pseudo intellectualism run amok. Someone gave a thought experiment and a bunch of twats created a field of study around it and are now acting as if its settled science. It isnt. Having a limited number of choices because of lifes or the minds limits does not equal no free will. My choice to eat fish tonight was made even though my only other choice was chicken, it WAS a choice and my FREE WILL made the decision...not having an infinite selection to choose from has nothing to do with free will or not. Because I had no beef at the time, does not remove free will. Not having the time or money to go out has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. There was a choice. I made that choice.
Here's an argument that freewill is unique to humans and only humanity has free will. Theologically understood. What that means is that you have to have what is truly unique to only humanity to see apparent submergence of freewill. The ability to learn, but the ability to learn wasn't what gives us freewill either because our level of learning is hypothetically an adaptation. though the ability to learn is what is unique in an un- unique sense to humanity it can appear as free will, but our communicative properties are unique; and that are brought about by those adaptive capabilities is unique about us humanity. The things we study is purely environmentally decided but the way we communicate, write, and talk has to become freewill against the odds of all science because law.
Consistently covering vital topics with more reliability than the overwhelming vast majority. Including subjects that most matter, e.g., non-woo ethical veganism (multiple notable), secular, sentio-centric AN (David Benatar), causal determinism (Robert Sapolsky) and so on...This is among the better channels on YT. Please keep up such good work, CS ✅️ A more sane, ethical, intelligent map of the territory.
@drumstruck751 "because law" was that the punchline/logical 'basis'? Or did I miss it? What is the evidential and logical basis (or bases) for "free will" (whatever you mean by that antiquated notion lol, folks' defintitions vary)
I've listened to so many of Sapolsky's interviews regarding 'Determined' and find most of the interviewers lacking in imagination. They always talk about intending to move their hand or pick up a pencil. The topic is so much richer than such simplistic examples! I really liked the H.G. Moeller interview of Sapolsky. Moeller tried to understand and imagine the complexity of the situation. So far it's the best one I've heard.
His Stanford lectures were the first I was ever obsessed with learning about Humanity and human psychology in the 2000s as a kid. Glad he’s still around to discuss topics ❤
@@IdeologieUK I thought I'd seen him before, I loved that lecture, allowed me to understand depression so well, to the point where most therapists I've seen sadly seem to know less about the science of depression than me.
Jordan Peterson is what dumb people think intelligence looks like. He is the king of the word salad. If you actually listen to what that in cell says, you quickly realize how stupid he really is.
Not really. The guy should have his opinions challenged, which did not happen in this interview. Everyone knows what Sapolsky's views are, there is no benefit from watching one more video of the same opinion being expressed - unless he is actually being challenged.
@@trdiYou cannot build a challenge for a well defined subject. It is like making problems to disprove that 1+1=2. Sapolsky expressed it pretty logically.
@@trdiI would highly disagree with you. I noticed Alex asking actual good questions throughout the interview, questions that I didn’t think of myself and made me think of the subject deeper.
I wouldn't have an existential crisis over determinism because it doesn't really change things. We still experience things the way we do. Though personally it helps me accept things in my life that have already happened, because it couldn't be different.
@@Kimbie I think thats wrong, because it could have been different since there is an element of randomness even if full determinism is true. Also you are supposed to learn from your past so that you can face the future better equipped so that you can make better choices and that at least temporarily involves being unsettled about potential bad choices of the past.
I don’t find it nihilistic. There’s a beauty and freedom to stepping back and observing the machine. Becoming the observer. The machine doesn’t stop working when you become aware of it. We don’t have that kind of power.
Do you think that when we do attain awareness of the machine itself, that that awareness in and of itself is a way out of the chain of events that may give us the choice to have "Free Will" ?
I’m fascinated that you call it a machine. Who then designed that machine? who then made that machine, who then maintains that machine. The regulation of the machine cannot be by humans if we have no free will. Sapolsky offers you a potential surface level solution but inevitably this will lead to a multitude of vastly more complex questions.
The amazing part is the machine is able to modify itself, simply by thought. He's right in that we can't exceed our hardware limitations, for instance we can't think faster than our neural pathways allow. But we do imagine things that don't exist and then make them real or come up with approaches that don't exist. The weirdest part is that consciousness feels separate from our bodies... like it's outside the brain, but we now for a fact that it's all biological processes in our skull because we can alter and effect it. I don't know... maybe he's right, but then how could that affect us if we have no free will? We would just carry on as usual as we have choice.
Clearly (and correctly) you are speaking of two distinct entities here (a subject and an object) or the observer and the observed. If the observed is our neurobiological machine, then what exactly is the observer? I'll give you a hint. The observer is the one in whom the "seat of free will" resides. The observer CHOOSES if, how, when or why he/she would want to observe the machine.
@@OkRake - »Of course we have free will. We have no choice but to have it.« (obligatory Christopher Hitchens quote, borrowed from a Buddhist discussion thread of all things). That post goes on: »Free will has to be assumed. In other words, it’s conventionally real. Try to find it ultimately though and you can’t. The same with anything else.«
@@TheMuserguy algorithms do not have the free will to decide alone. Mecha Jesus affords them this with its singularity of blessings. (1 of 3, trademark Nvidia)
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
I think his point about hating someone’s guts for a few moments and then moving on is a great explanation of why social media just seems to provoke outrage: On X, when you see something you disagree with, in that moment when you hate their guts, you can tell them and send a message directly to them. Something you would normally have just forgotten about and moved on from.
Most importantly there is no true social interaction. Society isn't instances of interaction. It's continued interaction with the same people over time. That does not happen on social media, so individuals don't understand other individuals
And there's less risk associated with holding a grudge. If you're angry with someone at work, or a family member, you can have a civil discussion to settle your issues. When it gets heated, that can end badly and lead to an incident that changes your respective lives, so it's in both parties best interest to sort it out gracefully. Online, there's no penalty to overreacting, holding a grudge, and letting that hatred grow inside you, since you can choose when to observe and interact with that person anonymously. And people get addicted to that hatred and sense of superiority. The impersonal aspect of social media also makes it a lot easier to ignore the good things about a person, and project only negative traits onto them.
@adamcummings20 i think the problem with modern social media is that its too manufactured and cross culturally big now. Compared to back then, when it was easier to get a better sense of community
@@felixmidas2020 When I'm exhausted towards the end of a long shift at work, and my boss keeps making the same irritating joke about me, which normally I'd brush off, but because of the fatigue I genuinely despise him. Until I have a break, a smoke and some water, then it's chill. It's normal to have these feelings. Why would it make someone unstable?
I disagree with Sapolsky when he says that praise does not make sense. Why? Because as he says, our genes and our experiences make us who we are. By extension our behaviour towards others helps make them who they are. Therefore it makes sense to praise goodness in others, not because they deserve it (they had no free will in deciding to be good) but because their experience with us will make an imprint on them and influence the choices they will make (without free will) in the future.
I see your point, perhaps it wouldn't be to be too different in principle to the utilitarian measures taken to prevent certain individuals from negatively affecting others, however one could take your line of reasoning even further to conclude it'd be beneficial to treat others well at all times. If so, could there be any further advantage from a strategic / utilitarian standpoint in still treating some "more well" than others? It could perhaps remain nonetheless useful to enforce an incentive/reward system like the one you mentioned to more efficiently bring about change. Or maybe treating better those "trailing behind" in thoughtfulness would better serve this purpose instead.
@shanehoustein: I had precisely the same reaction to Sapolsky’s comments about praise, since praise becomes a part of the recipients’ experience and can influence their future behavior for the better. But I believe his point was that praise is not *earned* - which is an important distinction.
These are great comments. I think we can think about, as a culture, how we believe some of us deserve better treatment than others--punishment and reward. Praise is reward. If we extend that idea to "pride" or to "I deserve, therefore someone else does not deserve" we can better understand how he is using the example of praise. The idea is to have gratitude and hopefully create empathy for those who cannot complete tasks that are deemed praise-worthy. Of course praise feels good and can evoke a desire to repeat a task, etc. I think this is great for understanding privilege and creating space for empathy for those who do not have the abilities or opportunities that we do. We praise what we admire, and praise is a kind of nurturing kindness, but it doesn't mean we are "better than" or that we "work harder" than another or that we "deserve more". Isn't this sort of the point he is making?
Thats nice, but probably doesnt have sense as an argument for free will. We will do whats in apparent interest of our genes anyway. Sometimes that means that we will be able to convince people to praise children for their acconplishmnets. But in practice, people would only(or more) praise only children they like(for any or myriad reasons mentioned). Or just their own children,cousins, grandchildren and so on.
I don't think he is saying praise doesn't work or help create emotions. In fact, praise probably functions as one of those things that later becomes ways in which we make decisions that limit (or he would say negate) free will. Praise absolutely has a function. What he is saying is that it makes no sense. Think of Einstein's quote, "If you grade a fish on how well it climbs a tree, it will fail." To praise someone because they have ability feels good, yes, is a form of nurturing, but does it really "make sense"? If someone praises your appearance, are you responsible for the genetics and the ways in which our culture defines beauty?
@@demonicakane2083 God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Accepting freewill doesn't exist won't prevent people getting out of bed. People will still get out of bed and out the front door. Ironically (because I'm an ex-Muslim) there is a hadith attributed to the Caliph Umar that comes to mind. When Umar was on his way to a town he heard news that a plague was spreading through the town so he turned back. Those with him asked: "Are we running away from Allah’s destiny? Umar replied: We run away from Allah’s destiny to Allah’s destiny." Obviously it's not the religious connotation that I think is pertinent, but that despite the acceptance of determinism, humans will still always act as *if* they have free will, even when they know they haven't.
If your god knows when ,where, and how you are going to die then you have no free will, your life is determined. This is the problem with believing in an omnipotent/omniscient god
@@bobsdaman1632 I know it sounds like a contradiction, but that is sort of what I believe. I think Sapolsky and O'Connor are right in that we have no free will, which would suggest determinism. But quantum mechanics suggest that some things happen randomly and are not pre-determined. I'm not sure what else to call it 🤷♂️
I'm relatively new to Sapolsky - but I've noticed he's seemingly buzzing around everywhere at the moment. Good on Alex to snag him for a discussion. Great stuff!
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY
Thank you for holding ontellectual conversations without having the whole "gotta be the winner" pompousness most youtubers have. Really fills in the gap ive been looking for.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY
I am beyond excited for this conversation. Two of my favorites talking about a top tier subject! P.S. Robert, in case you happen to see this, I contacted your people to try and get you on my show as well, but it didn't work out. If there is anything I can do to make that more possible, I hope you'll let me know. Thank you both for all your great work!
You are excited because your brain cells and genetics predetermined this response. Your excitement is nothing to be excited about if you believe what these two are selling.
I've found out about prof. Sapolsky a few months ago while I was studying abroad. With nothing to do, I decided to give his lectures a go even though I am much more mathematically inclined and subjects like biology were always my weakside. Needless to say, I found them astoundingly interesting. I've been following your channel since the "wavy chest of drawers" days and I've gotta say, this is probably the most excited I've been in regards to one of your videos. You're very well informed when it comes to picking the right people to interview. Good job!
I always thought about if the opposite can happen or maybe I was just "mentally limited", but I am glad it is just a difference of perspective. Many kudos to you and your interest, which is very precious to this world.
@@SannaJankarin 🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...
I discovered him a few years ago and not a day too soon, because he's the popular version of that one professor who changes the course of your life. He made me realize I only cared about abstract concepts in terms of their practical applicability. Mathematics for example only insofar as it's relevant to physics, or philosophy only insofar as it's relevant to ethics. Actually made me switch majors and thus determined the rest of my life. :)
>> What an absolute legend Agreed! I was introduced to him through his 29 video series on the biological underpinnings of human behavior. This was a video series on his Stanford course. And I highly recommend it.
@@Rick_Cavallaro I’d second that playlist; iirc it’s called “Human Behavioral Biology”. If I went to Stanford, I’d have taken that class as an elective just for the hell of it…couldn’t care less if it counts for anything, just to be there and learn would’ve been a joy.
Again -you use words like legend and amazing to describe a man who has only acted out what his genetics and environment allowed him to do. Why is this praiseworthy? Praise can only be given when a person had a choice in what they did. We can no longer call someone courageous or cowardly because that implies choice. If no other outcome is possible due to the biological affects directing our choices, then why is this praiseworthy? We praise the young boy for not stealing biscuits from the jar while our back was turned. We praise the girl for handing in the bag of cash she found in the street. Why? Because they could have kept the money or eaten the biscuits but chose not to do those things. If you discovered the girl was in fact a robot with a setting which ensured she handed in lost property, would you praise her?
@@markmooroolbark252 if my car breaks down every day on the way to the office, it's a P.O.S. - and I hate it. I don't *blame* it because it's not sentient, and clearly doesn't have free will. But I still hate the P.O.S. There are great actors and there are bad actors. I enjoy the great ones. I don't care how they got that way. >> Praise can only be given when a person had a choice in what they did. Praise can be given whenever I like. Praise reinforces desired behavior. That's part of what goes into making the person who they are, and ultimately factors into the decisions they make. Besides, you pretend as if we have some choice in whether to praise him.
@@markmooroolbark252 If someone gives a lecture you like, you can call the lecture good or amazing. Same wit if they are a good educator, not all educators are very good at their job so it makes sense to call some of them amazing. This has nothing to do with free will. No, praise can be given to further encourage someone to behave a certain way. If a child does something you want them to do, then praise, especially from a parent or authoritative figure, can go a long way in causing that child to act that way in the future.
I've done some very subjective experiments on this subject. 1. I've noticed that every action is preceded by intention. But if you observe clearly you can see that intention arises all on its own without you making the choice for its arising. 2. The choice of what we're conscious about is also not in our control. I've set up an experiment where I observe a single phenomenon like the rising and falling of my stomach and make the commitment to not look away from it whatsoever. Eventually, my mind (consciousness) moves on its own to another object like a sound or a feeling somewhere in the body. This has led me to conclude that neither intentions nor consciousness are under my control. They're completely impersonal.
This is essentially what the Buddha did when he realized his desire to breathe was not his own. So instead of trying to control it, he went with the flow.
How are you setting up experiments if your not in control? You were controlled to set up those experiments so why do you keep acting like that was a choice, because you were controlled to think it was a choice but decided to tell yourself it wasn't a choice because you were induced to do that. Go down that chain ad infinitum
@@cabellocorto5586I’m always impressed when I see other people make these kinds of connections. You’re spot on. I teach the “path to enlightenment” and this kind of understanding is so incredibly rare out in the wild and I get very excited when I see it. The guy you responded to is also right on the money.
@@stevepenn2582 Through no free will of your own, you made the mistake of drawing the conclusion that making a choice implies free will when it doesn't. You can make choices, they're just not freely made.
@@DiNozzo431 Look up compatiblism, anyways the implication of saying "what do we do about it" means that there is some level of free will being enacted. Even if you could perfectly predict someones action every time doesnt mean their will isn't free
@@dustinkfc6633 That's a good example, but also just any of our desires aren't chosen. They are the result of genetic and environmental influences. Much like how our thoughts arise spontaneously. Christianity attaches guilt and shame to our thoughts and desires, sometimes even claiming they occur from demon possession.
