity was "given" by any thing or anyone, is an insult to our dignity as a species, because we evolved to be more competitive, i.e., to survive to reproductive age, and that does not fit with a deity-driven paternalistic model where characteristics are "given". We have traits that helped our ancestors survive, among them our many cognitive biases, that very few people realize they have. This was a fascinating video. Thank you for posting! 🌄
Very weak. We all act as though we have free will, including guys like Sam Harris, because we in fact do have free will. Everyday we reason and conduct conversations both of which require the ability to direct our thoughts. If the ability to direct our thoughts is not an act of free will I do not know what is. When we reason or analyze something or engage in problem solving it is nearly always the case that there is an intention to achieve an end that occurs first. And then, following this intention, the thoughts arise sequentially to achieve that end...the end precedes the means...Aristotle's Final Causes. This is the definitive proof that we have free will...and fools who deny free will ironically make use of this facility of mind everyday yet are too blinded by Ideology to recognize and accept it.
I have not seen or met a neuroscientist or a neurobiologist or a biologist who has not said that we are not all equal and that there is individual performance, every one of those guys says 'free will does not exist'. Don't let the biologists mislead you, of course there is free will. It would be wiser if they said that free will is useless.
i just fell in love with science all over again. And it really is because Sapolsky uses a language that pretty much aligns with metaphysics the way I understand and interpret.
Firstly humans become fully aware and have made/adopted most of their perceptions by the age of 7 or 8, secondly humans like to copy or rebel, they also seek comfort in numbers, so often follow rather than think for themselves, and with so many different groups of people to follow its an easy way to live your life, humans also tend to go for easy. To be painfully honest, and i must stress that honesty will teach you everything and normally only hurts once, most humans never actually grow up, they still see the world as they did when they were 7 or 8, and if they have changed their views/perceptions its normally in fitting with other peoples views/perceptions. Think about these statements, they are the reasons many people think humans don't have free will, its because they are unaware of these factors and the effect they have on us, i also hear a lot of religious people saying we don't have free will, often derived from this story: "The phrase a leopard can't change its spots is derived from the Bible, and is found in the book of Jeremiah. In the passage, the prophet Jeremiah attempts to convert an evil woman. At some point, he realizes that this is an impossible task: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" its only half true, because a person can change their own spots, but no one else can change them for you, so Jeremiah cannot change your spots, but you can. So with that said i hope you and others can realise that humans do in fact have fee will, but only YOU can activate it. Please stop promoting the idea that humans don't have free will, its very irresponsible, promote self belief and positivity.
Nobody is promoting anything. These are his scientific findings. I can see that this seems to go against your religious belief, but that is not science. Aren't you promoting your religion here? Why should I care what your bible says? If you have free will then start using it, but something tells me you can't help but to promote your religion. Which is it?
firstly what scientific findings are you referring to??? please do show me, as you seem to believe they exist, for your information its merely his theory. Take your time reading what i have written, you are clearly confused, im not promoting any religion, i want people to think about it themselves, its as simple as that@@waitaminute2015
Respectfully, I disagree. Consciousness is an emergent property of cells working together to create a complex system. It is not a non-thing but rather a purely material thing which explains why our consciousness is altered when drunk, high, tired, angry, injured, etc. also the “you”doesn’t make sense. In reality we are a collection of atoms, with trillions being added to our body as we speak and trillions being lost as we speak. Where do you draw the line? If I lose a carbon atom, have I lost a part of myself? Is that lost carbon atom still name? What if I was reduced down to a single carbon atom and the rest of my atoms where in seperate galaxies, where am I? No i argue that the “you” isn’t really a thing rather a concept that we perceive as being real due to biology, and instead is just an arbitrary collection of atoms concentrated into this life form for a small (galaxy wise) time period.
Sapolsky is such an amazing thinker and speaker, when I hear him talk about a topic I already I have a specific opinion about, I like to hear what he has to say about it and give him the benefit of the doubt.. he is clearly way more intelligent than I am and it helps me be more open to other ideas! That seems like a good thing
True story, so let's put this truth claim to the test. I was a problem drinker, and now I'm three years sober. Can anyone please explain to me, how I didn't use my free will 'whatsoever' to stop drinking?
You made choices that resulted in your stopping drinking. But if we could examine your life and brain up to the micromoment before you made each choice, you would see that each of those choice outcomes was determined by the physical structure of your brain. Free will means you could have done otherwise. At each microchoice you could not have done otherwise. The laws of chemistry and physics in your brain followed the laws of nature.
@@GeezerBoy65 I could have done otherwise, and kept drinking, but I made a conscious choice to stop. I still have the occasional urge when I'm stressed (I own my own design business, married, and have 2 kids), and remain 3.5 years sober from alcohol. Feels like some sort of agency, and as I've understood myself better (in a more meditative way) I've begun to understand myself and the tricks my own brain can play on me. I understand what you're getting at, but those certainly seem like some claims that would be hard to prove. Perhaps this is why Sapolsky is having such a hard time writing his book. The claims you are making aren't falsifiable. Falsifiability, is the easiest way to distinguish science from pseudoscience. So if I'm wrong, prove it :) I'm still somewhat agnostic on it, and that just feels like the question that can't be answered. Maybe down the road, this ties into consciousness in some way, so who knows. I'm open to the idea that there are things out there we don't understand. For now; with my own life experience, I lean towards the direction that we have a minimal agency of sorts. Sam Harris always uses the example of serial killers lacking the impulse control due to their own brain, so that certainly exists, where we are born in some capacity that we can't control. I still love and greatly admire Sapolksy.
The question is, WHY did you quit drinking, and why did you quit when you did? Chances are, you reached a point where things got bad enough for you that it was LOGICAL for you to decide to stop, or maybe they became good enough for you that you decided you should avoid the pitfalls of drinking so they do not ruin your life. Up until that time, there was not enough pressure on you. You weighed the outcomes of drinking, vs not drinking and, until such time that you did quit, you calculated that the drinking was preferable. Did you make a decision? Yes, but it was all based on your body/brain and your society, family, etc. In another time or place, you may not have had these pressures or lessons, and you may have died being an alcoholic. Calculating is not the same as having free will. In fact, free will makes no sense unless you were omnipotent and had NO biases, no desires, etc., and you built yourself and the universe. Even "gods" do not have this. Even they come into existence with biases, i.e. they are judgemental, they hate gayness, they like harassing humans, or whatever.
in other words, it was purely luck that made you who you are, so to blame you for making "bad" logical decisions, or "good" ones, is just not logical. We can still evaluate you given our current morals but it was never your choice to be born to be a hero, a "dirtbag", or something in between.
@@itoibo4208 The claims you're making aren't falsifiable. Science can't currently prove this, and neither can you. I've heard your claims from everyone who disagrees with me on this. I'm even willing to admit that I can't prove it either. Even if my own perspectives turn out to be fraudulent, I still know I am a better person for quitting drinking. So I'll just stay in my helpful delusions for now, even if I don't know the actual 'why.' There are plenty of scientific studies that show positive effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, so that leads me to personally believe that we could have some agency. Is it 10%? 20%? I don't know.
Absolutely interesting talk, just like Robert himself! Besides this interview, I also watched and did a video based on his TED Talk "The Biology of Our Best and Worst Selves", which is just as amazing as this interview
We need reward and punishment because society needs to identify the value of each individual and place them at the optimal point in the hierarchy that enables the whole thing to operate. This is only unfair to people born into adverse conditions. Let's improve their conditions. Destroying the notion of hierarchy doesn't help anyone: not society, not the individual.
From my understanding, it's not punishment and reward that need to disappear from our society but rather the context in which they are being used at the moment. What Sapolsky is saying is that we shouldn't punish people because "they deserve it", but rather because punishment is a useful tool in reshaping somebody's behaviour. He thinks we should focus on rehabilitation rather than revenge.
When you write a script for a video, did you not have a large pool of words to choose from? How did you decide which words to use, and in what order? How did you decide which synonyms to use? You could take the compatiblist perspective and assert that determinism and free will compatible. Or do you take an incompatiblist determinist perspective, were all words you chose were pre-determined and you had no ability to choose otherwise?
Will is very much real ,in my early young age I decided to clean shave all my adult life and with the power of my will I still stand on my words۔ You see you can do anything with the power of your will.
You made those decisions based purely on all the conditioning that lead to that moment. This is where the ego defends itself vigorously, thinking that just because it did something that others may judge as unpredictable that it must have been made out of free will
Your example is not about "free will" (independence). Your example is really about "will-power" (persistence). Using your example, one can show that you did not make an independent (your own) decision. Your decision was governed by others (and by philosophical extension, by the laws of physics - by determinism). If you decided to be "clean shaven", why did you focus on hair? Because in your social world, hair/beard is "a topic" -- you weren't born with this topic in your mind on the day of your birth. You learned the idea of "clean shaven or not" from society. Second: If you decided to be "clean shaven", is that really your decision? How about hair elsewhere on your body? Did you decide to eliminate (shave) hair from every part of your body? Likely not. Do you continue to shave your entire body, every day? You most likely do not. For example, do you shave your arms and knuckles -- which have very small (harder to see) hair? Likely you do not. The reason you do not is because your society does not consider it "good" or "bad" to shave your knuckles -- your society is neutral on this, and so you are also neutral. Your idea of _which parts of your body to shave, and how frequently_ -- this came into you from your society. You do or disobey your society/others, based on your desire to either be within or be antithetical to your society. You did not make your own decision. Your decision to ONLY shave a few parts came from the body-parts that your society finds "important". If it was truly your own independent decision, you'd be shaving areas that your society doesn't care about. Another way to see this: did you decide to pierce your toes? In most societies, it's common for people (mostly women) to pierce their earlobes. But I know of no society where it's common to pierce one's own toe (on your foot). So if you had made a decision that was irrelevant to your society, then you'd be making that decision independent of your society. If someone pierces their earlobes, it's because their society finds that "important" behavior. No society finds it important to pierce your own toe (or thumb, or knee, etc.). These decisions "come" into us, from our society (from the things our society finds "important" -- the things it finds acceptable or unacceptable).
@@keep-ukraine-freeYou could have stopped earlier in your own response. You started just fine distinguishing the difference but then went on to confuse them yourself. In fact, there are 3 effects at play: Will, free will and basic willingness.
We need to get rid of the criminal justice system which focuses on punishment and has no room for redemption, but before we let the criminals out of the jails, we better make sure we understand what we are doing, and we don’t.
Leftism is the product of an unfocused mind, no more rational than traditional religion. Mans life requires punishing the haters of mans life. Redemption is an evil man trying to be good after he has been punished.
I loved this, thank you. You should have a million subscribers and more views. This interview was telling, we are more male baboon than I thought, the females sound wonderful however, which I wish human females would emulate more, but sadly we love attacking each other much too often.
Oooo...such a sad experience for you 😢. At 62 I know my women friends / family are my most joyous, empowering, loving cheerleaders I've ever experienced . Sadly my mother shared your view, thus creating her own reality of same 😢 Perhaps look for lovelier women friends ? P.S. and Yes I've been happily married to my MALE husband for 43 years ! ❤
Big eye roll when I hear religious people say they are "blessed" (IOW their good fortune is a gift, something not of their own doing)... and then turn around and say, "Nobody gave me nothing, I worked hard for what I got. And if you aren't "blessed", well, it's YOUR fault.