@@nx2120 It's not quite the same as saying "you aren’t free to do what you do," but rather emphasizes the distinction between action and the origin of desire. The original phrase "we are free to do as we will but we are not free to will what we will" means: 1. **We are free to do what we desire**: We can act according to our wishes and choices. 2. **We are not free to choose our desires**: Our underlying desires, motivations, and inclinations are not something we have control over-they arise from factors beyond our conscious decision. Your reformulation "you aren’t free to do what you do" implies a lack of freedom in action, which is not what the original phrase suggests. The key point is that while our actions are free (we do what we do), the formation of our will or desires is not under our control (we don't choose what we want to want). So, it's more accurate to say: "We do what we desire, but we don't choose our desires." Consider Sam, who is addicted to smoking. Sam has the freedom to smoke a cigarette whenever the craving strikes, illustrating the idea that we are free to act according to our desires. However, Sam did not choose to develop the addiction or the cravings for nicotine; these emerged from a mix of genetic, psychological, and environmental influences beyond Sam's control. This highlights the concept that while we can act on our desires, we do not have control over the formation of those desires, thus exemplifying the idea that we are free to do as we will but not free to will what we will.
This is basically my Superbowl, thanks so much for doing this interview! Reading Sapolsky helped me make concrete my kind of loosey goosey, half informed stance on (the absence of) free will.
For me, bigger than the problem of motivation is the problem of abuse and making sense of it.. I can't imagine how an abuse victim could be told that the perpetrator is acting of no volition of his own, and that he is not to blame for anything. What can one do with one's sense of being wronged or grief and injustice when there's no free will whatsoever? That idea is almost more tormenting than the abuse itself.
If you were swimming in the ocean and were bit by a shark you wouldn’t blame the shark for being a shark or seek retribution. It’s the same thing. You were simply unlucky.
@@newearthlivingithaca Thank you for your perspective. What exactly is luck? Perchance, coincidence? I can't help but feel dreadful if this is the true nature of our existence
Sapolsky seems to be the most honest materialist. He comes to the obvious conclusions that others avoid when you presume that consciousness comes from the brain and there is no mind / soul. No free will.
Personally the way I see it is even if there is a "soul", there's still no free will. Nothing in the equation changes. Free will is just an incoherent concept no matter what
It’s crazy how he is so honest and makes the obvious conclusions like “you being rich had nothing to do with you, your efforts aren’t actually your efforts, therefore we must all be egalitarian” lol. Yall just love to pick and choose the “facts of the facts cooming science yum 🎉🎉🎉”.
To deny free will in the circumstance that you point to will be to deny human rationality. I think this is the craziest idea to even entertain. Here's an example that illustrates this point. My education has taught me that wicked, cruel, evil, monstrous, fiendish, devilish, heinous, odious, satanic, barbarous, and brutal are different ways of saying the same thing. How can it be that the decision to use one of these words rather than the other isn't mine, and yet I don't keep using any of them all of the time?
@@mathewsamuel1386 I will do you one better, how’s it possible to be moral without free will? It seems like our most basic foundations relies on not just the sense of agency, but true culpability of not only our actions, but our overall character. Not denying we aren’t influenced by several factors however to take this extreme position such as Robert’s is just cultural suicide.
@@mathewsamuel1386there is a difference between will and free will. You seem to be under the misapprehension that, because some words can be used as synonyms for other words, they cannot have different definitions. This is wrong. Monstrous- like an animalistic monster Barbarous- like an uncivilised human Satanic- like an imaginary demon creature These words are not the same. You should get a refund on that education.
I think if we know what will make our life the most fulfilling to live and makes others lives fulfilling to live regardless of sort term sacrifice we should act on that, I don’t think these spiritual ideas contradict living with an understanding of no free will, we have emotions and that means something to us, we feel get others to feel and so on, it’s our subjective opinion that life is worth preserving therefore it’s worth it, I don’t think we have to be an nihilistic at all, I mean I think it’s beautiful that we’ve left our mark on this universe and that’s good enough for now, I’m not saying I’m not a person who’s not prone to depression, etc. but hope and all these things exist for a reason I think they’re biological functions such as society to keep us self-actualizing to keep us feeling meaning so that we survive and we have no reason to not follow that, I think we can find our own personal reasons that may conflict with truth and that’s ok, I also do believe discouragement, through the form of holding people accountable for those they influence, and encouragement to do things that will benefit you and others is also a great societal mechanism, I don’t see why these can’t exist together, I don’t think of responsibility as relying on Will, but rather relying on choice, I think we can make any choice and that doesn’t mean we have free will and making a choice but we made the choice and it’s ours and we should be reasonable as to determine what lines should generally be drawn where based on the humanitarian approach above life is complicated. Life is not simple. There’s beauty in that there is beauty in us and I love you all 💕💕💕 It’s all arbitrary but that’s part of the fun ay, my existence breaks so many societal norms but I got through it and I don’t see a reason why we can’t be proud of facing diversity head on, since around 15 or so I’ve always thought of my personality as a gift. I’m happy I’m open I’m happy I’m agreeable. I’m happy I’m conscientious. I am a little neurotic which is so so it’s given me a challenge to navigate and im a bit introverted which allows me to be in my inner world which I obviously subjectively enjoy, to be fair. I do feel a false sensitive proudness, because these are traits that I think are inter subjectively considered good overall, even though they have been bad towards me before they’ve caused very bad outcomes, especially as someone with a history that can take advantage of these traits and lead to development that isn’t so productive towards myself, but we ball we try, hopefully this helps, and even if I don’t agree with how someone behaves or don’t enjoy their traits, I don’t necessarily fault them but I don’t see how that excludes me from pointing the finger at them as responsible but maybe that’s because my definition of responsible is not like everyone else’s or something idk 💕💕💕 Humans love stories let’s enjoy our own and this is coming from a person who is not in fact optimistic, but I’m still young at at least can see where I go ig, my advice is find your reasons and hold them dear 💕💕 Edit: I didn’t see the last 10min of the vid before commenting here but that’s exactly how I view it i’m grateful for the luck bestowed upon me, the luck to be able to have a humanitarian view, I like being agreeable and open etc… because even if I didn’t have these traits there is a fair chance I might view them as positive, but I don’t think this excludes us from being human in the sense that we will still play blame. We will still feel proud etc… and I don’t think that’s terrible human nature is feelings and drives, I also didn’t realize he was gonna touch on we still have basic needs and it feels good to fulfill them even without a spiritual reason xd, but I do like spirituality and wish I could be more spiritual by spirituality I’m referring to it loosely to describe supernatural ideas, beliefs, or ideals mainly, that’s said the idea of no free will is sad because we have an expectation for something better and essential and it puts into question our identity and what makes us us something we want to be stable in is shattered, but I try not to dwell on it Ignorance really is bliss sometimes when we accept that we are “machines” and we think of machines as furthest from human it really can make us feel alien in our own skin
These folks are all making it out to be something more than it is. Just the way brains work. So what? Your experience is the same regardless. Very interesting topic though. Have fun.
I guess I would ask why? So you can be "released" from taking responsibilty? So that you can do whayever ypu want and dissolve consequence in your own mind? It's an honest question.
What makes our life the most fulfilling might be "to make other's lives fulfilling" or, of course, pontificate about it. You can actually make a lot of money that way.@@LaFemmFatal
As a depressed person I disagree with Alex's argument that being able to see getting up from bed as my accomplishment and I feeling like I deserve some kind of praise for that is motivating. For me it's quite the opposite: letting myself understand that me being powerless and laying in bed is not due to me being not motivated enough but simply having a shit luck with the circumstances that shaped my brain is way more helpful. It's like Dr Sapolsky says: it brings me up by not blaming me for my situation. Knowing that it's much easier for me to get up from the bed and get some fresh air. But that's just me.
All the best to you, with your depression. It's horrible. I hope you get some respite from it soon. I've been depressed for years, on and off. A simple, laughable-at-the-time, tip helped me get up in the mornings. Someone suggested setting an alarm on my phone for, in my case, 9am, and putting the phone in the kitchen, where I would have to either get up to, at least turn it off, and go back to bed; or to lie there suffering (further) with the annoying alarm ringing away in the kitchen. I opted, from the off, to get up to turn the thing off, and go back to bed. But before long I was just staying up once I'd get up to turn it off.
I've managed, somehow, to stick to this 9am rise. When I am tempted (often sorely) to go back to bed once I've got up and turned the alarm off, I tell myself to do three small tasks, and then, if I still feel the need to go and crawl back under the covers I will at least be three tasks ahead. The tasks could be as simple as; opening the bill I've been putting off opening, even if I don't actually deal with it fully; or putting the dirty dishes in an orderly pile by the sink (actually washing them might be too tall an order); going to the bathroom (this might sound crazy to some people but when depressed a person can lie there desperate for the bathroom but feeling so paralysed, so rooted to the spot, that they just don't go, sometimes for hours. I've heard of some poor souls who even end up soiling themselves.
I missed the "where do you go for wisdom" question. I think the answer could potentially be really interesting. But despite that, this was excellent. I really appreciate Sapolsky's work and you made very interesting questions and remarks, as always. Good stuff. Thank you both!
I've sat on this question for some time to the point where it's become clear and relevant in my search for meaning and knowledge. There comes a point where you begin to appreciate being aware of certain patterns of behaviour. We can draw wisdom from understanding ourselves and how we've come to be, this coincidentally results in the removal of oneself from the center of everything, which gives me hope.
When I first heard from Mr Sapolsky I rejected his thesis. Yet I was intrigued enough to keep listening. One thing I thought was missing from the subsequent interviews was putting it in a real world personal context. This interview has gone a long way towards filling in that missing piece. Kudos to Alex for an excellent interview. 👍
I think his theory is like how people felt about genetics a decade or two ago when scientists talked about finding "the gay gene", or "the fat gene", etc. Now we know things are way more complicated than that and while genetics explains a lot of things, there are environmental and random effects that matter just as much.
Hearing him here practically making the old argument "the murderer had a bad childhood therefore we can't judge" argument is just more than disappointing. It might have been the dumbest thing I have heard him say ever.
@@EbonyPope He's right though. We can't judge the person, as practically nothing can be their fault, but we should protect society from murderers. Prison is currrently a terrible system for that
@@namenloserflo And yet if someone caused you a tragedy, or him for that matter, you'd completely flip the script. There is no reality where the human element is removed from humanity. So no, he's not right and never will be. As that would require an authoritarian system of strict control under an assumed benevolent dictator. You have to live in reality and while our justice system could definitely use some work, we're not about to remove agency from people just because you don't feel as if free will exists.
I understand that there are an innumerable amount of factors that determine our actions. Our brains and bodies are wired to react in specific ways, tailored over centuries of human evolution. Yet, I am not a hard determinist. I am my brain, my body. A part of me is what has come before me. And this guides the way that I (my brain and body) feel and react. I can deliberate over the most trivial things. I can push myself to accomplish something for mostly selfless reasons. My body and brain has the ability to impact society in a plethora of ways. Choice exists regardless of whether it is determined or not. Hard work exists or motivating one's self to get out of bed exists, regardless of it being a neurological response in our brains. A rod goes through my skull, and I change because I have lost a part of myself.
I guess I tend to be more of a compatibilist. I don't deny determinism in any means, but it is the perspective I take on determinism that differs. I'll quote Joscha Bach here in saying that "the opposite of free will is not determinism but compulsion." If we heighten our awareness, even if we do not have any option but to follow a specific path, we deliberate, we take into account our past and our psychological tendencies and base our choices from that. If we never strive to become aware of our tendencies, then we will rely on innate/unconscious decisions. That is compulsion. @@Dragumix
Not necessarily true. We are met with different choices each day, but what I will choose is determined. [There are 5 items on a menu. Thus, there are five choices. My choice is already determined, but this does not mean that I was not given 5 options. In fact, I might choose one menu item one day and another the next.] Regardless of whether that choice is determined does not mean choice does not exist. I observe. I contemplate. Deliberation is a taxing process-something that takes effort. It feels like a choice, so then why should it not be considered one? @@toonyandfriends1915
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...
I'm still not sure what he even means by "free will". Is he just advocating determinism...? Or just counter-arguing the concept of "soul"...? We never seem to go down to epistemology with Sapolsky, and that's the thing that annoys me most about these discussions. They seem to wander around a vague idea of free will without ever attempting to pin it down to what we actually mean by those words.
his arguments are the same as Bertrand Russell's view of determinism and the lack of free will, just he's used biological experiments to justify it. I think its very interesting discussion, but neither I nor it seems he knows what are the philosophical and physical lessons from this. The Nihilist question is really quite profound and disturbing
the objective is to never drill down to the root, or else the obvious motive of this philosophy is to deny accountability. It is the ultimate victim of circumstances mentality.
One point I haven't heard anyone make is the possibility that free will is an _emergent_ property. Let me use an analogy to explain what I mean. Music is a type of sound, and sound is a rapid fluctuation in local air pressure, so you could say that music is just a bunch of pressure waves arriving at our ears. Yet it would be absurdly difficult to have a meaningful discussion about music and music theory strictly in terms of pressure variations. Musicality _emerges_ as a property of those variations, but it exists in its own realm and has to be discussed independently from its origins in physical sound. I see the deterministic elements of consciousness and choice as being at the same level as the pressure variations. Yes, choices _emerge_ from deterministic phenomena, but they exist in their own realm just like musicality does. So it's reasonable both to acknowledge the existence of the deterministic elements and to engage with choices and free will at a higher level, independently of their deterministic basis.
@@pythondrink It is possible to define "determinism" and "free will" in a way that will make them mutually exclusive alternatives, however I'm not convinced that such definitions are correct. I believe that the actual phenomena we typically describe by such terms are in separate domains in much the same way that music theory and Boyle's Law are different domains even though both concern air pressure, as I described above. If we understand that determinism describes things as they happen at a very low/fundamental level, and free will describes emergent phenomena at a much higher level, we achieve two things: we avoid the conflict, and we gain a meaningful understanding of how both operate within their own spheres. Or at least it becomes possible to gain such an understanding.
@@pythondrinkFree will is an emergent property of consciousness, which is an emergent property of perception, which is an emergent property of evolving organisms. Possibly a bit oversimplified, but that's the gist of it.