@@GeezerBoy65Yes, because we are oh so enlightened here in the 21st century where we aren’t even sure if someone is a man or a woman because it depends on how they self identify.
Because this is all bullshit. It’s self-refuting and most people in the comments are falling all over themselves to praise the alleged brilliance of it.
I have read Robert's books and followed him on UA-cam and elsewhere for several years. I even exchanged emails with him. I believe I understand where he comes from when he says humans do not have free will (at all). He grants the everyday decisions like deciding to raise your right arm or left arm, or whatever you like, or change your mind at the last instant and do something else. So, that is one level of free will that he grants. He focuses on more complex decisions regarding the lack of free will, decisions like who we decide to marry, whether to commit a crime or not, whether to take drugs, or what career to choose. He says we do not have free will at all in those cases; they are totally predetermined. Granted we are influenced by genetics, life experiences, brain states, and so on, and they do influence our decisions to a lesser or greater extent. But, I claim that humans have the capacity to override many (not all) of those types of influences by exercising their will, or what is commonly known as "will power." In Robert's book, "Behave," he sets up a "behavior" and then devotes separate chapters to "One second before," "Seconds to minutes before," and so forth in more chapters, to "Back to when you where just a fertilized egg," and finally, "Centuries to millennia before." It's a great book and I recommend it, but I contend that it has a fatal flaw. As he goes "one nanosecond" before a "behavior," and then "microsecond," "millisecond," ..., "one second before," he claims that this sets up a deterministic chain of events that we have no control over, and this chain fully determines the behavior. For one issue, there goes personal responsibility for our actions. No one commits a crime because they had no choice and no control over what they did. Recently, in the murder trial of Alex Murdaugh, he was found guilty of murdering his wife and youngest son, Paul. The jury took under three hours to decide his guilt. If Robert's claim is true, then Alex Murdaugh cannot be found guilty because he had no choice but to murder his wife and son; he could not have resisted the thoughts and urges to do so. But, the fatal flaw is his assumption that each arbitrarily small event along the chain of events leading to a behavior was fully determined by previous events. I say, not so. There is a level of randomness in nature and in the brain. There is bias and preference in nature and in the brain. We know that at the subatomic level (and actually at higher levels) quantum physics comes into play and thus does probability. Also, an event is not necessarily determined by a single preceding event, but a collection of events (a many-to-one relationship). We (our "executive self" in the brain) cause electrochemical and chemical activity in the brain. The executive self can actually move a prosthetic hand through willed thought. So, even through Robert makes many good points and elucidates the innerworkings of the human brain, I believe he is wrong about his claim that "humans do not have free will at all." I believe that Alex Murdaugh could have resisted his impulse to murder his wife and son.
I struggle with this concept myself. On one hand, after reading his book behave, I've found myself stopping decades long habits due to childhood mishaps. It took reading this book and being miserable enough to start reading books like it to come to this realisation. Going decades before I was even alive there was "generational trauma" multi-ethnic backgrounds and what comes with that, white side matriarch father died very young, his brother took up responsibilities died young too at a time where social care was non existent in war time Britain so my grandma suffered deeply had to be sent to a child's home. She went on to have kids and two of 4 developed addictions or severe depression the other 2 had more beneficial experiences. (My mother being one of two that had somewhat better). My own experiences and looking back now after reading behave on my cousin's too, I see we've all got generation trauma and have acted accordingly, we've all got some sort of mental struggle the ones who's parents were more "present" have faired better but not totally. All us male relatives have been somewhat part of a gang at some point with me getting out before things went too far. With all this my take away is in fact that I find myself leaning towards free will is a myth and we can only go by our genetics and experiences. If my mum didn't get with someone who was somewhat stable for the decades they were together I'd of likely ended up the same path as my cousins. What she learnt from this stability was to do the best job with me regardless and from that I went to books when in despair rather than violence. From reading books like behave I've switched on the more rational side of my brain and try to spread this message to others to un stick their past and heal. The more we encourage society to talk about their problems before they get out of hand the less likely murdaugh tragedies happen. It's as if we're all been given this box to fit and we are chastised for thinking or behaving outside of it. Gabor mate myth of normal leans towards this and has helped me as well as behave massively.
@@warrenwright7165 I get what you're saying, but we have to be careful about what is passed on genetically and what is the level of those genetic influences. Also, what emerges from early childhood upbringing and experiences and what the level of those experiences are. The same goes for all life experiences. We all have our innate preferences, "likes" and "dislikes." My older brother had bipolar disorder and was a borderline alcoholic. He also had pronouced, self-destructive behavior. None of his three brothers, me included, had those issues. My mother had bipolar disorder, but neither had a drinking problem. I agree with you and Robert, and others, that humans have far less free will than they believe. But, I also believe that humans DO HAVE some level of free will. The level depends on genetics, early childhood upbringing, life experiences, trauma of any kind, and bias pressure at the time we make some decisions. On the last point about bias pressure, I mean certain situational subconsious biases, for example, I am trying to make up my mind to buy a Ford or a Chevy. A friend drives by and waves and she is driving a new Chevy. I go back to my decision-making and quickly choose Chevy. In my view, evolution has equipped humans with the ability to override these influences, impulses, and wrong behaviors. I once was a heavy smoker; three or four packs a day. I would light up a cigarette when I still had one burning in the ash tray. I decided to quit. I went through withdrawal. I saw my friends smoking, my body and mind desperately wanted a cigarette. But, I refused to give in to these conscious and subconscious pressures; I exerted by free will. It worked. I got free of nicotine and its great.
@@georgegrubbs2966 it's a tough one. Might well just be my confirmation bias at play 😂, as in to say, between his work and Gabor mate something has just really clicked for me and I couldn't of made the choice without coming across their workings. It took previous experiences to bring me here is my thinking, but there is a possibility confirmation bias has blinded me to other possibilities I accept that. And so for confirmation bias sake... My mum and dad eventually broke up and she was never bitter or tried to turn me against him but then I've seen alot of women get really bitter. I've seen women who are the new partner and get bitter at their partners ex for no reason and also men act the same and that then makes me question the influence of my mum not being bitter when, at least in my experience, everyone who breaks up ends up bitter. This makes me unable to say with 100% conviction that free will is a myth. Was it her choice or have experiences took place between childhood, adolescence and partly through adulthood slightly differently that have perhaps eased stressors where other people have failed to regulate ?
@@warrenwright7165 Agree. We are sometimes (many times?) subconciously "driven" or "led" to make "good" or "bad" choices. But, "bad" or "good" choices are only determined after they are made and after what comes of them. I say, "my first marriage was a 'bad'choice' because it ended badly." It did not have to end that way. It was not destined to end badly. Life situations like marriage are highly complex with many backgrounds and forces coming into play. We are not victims of fate; the world is not determistic. Regarding "bitterness," I finally learned the immense value of absolute "forgiveness." That set me free and allowed me to live a happy life. I carry no bitterness, grudges, or bad feelings towards anyone, including myself for the mistakes I have made. Life can be joyful and happy even in dire circumstances. Perspective, realization of what's important, and living in the present are valuable tools for happiness.
@@georgegrubbs2966 love the "absolute forrgiveness". That's something I could really get behind. (And here I am feeling blessed and leaning further towards my conviction of free will being a myth, if it wasn't for you bringing that to my attention, I wouldn't of seen it as another healing avenue😆).
Of course the "justice system" and all its adjuncts don't prevent anything (criminal/bad) from happening - it is merely an instrument of retribution. And often blind to boot as has been said elsewhere.
No one has ever satisfactorily defined this nebulous notion of “free will”, so to say it doesn’t exist is actually a bit of an overstatement. Free will is a nonsense idea, that doesn’t even need disputing.
@@andreylebeuf1304 Ok Andrey, give your definition of "free will" and use whatever source you like. The fact that there are words behind an entry in a dictionary does not mean that a term is logically well defined. Give me your best!
@@i.ehrenfest349 His point is that it's perfectly well defined. What it isn't, and you are correct about this, is meaningful. Free will only matters for a single profession: judges. A judge can only sentence you because he/she assumes that you did the crime out of free will and there is no instance, natural or supernatural, that forced you. Please note that we do not subject everybody to that assumption. Mentally ill people are usually not believed to have free will.
@@i.ehrenfest349 Philosophically "Free will is the assumption that a person can make different choices if presented with the same alternatives.". The problem with this is trivial: there is no such thing as "the same person" even if the alternatives are the same. We are all learning from our experiences. If we picked one brand of vanilla ice cream and we didn't like it, the next time we are swayed by our experience to chose chocolate instead. To a judge this doesn't matter. Quite the contrary: the punishment is meant to give the person a good reason to make a different choice next time and to not repeat the first crime (or a similar one). Would you like me to solve the chicken and egg problem for you, now? It's about equally "difficult". ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 And here we see why this definition is inadequate. You get into trouble with the word “choice.” We all know a person can “make different choices”, i.e. they can take peanut butter rather than jam. What we want to know is whether that choice is “free”. And so I ask you again, what is a free choice? When a choice is part of a determined sequence, i.e. part of the causal chain, it cannot be said to be “free”. And of course almost everything in our macro world is part of a causal chain. The only thing that no longer fits in with 18th and 19th senses of philosophical determinism is quantum mechanical randomness. And randomness is just that: it is random. So you see, if you want to define a term such as “free will” you can’t just give a dictionary entry definition. That does nothing. Can you define “life”? It is highly unlikely that you can. There are organisms that are sort of thought to be alive, and sort of not. The fact that the word “life” has a dictionary entry in no way means that we have an adequate definition. Nobody has been able to explain what they really mean by “free will”, because the proposed definitions are composed of similarly ill defined terms. Often, people have a nebulous notion in their heads. They give a name to it and then believe it is “real”, as if it had become part of Plato’s cave. The words “free will” do not represent anything real.
Did Robert Sapolsky make his statement out of free will or was he forced by ..... (his brain, his body chemistry, whatever)? If not, we can disregard his statement as he didn't say it because he had the freedom to establish this as the truth but he was forced by something to say it. If yes, then he contradicts himself and free will does, in fact, exist - at least in some respects.
@@egirlbadeline You misunderstand me. What I meant: one cannot validly say "I have no free will" because making such a claim presupposes that one has the free will necessary to reject or accept a claim based on free insight. Just like one cannot validly say "Truth does not exist" because if that were true, than the claim that "Truth does not exist" would also not be true. Another example: one cannot validly say that everything is relative, because that is an absolute claim. There has to be internal consistency in your claim, which includes the faculty necessary to make a claim.
If only more folks would love knowledge the way these two do. The world would much more quickly approach a golden age. Thanks. Thumbs up to me for recognizing good stuff when i hear it.
There's an obvious problem with saying "we dont have free will". Sapolsky said himself - we are the victims of the situation we're in. What kind of situation do we set up for peole teaching them that? As Viktor Frankl said, we have to see the best or even non-existent in people in order for them to believe in themselves and achieve their potential. We have to oversteer.