Just watched this video after studying for my upcoming physiological psych exam. Absolutely amazing video and it tied very well into the content I'm studying right now
This channel brought on Sapolsky say no more. I came to this conclusion independently when I was coming of age. I myself am neurodivergent and that has caused a lot of issues in my life. For a long time I felt like something was wrong with me and that I had done something wrong to deserve all of it until I eventually realized it just was. No one was responsible, that's just how I came into this universe. It was a profound realization not only for it allowing me to forgive myself and move forward but for giving me that same compassion towards others. But on a deeper metaphysical level it's true. From the beginning of the universe itself all things were set in motion. Stuff happened and we got quarks, gluons, electrons, photons, etc... trace the casal chain of everything that exists down to the electrons your neurons are using to communicate right now and it's not hard to see that the notion of free will is utterly ridiculous. I'm not alone in that reasoning, in much more elegant terms than I did that's essentially the logic of Spinoza who Sapolsky himself has referenced on this topic a few times. I think it's telling how we frame this discussion. Because as we do we are acting as if free will is the simple and obvious conclusion when it really isn't? So let's ask why do we have free will? And if you Google that you're going to get a whole lot of theological answers... So God gave us free will and why is that? It's literally a gotcha, sorry your master and creator who is all powerful isn't responsible for your problems buddy nope that's completely on you. Um, what? We wouldn't listen to people 2000 years ago about Healthcare or physics, so why should we not at least reflect on what answers they give us to such deep questions instead of taking their assumptions as obvious truth? I think it's time we start openly discussing free will so God has no responsibility and also he's judging us to eternal punishment as the comical bullshit it is. I don't care what you conclude about the unknowable, just use your fucking brain
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...
For what it's worth, the bible doesn't teach that we have free will, it is an inference some make, I agree that the concept is used to attribute blame. The bible teaches Grace +Love
"Deserves" is a pretty strange thing to say about receiving love and admiration. You may not be uniquely deserving of it, but everyone is deserving of it. Similarly, people are deserving of praise because receiving praise is part of the human experience and feeling fulfilled-- it's just that we should do it to meet people where we are, not reserve it for a special few. And regarding falling in love not being free will, I think we have always sort of known that to be the case, I mean that's why we "fall" in love, and use a metaphor for Cupid's arrows, etc. Anyhow, Happy Valentine's Day!
No one to have ever existed, alive now or who will ever exist has ever, nor will ever deserve anything in particular. Things just happen and everything just is. There is no such thing as deserving one thing or another. Good and evil, righteous and unrighteous, justice, all delusions
@@djzip9231 To deem something undeserving is still a value judgement and not a neutral statement, as it implies a justification for deprivation. This isn't a matter of good and evil, but a decision on how to allocate the limited time we have to exist. We can make it more or less pleasant, and limit suffering to the best of our ability, even if on a limited level. Deeming everyone deserving of love and affection and treating the people in our lives this way is one such way. There is nothing delusional about this because there is no objective reality being claimed, just a rough consensus of people trying their best.
@@djzip9231 That is not entirely correct. Those statements are only accurate when taking an _objective_ perspective. From an inter-subjective perspective, which is arguably the only relevant perspective to humanity, both good and evil exist, rigtheousness is valued and justice is important for social cohesion. They all are important concepts - just not concepts with any meaning independent of subjective experience. But what _is_ meaning beyond the value of and in subjective experience? I'd argue 'meaning' itself is meaningless when you take away subjectivity.
I mean let's say me and a friend get together to clean up a park. And I do all the work and my friend just sits around doing nothing. And then someone says to us "hey guys thank you for cleaning the park, good job!"- I'm gonna be like "dude he didn't do any cleaning, I cleaned it by myself" because my friend will not deserve any praise because he didn't do anything.. Like maybe I didn't have free will in deciding whether I should clean or not but I cleaned the park and he didn't. Right? I dno dude but even if we don't deserve love that doesn't really matter, we should still get it. Like a flower doesn't 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 water but if you want it to grow and be beautiful then you need to water it..
Will means desire and it's obvious that we did not choose our desires, we just found ourselves having certain desires and we act on them. Therefore, it seems impossible to have free will (or freedom to choose desires).
So interesting. Can you tell me, I mean summarize why zebras don't get ulcer and how it is connected to free will? Free will is an illusions. We are monkeys..highly evolved monkeys, but monkeys nonetheless.
It's mostly about stress, and why it's so detrimental to humans as opposed to other animals. It's quite interesting. I believe there are some talks about the book on UA-cam as well@@pythondrink
The opposite of the nihilistic view is not randomness, that is the nihilistic view, that is a mischaracterisation of the other side. The other side is believing that one is seperate entity that makes its decisions on the fact that it is real and seperate with innate good qualities that are identifiably them, not subject to any of the other forces of nature. That one is a noun, not a verb.
@@interdimensionalsailboat There is no way that anyone can say that emergent intent does not exist in the universe. You know everything about infinity using your limited brain and senses? Yeah, sure... Honesty is saying that you don't actually know because you really don't know. Science proves nothing while it is merely based on our limited, subjective senses within infinity. We are not seeing the full picture of infinity. But he received a Nobel Prize! who cares, haha. Maybe the human brain doesn't have free will, but that doesn't mean that emergent intent doesn't exist in the universe.
Yeah right, it is indeed very humble to claim that you have a solution to a pure mystery, without providing any evidence or making a sound argument, denying your most immediate experience and acting according to it, while claiming that you deny it, in line with bothering to give reasons that have a goal to convince people, while your thesis is eliminating reasons and the possibility that anybody can be convinced. Very humble indeed😂😂
@@oioi9372 🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. Cont...
As someone who has ADHD, it’s very comforting to think that my failures in school and relationships are not deserving of punishment. Instead of not wanting to get out of bed, this idea makes me feel more confident to act and take risks, because whatever I do I was going to do anyways. Thank you for this video. I feel like it has fundamentally changed my worldview.
Well, as someone else with ADHD and severe chronic pain, and really bad genetics related to addiction I decided to look into this as I was interested. Turns out the risk of addiction to drugs with ADHD is something like 500-1000% higher than control. Despite this addicts are the most hated people in society. I was given painkillers a child, and teenager due to my severe pain. I ended up being sick most of my childhood due to a physical disability from birth and ADHD and other mental fun stuff (depression, ocd, health anxiety, etc). I got addicted to alcohol before I even tried it, I was addicted to the idea, then when I finally drank the first time I had 0 self control and went too far. Then I quit it, but got addicted to my painkillers, and am now in a situation where I quit it 4 times but have such severe pain I keep having to restart the crap. How someone can look at this situation (I am literally one in a million in terms of having a long list of diseases as a young person, but still this applies to everyone) and conclude it's my fault is frankly funny to me. I'm not saying this in a woe is me way or let's just give up way either, I'm doing my very best, I lost 27kgs the last 7 months and am trying to improve my health. I just think this whole game of assigning blame to everyone and spreading hatred is dumb, and futile.
Interesting, it's always been the opposite for me. I only see my condition as something to improve but I've never really succeeded at this. And knowing that so many self destructive habits of mine are out of my control fills me with anger towards myself. I'm not really sure how I begin to change this outlook
This was a great conversation, much respect to both very intelligent people here. I might argue that when they were talking about the motivation changing but you’re still going to have the same outcome, I’m led to say that the motivation that you have for something does in fact, change the process and the outcome. 😅
The irrational hungry judge effect revisited: Simulations reveal that the magnitude of the effect is overestimated Andreas Glöckner The hungry judge effect is certainly interesting but it's a bit overstated than what it really is.
So, judges being studied in a hangry simulator didn't act as hangry as judges who didn't know they'd be observed? This seems unsurprising? 🤔 If this still displayed the bias despite knowing they were being studied, that seems to indicate the effect on their behavior is comparatively powerful. 🤷♂
By “simulations reveal” you mean there exist some articles that posit that the magnitude is overstated. If you read them (the articles, not the useless web summaries), you’ll see they are interesting, but not overwhelmingly strong. No trump cards here. The judge effect is upheld.
I’m glad that the donkey is raised here. It needs no determining factor to choose which food because brains do not operate under classical computational principles. If they did, nothing would work.
@@captainskylight942 well that’s true, but immaterial- you can’t replicate a detailed set of papers in a short example. The question is whether the jury’s still out on the simulations: it is. I know quite a bit about the methodology and it IS suggestive (as I said) but there’s so much evidence to the contrary that I wouldn’t take it to court. Simulations are tricky- they can be very precise, without being representative of what they purport to simulate.
I feel that anyone who believes we do have free will does not understand what free will is. Like I don't even see how having a soul will change that. It also isn't scary either. It doesn't mean you don't have the ability to choose any of your actions, it just means that your choice has a cause.
I haven't watched the entire video, but as someone who does believe in free will I don't see how my choice having a cause undermines free will as long as that cause is myself. Moreover, the soul's immediate existence is caused by God, but outside of its creation it's independent of causation, and the soul is the self. Meaning that the soul is the self that doesn't have any prior causes outside of its creation.
@@Misslayer99 Alright well if you're not going to actually address my point then you might as well not know my argument. (In case you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying that we have free will because of God I was saying we have free will because the soul is the independent self, and I just got a little off topic with the origin of the soul.)
@@theintelligentmilkjug944The problem the supernaturalist faces is known as the connection problem -- just how does this supernatural component of self influence otherwise deterministic material? it is a common misconception that quantum physics is random, so statistical manipulation doesn't help here -- Schrodinger's equation, for example, is completely deterministic, and the only evidence for quantum randomness we have (Bell's Inequalities Tests) fails if we don't assume the experimenters have libertarian free will. If we do not in fact have libertarian free will then Bell's Inequalities, combined with observed relativisitic effects that point to a perfectly determined past, present and future, actually end up supporting what John Bell himself called 'superdeterminism' and the static eternalist block spacetime. I have to kinda give it to the more systematic Calvinists on this one -- they have no qualms with rejecting libertarian free will given it's incompatible both with the reality we observe and with divine omniscience.
At the end of the day just enjoy the experience and try your best to understand that we are just consciousness experiencing itself . Enjoying the ride is the most important part of life , no matter how hard what people are going through. Enjoy the weird coincidences , enjoy the great conversations , enjoy love and pleasure , and experience the hard parts as a learning experience . And from there who knows what happens after we die . Enjoy the ride people!
Sabine Hossenfelder made a video on Free Will with the title: "You don't have free will, but don't worry" which is also great. Her anti-flat-earth video is also great as she doesn't just bash those idiots but actually tries to understand their position, where they come from and where they went wrong.
Wow. I was hesitant to listen to this because I didn’t take the topic seriously. I have been pleasantly surprised. This was good. This is a very interesting topic and conversation
I could have listened to another hour of this. It's a very interesting topic. Not often do i hear about this from the perspective of both people who agree there isn't free will. And as someone who doesn't believe in it either, it's nice to hear from intelligent minds the question of "what now?"
As someone who disagrees with almost everything you believe, I deeply respect and appreciate the conversations you present. It was the realization of how little conscious control I have over my own will that actually led me back to Catholicism from years of agnosticism and ridicule of belief. I recognize that the will I act on is often not up to me, and I felt compelled to align my will properly. That is the point of prayer from my perspective. As an aside, part of this conversation reminded me of Psalm 127:2 “It is vain for you to rise early and put off your rest at night, To eat bread earned by hard toil- all this God gives to his beloved in sleep.” Thank you for the opportunity to ponder these mysteries more deeply. May we all become more wise and more humble… within reason.
Even if there is no free will, we will keep pretending that we have free will, that is the only way to live. So, nothing really changes btw the believers and non-believers.
If we had no free will, then we wouldn't have a choice on what we think about free will. The believers and non-believers will be fated to have the opinion they have.
@@elephantyarn7378 tomorrow we're gonna open the fridge door and make a choice, even if it was determined by 100s of deeper processes running in the brain. To us, our consciousness on the surface level, it would feel like that we have made a choice and that is all that matters. This hold true for both parties.
@@rajahzia Well, let's not yet assume I'll open the fridge. Likely I will, but there is (if free will exists) a slight probability that I don't, or (if it doesn't exist) a Schrodeinger's fridge on the horizon.
@@elephantyarn7378 any choice that you make, you don't say to yourself that I am not in charge. Irrespective of our beleif in FW, the conscious being on the surface acts like its in charge. What is the relevance of quantum physics to this discussion?
I think no free will on what we do, but I think Victor Frankl has it right-when you have no control over your environment, your future or your life, you can control your attitude. Being able to control your attitude explains motivation to get up in the morning-which is the exact situation that Frankl was dealing with in the camps. The difference is that if you’re reading this you think that the absence of guards a camp, etc means you have free will, but in a camp with a guard you know you don’t. The difference is that you can exercise agency in one situation not the other.
Why do you believe that there's no free will on 'what we do' but there is regards our attitude? Isn't adopting an attitude in a given situation, or in general, something that we 'do'?
@@sw6118 Hiya. I think to 'control' your attitude is also an action. I can see the distinction between action (say, getting up out of bed) and attitude itself (say, having a negative, pessimistic attitude about the day ahead) but there's a difference between mere attitude, and controlling that attitude. To control it would be an act, something that you do.
If we don’t have freewill, then what’s the point of having this conversation? We’re going to believe what we’re going to believe. If we don’t have freewill, then the conclusion that we don’t have freewill is also determined, which means it wasn’t arrived through rational means. That creates a circular and self-refuting argument. It’s also inconsistent for people who don’t believe in freewill to be morally outraged at people that they disagree with because they ultimately have no choice.
That's not the case. The point that Dr. Sapolsky makes is not that you cannot be aware or learn new things, but that you cannot control your awareness or what new things you learn. That is to say that you cannot will yourself to do something that you cannot think of doing or be aware of something that you are not aware of. If you went back in time to the moment when you clicked on this video, you would make the same decision every time because the brain doesn't have a way to just suddenly choose a new way to behave or interact with the world. Furthermore, it doesn't break determinism for something to be determined through logic or rationality-it's exactly the opposite, determinism suggests that all of the universe follows some kind of logic and that there are no ways for things inside of the universe to break that logic, including humans and their ideas and inventions.
No. It means that they had no choice but to have this conversation. You may have no choice in how you react to new information, but that doesn't mean you will never change your mind, once hearing new information. You just have no real choice in how you'll react. I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on what's being said. If there's no choice, then why would you expect people to simply choose to not be morally outraged? And, what difference does it make, if a murder robot was programmed to murder, or was somehow given free will and chose to murder ... shouldn't it be taken off the streets, for the well being of others, either way?
@RILEYCLARKEI think you may have refuted your own argument. The *exact* point is that _because_ we cannot choose our past programming, we therefore cannot choose something that is "right" or "wrong" outside of that programming. We cannot know what we don't know (and we cannot know if what we do know is true)-that precisely is what it means to lack free will.
@@waterfallfaerie Determinism negates the possibility of logic and reason, and only a fool would claim otherwise. If our decisions are solely the result of biochemical forces, none of our cognitive faculties can be considered reliable. Furthermore, logic and reason have to exist in transcendental categories, something that cannot exist in a determined or materialistic universe.
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic If I shoot a bear because it’s trying to kill me, I do it because I’m trying to neutralize a threat. It’s not because I’m judging the bear morally. I don’t judge a computer virus the same way I would a person. That is very flawed logic.
When we are asleep dreaming we believe we are making decisions and we believe we have free will. It’s only when we wake up that we realise we were just carried along by the process of dreaming and we had no free will whatsoever. “How do we know if we are living in our dreams or reality, we don’t.” - Stephen Hawking
As an empath that just put myself purposefully in harms way by working in a homeless shelter- I believe my "goodness" is randomness and the effects that trauma had on me. That fact doesn't make caring for people feel any less special for me. I can have intellectual thoughts and still be biologically human with emotions and motives that work against that intellect.