If "we do not have any free will whatsoever", explain how there are people who quit addictions or take rational decisions contrary to their impulses? i personally think free will is a very thin layer covering a much more hefty mass of pure constraint, but there is definitely an element of free will.
You have no freewill in regards to deciding you want to give up an addiction - you either do or you don't. You can't make yourself want to do something you don't want to do
The reason why he is wrong is because he hasn't researched our spiritual nature. Yes, animals are operating on programs but we wrote those programs. It gets a bit complicated and there are also programs and templates of behavior for human bodies but we are not our body. To make it even more complicated, this is a simulation - a virtual reality. I decided to escape this soul trap and I did. I came back to help others get out.
No person. No free will. No purpose. No need to change anything. No one there to change. No right. No wrong. But there does appears to be things happening. Real or not, can’t tell for sure.
If you could define "free will", you would have it. Freedom is not the possibility to do everything. That would be omnipotence. BUT you can think "everything". And choose what of that you want to make real. And where is a choice, there is will.
@smeeself Your will IS free.(You are the one determining what is allowed and not, within it) You can fantasize about everything possible and impossible. Your "Will" only MANIFESTS (and is determined By) your capability to DO STUFF. That is dependant on physics, Chemistry Biology, and your education etc. And your knowledge to deal with it.(competences and capabilities) What you want and how you achieve it is entirely your planning. Planning consists of choices though, and choices means decisions, and decisions means will. Sapolsky is running in circles in his own niche. What Sapolsky describes as free will, is omnipotence, like ingesting poison without reacting to it. But the reaction might be different from one individual compared to another, because their body chemistry works with different amounts of antibodies.
Here is someone who is 100x smarter than all of us. on free will: In 1931, Einstein, in response to questions about belief in free will, responded with the following comparison of the will of the moon: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.”
The urge to harm or the urge to punish are both subject to not having free will. They cancel each other out and are meaningless concepts in a meaningless world
But how free are those choices? What drives them? Can you control your random thoughts? Can you control your emotions? All of those drive your choices.
In my experience, free will exists, definitely a framework built-in to this reality. But...the default situation for most folks is no free will within a system where free will exists. The determining factor is Consciousness. To the degree that one is Conscious, one has choice (aka, free will). When in the unconscious state, no choice exists...behavior, etc, runs directly and only from the existing tapes available to that specific mind...so... an auto-response (no free will). To choose one must be in the Consciousness state Itself, which is what we are and always have been. The mind can not choose but from the data it holds. Only Soul can choose, as Soul is Consciousness Itself. The mind is a tool that Soul uses to navigate this paradigm. Soul is primary, mind is secondary.
@David Shook Not sure what you mean exactly but science (by current dogma/definition), as valuable and amazing as it is, is limited to the physical plane, and insists that nothing exists outside of time and space. This is a very limited perspective and that is why science cannot answer the most basic questions at the most fundamental levels. In order to have free will one must act from Cause (Source), not effect (mind). To act from Cause is the definition of free will and to act from Cause can only occur from outside the mind. The mind *thinks* that's nonsense, as any closed system would. Source Energy is the only Causative force. To the degree that the mind is neutral, Source can flow into time and space. Thus, the state of Consciousness is the determining factor in authentic choice. Soul (primary nature) is always neutral, it is mind (false self) that takes a position. But that position is taken automatically, which the mind *thinks* is nonsense, insisting on *proof* ONLY via time and space tools, or its own very limited self.
@@brad1368 When you dream, YOU (the real YOU) leaves the physical plane. When you fall in love you leave the mind (Divine Love is not a quality of mind), when you shift from sympathy (mind/ego based) to true compassion (a Soul-only state of Being) that is Consciousness, beyond time and space. The few moments of orgasm when the ego dissolves when you lose yourself (the personality/ego), skiing down a hero slope when all attention MUST be focused in the Now. Intuition is how Soul communicates with the small self (mind). Physics is in trouble precisely because the institutional dinosaurs refuse to accept what they must eventually...the source of the physical plane is not physical. "Death" is a transition and one out of body experience...just one...available to all 8 billion of us...proves it, personally and undeniably. We drop the body (the physical) but everything else is retained...much like a dream. A young child has (literally) little mind/ego...this is why they are so inexplicably spiritual. Cows in the field are much more in their Being as the divine beings they Are, than in mind. Animals, except modern man, are in their essential nature most all the time. The mind *thinks* they are stupid and simple, but our journey on this Earth School is to honor our essential nature while utilizing our amazing minds in Its Service. It's the mind that denies the divine experiences we all have, as does all of object focused society. Everything ties together...physics, dreams, lessons, relationships, the inner, the outer...because everything is, at it's Source, One. The same "thing". Identical. Which is all to say..."The mind is always preparing for the party it can never attend."
@@robertjsmith I have a body which is on the physical plane. I have what we call emotions which have no physical component (although they can affect the physical). Emotions exist on the Astral Plane. Memories are also not physical either, existing (emanating/originating) on the Causal Plane. Mental aspects of me/you are not of physical origin either, from the Mental Plane. All these planes are experienced simultaneously by the experiencer as "me". Only my physical aspect exists on the physical plane but we interpret it all as what we identify to be, which for most of us, is wholly physical. But, under objective inquiry, only a portion of "me" is actually physical (and even that is a misunderstanding of Reality). Further, all these planes above are very real, experience-able AND in duality...meaning, they have some form/identity/individuality (physical or not) on some plane of reality. In duality, there is "me" and everything else (not "me")...duality. Above the Mental plane is the region of Unity...or, not-duality. A completely different playing field. Below...time and space, matter and energy...above...only Energy. (Almost like quantum, yeah?) No duality, no subject and object, just Beingness/One...in science, probability. This is where our authentic Self exists always...in Unity, of Unity...often called Soul. Soul, being pure Source Energy, cannot exist in duality, so it takes on the mental, causal, astral and physical bodies if it desires to experience these lower realities. It would do so by choice, to learn or to serve. When we die we drop the physical body, usually hang on the Astral for a time, then return for more, until no longer necessary. Soul exists with or without any of these bodies. It is outside of time and space, so eternal and limitless...much like Source Energy. Soul is the real "me". The primary me. It animates everything...all form is Source Energy dumbed down (said kindly). Just like probabilities dumbed down become Baryons.
Love any podcast or interview with Robert Sapolsky. We're lucky to have him alive & sharing his knowledge of Behavioral Biology.
His 25 lectures are better medicine than any pharmaceutical medicines made
Just praise? I question his silly notion of calling primates people. Typical empiricist failing recognize the significant difference between us and all existence. more than meets the eye to not just the human being…but all the natural world.
When I first heard Dr. Sapolsky I saw him as wearing a 3 piece suit, and I was so surprised to see him in reality.
I much enjoy learning from
his discoveries and stories in behavioral biology, but his ideas on philosophy, economics, history, and justice are fairly underdeveloped and i hope he doesn’t try to deviate too far from his academic expertise. The future will not look back kindly on Maoism either, which is something like what he suggests by doing away with a merit-based society.
Also, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and trauma to the prefrontal-cortex, are neurological disorders not intrinsically psychiatric / mental illness. They are born, or fell into these not by intent, and are nothing at all like sociopathy which is a controllable and curable state of mind. Rather convenient omission. Nevertheless a society that tried to filter for all of these in our criminal system, for not having an implicit sense of self control / agency / freewill, would be cost prohibitive for any modern society. We didn’t do so because it was ‘right’, but because it’s too costly to do what’s right, by having a tiered system of incarceration. And, it would likely be gamed and abused beyond recognition even if we did
"Luck" has nothing to do with it, weren't you listening?!? {lolol 😉}
Robert has no choice but to say that free will is an illusion. After all, he could not and cannot do otherwise.
nice one!
and.....?
My brain compels me to agree.
Exactly. It’s a self defeating assertion.
Lol 😂
Sapolsky's lectures on YT are some of the best lectures I've ever seen in my life.
I try my best to get as many people who have any interest in human behavior to watch his 25 part lecture series. I was so floored when I first went through it, I had to go back and listen to it again and again.
He has a great style where, apparently without referring to notes, he is practically telling stories about what he is teaching. And aside from the subject matter at hand he shows the students as things were learned along the way by researchers, as soon as it seems you nail something down, other evidence will show up showing you missed something.
Then sometimes the focus on the field might even reverse itself. And then shown that's not quite right either and while gathering all this information, it's time to go down another rabbit hole and learn something completely unexpected on the subject...
It's a way of not only learning how to learn but develop an awareness that there's something you have overlooked as a life lesson as well. Beyond only pursuing research, learning how to expect that life will throw you curve balls.
And to not stress about catching them but over time figuring that out, with the right attitude you can juggle those curve balls as well. And have some fun with the unexpected, and maybe you'll get some brilliant insights into your life as a bonus
Lecture after lecture.
They are indeed wonderful.
@@1eviledy Likewise! It's hands down the best 40 hours or so I've ever spent, and the most enjoyable. I really appreciate Stanford having those up. In an ideal world, I'd wish that everyone that pursues a degree in psychology (or medicine) would watch it. It's such a good primer on the different ways in which behavioral theory can be and has been approached, and the ways in which cognition is a biological process, not simply a matter of freely chosen thoughts. AND a reminder that psychology and mental health practice is still evolving, and should not be regarded as if it's got everything figured out.
Absolutely! What an amazing class. I loved how he would ‘sell’ an idea or perspective for the first half of the class and then tear it apart for the remainder. Excellent thinker, writer, researcher, and philoosopher. A true renaissance man.
its always nice when someones mindset is made less casually cruel by simply learning more
People will continue to deny this and continue to be "crueler". I'm not a scientist but I figured this free will out at age 12 because it's intuitive and always felt it ever since and challenged myself to see where it was wrong without doing any studies. Determinist factors of biology and environment just make sense. This is what makes religions extra-cruel.. they think man has free will. I call it something less imposing - free choice. But it means little as "free choice" is just a term to avoid bad arguments with crazy bible believers. There is no Free Will. You don't need to be a genius to know. I figured out that people all thought they were better than they actually were through self-illusion. I also knew that the importance of looks is downplayed age of 6. Intelligence is way more important in life than Niceness. It's a cruel world we live in from that perspective.
Because usually @kenpanderz those ,passive aggressive included, who think theY know best , but don't , and hide their nastiness UNder the entitlement of victim hood, or worse, of being defenders of all victims alike ARE THE CRUELEST AND MOST SADISTIC ONES, LIKE TRUE HISTORY HAS SHOWN US TIME AND TIME AGAIN...Amen.
30:15 Starts answering question.
Can’t wait for his new book “Determined” 🔥
I'm a huge fan of Sapolsky. This podcast was a good one. Felt like I got to know Sapolsky personally a little better. Kudos to the interviewer.
"Abolish the Criminal Justice System" is complete nonsense. You would have to be an ugly bearded academic priest to believe that. Here we are the new priest class to tell you what is true.
Yeah, I don't honestly want Trump to suffer. It's just I want society protected from him, so he needs to be quarantined for the safety of everyone.
Whatever we might mean by "free will", it has to be "compatible" with determinism We do make choices freely as long as no one is pointing a gun at our head, but all those choices are 100% determined by antecedent conditions; our needs, wants, perceptions, volition, education, preferences.. ad infinitem. Were the world to go back 1 second then our choices would be exactly the same. If they were not, in an effort to preserve a notion of free will, then choices would be random and capricious- useless. Decisions can only be of any use if they are perfectly deterministic.
Perfect said
Causality is the thing-action relation, not the prior event-later event relation. Wood burns because can burn. If wood could not burn, no prior event could cause it to burn. A thing acting is the properties of the thing acting.
Volitional Consciousness-N. Branden, in Psy Self-Esteem
There actually are very few current physicists who believe in determinism in the strict sense of the word. That doesn't mean we have free will, of course, but there might be a sense in which there really is an element of randomness in our decisions. Randomness has nohting to do with capriciousness or uselessness, though. A choice determined by strict causes can be capricious and useless. And if we had free will, that would not mean we would act randomly : that would mean we could be moved by maxims and principles (motives) rather than physical causes. Actually, in itself, an act determined by an exterior necessity seems quite "random" to me.
@@freyc1 Causality is the thing/action relation, not the action/reaction relation. Wood acts in a specific way because it is wood, not a frog. Ive never heard a tree croak, nor seen a frog w/leaves.
There are 3 types of stuff in the universe, each w/a specific type of action. Matter, life and mind. And action/reaction, purpose and free will. Free will is mans unique power to initiate an action within the mind. Specifically, its the power to focus or evade focus. Focusing is necessary to reasoning.
Evading focus is necessary to rationalizing.
This is known via common human experience, prior to and the context of science. A man who did not, somehow, experience the concrete, matterial universe and his mental power to initiate reasoning and control his reasoning about the universe could not be a scientist.
Volitional Consciousness-N. Branden, in _Psy. Of Self-Esteem_, online
the world is not proven to be deterministic as we cannot predict what a single particle will do next, only the likeliness. (And it certainly hasnt been rewound) Thats all you need though, the brain doesnt need exactness. Determinism is a non-issue
Free will is such a tricky topic. It's very easy (and understandable) to be triggered by someone telling you that you have no free will. I encourage everyone to deeply consider the nature of consciousness, I've been diving deep into the subject and it's liberating.
Let me ask you (free will believers) this: Did you choose to think the particular first thought you had when you woke up this morning?
Causal explanations cannot account for how humans reason. There is no causal explanation for causal explanations as such. Free will, or freedom, is the ability to reason. If free will does not exist, then truth is not possible. The pursuit of truth is a social activity of giving and asking for reasons. By giving reasons for the nonexistence of free will, you are exercising your own free will. It’s quite a paradox.
It stops being tricky once you realize that the only way for a rational human being to not have any free will is to be dead.
@@one-sidedrationalization1091You simply sidestepped the entire problem by creating a false definition of free will.
@dannyholland7462 Everything is pretty absurd without free will. But strictly speaking, a person's encouragement does become part of another person's causal chain.
@dannyholland7462 Unless you're going to claim that nothing can be defined or taxonomized without free will, I'm gonna have to disagree.
People I absolutely adore..Robert Sapolsky ❤❤❤
I wish everyone I disagreed with was as agreeable as Robert Sapolsky. He would be great company.
I read Dr Sapolsky in the 1990's when I was at College. I have heard him give presentations that are always fascinating. A question I would have loved you to ask him is about people on the Autism spectrum, what he thinks it is? Why does it manifest? Would he consider himself to be on it, and is this an issue?
Sapolsky doesn't cover autism as much as I would like in his Human Behavioral Biology lecture series (Stanford UA-cam channel), but certain sections gave me a lot of insight into myself. Molecular Genetics gets into the complexities of heritability and gene expression, the Limbic System is a great primer on the biology of an overactive amygdala and sympathetic nervous system. The whole series left me feeling much more grounded in the neurological underpinnings of who I am, which is handy when dealing with a society that tends to suppose that all behaviors are the result of freely made decisions.
@@jimwilliams3816 autism seemed very conspicuously absent in his lectures. Particularly when he discussed the symptoms of schizophrenia, some of which were identical to ASD.
I don’t know who this concept is so hard for people to understand. Your heart beats without having to thin about it. You breath without having to think about it. Your body fighting infections. You body turns food into waste. So many things without you doing a thing. Yet we think we can actually make decisions independently? Everything we do is influenced by stimuli. Sight, sound, smell, touch, etc. All of that factors into what we do. We feel we have a choice which is enough. The consequences of this fact is that we probably should learn not to judge others too harshly. The kindest man and worst man are trying their best.
So, Hitler was trying his best? Should we not judge him too harshly?
@@RefinedQualia Indeed we shouldn't. Because the atoms of his body were just behaving according to the Schroedinger Equation. And so are mine and yours.
@@RefinedQualia He had no choice, and neither did the people sentencing him. LOL
Said more accurately, whether trying or not trying, they cannot do otherwise at each microchoice.
Biological causaality is a different type of causality than volitional causality. Choices indirectly cause psychology. Thats a scary fact for many. "Man is a being of self-made soul," said Aristotle. Many people flee that self-responsibility. The basic choice is focus or evasion, an immediate experience prior to proof. Only afterr the choice to focus is proof possible. The unfocused mind cannot prove or refute.
In a book I wrote about 20 years ago, I titled a chapter, "The Illusion Of Free Will." Needless to say, I'm on board with Robert here.
Your comment is pointless.... No regrets though 😂
Tío, pa leer tu libro, por fa!
I feel like a mathematical fact of the universe. If everything that happened before me happened, then I will appear and happen too.. if I had free will I would not be here responding to a UA-cam post about free will. Free will would mean I could for go back in time infinite amounts of time and make decision differently every time to see which option is the best for me
Had to speed it up just a tad. 👍 good stuff
“I’m capable of intermittent bursts of presentability”
same Dr. Sapolsky, same.
Loved this lecture. Very interesting, I did feel him walking on eggshells for Christian/catholic religion, as he didn’t mention and or explain much as he did for other religions which I was a bit disappointed about but I get it because of the times. Also there is no fresh comments so if you’re here in 2023 drop down to say hi!
Ya I would like to hear him flesh that out a bit. He mentions morals but where do these morals come from if we are just biological organisms, just damn luck. If al we are is just matter in motion then there is no moral standard.
@@markxivlxii1390matter follows unwritten laws though... in another example: our cells don't attack each other because of chemical / physical barriers evolution has created for them to cooperate. In a single organism when these rules fail to be followed by the cells of the organism in which they have no control over, the organism would otherwise be considered to have some sort of autoimmune disease which will subsequently lead them to perish soon without medical intervention. This is just one example of how what our language defines as "morals" exists in other dimensions of our reality.
I am so happy to have met you this incredible human being. I totally agree that we do not have freedom. We have to find our own freedom within our selves. So clear and true is his philosophy. I must read his books. At last I can relate someone who thinks like I do. Thank you. More talks please.
How can you do anything but what is determined for you."We should" "I should" nah if you (choose) to believe this it can only be "We must do" "I must do"
Were you forced to write this against your will.? What da heck?
By your own statement, you have no choice but to "agree" and you are not free to "find you freedom". Before you can be a philosopher you have to use concepts correctly, including the concepts that underlie them. There is no such thing as knowledge without choice, and there is no such thing as choice without free will.
@@wetwingnutDo define “free will”, then.
@@i.ehrenfest349 A legal term that has nothing to do with science, it has to do with morals. Something Saposlki and the new priests of the age have deemed "Old and Mistaken".
19:45 Wtf who would vote for saving a dog over a person?
We have as much free will as a dog in a kennel. Some dogs have bigger nicer kennels and others less, thus is our astrology chart and our free will scope
Yea! A recent interview of R.S. Thank you.
From baboons on PCP to the dissolvement of the criminal justice system, this interview was a wild ride!
Yeah, Abolish the criminal justice system is click bait BS. He should be ashamed, but I doubt he has those emotions, as he is so much better and smarter. I have heard enough from the new priests of our age.
@@yanapostolides601someone's amygdala is riding them ^^ 😂
The only difference between fate and free will is the timing.
So probability?
Best conversation on criminal justice, reward and punishment I've ever heard. Finally. A clear voice.
Agreed. The desire for retribution is a natural reaction when someone has suffered a terrible loss at the hands of another, but it's not an instinct that the criminal justice system should be endorsing, much less codifying. That's why the admonition against "cruel and unusual punishment" exists.
@@jimwilliams3816quite often, crime is retribution itself.
A fantastic example of mental gymnastics.... if we are pointless machines with no freewill... then no potential, no regrets, no responsibility, no crime.... it's like the problem of evil for the classical theist. No way around the obvious.
We have an extremely convincing illusion of free will which is for all intents and purposes the same thing.
It's a fun topic to discuss, but it ultimately shouldn't change who you are imo
Welcome to the grand stage everyone. It’s a written script, your whole life is already written and you get to be an actor in it. Oh, what’s that you say? You don’t want to be in this drama, comedy, action flick… too bad, you’re in it anyway. Relax knowing we are all from the same source and will return to it momentarily. How comforting knowing the self doesn’t exist at all, we are just expressions of whatever this energy is. We are all the same stupid thing experiencing itself through this reality. Beyond dumb and incredibly hilarious.
No, we are not the same. If you ever had the chance to grow up while still remembering your childhood self, then you will know that you are not the same person today that you were at age three, five, ten or fifteen. So why would a person who is not you be like you? Of course they are not.
But what if you don’t want to be in this script, and so you decide to opt out via self deletion, but wait, you can’t do that because you don’t have the free will to make that decision unless your preprogrammed life decides that is the direction you’ll take. Around and around we go.
@@schmetterling4477you were the same awareness at 3 as you are now. The only thing that’s changed is the body mind.
Stupid compared to what? That whole philosophy is weak-minded and anti-human. Human beings are magnificent creatures whose full potential hasn't even been reached yet in terms of what we can learn and achieve, materially and mentally speaking. To give up your "idea" of free is basically you saying "this world is too complex for me to understand, so I'll just pretend I'm a rock"
@@spinz7 So you are agreeing with me that I am not the same. :-)
Free will denial is less rational than gravity denial, as it's impossible to charitably accept that anyone is as irrational as to deny that they're subject to gravity the only charitable response to free will deniers is to conclude that they do not understand what philosophers mean by "free will".
I think the closer one comes to a natural death, the less responsible they feel for anything. As they see friends and family, imagine, your spouse or longtime partner, come to an end, so much mortality staring you in the face, just how temporary things are, in a way making them unreal, even the self. If you are lucky you’ll get a grave stone. Perhaps even flowers for a generation or two. And then even the stone becomes unlegible. Not even a thought.
And then the church or the local council will sell the land you're buried in to a property developer, and your grave won't even exist anymore. Think on that, the next time you are feeling so self-important.
It's nice to hear a scientist put the fork into obsolete concepts like free will.