This still doesnt change that you have agency in your choices. Just because there is a feedback loop between environment and learned behaviours and you cant concieve easily beyond your experience doesnt mean that you dont have agency.
But the agency is not yours! The agency is the outcome of an unbelievable complex process of biology and environment. “You” most certainly make a decision, but making a decision is not freedom! To the absolute contrary. That is an outcome of a completely determined process that we call subjectively “free” but is an incredibly restrictive outcome and feeling between “self” and “environment”. It’s interesting because if I asked where your “agency” resided in your body, that was making these special decisions and demands, you wouldn’t have a shred of proof or details. People just can not bring themselves to recognize that they don’t have free will, even if they don’t have a conceptual shred proof where “their” magical agent performs their task in their bodies they just can’t let it go.
@@nothingnothing3947I think we have to take a step back and ask, what does "agency of you choices" mean? Does he mean free will as O'Connor describes it in his previous video on free will ("the ability to have done something differently"), or something else?
Yeah I think free will or agency is completely illusionary. It just doesn’t seem like it in isolated instances, such as making a decision in the prompt “choose right now to blink once or twice”.
@@nothingnothing3947 it doesn’t fit in! I don’t think “we” have free will or agency in the traditional sense we have understood it or experience it. I was only responding to the previous comment. This does not mean we can not attempt to create any life we want for ourselves or for societies, but there is not a magical me inside making these decisions! Religions are overwhelmingly false! Human beings live lives that are overwhelmingly unnecessarily insufferable! Why? Because we don’t have free will and the universe doesn’t care and does not have a purpose. Could we change this even without free will? Absolutely!! But to avoid the facts like biology, environment, genetics, societal structure, culture, families, education etc etc….isn’t creating who and what we are as human beings/individuals…..we are going to continue to live out ridiculous lives. And maybe that’s all we will do!! It’s funny how human beings have this underlying narrative that we are special and the Earth and universe need us to continue living. It’s ridiculous. LET IT GO!! Let it go is what I say at times when I take this all too seriously.
Wanna give a quick run down about why he's significant in your field(s)? Genuine question, asking as somebody who knows next to nothing about those fields. I've just seen him talking about free will a few times now.
Robert is definitely one of the greatest minds of the last 100 years. I would have like to hear a conversation between him, carl sagen, and christopher hitchens.
Where I want the conversation to eventually go is some place with more resolution (think higher resolution graphics). Beliefs affect behavior. Systems exhibit (and I think actually have) more or less awareness, and behave in ways that actually are more or actually are less surprising. Systems like individuals, companies, and countries really can have greater or lesser efficacy in the world depending on how well the system values its components, resolves contradictions at various internal scales, relates to its environment, etc.
Alright, I was curious and have just been doing some quick googling about the robustness of the 'hungry judge' study. I haven't found any recent academic papers on it, sadly, but there's a pretty plausible-sounding refutation of it in a 2011 paper (essentially, defendants are not randomly scheduled, so a priori less-paroleable defendants were scheduled more often near lunch breaks - it's the scheduling causing the observed correlation between proximity to meal and release rate, not judge hunger). Anyone got any more up to date info on this?
They absolutely figure out their docket, and plan their day as such. There is no randomness to this “hungry judge” assertion, using it as evidence refutes his argument.
There is a 2022 narrative article by Chatziathanasiou. There are quite a few reasons why this should not be taken at face value. Starting with the fact that such a huge effect size is highly untypical for a psychological effect (if we would be that driven by hunger our society would malfunction every day around noon). The article is a good read and gives great pointers for further reading. Sapolsky is phenomenal in some regards, but he does overstate a lot of his opinions and often bases them on weak evidence (as seems to be the rule with Stanford scientists atm :D)
@@scarecrow2313 You defined me at taking it. If I didn't take it, you need to restate your expression. If I take it, I take it, not some other causation.
@@scarecrow2313 You still isolated the subject "you". Yet claim there is not room for such a subject. If the object (me) cannot be isolated, then per chance by what are you isolating it by? I am, try again.
To say we are not free because we are controled by our brain is a bit strange. I am my brain, I'm not controled by it, it is part of me, the way my brain works is what makes me human. The fact my brain is shaped by circumstances is all part of my being, so if my brain decides something based on circumstances it is still my free decision. Being free means you're able to decide, how you came to that decision is all part of you. Free means it's not predictable, even the circumstances that shape our brain are unpredictable, we don't know what is going to happen. So it's crucial to have free will to be able to navigate through unpredictability. To say that you can't choose what you want most in the particular moment is ridiculous. You want what you want it's you, there is no choosing involved in anything about who you are. You can choose only where choosing is available. Think about it ...you're not free because you can't change who your parents are. There is no choosing parents but there is choosing in what you're going to eat next. I don't deny biology but free will is not a concept you can define through biology. The fact that you want to do something is part of you, you can't change yourself, your height, natural colour of your hair, how smart you are, there is no choosing in your biological traits, but there is choosing in how you interact with the physical world. Sapolsky is saying that we can't choose who we are and therfore we are not free. The fact that you are who you are is not connected to your freedom. Freedom is not a biological trait but our biological traits are involved in how we use our freedom, that doesn't mean our biologicar traits are controling us, because we are those biological traits, so we are in control. When your biological traits are involved in making the decision it's YOU making the decision. You ARE YOUR BIOLOGY, even while being influenced by external factors (how you're going to be influenced by these factors is all part of you) and your biology making you do things means you are FREE doing what YOU WANT.
That's exacly what I was thinking. Me being influenced by external factors is all part of my biology and my biology effecting the decision making, is exacly what it means to be free and make the decision.
Counter intuitive, but far from being ridiculous. This hour long discussion barely scratches the surface. Maybe read his book Determined and chew it over ... Maybe. The concept of freedom is wishy washy and vague, to the point of being meaningless (to me). Free from what exactly? We are essentially all that was and to all that is - within this moment. Our "sense" of freedom is a narrative, when in reality we are all on a conveyor belt (as such) - from cradle to grave. We are pinned to the processes. The reason you choose the chocolate muffin over the berry muffin is predetermined - it doesn't just spontaneously erupt out of nowhere in particular. Apply this understanding to each and every action we take. To say we have a "free will" because we choose a chocolate muffin is to miss the point of Robert's work. Our sense of agency may well be a perceptual distortion - that the mind employs to help modulate us.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 I'm saying that being free in a physical reality we live in, literary means if you're hungry nothing is physicaly stoping you from taking food. The fact that you became hungry is not due to the external events or passage of time it's because of you, if you didn't exist time would still be passing but you wouldn't be hungry. So when your brain wants you to take food it's all part of you and it's your free decision, free means you are able to take food, nothing it forcing you to take it, except you being hungry. There is no external influence on you taking food, you ARE FREE TO TAKE FOOD BECAUSE YOU ARE HUNGRY (what is making you hungry is the fact you exist, it's not hunger that is forcing you to take food, but you're hungry because you exist and you can't change that). By looking at it that way you can't say freedom means nothing to you because freedom is crucial for survival. That's what I'm saying, but I'm also aware Sapolsky has a different approach to freedom and his deffinition of freedom is different than mine, but his deffinition goes too far that it becomes paradoxical. If you look at it like he does, with that approach we can say nothing really exists. Everything is an illusion and we don't really live our lives we just think we are alive, it's not your life it's just a biological process in nature. How is it your life if nature sustains it ?? Not only free will, but absolutely nothing exists. You can say that you're not really a human being it's only a product of our brain and we just think that way because we are just a lump of cells randomly produced by the universe, so it is just our opinion but it's not really true. How do we know what's true then ?? That's basicaly why I don't agree with his stance of free will, he's going to such extent, distorting the deffinition to make it seem that your will is not there, that by looking at it that way, we can also say we are not people, we are a bunch of cells, does that mean you're not human ?? Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous !!
@@JB.zero.zero.1 What Sapolsky is doing when he talks about free will, he's presenting a paradox by presenting unchangable facts, and saying because we can't change some things we are not free. Paradox can't be a deffinition and freedom can be expressed only in the realm of changable facts, whare choosing is available and where change is available. That's why I don't agree with his stance. He is talking about freedom where freedom can't be expressed, it's like talking about animals on the Moon, there is no animals on the Moon but it doesn't mean animals don't exist. You can always find some facts that will make something seemingly look like truth, and you can also find facts that will make something not look like truth. But what is truth ?? So if we feel like we are free, and act like we are free, are we not free ?? if nothing is stopping me from writing this comment and I see it as freedom, am I allowed to call that freedom ? Or is freedom just a word and a product of our mind ? But than we can say every word, every deffinition, everything is just a product of our mind. And does that mean nothing is real and it's all made up ??
One is not free to do what they want to, because they're determined to want what they want. When does one choose their sexuality? When did they choose to like their favorite color, or song? When did they choose to forget an important piece of information only to be recalled later? How could intrusive thoughts exist as a concept if we choose our own thoughts? And if we choose what we want to think, when do we choose to choose to think? Or to choose to choose to choose to think? This recursion ends in a paradox of infinitely choosing to choose. It is incoherent and post hoc rationalization.
There is no way to know whether or not the entire universe (including your memories) suddenly came into existence a moment ago, but it doesn't really matter. 🙄 These things are super fun to think about, though! 😁
I am so thankful for you Alex I am older than you but your list of topics and characters that you discuss and interview could all be of my wishlist. Best wishes on your consistently increasing success. I look forward to your future.
A good metaphor on the same level is we know scientifically, that love is just a series of hormonal reactions in the brain that we've evolved to have, but at the same time, even knowing that, we can still be in love and enjoy love.
I assume you are talking about romantic love here but the realization that there is no free will opens up the doors for unconditional love toward all beings.
About punishment/praise in the case of the absence of free will. I am wondering, wouldn't the knowledge of the existence of a punishment/reward system count among all the factors that would determine the actions of an individual? And in that case wouldn't it be completely logical to maintain such a system? Not seeing it from the perspective of "this individual had no control over what he/she did, so he/she doesn't deserve such a treatment." (which I would agree with). But rather as a sort of preventive or incentive factor/input that could nudge people's actions, without there being a need for free will.
Like Sam Harris says, we can still isolate dangerous people and reward good actions, but seeing through the illusion of free will is the gateway to compassion. I can avoid someone who seems like a threat, without fabricating moral judgements about them, since I know that we are both products of our environment. I also agree with him that it's not like there's no possible use for the term "free will", but that it isn't what it we think it is.
Yes of course it does. Fear of punishment and rewards for doing good things are amongst the most powerful motivating forces for humans. I found all of that to a silly argument. Also, does he really think that praise/pride vs scolding/shame can just be removed from the human psyche? If so why? Has he never owned a dog or raised a child? Does he have kids and not allow them to feel pride in their hard work or achievements? He seems to understand nothing of human psychology.
@RaveyDavey the problem is when we get hung up on morality and start demonizing people over personal preferences, or treating a person as "all good" or "all bad". Righteous indignation can cause a lot of problems
Always a joy to listen to Sapolsky! I'll bite on the question "What is free will". Free will is the ability to consciously consider and decide an option among several avenues of action. Phineas Gage could be used as an example of someone who lost free will, as a result of damaging his prefrontal cortex. The fact that someone changes as a result of brain damage is not an argument against free will itself. 5:25 I don't think we are nearly good enough at predicting human behaviour to preclude the existence of free will crack;)
Yeah i hate when academics who think they are so smart make definitive conclusions about such important complex stuff that we know so little about. All you have to do is look back 100 years, or even 50, to see how incredibly dumb academics were about the big things. Just always wrong.
Century before last doctors still practiced the 4 humors…. You know, you have too much sputum in your body and that’s why the ghosts can so easily swim in your brain…. The issues with academic research, particularly in psychology around repeatability should give people pause with any of this… psychology is a very new field with an immense amount of BS polluting it’s history and after the last decade it’s clear the issues continue on under new guises into the present.
"Free will is the ability to consciously consider and decide an option among several avenues of action." What does that actually entail, though? What do you mean by consciously decide? I realise I sound like Jordan Peterson but these are actually questions I have. Phineas Gage was surely able to consciously decide things even after his brain damage, but the fact that he was a completely different person still remains. I think the point Sapolsky is trying to make is that there are so many circumstances, macroscopic and microscopic, that we cannot control and that are directly or indirectly influencing what we consciously decide. I think you know this, however, and that you simply have a different definition of free will than I or he does. I actually don't know what's different about it, because I would frame my definition almost the same, so hence my questions.
@@Jacob-sl6ur "Phineas Gage was surely able to consciously decide things even after his brain damage..." I would argue he probably wasn't able to do that, or to a lesser extent. "I think the point Sapolsky is trying to make is that there are so many circumstances, macroscopic and microscopic, that we cannot control and that are directly or indirectly influencing what we consciously decide" That's absolutely true, I indeed don't disagree. Sapolsky's way more extreme, and I would say unscientific claim, is that all these circumstances is all there is. So Sapolsky says that that conscious decision is an illusion, there is no agency involved. In other words, the world today is the only possible world there could have been. It's tempting to think that because all of history always converges into one single reality (as far as we know), so looking back you're always perfectly able to predict past events. That's not nearly good enough of an argument to preclude free will. I'll be more impressed if we were indeed perfectly able to predict someone's life path or choices. Ultimately my point is that I don't think that the feeling most of us are so familiar with, of weighing various factors and making a decision for one thing or another, is an illusion. I think that's real and not perfectly predictable.
Also hearing him here practically making the old argument "the murderer had a bad childhood therefore we can't judge" argument is just more than disappointing. It might have been the dumbest thing I have heard him say ever. How did Alex not immediately confront him about that???
Well, as always, this was excellent. PS: I was diagnosed with dyslexia when I was 6. But that abnormality has given me a tremendous gift- the ability to paint and do art.
That is so cool! Robert Sapolsky answered the question I would have asked him: Does he ever catch himself in the believing free will? What a satisfying and revealing answer.
45:39 Everything Everywhere All at Once is basically a two-hour thesis on this. It runs through existential crises and different ways people handle nihilism and absurdism. Apparently it was originally intended to be an exploration of a metaphor for ADHD, so there's also a focus on how your biology and environment influence everything.
Get early access to episodes, and get them ad-free, by supporting the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC
pseudo intellectualism run amok.
Someone gave a thought experiment and a bunch of twats created a field of study around it and are now acting as if its settled science. It isnt. Having a limited number of choices because of lifes or the minds limits does not equal no free will.
My choice to eat fish tonight was made even though my only other choice was chicken, it WAS a choice and my FREE WILL made the decision...not having an infinite selection to choose from has nothing to do with free will or not. Because I had no beef at the time, does not remove free will. Not having the time or money to go out has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
There was a choice. I made that choice.
Here's an argument that freewill is unique to humans and only humanity has free will. Theologically understood. What that means is that you have to have what is truly unique to only humanity to see apparent submergence of freewill. The ability to learn, but the ability to learn wasn't what gives us freewill either because our level of learning is hypothetically an adaptation. though the ability to learn is what is unique in an un- unique sense to humanity it can appear as free will, but our communicative properties are unique; and that are brought about by those adaptive capabilities is unique about us humanity. The things we study is purely environmentally decided but the way we communicate, write, and talk has to become freewill against the odds of all science because law.