Remember your analogy next time you ponder whether to put your fork into either the beef steak or the potatoes. Choose one, then change your choice, then change it again, and then close your eyes so the choice is random. And then tell me that what you just ate was neurologically determined.
Very interesting. One thought that occurs is that courts in my country don’t see mentally ill people as suitable subjects for deterrence. We should perhaps scrap this distinction, or at least widen it to exclude those with some form of frontal lobe damage.
It is very appealing to have Dr. Sapolsky talk about his time with troops of Babboons when he was doing research!
My son has frontal lobe brain damage, it is what used to be called, mental retardation. Pray for him, his name is Ben. He is a loving sweet soul.
Sorry but what would prayer do?
@@houtbay9 not a thing if it means nothing to you. Prayer is a way of offering up healing to the Great Good.
@@peopleunite3605 I honestly did not mean to be disrespectful. But as far as I know there has not been a single recorded event where prayers to the deities resulted in healing. If that were to be the case then the hospitals would be empty. But if it offers help as a crutch to lean on in difficult times, then that's fine.
@@houtbay9positive intention if nothing else and that cant hurt
@houtbay9 wow you are really smart!!
If people had freewill they would choose not to have depressive thoughts
@@TheRed7000totally misunderstood.
That is not completely true actually. Some people are so hurt, say Traumatized by their past & really that's all that they "feel" inside. Their brain has been stunted.
This is why you see so many domestic violence survivors stay with or example marry such abusive people.
Men & women; it goes both ways.
It's in a way, comfortable and familiar to them.
...But I get what you meant.
If only everyone chose to not put themselves through such hell.
It's bot a Concious & Subconscious decision simultaneously.
Free will is on a spectrum. Knowing you are separate from your mind is the first step in developing awareness that you have control, but you have to exercise free will just like a muscle. If you don't use it, you operate on base level primal impulses.
yep as we see now in the cult like rightwing movements globally, which resulted in the first genocidal war of choice in Europe since the worst calamity of all time, ww2. We must prevail against RU, the west MUST prevail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@jonomehigan451
Some people do.
To know how little control we have on our lives you need just look closely enough at those around you.
Many people choose to evade focusing their minds, thus they cant control themselves. Modern culture is basically a nihilist attack on values and their base, the mind.
You just need to look closely at yourself.
Thanks for the video brother ❤️ love from sweden Stockholm
Sapolskys broken car brake metaphor is perfect. He admits they need to be off the road, but not hated, possibly repaired. Perfect.
If free will doesn’t exist, those who hate also have no choice in the matter. This guy’s argument is incredibly biased and inconsistent on the most basic logical basis.
@@rolisreefranch they shouldn't be hated but the ones that did hate them didn't have any choice in hating them at that moment in time and space. It is in fact logical. This doesn't imply that they can't learn to not hate them and do differently the next time( after absorbing more info about the big picture).
In Christianity there is also the saying that you shouldn't judge anyone. This also implies that you shouldn't judge the one that is judging, and not judge the one that is judging the one that is judging and on and on..... this is a mess
@@rolisreefranch what is your beef ? ?? ? - it seems he is biased toward truth as opposed to falsehood - bro
@@henrychoy2764 his argument is illogical
No free will, no choice, I don't see anything I don't hear anything, as a matter of fact there is no "I". But seeing happens, hearing happens and all the rest of it happens within the consciousness as I-AM Being-Consciousness-Existence. I-AM the totality of the universe.
Humans are not the only ones who have affections toward pets. There have been many, be it exceptional, of non-human animals having affection toward animals other species.
Some would shy away from this kind of exposure. I have to give props to Dr. Sapolsky for deciding to do a podcast explaining to non-existence of free will. Kudos sir. Kudos.
Amazing podcast!!! I need to listen to Soapolsky more and go the Reddit rabbit holes wayyyy less. lol
I've thought about the free will question, and I've reached the conclusion that we have limited free will, and different people may have different amounts and types of it. Yes, you are a product of your genetics and experience. This give you some behavior options to choose from and some limitations in different situations. Neither total lack of free will nor total freedom, but probably less free will than we believe particularly in the important choices.
In this region where there is this free will (the portion of choice that is free that you say is limited), according to what information and/or with what capacities/computational abilities do you do this deciding? If in a given moment you are free from your circumstantial fabrication (indoctrinations and up from there into the stratosphere of uber complexity, of the constantly recursive interplay of information, DNA, physiological events and cognitive experiences), then what is this separate being acting for - what does it believe, what "side" is it on, and why? By why, what I mean is, how did it get the way it got? If this is where freedom resides, then this entity must be free of prior setting, by the universe or deity, of proclivity, of (for the theists and those who are surreptitiously entranced by their work across the ages) good or evil. And then comes the differentiation - that which provides for free will its only place for employment - the existence of right and wrong choice.
When you are there, feeling free from your "banal" or "mere" natural self, about to make an important decision, you say you are free from it, but yet the decision you're about to make does not - CANNOT - come from a void. There is stuff there. Stuff has to come from somewhere. Variability of stuff is how we explain both physical and cognitive differentiation in creatures, and so a non-free will version of the world is completely plausible, but for our feeling. But how do we explain variability in that which is said to be free of divine or cosmic interference (so that it can be called free)? When you try to come up with a way in which a thing once free of differentiation arrives at differentiation, nothing but circular logic, infante regressions and outright violations of freedom are available to explain it. There is zero free will.
The setting of the free will cannot come from:
1) "You." By you we mean either the non-free will self or the free will self. The former cannot be, because this would make the qualities, proclivities, opinions and information of the free will the handi-work of the non-free will, thereby violating the free part. The latter cannot be because this is circular - a good free will making free will makes a good free will, and a bad free will making free will makes a bad free will. This grounds on an inherent state, and thereby violates free will.
2) A God. This violates freedom.
3) The universe. This violates freedom.
4) A third entity that makes free wills. This leads to an infinite regression, because a good free will making free will maker makes a good free will, and so in order to escape a potential inherency, we need a fourth entity, and on and on and on.
The assertion that free will is not an entity, unique for each person and attached to each person, but capable of vetoing the natural self to which it is bound, but merely a property of the universe, does not work, because said property would be equally available to all people, making it background noise in the equations of all human choices, which in turn are made by the only thing we have to posit such a capacity (having put free will off to being a mere property of the universe) which is the naturally caused person. Entity versus property of the universe is the primary shell-game we play to swap back and forth between so as to protect what we feel to be the case (that we have free will) from logical destruction.
In the history of our personal making are indeed choices that we made - to study something, to dedicate to something - but these are themselves the products of the aforementioned recursive soup and prior choices, which in turn are the products of the same, and the chain keeps going back, and never is a choice not a product of what came before, until we arrive back at the first choice, which itself has only causation without consciousness to have spelled it.
I have not seen or met a neuroscientist or a neurobiologist or a biologist who has not said that we are not all equal and that there is individual performance, every one of those guys says 'free will does not exist'. Don't let the biologists mislead you, of course there is free will. It would be wiser if they said that free will is useless.
@@usacut6968 We meet again. When you say "of course free will exists," based on the rest of your comment I don't think I need to go too deep into the matter and can skip to suggesting that instead of reforming to "free will is useless" change "of course we have free will" to "of course we have freedom (to choose, where we in fact do)" because free will does not simply refer to the freedom to choose, but refers instead specifically to that which exploits this freedom - is THAT thing subject to a creation of type - of proclivity, opinion, bias, as well as agility of discernment - that itself comes from anywhere but prior causation?
Think of yourself in that moment where you feel yourself to be free, perhaps in a decision dilemma of some importance, and you've felt to have stood back and taken a view of what has been pulling on your psychology. Because you did this modicum of self-analysis, you feel like you are existing as a person outside of the causation - you are aloof and detached. Some in the no-free will crowd will try to use certain scientific diagnostical studies, or interactive thought games, to illustrate that there's no free will, but there's a more slam dunk way to do it. Simply look at that detached self and ask, Does it have a perspective - a point of view and a personality - proclivities, opinions, beliefs, a partisanship unto the good or the evil? If it does, then these things qualify as "stuff" - attributes that do not qualify as the emptiness and/or equality across peoples that's implied by free will. This entity is free, but free to do as it is designed to do, or, as it wants to do. The question then is: Are we free to change this? Or, alternatively put, where do changes to this come from, ultimately?
When you try to come up with a way in which a thing once free of differentiation arrives at differentiation, nothing but circular logic, infinite regressions and outright violations of freedom are available to explain it. There is zero free will.
The setting of the free will cannot come from:
1) "You." By you we mean either the non-free will self or the free will self. The former cannot be, because this would make the qualities, proclivities, opinions and information of the free will the handi-work - and only the handi-work - of the non-free will, thereby violating the free part. The latter cannot be because this is circular - a good free will making free will makes a good free will, and a bad free will making free will makes a bad free will. This grounds on an inherent state, and thereby violates free will.
2) A God. This violates freedom.
3) The universe. This violates freedom.
4) A third entity that makes free wills. This leads to an infinite regression, because a good free will making free will maker makes a good free will, and so in order to escape a potential inherency, we need a fourth entity, and on and on and on.
The assertion that free will is not an entity, unique for each person and attached to each person, but capable of vetoing the natural self to which it is bound, but is instead merely a property of the universe, does not work, because said property would be equally available to all people, making it background noise in the equations of all human choices, which in turn are made by the only thing we have to posit such a capacity (having put free will off to being a mere property of the universe) which is the naturally caused person.
Entity versus property of the universe is the primary shell-game we play to swap back and forth between so as to protect what we feel to be the case (that we have free will) from logical destruction.
In the history of our personal making are indeed choices that we made - to study something, to dedicate to something - but these are themselves the products of the aforementioned recursive soup and prior choices, which in turn are the products of the same, and the chain keeps going back, and never is a choice not a product of what came before, until we arrive back at the first choice, which itself has only causation without consciousness to have spelled it. Now run the chain forward from there, and witness that there is no place for a pure and featureless entity to make its mark, and if it could, what would it even do, being featureless?
Well, having no free will is essentially saying choice is an illusion because a person will always default to their best choice. This is not true anytime someone makes a choice that goes against their better judgment.
@@chase_modugno It didn't go against their "better judgement" in the moment, but only in retrospect, even if it's valid to say that, given slightly different circumstances, they had some things on-board according to which they may have chosen "rightly." Circumstances being what they were, with countervailing desires being what they were, and with powers of rationalization being what they were, they chose "their best choice." The phenomenon of regret, and recognition that one was not so clearly predetermined to behave regretfully, does not substantiate free will. The devil is in the details of "not so clearly," the sum of which lay contrary to the assumed net motivation, proclivity or status on the evil/good spectrum. Alternatively, if one chooses "wrongly" and was fully aware of doing so at the moment, then they have an on-board sum of motivations to not do so that is insufficient to culminate in them subsuming the desire to do wrongly.
Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
That message is the greatest news to murderers, thiefs, rapists, etc. etc.
Also to politics crooked as cops fbi atf ss nazis you got that right my friend capitilism a love story. 😂😂😂 ftw
Instead of pointing out that people do not possess what most people proudly imagine having and are hesitant to give up (meaning: free will), it might be more effective to point out the widely accepted fact that our decisions and actions are never entirely free from the influences of our past. One reaches more people that way. Baby steps.
Fascinating stuff to think about. Not sure if it changes anything fundamentally about how we live. Absolute free will may well turn out to be an illusion - but is it a useful and perhaps, even essential illusion we all agree to accept as at least functionally true? Significantly, criminal law is based on the assumption that individuals have free will, with exceptions made for the seriously mentally ill. Very interesting topic.
Atheists will say things like "Belief in God is idiotic because it is an unfalsifiable faith claim" but then say things like "I believe free will doesn't exist" or "I believe linear time is an illusion".
Yes, because everyone has a bias. They just think they are more intelligent and superior to believers but I guess they can’t help but feel that way since they don’t have free will. 😵💫
Maybe he knows more about us than I do, but I also think free will is over rated and never supported with evidence when people make fantastic claims about it.
I see in my own life that I have choices within a limited range of possibilities, at any juncture in my life. I've also come to understand that as I age, the nuances and focal points that I choose affect greatly any desired outcomes I may have or want.
Religionists often claim that a deity "gave us free will" but the argument doesn't stand up and is usually claimed without evidence. To say that our decision making capacity was "given" by any thing or anyone, is an insult to our dignity as a species, because we evolved to be more competitive, i.e., to survive to reproductive age, and that does not fit with a deity-driven paternalistic model where characteristics are "given". We have traits that helped our ancestors survive, among them our many cognitive biases, that very few people realize they have.
This was a fascinating video. Thank you for posting! 🌄
Your second paragraph contradicts your first. Free will is immediate, a context of proof. Proof is an action of the free will.
Great interview! Sapolsky is fascinating.
Very weak. We all act as though we have free will, including guys like Sam Harris, because we in fact do have free will. Everyday we reason and conduct conversations both of which require the ability to direct our thoughts. If the ability to direct our thoughts is not an act of free will I do not know what is. When we reason or analyze something or engage in problem solving it is nearly always the case that there is an intention to achieve an end that occurs first. And then, following this intention, the thoughts arise sequentially to achieve that end...the end precedes the means...Aristotle's Final Causes. This is the definitive proof that we have free will...and fools who deny free will ironically make use of this facility of mind everyday yet are too blinded by Ideology to recognize and accept it.
That sums it all up very well. The idea of a lack of free will is so bizarre that I can’t even grasp what these people are trying to prove.
I have not seen or met a neuroscientist or a neurobiologist or a biologist who has not said that we are not all equal and that there is individual performance, every one of those guys says 'free will does not exist'. Don't let the biologists mislead you, of course there is free will. It would be wiser if they said that free will is useless.
I agree on free will. Most people just want vengeance.the quarantine model makes sense. Praise and reward make no sense either.
i just fell in love with science all over again. And it really is because Sapolsky uses a language that pretty much aligns with metaphysics the way I understand and interpret.
Great talk , both of you .Pity about the frequent music interruptions , why ????
Great podcast! Lots of great insight. ❤
Firstly humans become fully aware and have made/adopted most of their perceptions by the age of 7 or 8, secondly humans like to copy or rebel, they also seek comfort in numbers, so often follow rather than think for themselves, and with so many different groups of people to follow its an easy way to live your life, humans also tend to go for easy. To be painfully honest, and i must stress that honesty will teach you everything and normally only hurts once, most humans never actually grow up, they still see the world as they did when they were 7 or 8, and if they have changed their views/perceptions its normally in fitting with other peoples views/perceptions.
Think about these statements, they are the reasons many people think humans don't have free will, its because they are unaware of these factors and the effect they have on us, i also hear a lot of religious people saying we don't have free will, often derived from this story:
"The phrase a leopard can't change its spots is derived from the Bible, and is found in the book of Jeremiah. In the passage, the prophet Jeremiah attempts to convert an evil woman. At some point, he realizes that this is an impossible task: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?"
its only half true, because a person can change their own spots, but no one else can change them for you, so Jeremiah cannot change your spots, but you can.
So with that said i hope you and others can realise that humans do in fact have fee will, but only YOU can activate it. Please stop promoting the idea that humans don't have free will, its very irresponsible, promote self belief and positivity.
Nobody is promoting anything. These are his scientific findings. I can see that this seems to go against your religious belief, but that is not science. Aren't you promoting your religion here? Why should I care what your bible says? If you have free will then start using it, but something tells me you can't help but to promote your religion. Which is it?
firstly what scientific findings are you referring to??? please do show me, as you seem to believe they exist, for your information its merely his theory. Take your time reading what i have written, you are clearly confused, im not promoting any religion, i want people to think about it themselves, its as simple as that@@waitaminute2015
Freewill is a function of consciousness and understanding, a non-thing that can effect real things, which is what "You" are.
Respectfully, I disagree. Consciousness is an emergent property of cells working together to create a complex system. It is not a non-thing but rather a purely material thing which explains why our consciousness is altered when drunk, high, tired, angry, injured, etc. also the “you”doesn’t make sense. In reality we are a collection of atoms, with trillions being added to our body as we speak and trillions being lost as we speak. Where do you draw the line? If I lose a carbon atom, have I lost a part of myself? Is that lost carbon atom still name? What if I was reduced down to a single carbon atom and the rest of my atoms where in seperate galaxies, where am I? No i argue that the “you” isn’t really a thing rather a concept that we perceive as being real due to biology, and instead is just an arbitrary collection of atoms concentrated into this life form for a small (galaxy wise) time period.
So true! Clear as a bell but so hard to turn into policy! We must try though.
Sapolsky is such an amazing thinker and speaker, when I hear him talk about a topic I already I have a specific opinion about, I like to hear what he has to say about it and give him the benefit of the doubt.. he is clearly way more intelligent than I am and it helps me be more open to other ideas! That seems like a good thing
I'm glad to hear this. No matter what I do now, I just couldn't help it.
True story, so let's put this truth claim to the test. I was a problem drinker, and now I'm three years sober. Can anyone please explain to me, how I didn't use my free will 'whatsoever' to stop drinking?
You made choices that resulted in your stopping drinking. But if we could examine your life and brain up to the micromoment before you made each choice, you would see that each of those choice outcomes was determined by the physical structure of your brain. Free will means you could have done otherwise. At each microchoice you could not have done otherwise. The laws of chemistry and physics in your brain followed the laws of nature.
@@GeezerBoy65 I could have done otherwise, and kept drinking, but I made a conscious choice to stop. I still have the occasional urge when I'm stressed (I own my own design business, married, and have 2 kids), and remain 3.5 years sober from alcohol. Feels like some sort of agency, and as I've understood myself better (in a more meditative way) I've begun to understand myself and the tricks my own brain can play on me.
I understand what you're getting at, but those certainly seem like some claims that would be hard to prove. Perhaps this is why Sapolsky is having such a hard time writing his book. The claims you are making aren't falsifiable.
Falsifiability, is the easiest way to distinguish science from pseudoscience. So if I'm wrong, prove it :) I'm still somewhat agnostic on it, and that just feels like the question that can't be answered. Maybe down the road, this ties into consciousness in some way, so who knows. I'm open to the idea that there are things out there we don't understand.
For now; with my own life experience, I lean towards the direction that we have a minimal agency of sorts. Sam Harris always uses the example of serial killers lacking the impulse control due to their own brain, so that certainly exists, where we are born in some capacity that we can't control.
I still love and greatly admire Sapolksy.
The question is, WHY did you quit drinking, and why did you quit when you did? Chances are, you reached a point where things got bad enough for you that it was LOGICAL for you to decide to stop, or maybe they became good enough for you that you decided you should avoid the pitfalls of drinking so they do not ruin your life. Up until that time, there was not enough pressure on you. You weighed the outcomes of drinking, vs not drinking and, until such time that you did quit, you calculated that the drinking was preferable. Did you make a decision? Yes, but it was all based on your body/brain and your society, family, etc. In another time or place, you may not have had these pressures or lessons, and you may have died being an alcoholic. Calculating is not the same as having free will. In fact, free will makes no sense unless you were omnipotent and had NO biases, no desires, etc., and you built yourself and the universe. Even "gods" do not have this. Even they come into existence with biases, i.e. they are judgemental, they hate gayness, they like harassing humans, or whatever.
in other words, it was purely luck that made you who you are, so to blame you for making "bad" logical decisions, or "good" ones, is just not logical. We can still evaluate you given our current morals but it was never your choice to be born to be a hero, a "dirtbag", or something in between.
@@itoibo4208 The claims you're making aren't falsifiable. Science can't currently prove this, and neither can you.
I've heard your claims from everyone who disagrees with me on this. I'm even willing to admit that I can't prove it either. Even if my own perspectives turn out to be fraudulent, I still know I am a better person for quitting drinking. So I'll just stay in my helpful delusions for now, even if I don't know the actual 'why.'
There are plenty of scientific studies that show positive effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, so that leads me to personally believe that we could have some agency. Is it 10%? 20%? I don't know.
This guy is so well-spoken to common man like me but explains the high concepts with detail. Amazing
Finally someone who thinks like I do
What is the study they are talking about PTSD?
+
Robert is largely wrong. His theories are untested. It's amazing what a Harvard education will do.
😂
Absolutely interesting talk, just like Robert himself! Besides this interview, I also watched and did a video based on his TED Talk "The Biology of Our Best and Worst Selves", which is just as amazing as this interview
We may not have free will but we have Free Willy!
If someone doesn’t think the same way he does? Are they exercising free will to think differently.
We need reward and punishment because society needs to identify the value of each individual and place them at the optimal point in the hierarchy that enables the whole thing to operate.
This is only unfair to people born into adverse conditions. Let's improve their conditions. Destroying the notion of hierarchy doesn't help anyone: not society, not the individual.
From my understanding, it's not punishment and reward that need to disappear from our society but rather the context in which they are being used at the moment. What Sapolsky is saying is that we shouldn't punish people because "they deserve it", but rather because punishment is a useful tool in reshaping somebody's behaviour. He thinks we should focus on rehabilitation rather than revenge.
@@ubird-ch8vxso true
“We” is a tricky subject.
When you write a script for a video, did you not have a large pool of words to choose from? How did you decide which words to use, and in what order? How did you decide which synonyms to use? You could take the compatiblist perspective and assert that determinism and free will compatible. Or do you take an incompatiblist determinist perspective, were all words you chose were pre-determined and you had no ability to choose otherwise?
Will is very much real ,in my early young age I decided to clean shave all my adult life and with the power of my will I still stand on my words۔ You see you can do anything with the power of your will.
You made those decisions based purely on all the conditioning that lead to that moment. This is where the ego defends itself vigorously, thinking that just because it did something that others may judge as unpredictable that it must have been made out of free will
Your example is not about "free will" (independence). Your example is really about "will-power" (persistence).
Using your example, one can show that you did not make an independent (your own) decision. Your decision was governed by others (and by philosophical extension, by the laws of physics - by determinism). If you decided to be "clean shaven", why did you focus on hair? Because in your social world, hair/beard is "a topic" -- you weren't born with this topic in your mind on the day of your birth. You learned the idea of "clean shaven or not" from society.