Consistently covering vital topics with more reliability than the overwhelming vast majority. Including subjects that most matter, e.g., non-woo ethical veganism (multiple notable), secular, sentio-centric AN (David Benatar), causal determinism (Robert Sapolsky) and so on...This is among the better channels on YT. Please keep up such good work, CS ✅️
A more sane, ethical, intelligent map of the territory.
@drumstruck751 "because law" was that the punchline/logical 'basis'? Or did I miss it? What is the evidential and logical basis (or bases) for "free will" (whatever you mean by that antiquated notion lol, folks' defintitions vary)
If we decide to not complete an action that will benefit out evolution and survival would that demonstrate Free will?
how does he explain this stuff with such enthusiasm over and over a million times
it's almost like he has no choice...
It’s his life’s work and passion.
Beginner's mindset.
This is what it looks like to actually love your work. I'm deeply envious 😅
I've listened to so many of Sapolsky's interviews regarding 'Determined' and find most of the interviewers lacking in imagination. They always talk about intending to move their hand or pick up a pencil. The topic is so much richer than such simplistic examples! I really liked the H.G. Moeller interview of Sapolsky. Moeller tried to understand and imagine the complexity of the situation. So far it's the best one I've heard.
His Stanford lectures were the first I was ever obsessed with learning about Humanity and human psychology in the 2000s as a kid. Glad he’s still around to discuss topics ❤
His Stanford lecture on depression was a classic! 👍
@@IdeologieUK My favourite is his lecture on Schizophrenia.
Life long learner here.
I’m so glad some of his lectures are on youtube. He’s so interesting.
We would be friends lol
@@IdeologieUK I thought I'd seen him before, I loved that lecture, allowed me to understand depression so well, to the point where most therapists I've seen sadly seem to know less about the science of depression than me.
Robert Sapolsky is the antidote to Jordan Peterson.
What do you mean by this?
@@davidmatthewkellyThat Robert Sapolsky has no idea what he's talking about.
Jordan Peterson is what dumb people think intelligence looks like. He is the king of the word salad. If you actually listen to what that in cell says, you quickly realize how stupid he really is.
@@bobhill4364quite the contrary, actually...
@@thane732you say this out of ignorance
Alex is sooo good as an interviewer, especially on these complex topics.
You shouldn't praise him too much, he is just the product of the Big Bang like you. He did absolutely nothing to become a great interviewer.
Kid is going places
Not really. The guy should have his opinions challenged, which did not happen in this interview. Everyone knows what Sapolsky's views are, there is no benefit from watching one more video of the same opinion being expressed - unless he is actually being challenged.
@@trdiYou cannot build a challenge for a well defined subject. It is like making problems to disprove that 1+1=2. Sapolsky expressed it pretty logically.
@@trdiI would highly disagree with you. I noticed Alex asking actual good questions throughout the interview, questions that I didn’t think of myself and made me think of the subject deeper.
Sapolsky is EVERYWHERE at the moment and this is one of the best places to be. Can't wait to have my existential crisis again.
Why would you have an existential crisis about something that can’t be proven?
@@WhatDoesEvilMean Huh?
I wouldn't have an existential crisis over determinism because it doesn't really change things. We still experience things the way we do. Though personally it helps me accept things in my life that have already happened, because it couldn't be different.
@@WhatDoesEvilMean I think that’s the real issue. It’s all theory. Interesting nevertheless.
@@Kimbie I think thats wrong, because it could have been different since there is an element of randomness even if full determinism is true. Also you are supposed to learn from your past so that you can face the future better equipped so that you can make better choices and that at least temporarily involves being unsettled about potential bad choices of the past.
I don’t find it nihilistic. There’s a beauty and freedom to stepping back and observing the machine. Becoming the observer. The machine doesn’t stop working when you become aware of it. We don’t have that kind of power.
Buts it’s not true..
Do you think that when we do attain awareness of the machine itself, that that awareness in and of itself is a way out of the chain of events that may give us the choice to have "Free Will" ?
I’m fascinated that you call it a machine. Who then designed that machine? who then made that machine, who then maintains that machine. The regulation of the machine cannot be by humans if we have no free will. Sapolsky offers you a potential surface level solution but inevitably this will lead to a multitude of vastly more complex questions.
The amazing part is the machine is able to modify itself, simply by thought. He's right in that we can't exceed our hardware limitations, for instance we can't think faster than our neural pathways allow. But we do imagine things that don't exist and then make them real or come up with approaches that don't exist. The weirdest part is that consciousness feels separate from our bodies... like it's outside the brain, but we now for a fact that it's all biological processes in our skull because we can alter and effect it.
I don't know... maybe he's right, but then how could that affect us if we have no free will? We would just carry on as usual as we have choice.
Clearly (and correctly) you are speaking of two distinct entities here (a subject and an object) or the observer and the observed. If the observed is our neurobiological machine, then what exactly is the observer? I'll give you a hint. The observer is the one in whom the "seat of free will" resides. The observer CHOOSES if, how, when or why he/she would want to observe the machine.
What the hell, I've been listening to both Alex and Sapolsky nonstop for the past month, this is literally so perfect !!
It's not like you had a choice in the matter
@@OkRake Whatever the algorithm decides
@@OkRake - »Of course we have free will. We have no choice but to have it.«
(obligatory Christopher Hitchens quote, borrowed from a Buddhist discussion thread of all things).
That post goes on:
»Free will has to be assumed.
In other words, it’s conventionally real.
Try to find it ultimately though and you can’t.
The same with anything else.«
@@TheMuserguy algorithms do not have the free will to decide alone. Mecha Jesus affords them this with its singularity of blessings. (1 of 3, trademark Nvidia)
Not anything really. I've just found an apple I want to eat.@@dipi71
I F*cking love honest and humble scientists! The Darwin of our times- Robert Sapolsky
Humble schmumble. He's an arrogant con man trotting out trite pseudo-science.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY.
I wasn’t aware that Sapolsky had a new book out; now that I am, I’m determined to get it.
You just cant control yourself can you?
@@kernalfleak You just couldn't control yourself could you?
@@bingbong2179
You just couldn't control yourself could you?
@@calebr7199You jus... UGh! I can't not! You just couldn't control yourself could you?
@@ryanthomas7119 Heh. You just couldn't control yourself, could you? 😏
What a reassuring voice and a comforting beard.
oh yeaaaaah it's comforting alright
@@Saritabanana coming in terms with things you don't want to be true can be comforting sometimes
@@godassasin8097 oh I meant comforting in a sexual way but yes all his words are comforting too
So if he shaves his beard off, is that free will?😂
You can't be comforted - you don't have free will.
I think his point about hating someone’s guts for a few moments and then moving on is a great explanation of why social media just seems to provoke outrage:
On X, when you see something you disagree with, in that moment when you hate their guts, you can tell them and send a message directly to them. Something you would normally have just forgotten about and moved on from.
Most importantly there is no true social interaction. Society isn't instances of interaction. It's continued interaction with the same people over time. That does not happen on social media, so individuals don't understand other individuals
And there's less risk associated with holding a grudge. If you're angry with someone at work, or a family member, you can have a civil discussion to settle your issues. When it gets heated, that can end badly and lead to an incident that changes your respective lives, so it's in both parties best interest to sort it out gracefully. Online, there's no penalty to overreacting, holding a grudge, and letting that hatred grow inside you, since you can choose when to observe and interact with that person anonymously. And people get addicted to that hatred and sense of superiority. The impersonal aspect of social media also makes it a lot easier to ignore the good things about a person, and project only negative traits onto them.
@adamcummings20 i think the problem with modern social media is that its too manufactured and cross culturally big now. Compared to back then, when it was easier to get a better sense of community
If you "hate someone's gut for a few moments" you are a very emotionally unstable person to begin with.
@@felixmidas2020 When I'm exhausted towards the end of a long shift at work, and my boss keeps making the same irritating joke about me, which normally I'd brush off, but because of the fatigue I genuinely despise him. Until I have a break, a smoke and some water, then it's chill.
It's normal to have these feelings. Why would it make someone unstable?
I disagree with Sapolsky when he says that praise does not make sense. Why? Because as he says, our genes and our experiences make us who we are. By extension our behaviour towards others helps make them who they are. Therefore it makes sense to praise goodness in others, not because they deserve it (they had no free will in deciding to be good) but because their experience with us will make an imprint on them and influence the choices they will make (without free will) in the future.
I see your point, perhaps it wouldn't be to be too different in principle to the utilitarian measures taken to prevent certain individuals from negatively affecting others, however one could take your line of reasoning even further to conclude it'd be beneficial to treat others well at all times. If so, could there be any further advantage from a strategic / utilitarian standpoint in still treating some "more well" than others? It could perhaps remain nonetheless useful to enforce an incentive/reward system like the one you mentioned to more efficiently bring about change. Or maybe treating better those "trailing behind" in thoughtfulness would better serve this purpose instead.
@shanehoustein: I had precisely the same reaction to Sapolsky’s comments about praise, since praise becomes a part of the recipients’ experience and can influence their future behavior for the better. But I believe his point was that praise is not *earned* - which is an important distinction.
These are great comments. I think we can think about, as a culture, how we believe some of us deserve better treatment than others--punishment and reward. Praise is reward. If we extend that idea to "pride" or to "I deserve, therefore someone else does not deserve" we can better understand how he is using the example of praise. The idea is to have gratitude and hopefully create empathy for those who cannot complete tasks that are deemed praise-worthy. Of course praise feels good and can evoke a desire to repeat a task, etc. I think this is great for understanding privilege and creating space for empathy for those who do not have the abilities or opportunities that we do. We praise what we admire, and praise is a kind of nurturing kindness, but it doesn't mean we are "better than" or that we "work harder" than another or that we "deserve more". Isn't this sort of the point he is making?
Thats nice, but probably doesnt have sense as an argument for free will. We will do whats in apparent interest of our genes anyway. Sometimes that means that we will be able to convince people to praise children for their acconplishmnets. But in practice, people would only(or more) praise only children they like(for any or myriad reasons mentioned). Or just their own children,cousins, grandchildren and so on.
I don't think he is saying praise doesn't work or help create emotions. In fact, praise probably functions as one of those things that later becomes ways in which we make decisions that limit (or he would say negate) free will. Praise absolutely has a function. What he is saying is that it makes no sense. Think of Einstein's quote, "If you grade a fish on how well it climbs a tree, it will fail." To praise someone because they have ability feels good, yes, is a form of nurturing, but does it really "make sense"? If someone praises your appearance, are you responsible for the genetics and the ways in which our culture defines beauty?
I studied discovered Sapolsky's Stanford lectures during the pandemic. I recommend his book 'Behave'. The most fascinating read ever!
try biological underpinnings of religiosity and think again about 'pandemic'. He is sometimes deluded esp in his press comments .
@@godislove8740your username tells us everything we need to know about you! Keep at it go on hating reason and logic.
@@knight794 I didn't know twas a club. Sorry.
@@knight794 its just a bad argument, thats all.
His Stanford lectures are a gold mine. I love them
Because you love them or because they are right?
his beard alone proves there is no free will.
@@timgreenglassLol
@@demonicakane2083 God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Hell YES I've been listening to this guy's Stanford lectures on Behavioral Biology. So glad you're interviewing him!
Same. My favourite background lectures while doing the dishes :)
me too!
When I get really high, those lectures are one of my go-tos.
They are exceptional aren't they. I really can't recommend them highly enough!
His lectures are awesome, they opened my mind to a lot
Accepting freewill doesn't exist won't prevent people getting out of bed. People will still get out of bed and out the front door. Ironically (because I'm an ex-Muslim) there is a hadith attributed to the Caliph Umar that comes to mind. When Umar was on his way to a town he heard news that a plague was spreading through the town so he turned back. Those with him asked:
"Are we running away from Allah’s destiny? Umar replied: We run away from Allah’s destiny to Allah’s destiny."
Obviously it's not the religious connotation that I think is pertinent, but that despite the acceptance of determinism, humans will still always act as *if* they have free will, even when they know they haven't.
If your god knows when ,where, and how you are going to die then you have no free will, your life is determined. This is the problem with believing in an omnipotent/omniscient god
@@drmontague6475 knowing doesnt mean controlling, makes no sense thats youre conclusion
Duuuuude!!!…..Sapolsky and O’Connor this is going to be LIT! Two of my favorite minds coming together.
Is it fair to say this is a miracle in deterministic randomness? 😁
If that happened the video would've been censored
@@AudunWangendeterministic randomness?
@@bobsdaman1632 I know it sounds like a contradiction, but that is sort of what I believe.
I think Sapolsky and O'Connor are right in that we have no free will, which would suggest determinism.
But quantum mechanics suggest that some things happen randomly and are not pre-determined. I'm not sure what else to call it 🤷♂️
@@stevem7945 No one else appreciated your humour but I want you to know that one person did :)
I'm relatively new to Sapolsky - but I've noticed he's seemingly buzzing around everywhere at the moment. Good on Alex to snag him for a discussion. Great stuff!
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY
It's good to see two of my favorite people having a conversation.
It was good to read your comment, and I wonder why. Probably because I could have written it myself.
Thank you for holding ontellectual conversations without having the whole "gotta be the winner" pompousness most youtubers have. Really fills in the gap ive been looking for.
In heaven no unclean person is allowed in, you are unclean if you have sinned just once like lying, stealing, sexual immorality, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, evil thoughts etc Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) can put his sinless righteousness on you since He died on the cross, rose from the dead so REPENT AND BELIEVE IN HIM TODAY
I am beyond excited for this conversation. Two of my favorites talking about a top tier subject! P.S. Robert, in case you happen to see this, I contacted your people to try and get you on my show as well, but it didn't work out. If there is anything I can do to make that more possible, I hope you'll let me know. Thank you both for all your great work!
Yes please try to see if you can make that happen! Love your channel🎉!
I really hope it can be lined up!
Chiming in just in case it helps this come to fruition!
Would love to see this happen. And hi, Brandon!
You are excited because your brain cells and genetics predetermined this response. Your excitement is nothing to be excited about if you believe what these two are selling.
I've found out about prof. Sapolsky a few months ago while I was studying abroad. With nothing to do, I decided to give his lectures a go even though I am much more mathematically inclined and subjects like biology were always my weakside. Needless to say, I found them astoundingly interesting. I've been following your channel since the "wavy chest of drawers" days and I've gotta say, this is probably the most excited I've been in regards to one of your videos. You're very well informed when it comes to picking the right people to interview. Good job!
You should check out some of the work Kahneman and Tversky did together. I think you’d appreciate the mathematic and economic aspects of their work.
Wow, your interest is my polar opposite. I found biology pretty "easy" to understand and pleasant whilst I struggled with math-heavy sciences.
I always thought about if the opposite can happen or maybe I was just "mentally limited", but I am glad it is just a difference of perspective. Many kudos to you and your interest, which is very precious to this world.
@@SannaJankarin
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
I discovered him a few years ago and not a day too soon, because he's the popular version of that one professor who changes the course of your life.