Second: If you decided to be "clean shaven", is that really your decision? How about hair elsewhere on your body? Did you decide to eliminate (shave) hair from every part of your body? Likely not. Do you continue to shave your entire body, every day? You most likely do not. For example, do you shave your arms and knuckles -- which have very small (harder to see) hair? Likely you do not. The reason you do not is because your society does not consider it "good" or "bad" to shave your knuckles -- your society is neutral on this, and so you are also neutral. Your idea of _which parts of your body to shave, and how frequently_ -- this came into you from your society. You do or disobey your society/others, based on your desire to either be within or be antithetical to your society. You did not make your own decision. Your decision to ONLY shave a few parts came from the body-parts that your society finds "important".
If it was truly your own independent decision, you'd be shaving areas that your society doesn't care about.
Another way to see this: did you decide to pierce your toes? In most societies, it's common for people (mostly women) to pierce their earlobes. But I know of no society where it's common to pierce one's own toe (on your foot). So if you had made a decision that was irrelevant to your society, then you'd be making that decision independent of your society. If someone pierces their earlobes, it's because their society finds that "important" behavior. No society finds it important to pierce your own toe (or thumb, or knee, etc.). These decisions "come" into us, from our society (from the things our society finds "important" -- the things it finds acceptable or unacceptable).
@@keep-ukraine-freeYou could have stopped earlier in your own response. You started just fine distinguishing the difference but then went on to confuse them yourself. In fact, there are 3 effects at play: Will, free will and basic willingness.
If you don't have free Will , Then you don't have freedom to chose !!!
We need to get rid of the criminal justice system which focuses on punishment and has no room for redemption, but before we let the criminals out of the jails, we better make sure we understand what we are doing, and we don’t.
Leftism is the product of an unfocused mind, no more rational than traditional religion. Mans life requires punishing the haters of mans life. Redemption is an evil man trying to be good after he has been punished.
The free will issue doesn't mean no prisons. It means removing the retribution component and focusing on rehabilitation and public safety.
@@DiogenesNephew So Vladimir Putin deserves only rehabilitation for launching a catastrophic blood bath on eastern europe?
Fox P2. That is all. Robert Sapolsky is epic and my UA-cam feed, in its wisdom, keeps taking me back to his lectures. He's a wonderful teacher.
wow, willingness to learn about crime and punishment is truly beautiful, thank you
Agree...had many ppl disagree with me on that. I guess it's hard to swallow for most of us...we NEED to be in control of our lives. Fallacy!
I loved this, thank you. You should have a million subscribers and more views. This interview was telling, we are more male baboon than I thought, the females sound wonderful however, which I wish human females would emulate more, but sadly we love attacking each other much too often.
Observe the females in a troop of baboons for a day or two and you will for sure change your mind about that..
Oooo...such a sad experience for you 😢. At 62 I know my women friends / family are my most joyous, empowering, loving cheerleaders I've ever experienced .
Sadly my mother shared your view, thus creating her own reality of same 😢
Perhaps look for lovelier women friends ?
P.S. and Yes I've been happily married to my MALE husband for 43 years ! ❤
Deluded Bot obviously. Darwinian dumb on steroids.
Big eye roll when I hear religious people say they are "blessed" (IOW their good fortune is a gift, something not of their own doing)... and then turn around and say, "Nobody gave me nothing, I worked hard for what I got. And if you aren't "blessed", well, it's YOUR fault.
Why does anyone give any attention to religious people in the 21st century? Silly.
@@GeezerBoy65Yes, because we are oh so enlightened here in the 21st century where we aren’t even sure if someone is a man or a woman because it depends on how they self identify.
@@josephbrown9685 Ikr, this is an argument that just keeps giving. It never gets old. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."
Even if we don't have free will the decisions we think we are making is originating outside the causality loop which we will never understand.
From the godhead I suppose
So how did he then come up with his assumption of " not having any free will in the first place" if no free will?
Because this is all bullshit. It’s self-refuting and most people in the comments are falling all over themselves to praise the alleged brilliance of it.
Why would you need free will to have ideas?
Sapolsky is such a wise teacher, the truth about free will is so important and fundamental
Ummmmm. No it means nothing... neither does your comment or anything at all... You are a pointless machine.
I have read Robert's books and followed him on UA-cam and elsewhere for several years. I even exchanged emails with him.
I believe I understand where he comes from when he says humans do not have free will (at all). He grants the everyday decisions like deciding to raise your right arm or left arm, or whatever you like, or change your mind at the last instant and do something else. So, that is one level of free will that he grants.
He focuses on more complex decisions regarding the lack of free will, decisions like who we decide to marry, whether to commit a crime or not, whether to take drugs, or what career to choose. He says we do not have free will at all in those cases; they are totally predetermined. Granted we are influenced by genetics, life experiences, brain states, and so on, and they do influence our decisions to a lesser or greater extent. But, I claim that humans have the capacity to override many (not all) of those types of influences by exercising their will, or what is commonly known as "will power."
In Robert's book, "Behave," he sets up a "behavior" and then devotes separate chapters to "One second before," "Seconds to minutes before," and so forth in more chapters, to "Back to when you where just a fertilized egg," and finally, "Centuries to millennia before." It's a great book and I recommend it, but I contend that it has a fatal flaw.
As he goes "one nanosecond" before a "behavior," and then "microsecond," "millisecond," ..., "one second before," he claims that this sets up a deterministic chain of events that we have no control over, and this chain fully determines the behavior. For one issue, there goes personal responsibility for our actions. No one commits a crime because they had no choice and no control over what they did. Recently, in the murder trial of Alex Murdaugh, he was found guilty of murdering his wife and youngest son, Paul. The jury took under three hours to decide his guilt. If Robert's claim is true, then Alex Murdaugh cannot be found guilty because he had no choice but to murder his wife and son; he could not have resisted the thoughts and urges to do so.
But, the fatal flaw is his assumption that each arbitrarily small event along the chain of events leading to a behavior was fully determined by previous events. I say, not so. There is a level of randomness in nature and in the brain. There is bias and preference in nature and in the brain. We know that at the subatomic level (and actually at higher levels) quantum physics comes into play and thus does probability. Also, an event is not necessarily determined by a single preceding event, but a collection of events (a many-to-one relationship). We (our "executive self" in the brain) cause electrochemical and chemical activity in the brain. The executive self can actually move a prosthetic hand through willed thought.
So, even through Robert makes many good points and elucidates the innerworkings of the human brain, I believe he is wrong about his claim that "humans do not have free will at all." I believe that Alex Murdaugh could have resisted his impulse to murder his wife and son.
I struggle with this concept myself. On one hand, after reading his book behave, I've found myself stopping decades long habits due to childhood mishaps. It took reading this book and being miserable enough to start reading books like it to come to this realisation.
Going decades before I was even alive there was "generational trauma" multi-ethnic backgrounds and what comes with that, white side matriarch father died very young, his brother took up responsibilities died young too at a time where social care was non existent in war time Britain so my grandma suffered deeply had to be sent to a child's home. She went on to have kids and two of 4 developed addictions or severe depression the other 2 had more beneficial experiences. (My mother being one of two that had somewhat better).
My own experiences and looking back now after reading behave on my cousin's too, I see we've all got generation trauma and have acted accordingly, we've all got some sort of mental struggle the ones who's parents were more "present" have faired better but not totally. All us male relatives have been somewhat part of a gang at some point with me getting out before things went too far.
With all this my take away is in fact that I find myself leaning towards free will is a myth and we can only go by our genetics and experiences. If my mum didn't get with someone who was somewhat stable for the decades they were together I'd of likely ended up the same path as my cousins. What she learnt from this stability was to do the best job with me regardless and from that I went to books when in despair rather than violence. From reading books like behave I've switched on the more rational side of my brain and try to spread this message to others to un stick their past and heal. The more we encourage society to talk about their problems before they get out of hand the less likely murdaugh tragedies happen. It's as if we're all been given this box to fit and we are chastised for thinking or behaving outside of it. Gabor mate myth of normal leans towards this and has helped me as well as behave massively.
@@warrenwright7165 I get what you're saying, but we have to be careful about what is passed on genetically and what is the level of those genetic influences. Also, what emerges from early childhood upbringing and experiences and what the level of those experiences are. The same goes for all life experiences. We all have our innate preferences, "likes" and "dislikes." My older brother had bipolar disorder and was a borderline alcoholic. He also had pronouced, self-destructive behavior. None of his three brothers, me included, had those issues. My mother had bipolar disorder, but neither had a drinking problem.
I agree with you and Robert, and others, that humans have far less free will than they believe. But, I also believe that humans DO HAVE some level of free will. The level depends on genetics, early childhood upbringing, life experiences, trauma of any kind, and bias pressure at the time we make some decisions. On the last point about bias pressure, I mean certain situational subconsious biases, for example, I am trying to make up my mind to buy a Ford or a Chevy. A friend drives by and waves and she is driving a new Chevy. I go back to my decision-making and quickly choose Chevy.
In my view, evolution has equipped humans with the ability to override these influences, impulses, and wrong behaviors. I once was a heavy smoker; three or four packs a day. I would light up a cigarette when I still had one burning in the ash tray. I decided to quit. I went through withdrawal. I saw my friends smoking, my body and mind desperately wanted a cigarette. But, I refused to give in to these conscious and subconscious pressures; I exerted by free will. It worked. I got free of nicotine and its great.
@@georgegrubbs2966 it's a tough one. Might well just be my confirmation bias at play 😂, as in to say, between his work and Gabor mate something has just really clicked for me and I couldn't of made the choice without coming across their workings. It took previous experiences to bring me here is my thinking, but there is a possibility confirmation bias has blinded me to other possibilities I accept that. And so for confirmation bias sake...
My mum and dad eventually broke up and she was never bitter or tried to turn me against him but then I've seen alot of women get really bitter. I've seen women who are the new partner and get bitter at their partners ex for no reason and also men act the same and that then makes me question the influence of my mum not being bitter when, at least in my experience, everyone who breaks up ends up bitter. This makes me unable to say with 100% conviction that free will is a myth. Was it her choice or have experiences took place between childhood, adolescence and partly through adulthood slightly differently that have perhaps eased stressors where other people have failed to regulate ?
@@warrenwright7165 Agree. We are sometimes (many times?) subconciously "driven" or "led" to make "good" or "bad" choices. But, "bad" or "good" choices are only determined after they are made and after what comes of them. I say, "my first marriage was a 'bad'choice' because it ended badly." It did not have to end that way. It was not destined to end badly. Life situations like marriage are highly complex with many backgrounds and forces coming into play. We are not victims of fate; the world is not determistic.
Regarding "bitterness," I finally learned the immense value of absolute "forgiveness." That set me free and allowed me to live a happy life. I carry no bitterness, grudges, or bad feelings towards anyone, including myself for the mistakes I have made. Life can be joyful and happy even in dire circumstances. Perspective, realization of what's important, and living in the present are valuable tools for happiness.