He made me realize I only cared about abstract concepts in terms of their practical applicability. Mathematics for example only insofar as it's relevant to physics, or philosophy only insofar as it's relevant to ethics.
Actually made me switch majors and thus determined the rest of my life. :)
Sapolsky!!! What an absolute legend. Got to meet him briefly after a talk he gave at my university. Such an amazing educator
>> What an absolute legend
Agreed! I was introduced to him through his 29 video series on the biological underpinnings of human behavior. This was a video series on his Stanford course. And I highly recommend it.
@@Rick_Cavallaro
I’d second that playlist; iirc it’s called “Human Behavioral Biology”. If I went to Stanford, I’d have taken that class as an elective just for the hell of it…couldn’t care less if it counts for anything, just to be there and learn would’ve been a joy.
Again -you use words like legend and amazing to describe a man who has only acted out what his genetics and environment allowed him to do. Why is this praiseworthy?
Praise can only be given when a person had a choice in what they did. We can no longer call someone courageous or cowardly because that implies choice. If no other outcome is possible due to the biological affects directing our choices, then why is this praiseworthy?
We praise the young boy for not stealing biscuits from the jar while our back was turned.
We praise the girl for handing in the bag of cash she found in the street.
Why? Because they could have kept the money or eaten the biscuits but chose not to do those things.
If you discovered the girl was in fact a robot with a setting which ensured she handed in lost property, would you praise her?
@@markmooroolbark252 if my car breaks down every day on the way to the office, it's a P.O.S. - and I hate it. I don't *blame* it because it's not sentient, and clearly doesn't have free will. But I still hate the P.O.S.
There are great actors and there are bad actors. I enjoy the great ones. I don't care how they got that way.
>> Praise can only be given when a person had a choice in what they did.
Praise can be given whenever I like. Praise reinforces desired behavior. That's part of what goes into making the person who they are, and ultimately factors into the decisions they make. Besides, you pretend as if we have some choice in whether to praise him.
@@markmooroolbark252
If someone gives a lecture you like, you can call the lecture good or amazing. Same wit if they are a good educator, not all educators are very good at their job so it makes sense to call some of them amazing. This has nothing to do with free will.
No, praise can be given to further encourage someone to behave a certain way.
If a child does something you want them to do, then praise, especially from a parent or authoritative figure, can go a long way in causing that child to act that way in the future.
I've done some very subjective experiments on this subject.
1. I've noticed that every action is preceded by intention. But if you observe clearly you can see that intention arises all on its own without you making the choice for its arising.
2. The choice of what we're conscious about is also not in our control. I've set up an experiment where I observe a single phenomenon like the rising and falling of my stomach and make the commitment to not look away from it whatsoever. Eventually, my mind (consciousness) moves on its own to another object like a sound or a feeling somewhere in the body.
This has led me to conclude that neither intentions nor consciousness are under my control. They're completely impersonal.
This is essentially what the Buddha did when he realized his desire to breathe was not his own. So instead of trying to control it, he went with the flow.
How are you setting up experiments if your not in control? You were controlled to set up those experiments so why do you keep acting like that was a choice, because you were controlled to think it was a choice but decided to tell yourself it wasn't a choice because you were induced to do that. Go down that chain ad infinitum
@@cabellocorto5586I’m always impressed when I see other people make these kinds of connections. You’re spot on. I teach the “path to enlightenment” and this kind of understanding is so incredibly rare out in the wild and I get very excited when I see it. The guy you responded to is also right on the money.
@@stevepenn2582 Through no free will of your own, you made the mistake of drawing the conclusion that making a choice implies free will when it doesn't. You can make choices, they're just not freely made.
@@DiNozzo431 Look up compatiblism, anyways the implication of saying "what do we do about it" means that there is some level of free will being enacted. Even if you could perfectly predict someones action every time doesnt mean their will isn't free
We are free to do as we will, but we are not free to will what we will.
Exactly
Like addiction?
@@dustinkfc6633 That's a good example, but also just any of our desires aren't chosen. They are the result of genetic and environmental influences. Much like how our thoughts arise spontaneously. Christianity attaches guilt and shame to our thoughts and desires, sometimes even claiming they occur from demon possession.
I don't understand what you're saying. It's like saying you aren't free to do what you do. But you do what you do. Like you do will what you will
@@nx2120 It's not quite the same as saying "you aren’t free to do what you do," but rather emphasizes the distinction between action and the origin of desire.
The original phrase "we are free to do as we will but we are not free to will what we will" means:
1. **We are free to do what we desire**: We can act according to our wishes and choices.
2. **We are not free to choose our desires**: Our underlying desires, motivations, and inclinations are not something we have control over-they arise from factors beyond our conscious decision.
Your reformulation "you aren’t free to do what you do" implies a lack of freedom in action, which is not what the original phrase suggests. The key point is that while our actions are free (we do what we do), the formation of our will or desires is not under our control (we don't choose what we want to want).
So, it's more accurate to say: "We do what we desire, but we don't choose our desires."
Consider Sam, who is addicted to smoking. Sam has the freedom to smoke a cigarette whenever the craving strikes, illustrating the idea that we are free to act according to our desires. However, Sam did not choose to develop the addiction or the cravings for nicotine; these emerged from a mix of genetic, psychological, and environmental influences beyond Sam's control. This highlights the concept that while we can act on our desires, we do not have control over the formation of those desires, thus exemplifying the idea that we are free to do as we will but not free to will what we will.
What a delight having Robert Sapolsky on my screen again, years after watching his Stanford Course on Behavioural Biology.
And with Alex. Lovely!
WHAT A DELIGHT! INDEED! RATHER INDUBLIOUSLY!
This is basically my Superbowl, thanks so much for doing this interview! Reading Sapolsky helped me make concrete my kind of loosey goosey, half informed stance on (the absence of) free will.
It's still loosey goosey and so are his arguments.
Your arguments are non existent@@ichtozavuzovsky8370
Very nerdy! Hopefully you just don't like nfl but prefer other sports.
@@JasonX2 Why "hopefully?" What does it matter if one cares about sports?
😅@@ichtozavuzovsky8370
For me, bigger than the problem of motivation is the problem of abuse and making sense of it..
I can't imagine how an abuse victim could be told that the perpetrator is acting of no volition of his own, and that he is not to blame for anything. What can one do with one's sense of being wronged or grief and injustice when there's no free will whatsoever? That idea is almost more tormenting than the abuse itself.
If you were swimming in the ocean and were bit by a shark you wouldn’t blame the shark for being a shark or seek retribution. It’s the same thing. You were simply unlucky.
@@newearthlivingithaca Thank you for your perspective.
What exactly is luck? Perchance, coincidence?
I can't help but feel dreadful if this is the true nature of our existence
@@Muniza-bh9zxNo free will doesn't imply no hope.
People can still heal from abuse through therapy and other means.
This is one of the best podcasts I have ever listened to. Thank you Alex and Robert!
Sapolsky seems to be the most honest materialist. He comes to the obvious conclusions that others avoid when you presume that consciousness comes from the brain and there is no mind / soul. No free will.
Personally the way I see it is even if there is a "soul", there's still no free will. Nothing in the equation changes. Free will is just an incoherent concept no matter what
It’s crazy how he is so honest and makes the obvious conclusions like “you being rich had nothing to do with you, your efforts aren’t actually your efforts, therefore we must all be egalitarian” lol. Yall just love to pick and choose the “facts of the facts cooming science yum 🎉🎉🎉”.
To deny free will in the circumstance that you point to will be to deny human rationality. I think this is the craziest idea to even entertain. Here's an example that illustrates this point. My education has taught me that wicked, cruel, evil, monstrous, fiendish, devilish, heinous, odious, satanic, barbarous, and brutal are different ways of saying the same thing. How can it be that the decision to use one of these words rather than the other isn't mine, and yet I don't keep using any of them all of the time?
@@mathewsamuel1386 I will do you one better, how’s it possible to be moral without free will? It seems like our most basic foundations relies on not just the sense of agency, but true culpability of not only our actions, but our overall character. Not denying we aren’t influenced by several factors however to take this extreme position such as Robert’s is just cultural suicide.
@@mathewsamuel1386there is a difference between will and free will.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that, because some words can be used as synonyms for other words, they cannot have different definitions.
This is wrong.
Monstrous- like an animalistic monster
Barbarous- like an uncivilised human
Satanic- like an imaginary demon creature
These words are not the same. You should get a refund on that education.
Perfect gift for my birthday today! Absolutely love Sapolsky's works.
Happy birthday!🥳🎁🎂🎈
Happy Birthday. Well, try to be happy anyway? free will aslifjbasg
Thank you! And @guest9836 I will try to be happy ;)
Happy birthday.
Happy birthday! 🎊
Sapolsky isn't God, but he's right
He has no choice but to be right
NO WAYYY, WHAT AN ICONIC PAIRING
okay calm down.
@@Danuxsy I WILL NOT
No need to remain calm! This is going to be a hit!👌🏼
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@gailism But you CAN'T WILL it!
I hunger for what it means to live without free will. This could have been a 6 hours discussion, I would have listened to it all.
Go to prison. You'll love it.
I think if we know what will make our life the most fulfilling to live and makes others lives fulfilling to live regardless of sort term sacrifice we should act on that, I don’t think these spiritual ideas contradict living with an understanding of no free will, we have emotions and that means something to us, we feel get others to feel and so on, it’s our subjective opinion that life is worth preserving therefore it’s worth it, I don’t think we have to be an nihilistic at all, I mean I think it’s beautiful that we’ve left our mark on this universe and that’s good enough for now, I’m not saying I’m not a person who’s not prone to depression, etc. but hope and all these things exist for a reason I think they’re biological functions such as society to keep us self-actualizing to keep us feeling meaning so that we survive and we have no reason to not follow that, I think we can find our own personal reasons that may conflict with truth and that’s ok, I also do believe discouragement, through the form of holding people accountable for those they influence, and encouragement to do things that will benefit you and others is also a great societal mechanism, I don’t see why these can’t exist together, I don’t think of responsibility as relying on Will, but rather relying on choice, I think we can make any choice and that doesn’t mean we have free will and making a choice but we made the choice and it’s ours and we should be reasonable as to determine what lines should generally be drawn where based on the humanitarian approach above life is complicated. Life is not simple. There’s beauty in that there is beauty in us and I love you all 💕💕💕
It’s all arbitrary but that’s part of the fun ay, my existence breaks so many societal norms but I got through it and I don’t see a reason why we can’t be proud of facing diversity head on, since around 15 or so I’ve always thought of my personality as a gift. I’m happy I’m open I’m happy I’m agreeable. I’m happy I’m conscientious. I am a little neurotic which is so so it’s given me a challenge to navigate and im a bit introverted which allows me to be in my inner world which I obviously subjectively enjoy, to be fair. I do feel a false sensitive proudness, because these are traits that I think are inter subjectively considered good overall, even though they have been bad towards me before they’ve caused very bad outcomes, especially as someone with a history that can take advantage of these traits and lead to development that isn’t so productive towards myself, but we ball we try, hopefully this helps, and even if I don’t agree with how someone behaves or don’t enjoy their traits, I don’t necessarily fault them but I don’t see how that excludes me from pointing the finger at them as responsible but maybe that’s because my definition of responsible is not like everyone else’s or something idk
💕💕💕
Humans love stories let’s enjoy our own and this is coming from a person who is not in fact optimistic, but I’m still young at at least can see where I go ig, my advice is find your reasons and hold them dear 💕💕
Edit: I didn’t see the last 10min of the vid before commenting here but that’s exactly how I view it i’m grateful for the luck bestowed upon me, the luck to be able to have a humanitarian view, I like being agreeable and open etc… because even if I didn’t have these traits there is a fair chance I might view them as positive, but I don’t think this excludes us from being human in the sense that we will still play blame. We will still feel proud etc… and I don’t think that’s terrible human nature is feelings and drives, I also didn’t realize he was gonna touch on we still have basic needs and it feels good to fulfill them even without a spiritual reason xd, but I do like spirituality and wish I could be more spiritual by spirituality I’m referring to it loosely to describe supernatural ideas, beliefs, or ideals mainly, that’s said the idea of no free will is sad because we have an expectation for something better and essential and it puts into question our identity and what makes us us something we want to be stable in is shattered, but I try not to dwell on it
Ignorance really is bliss sometimes when we accept that we are “machines” and we think of machines as furthest from human it really can make us feel alien in our own skin
These folks are all making it out to be something more than it is. Just the way brains work. So what? Your experience is the same regardless. Very interesting topic though. Have fun.
I guess I would ask why? So you can be "released" from taking responsibilty? So that you can do whayever ypu want and dissolve consequence in your own mind? It's an honest question.
What makes our life the most fulfilling might be "to make other's lives fulfilling" or, of course, pontificate about it. You can actually make a lot of money that way.@@LaFemmFatal
As a depressed person I disagree with Alex's argument that being able to see getting up from bed as my accomplishment and I feeling like I deserve some kind of praise for that is motivating. For me it's quite the opposite: letting myself understand that me being powerless and laying in bed is not due to me being not motivated enough but simply having a shit luck with the circumstances that shaped my brain is way more helpful. It's like Dr Sapolsky says: it brings me up by not blaming me for my situation. Knowing that it's much easier for me to get up from the bed and get some fresh air. But that's just me.
👍🏻
All the best to you, with your depression. It's horrible. I hope you get some respite from it soon. I've been depressed for years, on and off. A simple, laughable-at-the-time, tip helped me get up in the mornings. Someone suggested setting an alarm on my phone for, in my case, 9am, and putting the phone in the kitchen, where I would have to either get up to, at least turn it off, and go back to bed; or to lie there suffering (further) with the annoying alarm ringing away in the kitchen. I opted, from the off, to get up to turn the thing off, and go back to bed. But before long I was just staying up once I'd get up to turn it off.
I've managed, somehow, to stick to this 9am rise. When I am tempted (often sorely) to go back to bed once I've got up and turned the alarm off, I tell myself to do three small tasks, and then, if I still feel the need to go and crawl back under the covers I will at least be three tasks ahead. The tasks could be as simple as; opening the bill I've been putting off opening, even if I don't actually deal with it fully; or putting the dirty dishes in an orderly pile by the sink (actually washing them might be too tall an order); going to the bathroom (this might sound crazy to some people but when depressed a person can lie there desperate for the bathroom but feeling so paralysed, so rooted to the spot, that they just don't go, sometimes for hours. I've heard of some poor souls who even end up soiling themselves.
That effect is so awesome, congrats! This is an example exactly in line with the witchcraft, epilepsy etc. examples from the video.
Atleast you are super intelligent. This is some good news for you beside your depression…
Alex is the best interviewer. He just needs to make sure he keeps getting these interesting and engaging guests.
What a great interview. I wish I could have a talk with Sapolsky, too. He's amazing and a great speaker.
I missed the "where do you go for wisdom" question. I think the answer could potentially be really interesting. But despite that, this was excellent. I really appreciate Sapolsky's work and you made very interesting questions and remarks, as always. Good stuff. Thank you both!
I've sat on this question for some time to the point where it's become clear and relevant in my search for meaning and knowledge. There comes a point where you begin to appreciate being aware of certain patterns of behaviour. We can draw wisdom from understanding ourselves and how we've come to be, this coincidentally results in the removal of oneself from the center of everything, which gives me hope.
“Behave” and “Determined” are two great reads.
When I first heard from Mr Sapolsky I rejected his thesis. Yet I was intrigued enough to keep listening. One thing I thought was missing from the subsequent interviews was putting it in a real world personal context. This interview has gone a long way towards filling in that missing piece. Kudos to Alex for an excellent interview. 👍
I think his theory is like how people felt about genetics a decade or two ago when scientists talked about finding "the gay gene", or "the fat gene", etc. Now we know things are way more complicated than that and while genetics explains a lot of things, there are environmental and random effects that matter just as much.
Hearing him here practically making the old argument "the murderer had a bad childhood therefore we can't judge" argument is just more than disappointing. It might have been the dumbest thing I have heard him say ever.
@@EbonyPope He's right though. We can't judge the person, as practically nothing can be their fault, but we should protect society from murderers. Prison is currrently a terrible system for that
@@EbonyPope& he would probably ask you "What made you the type of person to think that?" 🤔
@@namenloserflo And yet if someone caused you a tragedy, or him for that matter, you'd completely flip the script. There is no reality where the human element is removed from humanity. So no, he's not right and never will be. As that would require an authoritarian system of strict control under an assumed benevolent dictator. You have to live in reality and while our justice system could definitely use some work, we're not about to remove agency from people just because you don't feel as if free will exists.
I understand that there are an innumerable amount of factors that determine our actions. Our brains and bodies are wired to react in specific ways, tailored over centuries of human evolution. Yet, I am not a hard determinist. I am my brain, my body. A part of me is what has come before me. And this guides the way that I (my brain and body) feel and react. I can deliberate over the most trivial things. I can push myself to accomplish something for mostly selfless reasons. My body and brain has the ability to impact society in a plethora of ways. Choice exists regardless of whether it is determined or not. Hard work exists or motivating one's self to get out of bed exists, regardless of it being a neurological response in our brains. A rod goes through my skull, and I change because I have lost a part of myself.
In which ways are you not a hard determinist? In which ways do you differ from hard determinists?
I guess I tend to be more of a compatibilist. I don't deny determinism in any means, but it is the perspective I take on determinism that differs. I'll quote Joscha Bach here in saying that "the opposite of free will is not determinism but compulsion." If we heighten our awareness, even if we do not have any option but to follow a specific path, we deliberate, we take into account our past and our psychological tendencies and base our choices from that. If we never strive to become aware of our tendencies, then we will rely on innate/unconscious decisions. That is compulsion. @@Dragumix
@@benbojammin you never had a choice to be aware of your own tendencies.
Not necessarily true. We are met with different choices each day, but what I will choose is determined. [There are 5 items on a menu. Thus, there are five choices. My choice is already determined, but this does not mean that I was not given 5 options. In fact, I might choose one menu item one day and another the next.] Regardless of whether that choice is determined does not mean choice does not exist. I observe. I contemplate. Deliberation is a taxing process-something that takes effort. It feels like a choice, so then why should it not be considered one? @@toonyandfriends1915
Evolution isn’t real
The books of Sapolsky are worth reading. "Behave", and "Determined" should've been read by everyone.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
I'm still not sure what he even means by "free will". Is he just advocating determinism...? Or just counter-arguing the concept of "soul"...? We never seem to go down to epistemology with Sapolsky, and that's the thing that annoys me most about these discussions. They seem to wander around a vague idea of free will without ever attempting to pin it down to what we actually mean by those words.
How much does one choose his own actions - in a nutshell
his arguments are the same as Bertrand Russell's view of determinism and the lack of free will, just he's used biological experiments to justify it. I think its very interesting discussion, but neither I nor it seems he knows what are the philosophical and physical lessons from this. The Nihilist question is really quite profound and disturbing
I'd argue it's a weak form of determinism.
the objective is to never drill down to the root, or else the obvious motive of this philosophy is to deny accountability. It is the ultimate victim of circumstances mentality.
"Theres no free will and what to do about that" we cant do anything about that if our will is not free. Its just such an odd thing to write
One point I haven't heard anyone make is the possibility that free will is an _emergent_ property. Let me use an analogy to explain what I mean. Music is a type of sound, and sound is a rapid fluctuation in local air pressure, so you could say that music is just a bunch of pressure waves arriving at our ears. Yet it would be absurdly difficult to have a meaningful discussion about music and music theory strictly in terms of pressure variations. Musicality _emerges_ as a property of those variations, but it exists in its own realm and has to be discussed independently from its origins in physical sound. I see the deterministic elements of consciousness and choice as being at the same level as the pressure variations. Yes, choices _emerge_ from deterministic phenomena, but they exist in their own realm just like musicality does. So it's reasonable both to acknowledge the existence of the deterministic elements and to engage with choices and free will at a higher level, independently of their deterministic basis.
Determinism and free will? How? Determinism is the opposite of free will.
@@pythondrink It is possible to define "determinism" and "free will" in a way that will make them mutually exclusive alternatives, however I'm not convinced that such definitions are correct. I believe that the actual phenomena we typically describe by such terms are in separate domains in much the same way that music theory and Boyle's Law are different domains even though both concern air pressure, as I described above. If we understand that determinism describes things as they happen at a very low/fundamental level, and free will describes emergent phenomena at a much higher level, we achieve two things: we avoid the conflict, and we gain a meaningful understanding of how both operate within their own spheres. Or at least it becomes possible to gain such an understanding.
@@TheBarelyBearableAtheist so define free will. And be aware that you're redefining it.
@@pythondrinkFree will is an emergent property of consciousness, which is an emergent property of perception, which is an emergent property of evolving organisms. Possibly a bit oversimplified, but that's the gist of it.
@@TheBarelyBearableAtheist what exactly is that property?
Just watched this video after studying for my upcoming physiological psych exam. Absolutely amazing video and it tied very well into the content I'm studying right now
That's pretty cool, what have you been able to associate from what you're studying?
This channel brought on Sapolsky say no more.
I came to this conclusion independently when I was coming of age. I myself am neurodivergent and that has caused a lot of issues in my life. For a long time I felt like something was wrong with me and that I had done something wrong to deserve all of it until I eventually realized it just was. No one was responsible, that's just how I came into this universe. It was a profound realization not only for it allowing me to forgive myself and move forward but for giving me that same compassion towards others.
But on a deeper metaphysical level it's true. From the beginning of the universe itself all things were set in motion. Stuff happened and we got quarks, gluons, electrons, photons, etc... trace the casal chain of everything that exists down to the electrons your neurons are using to communicate right now and it's not hard to see that the notion of free will is utterly ridiculous.
I'm not alone in that reasoning, in much more elegant terms than I did that's essentially the logic of Spinoza who Sapolsky himself has referenced on this topic a few times.
I think it's telling how we frame this discussion. Because as we do we are acting as if free will is the simple and obvious conclusion when it really isn't? So let's ask why do we have free will? And if you Google that you're going to get a whole lot of theological answers...
So God gave us free will and why is that? It's literally a gotcha, sorry your master and creator who is all powerful isn't responsible for your problems buddy nope that's completely on you. Um, what?
We wouldn't listen to people 2000 years ago about Healthcare or physics, so why should we not at least reflect on what answers they give us to such deep questions instead of taking their assumptions as obvious truth?
I think it's time we start openly discussing free will so God has no responsibility and also he's judging us to eternal punishment as the comical bullshit it is.
I don't care what you conclude about the unknowable, just use your fucking brain
@randomchannel-px6ho
I can't imagine how it is a to live with a dysfunction of the brain. Yes, to feel compassion is the least we can do.
it's the same as asking "why do we have consciousness?" and you get a bunch of theological answers.
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
For what it's worth, the bible doesn't teach that we have free will, it is an inference some make, I agree that the concept is used to attribute blame.
The bible teaches Grace +Love
@@iaindcosta if your actions aren't free then why are you ultimately responsible for your choices?
"Deserves" is a pretty strange thing to say about receiving love and admiration. You may not be uniquely deserving of it, but everyone is deserving of it. Similarly, people are deserving of praise because receiving praise is part of the human experience and feeling fulfilled-- it's just that we should do it to meet people where we are, not reserve it for a special few.
And regarding falling in love not being free will, I think we have always sort of known that to be the case, I mean that's why we "fall" in love, and use a metaphor for Cupid's arrows, etc.
Anyhow, Happy Valentine's Day!
No one to have ever existed, alive now or who will ever exist has ever, nor will ever deserve anything in particular. Things just happen and everything just is. There is no such thing as deserving one thing or another. Good and evil, righteous and unrighteous, justice, all delusions
@@djzip9231 To deem something undeserving is still a value judgement and not a neutral statement, as it implies a justification for deprivation.
This isn't a matter of good and evil, but a decision on how to allocate the limited time we have to exist. We can make it more or less pleasant, and limit suffering to the best of our ability, even if on a limited level. Deeming everyone deserving of love and affection and treating the people in our lives this way is one such way.
There is nothing delusional about this because there is no objective reality being claimed, just a rough consensus of people trying their best.
@@djzip9231 That is not entirely correct. Those statements are only accurate when taking an _objective_ perspective. From an inter-subjective perspective, which is arguably the only relevant perspective to humanity, both good and evil exist, rigtheousness is valued and justice is important for social cohesion. They all are important concepts - just not concepts with any meaning independent of subjective experience. But what _is_ meaning beyond the value of and in subjective experience? I'd argue 'meaning' itself is meaningless when you take away subjectivity.
"You may not be uniquely deserving of it, but everyone is deserving of it."
You are not uniquely wrong but you are utterly wrong.
I mean let's say me and a friend get together to clean up a park. And I do all the work and my friend just sits around doing nothing. And then someone says to us "hey guys thank you for cleaning the park, good job!"- I'm gonna be like "dude he didn't do any cleaning, I cleaned it by myself" because my friend will not deserve any praise because he didn't do anything.. Like maybe I didn't have free will in deciding whether I should clean or not but I cleaned the park and he didn't. Right?
I dno dude but even if we don't deserve love that doesn't really matter, we should still get it. Like a flower doesn't 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 water but if you want it to grow and be beautiful then you need to water it..
Will means desire and it's obvious that we did not choose our desires, we just found ourselves having certain desires and we act on them. Therefore, it seems impossible to have free will (or freedom to choose desires).
I was just reading 'Determined' and I thought, id love to see Alex and Robert talk hahahahaha unreal
I loved his book 'Why zebra's don't get ulcers' and I love the free will debate. Thanks for this, can't wait to listen to it!
So interesting. Can you tell me, I mean summarize why zebras don't get ulcer and how it is connected to free will? Free will is an illusions. We are monkeys..highly evolved monkeys, but monkeys nonetheless.
Noting that title down. Sounds like a book on biology.
It's mostly about stress, and why it's so detrimental to humans as opposed to other animals. It's quite interesting. I believe there are some talks about the book on UA-cam as well@@pythondrink
What all of this points out is that there is no "you" and with the cessation of self a bunch of the dilemmas also disappear, even if for a second.
The belief of self i guess is utilitarian in motivation for most instances.
But also, sometimes its not.
The opposite of the nihilistic view is not randomness, that is the nihilistic view, that is a mischaracterisation of the other side. The other side is believing that one is seperate entity that makes its decisions on the fact that it is real and seperate with innate good qualities that are identifiably them, not subject to any of the other forces of nature.
That one is a noun, not a verb.
There's a you, but you are riding a roller coaster that's not in your control.
@easymoney1464 more like a river that keeps on flowing and changing
@@interdimensionalsailboat There is no way that anyone can say that emergent intent does not exist in the universe. You know everything about infinity using your limited brain and senses? Yeah, sure... Honesty is saying that you don't actually know because you really don't know. Science proves nothing while it is merely based on our limited, subjective senses within infinity. We are not seeing the full picture of infinity. But he received a Nobel Prize! who cares, haha. Maybe the human brain doesn't have free will, but that doesn't mean that emergent intent doesn't exist in the universe.
One of my favourite scientists and a wonderful mind.
Alex well done on getting him on your channel. #Kudos.
Brilliant scientist and human being, paragon of humbleness, this is how every scientist should be
Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Do more research
Yeah right, it is indeed very humble to claim that you have a solution to a pure mystery, without providing any evidence or making a sound argument, denying your most immediate experience and acting according to it, while claiming that you deny it, in line with bothering to give reasons that have a goal to convince people, while your thesis is eliminating reasons and the possibility that anybody can be convinced. Very humble indeed😂😂
@@oioi9372 You didn’t choose to write this, it was determined by forces outside of your control :)
@@oioi9372
🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM:
Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning.
This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will.
Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart!
So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere.
The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”.
Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity).
At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception.
University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings.
If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”.
We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle).
Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds.
The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated.
Cont...
thank you, now i can take the path of least resistance in every aspect of life without holding myself accountable! I now have learned helplessness 😊
As someone who has ADHD, it’s very comforting to think that my failures in school and relationships are not deserving of punishment. Instead of not wanting to get out of bed, this idea makes me feel more confident to act and take risks, because whatever I do I was going to do anyways. Thank you for this video. I feel like it has fundamentally changed my worldview.
Well, as someone else with ADHD and severe chronic pain, and really bad genetics related to addiction I decided to look into this as I was interested. Turns out the risk of addiction to drugs with ADHD is something like 500-1000% higher than control. Despite this addicts are the most hated people in society. I was given painkillers a child, and teenager due to my severe pain. I ended up being sick most of my childhood due to a physical disability from birth and ADHD and other mental fun stuff (depression, ocd, health anxiety, etc). I got addicted to alcohol before I even tried it, I was addicted to the idea, then when I finally drank the first time I had 0 self control and went too far. Then I quit it, but got addicted to my painkillers, and am now in a situation where I quit it 4 times but have such severe pain I keep having to restart the crap.
How someone can look at this situation (I am literally one in a million in terms of having a long list of diseases as a young person, but still this applies to everyone) and conclude it's my fault is frankly funny to me. I'm not saying this in a woe is me way or let's just give up way either, I'm doing my very best, I lost 27kgs the last 7 months and am trying to improve my health. I just think this whole game of assigning blame to everyone and spreading hatred is dumb, and futile.
Interesting, it's always been the opposite for me. I only see my condition as something to improve but I've never really succeeded at this. And knowing that so many self destructive habits of mine are out of my control fills me with anger towards myself. I'm not really sure how I begin to change this outlook
OMG I LOVE SAPOLSKY IVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS
The man is absolutely brilliant in the way that he is presenting his work.
YES YES YES... BEEN WATING FOR THIS FOREVER. Thank you!
Is this... "Evolutionary Calvinsm"?
Underrated reply 😂
Rofl😂😂😂❤❤❤❤
Haha ..."if any man is willing to do God's will, he will know.
No man can come to me unless God draws (i.e, "drags") him.