@@georgegrubbs2966 love the "absolute forrgiveness". That's something I could really get behind. (And here I am feeling blessed and leaning further towards my conviction of free will being a myth, if it wasn't for you bringing that to my attention, I wouldn't of seen it as another healing avenue😆).
Of course the "justice system" and all its adjuncts don't prevent anything (criminal/bad) from happening - it is merely an instrument of retribution. And often blind to boot as has been said elsewhere.
Amazing human. I love him.
Why amazing?
No one has ever satisfactorily defined this nebulous notion of “free will”, so to say it doesn’t exist is actually a bit of an overstatement. Free will is a nonsense idea, that doesn’t even need disputing.
@@andreylebeuf1304
Ok Andrey, give your definition of "free will" and use whatever source you like. The fact that there are words behind an entry in a dictionary does not mean that a term is logically well defined.
Give me your best!
@@i.ehrenfest349 His point is that it's perfectly well defined. What it isn't, and you are correct about this, is meaningful. Free will only matters for a single profession: judges. A judge can only sentence you because he/she assumes that you did the crime out of free will and there is no instance, natural or supernatural, that forced you. Please note that we do not subject everybody to that assumption. Mentally ill people are usually not believed to have free will.
@@schmetterling4477 Schmetter, you say that the concept of free will is perfectly well defined. Will you give me a definition of it, then?
@@i.ehrenfest349 Philosophically "Free will is the assumption that a person can make different choices if presented with the same alternatives.". The problem with this is trivial: there is no such thing as "the same person" even if the alternatives are the same. We are all learning from our experiences. If we picked one brand of vanilla ice cream and we didn't like it, the next time we are swayed by our experience to chose chocolate instead. To a judge this doesn't matter. Quite the contrary: the punishment is meant to give the person a good reason to make a different choice next time and to not repeat the first crime (or a similar one).
Would you like me to solve the chicken and egg problem for you, now? It's about equally "difficult". ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 And here we see why this definition is inadequate. You get into trouble with the word “choice.” We all know a person can “make different choices”, i.e. they can take peanut butter rather than jam. What we want to know is whether that choice is “free”. And so I ask you again, what is a free choice? When a choice is part of a determined sequence, i.e. part of the causal chain, it cannot be said to be “free”. And of course almost everything in our macro world is part of a causal chain. The only thing that no longer fits in with 18th and 19th senses of philosophical determinism is quantum mechanical randomness.
And randomness is just that: it is random.
So you see, if you want to define a term such as “free will” you can’t just give a dictionary entry definition. That does nothing. Can you define “life”? It is highly unlikely that you can. There are organisms that are sort of thought to be alive, and sort of not. The fact that the word “life” has a dictionary entry in no way means that we have an adequate definition.
Nobody has been able to explain what they really mean by “free will”, because the proposed definitions are composed of similarly ill defined terms. Often, people have a nebulous notion in their heads. They give a name to it and then believe it is “real”, as if it had become part of Plato’s cave. The words “free will” do not represent anything real.
Did Robert Sapolsky make his statement out of free will or was he forced by ..... (his brain, his body chemistry, whatever)? If not, we can disregard his statement as he didn't say it because he had the freedom to establish this as the truth but he was forced by something to say it. If yes, then he contradicts himself and free will does, in fact, exist - at least in some respects.
I see no reason why choosing to say something would make those words more true, or worthy of consideration.
@@egirlbadeline You misunderstand me. What I meant: one cannot validly say "I have no free will" because making such a claim presupposes that one has the free will necessary to reject or accept a claim based on free insight. Just like one cannot validly say "Truth does not exist" because if that were true, than the claim that "Truth does not exist" would also not be true. Another example: one cannot validly say that everything is relative, because that is an absolute claim. There has to be internal consistency in your claim, which includes the faculty necessary to make a claim.
What a great interview!!
If only more folks would love knowledge the way these two do. The world would much more quickly approach a golden age. Thanks. Thumbs up to me for recognizing good stuff when i hear it.
Dream on. People are not born good.
They have no free will to love knowledge this way, right? Their brains just aren’t wired that way.
There's an obvious problem with saying "we dont have free will". Sapolsky said himself - we are the victims of the situation we're in. What kind of situation do we set up for peole teaching them that? As Viktor Frankl said, we have to see the best or even non-existent in people in order for them to believe in themselves and achieve their potential. We have to oversteer.
If "we do not have any free will whatsoever", explain how there are people who quit addictions or take rational decisions contrary to their impulses? i personally think free will is a very thin layer covering a much more hefty mass of pure constraint, but there is definitely an element of free will.
You have no freewill in regards to deciding you want to give up an addiction - you either do or you don't. You can't make yourself want to do something you don't want to do
@@glengarryglenross7127 First of all you cannot demonstrate, only speculate, and second, what better definition for free will if not acting rational
People are personally offended, when you say free will is illusion, which of course it is.
The reason why he is wrong is because he hasn't researched our spiritual nature. Yes, animals are operating on programs but we wrote those programs. It gets a bit complicated and there are also programs and templates of behavior for human bodies but we are not our body. To make it even more complicated, this is a simulation - a virtual reality. I decided to escape this soul trap and I did. I came back to help others get out.
No person. No free will. No purpose. No need to change anything. No one there to change. No right. No wrong. But there does appears to be things happening. Real or not, can’t tell for sure.
The best thing about having free will is that you can smell s°°t like this, a mile off.
If you could define "free will", you would have it. Freedom is not the possibility to do everything. That would be omnipotence. BUT you can think "everything". And choose what of that you want to make real. And where is a choice, there is will.
@smeeself Your will IS free.(You are the one determining what is allowed and not, within it) You can fantasize about everything possible and impossible. Your "Will" only MANIFESTS (and is determined By) your capability to DO STUFF. That is dependant on physics, Chemistry Biology, and your education etc. And your knowledge to deal with it.(competences and capabilities) What you want and how you achieve it is entirely your planning. Planning consists of choices though, and choices means decisions, and decisions means will. Sapolsky is running in circles in his own niche. What Sapolsky describes as free will, is omnipotence, like ingesting poison without reacting to it. But the reaction might be different from one individual compared to another, because their body chemistry works with different amounts of antibodies.
Reductionists are never ending source of amusement.
Here is someone who is 100x smarter than all of us. on free will: In 1931, Einstein, in response to questions about belief in free will, responded with the following comparison of the will of the moon:
“If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.”
Projectionists are a never-ending source of deflection & denial…😢
The urge to harm or the urge to punish are both subject to not having free will. They cancel each other out and are meaningless concepts in a meaningless world
Free will is not an illusion . Choices are real.
But how free are those choices? What drives them? Can you control your random thoughts? Can you control your emotions? All of those drive your choices.
rather than dealing with something as vaguely defined as free will, it is better to study the decision-making process
In my experience, free will exists, definitely a framework built-in to this reality. But...the default situation for most folks is no free will within a system where free will exists. The determining factor is Consciousness. To the degree that one is Conscious, one has choice (aka, free will). When in the unconscious state, no choice exists...behavior, etc, runs directly and only from the existing tapes available to that specific mind...so... an auto-response (no free will). To choose one must be in the Consciousness state Itself, which is what we are and always have been. The mind can not choose but from the data it holds. Only Soul can choose, as Soul is Consciousness Itself. The mind is a tool that Soul uses to navigate this paradigm. Soul is primary, mind is secondary.
@David Shook Not sure what you mean exactly but science (by current dogma/definition), as valuable and amazing as it is, is limited to the physical plane, and insists that nothing exists outside of time and space. This is a very limited perspective and that is why science cannot answer the most basic questions at the most fundamental levels. In order to have free will one must act from Cause (Source), not effect (mind). To act from Cause is the definition of free will and to act from Cause can only occur from outside the mind. The mind *thinks* that's nonsense, as any closed system would. Source Energy is the only Causative force. To the degree that the mind is neutral, Source can flow into time and space. Thus, the state of Consciousness is the determining factor in authentic choice. Soul (primary nature) is always neutral, it is mind (false self) that takes a position. But that position is taken automatically, which the mind *thinks* is nonsense, insisting on *proof* ONLY via time and space tools, or its own very limited self.
So where is any evidence or observation of the non physical plane?
@@brad1368 When you dream, YOU (the real YOU) leaves the physical plane. When you fall in love you leave the mind (Divine Love is not a quality of mind), when you shift from sympathy (mind/ego based) to true compassion (a Soul-only state of Being) that is Consciousness, beyond time and space. The few moments of orgasm when the ego dissolves when you lose yourself (the personality/ego), skiing down a hero slope when all attention MUST be focused in the Now. Intuition is how Soul communicates with the small self (mind). Physics is in trouble precisely because the institutional dinosaurs refuse to accept what they must eventually...the source of the physical plane is not physical. "Death" is a transition and one out of body experience...just one...available to all 8 billion of us...proves it, personally and undeniably. We drop the body (the physical) but everything else is retained...much like a dream. A young child has (literally) little mind/ego...this is why they are so inexplicably spiritual. Cows in the field are much more in their Being as the divine beings they Are, than in mind. Animals, except modern man, are in their essential nature most all the time. The mind *thinks* they are stupid and simple, but our journey on this Earth School is to honor our essential nature while utilizing our amazing minds in Its Service. It's the mind that denies the divine experiences we all have, as does all of object focused society. Everything ties together...physics, dreams, lessons, relationships, the inner, the outer...because everything is, at it's Source, One. The same "thing". Identical.
Which is all to say..."The mind is always preparing for the party it can never attend."
and the mind and soul are where exactly ?
@@robertjsmith I have a body which is on the physical plane. I have what we call emotions which have no physical component (although they can affect the physical). Emotions exist on the Astral Plane. Memories are also not physical either, existing (emanating/originating) on the Causal Plane. Mental aspects of me/you are not of physical origin either, from the Mental Plane. All these planes are experienced simultaneously by the experiencer as "me". Only my physical aspect exists on the physical plane but we interpret it all as what we identify to be, which for most of us, is wholly physical. But, under objective inquiry, only a portion of "me" is actually physical (and even that is a misunderstanding of Reality). Further, all these planes above are very real, experience-able AND in duality...meaning, they have some form/identity/individuality (physical or not) on some plane of reality. In duality, there is "me" and everything else (not "me")...duality. Above the Mental plane is the region of Unity...or, not-duality. A completely different playing field. Below...time and space, matter and energy...above...only Energy. (Almost like quantum, yeah?) No duality, no subject and object, just Beingness/One...in science, probability. This is where our authentic Self exists always...in Unity, of Unity...often called Soul. Soul, being pure Source Energy, cannot exist in duality, so it takes on the mental, causal, astral and physical bodies if it desires to experience these lower realities. It would do so by choice, to learn or to serve. When we die we drop the physical body, usually hang on the Astral for a time, then return for more, until no longer necessary. Soul exists with or without any of these bodies. It is outside of time and space, so eternal and limitless...much like Source Energy. Soul is the real "me". The primary me. It animates everything...all form is Source Energy dumbed down (said kindly). Just like probabilities dumbed down become Baryons.
My first contact with Sapolsky. Very insightful comparisons and analogies. Thank you.