I guess I'm a Calminian!😂
This was a great conversation, much respect to both very intelligent people here. I might argue that when they were talking about the motivation changing but you’re still going to have the same outcome, I’m led to say that the motivation that you have for something does in fact, change the process and the outcome. 😅
Oh wow. Two of my favourite thinkers talking together. Brilliant.
The irrational hungry judge effect revisited: Simulations reveal that the magnitude of the effect is overestimated
Andreas Glöckner
The hungry judge effect is certainly interesting but it's a bit overstated than what it really is.
So, judges being studied in a hangry simulator didn't act as hangry as judges who didn't know they'd be observed? This seems unsurprising? 🤔
If this still displayed the bias despite knowing they were being studied, that seems to indicate the effect on their behavior is comparatively powerful. 🤷♂
By “simulations reveal” you mean there exist some articles that posit that the magnitude is overstated. If you read them (the articles, not the useless web summaries), you’ll see they are interesting, but not overwhelmingly strong. No trump cards here. The judge effect is upheld.
@@petermsiegel573hardly… if you read them, you see that they are much more convincing than anything said on the matter in this interview.
I’m glad that the donkey is raised here. It needs no determining factor to choose which food because brains do not operate under classical computational principles. If they did, nothing would work.
@@captainskylight942 well that’s true, but immaterial- you can’t replicate a detailed set of papers in a short example. The question is whether the jury’s still out on the simulations: it is. I know quite a bit about the methodology and it IS suggestive (as I said) but there’s so much evidence to the contrary that I wouldn’t take it to court. Simulations are tricky- they can be very precise, without being representative of what they purport to simulate.
I feel that anyone who believes we do have free will does not understand what free will is.
Like I don't even see how having a soul will change that.
It also isn't scary either. It doesn't mean you don't have the ability to choose any of your actions, it just means that your choice has a cause.
I like the way you put it, choice having a cause.
I haven't watched the entire video, but as someone who does believe in free will I don't see how my choice having a cause undermines free will as long as that cause is myself. Moreover, the soul's immediate existence is caused by God, but outside of its creation it's independent of causation, and the soul is the self. Meaning that the soul is the self that doesn't have any prior causes outside of its creation.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944oh look it's a theist, as if we don't already know your arguments 🙄
@@Misslayer99 Alright well if you're not going to actually address my point then you might as well not know my argument. (In case you misunderstood me, I wasn't saying that we have free will because of God I was saying we have free will because the soul is the independent self, and I just got a little off topic with the origin of the soul.)
@@theintelligentmilkjug944The problem the supernaturalist faces is known as the connection problem -- just how does this supernatural component of self influence otherwise deterministic material? it is a common misconception that quantum physics is random, so statistical manipulation doesn't help here -- Schrodinger's equation, for example, is completely deterministic, and the only evidence for quantum randomness we have (Bell's Inequalities Tests) fails if we don't assume the experimenters have libertarian free will. If we do not in fact have libertarian free will then Bell's Inequalities, combined with observed relativisitic effects that point to a perfectly determined past, present and future, actually end up supporting what John Bell himself called 'superdeterminism' and the static eternalist block spacetime.
I have to kinda give it to the more systematic Calvinists on this one -- they have no qualms with rejecting libertarian free will given it's incompatible both with the reality we observe and with divine omniscience.
Wow! What a fantastic conversation. Thank you.
At the end of the day just enjoy the experience and try your best to understand that we are just consciousness experiencing itself . Enjoying the ride is the most important part of life , no matter how hard what people are going through. Enjoy the weird coincidences , enjoy the great conversations , enjoy love and pleasure , and experience the hard parts as a learning experience . And from there who knows what happens after we die . Enjoy the ride people!
Count it all joy
This is so unsettling and comforting at the same time. But like Alex said, facts don't care about my feelings. It is what it is.
Sabine Hossenfelder made a video on Free Will with the title: "You don't have free will, but don't worry" which is also great. Her anti-flat-earth video is also great as she doesn't just bash those idiots but actually tries to understand their position, where they come from and where they went wrong.
@@Bunny99snah, mid channel
@@Bunny99sisn't she a physicist though?
Wow. I was hesitant to listen to this because I didn’t take the topic seriously. I have been pleasantly surprised. This was good. This is a very interesting topic and conversation
I could have listened to another hour of this. It's a very interesting topic. Not often do i hear about this from the perspective of both people who agree there isn't free will. And as someone who doesn't believe in it either, it's nice to hear from intelligent minds the question of "what now?"
We do have free will, though. Most free will skeptics don’t understand levels of description.
As someone who disagrees with almost everything you believe, I deeply respect and appreciate the conversations you present. It was the realization of how little conscious control I have over my own will that actually led me back to Catholicism from years of agnosticism and ridicule of belief. I recognize that the will I act on is often not up to me, and I felt compelled to align my will properly. That is the point of prayer from my perspective. As an aside, part of this conversation reminded me of Psalm 127:2
“It is vain for you to rise early
and put off your rest at night,
To eat bread earned by hard toil-
all this God gives to his beloved in sleep.”
Thank you for the opportunity to ponder these mysteries more deeply. May we all become more wise and more humble… within reason.
Even if there is no free will, we will keep pretending that we have free will, that is the only way to live. So, nothing really changes btw the believers and non-believers.
If we had no free will, then we wouldn't have a choice on what we think about free will. The believers and non-believers will be fated to have the opinion they have.
@@elephantyarn7378 tomorrow we're gonna open the fridge door and make a choice, even if it was determined by 100s of deeper processes running in the brain. To us, our consciousness on the surface level, it would feel like that we have made a choice and that is all that matters. This hold true for both parties.
@@rajahzia Well, let's not yet assume I'll open the fridge. Likely I will, but there is (if free will exists) a slight probability that I don't, or (if it doesn't exist) a Schrodeinger's fridge on the horizon.
@@elephantyarn7378 any choice that you make, you don't say to yourself that I am not in charge. Irrespective of our beleif in FW, the conscious being on the surface acts like its in charge.
What is the relevance of quantum physics to this discussion?
I think no free will on what we do, but I think Victor Frankl has it right-when you have no control over your environment, your future or your life, you can control your attitude. Being able to control your attitude explains motivation to get up in the morning-which is the exact situation that Frankl was dealing with in the camps. The difference is that if you’re reading this you think that the absence of guards a camp, etc means you have free will, but in a camp with a guard you know you don’t. The difference is that you can exercise agency in one situation not the other.
Why do you believe that there's no free will on 'what we do' but there is regards our attitude? Isn't adopting an attitude in a given situation, or in general, something that we 'do'?
@@matthewphilip1977 do is an action, not an opinion.
@@sw6118 Hiya. I think to 'control' your attitude is also an action. I can see the distinction between action (say, getting up out of bed) and attitude itself (say, having a negative, pessimistic attitude about the day ahead) but there's a difference between mere attitude, and controlling that attitude. To control it would be an act, something that you do.
@@matthewphilip1977You would say that!
@@architennis Why do you believe that?
If we don’t have freewill, then what’s the point of having this conversation? We’re going to believe what we’re going to believe. If we don’t have freewill, then the conclusion that we don’t have freewill is also determined, which means it wasn’t arrived through rational means. That creates a circular and self-refuting argument. It’s also inconsistent for people who don’t believe in freewill to be morally outraged at people that they disagree with because they ultimately have no choice.
That's not the case. The point that Dr. Sapolsky makes is not that you cannot be aware or learn new things, but that you cannot control your awareness or what new things you learn. That is to say that you cannot will yourself to do something that you cannot think of doing or be aware of something that you are not aware of. If you went back in time to the moment when you clicked on this video, you would make the same decision every time because the brain doesn't have a way to just suddenly choose a new way to behave or interact with the world.
Furthermore, it doesn't break determinism for something to be determined through logic or rationality-it's exactly the opposite, determinism suggests that all of the universe follows some kind of logic and that there are no ways for things inside of the universe to break that logic, including humans and their ideas and inventions.
No. It means that they had no choice but to have this conversation. You may have no choice in how you react to new information, but that doesn't mean you will never change your mind, once hearing new information. You just have no real choice in how you'll react.
I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on what's being said. If there's no choice, then why would you expect people to simply choose to not be morally outraged? And, what difference does it make, if a murder robot was programmed to murder, or was somehow given free will and chose to murder ... shouldn't it be taken off the streets, for the well being of others, either way?
@RILEYCLARKEI think you may have refuted your own argument. The *exact* point is that _because_ we cannot choose our past programming, we therefore cannot choose something that is "right" or "wrong" outside of that programming. We cannot know what we don't know (and we cannot know if what we do know is true)-that precisely is what it means to lack free will.
@@waterfallfaerie Determinism negates the possibility of logic and reason, and only a fool would claim otherwise. If our decisions are solely the result of biochemical forces, none of our cognitive faculties can be considered reliable. Furthermore, logic and reason have to exist in transcendental categories, something that cannot exist in a determined or materialistic universe.
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic If I shoot a bear because it’s trying to kill me, I do it because I’m trying to neutralize a threat. It’s not because I’m judging the bear morally. I don’t judge a computer virus the same way I would a person. That is very flawed logic.
When we are asleep dreaming we believe we are making decisions and we believe we have free will. It’s only when we wake up that we realise we were just carried along by the process of dreaming and we had no free will whatsoever.
“How do we know if we are living in our dreams or reality, we don’t.” - Stephen Hawking
I love Sapolsky. I own all his books. He’s a major reason why I’m a science teacher now
Wow it's so refreshing to hear someone rationally explaining something I've believed for years.
So glad you got Sapolsky on! This is great.
As an empath that just put myself purposefully in harms way by working in a homeless shelter- I believe my "goodness" is randomness and the effects that trauma had on me. That fact doesn't make caring for people feel any less special for me. I can have intellectual thoughts and still be biologically human with emotions and motives that work against that intellect.
This still doesnt change that you have agency in your choices. Just because there is a feedback loop between environment and learned behaviours and you cant concieve easily beyond your experience doesnt mean that you dont have agency.
But the agency is not yours! The agency is the outcome of an unbelievable complex process of biology and environment. “You” most certainly make a decision, but making a decision is not freedom! To the absolute contrary. That is an outcome of a completely determined process that we call subjectively “free” but is an incredibly restrictive outcome and feeling between “self” and “environment”. It’s interesting because if I asked where your “agency” resided in your body, that was making these special decisions and demands, you wouldn’t have a shred of proof or details. People just can not bring themselves to recognize that they don’t have free will, even if they don’t have a conceptual shred proof where “their” magical agent performs their task in their bodies they just can’t let it go.
What does agency even mean then? If it is the case that it is all genetic and environmental then where does free will or agency as you put it fit in?
@@nothingnothing3947I think we have to take a step back and ask, what does "agency of you choices" mean? Does he mean free will as O'Connor describes it in his previous video on free will ("the ability to have done something differently"), or something else?
Yeah I think free will or agency is completely illusionary. It just doesn’t seem like it in isolated instances, such as making a decision in the prompt “choose right now to blink once or twice”.
@@nothingnothing3947 it doesn’t fit in! I don’t think “we” have free will or agency in the traditional sense we have understood it or experience it. I was only responding to the previous comment.
This does not mean we can not attempt to create any life we want for ourselves or for societies, but there is not a magical me inside making these decisions!
Religions are overwhelmingly false! Human beings live lives that are overwhelmingly unnecessarily insufferable! Why? Because we don’t have free will and the universe doesn’t care and does not have a purpose. Could we change this even without free will? Absolutely!! But to avoid the facts like biology, environment, genetics, societal structure, culture, families, education etc etc….isn’t creating who and what we are as human beings/individuals…..we are going to continue to live out ridiculous lives. And maybe that’s all we will do!! It’s funny how human beings have this underlying narrative that we are special and the Earth and universe need us to continue living. It’s ridiculous.
LET IT GO!! Let it go is what I say at times when I take this all too seriously.
I’m studying Human Evolutionary Biology and Biological Anthropology and Robert Sapolsky constantly comes up, he’s a legend in my field!
Wanna give a quick run down about why he's significant in your field(s)?
Genuine question, asking as somebody who knows next to nothing about those fields. I've just seen him talking about free will a few times now.
Robert is definitely one of the greatest minds of the last 100 years. I would have like to hear a conversation between him, carl sagen, and christopher hitchens.
Where I want the conversation to eventually go is some place with more resolution (think higher resolution graphics). Beliefs affect behavior. Systems exhibit (and I think actually have) more or less awareness, and behave in ways that actually are more or actually are less surprising. Systems like individuals, companies, and countries really can have greater or lesser efficacy in the world depending on how well the system values its components, resolves contradictions at various internal scales, relates to its environment, etc.
Reductionism vs emergence
I was actually going around last week hoping Sapolsky would come on for a conversation, sometime in the future. Wonderful, thanks!
Fantastic guest, fantastic host!
Already know this is gonna be great!
Such a lovely kind-hearted beautiful person! ❣️❤💕
Alright, I was curious and have just been doing some quick googling about the robustness of the 'hungry judge' study. I haven't found any recent academic papers on it, sadly, but there's a pretty plausible-sounding refutation of it in a 2011 paper (essentially, defendants are not randomly scheduled, so a priori less-paroleable defendants were scheduled more often near lunch breaks - it's the scheduling causing the observed correlation between proximity to meal and release rate, not judge hunger). Anyone got any more up to date info on this?
They absolutely figure out their docket, and plan their day as such. There is no randomness to this “hungry judge” assertion, using it as evidence refutes his argument.
There is a 2022 narrative article by Chatziathanasiou. There are quite a few reasons why this should not be taken at face value. Starting with the fact that such a huge effect size is highly untypical for a psychological effect (if we would be that driven by hunger our society would malfunction every day around noon). The article is a good read and gives great pointers for further reading. Sapolsky is phenomenal in some regards, but he does overstate a lot of his opinions and often bases them on weak evidence (as seems to be the rule with Stanford scientists atm :D)
@@kevinsoter9686 Thank you, that's an intriguing reason I hadn't thought of - I'll go check out the Chatziathanasiou article :)
"Here's how we might respond to the realization that there is no freedom..." Very reasonably put, Mr. O'Connor.
That presumes we have free will then?
@@TechyBen Of course not. The fact that you take an action doesn't mean that the action comes from free will.
@@scarecrow2313 You defined me at taking it. If I didn't take it, you need to restate your expression.
If I take it, I take it, not some other causation.
@@TechyBen The thing is you take an action basing on multiple factors that are beyond your control. There is no room for free will.
@@scarecrow2313 You still isolated the subject "you". Yet claim there is not room for such a subject.
If the object (me) cannot be isolated, then per chance by what are you isolating it by?
I am, try again.
To say we are not free because we are controled by our brain is a bit strange. I am my brain, I'm not controled by it, it is part of me, the way my brain works is what makes me human. The fact my brain is shaped by circumstances is all part of my being, so if my brain decides something based on circumstances it is still my free decision. Being free means you're able to decide, how you came to that decision is all part of you. Free means it's not predictable, even the circumstances that shape our brain are unpredictable, we don't know what is going to happen. So it's crucial to have free will to be able to navigate through unpredictability. To say that you can't choose what you want most in the particular moment is ridiculous. You want what you want it's you, there is no choosing involved in anything about who you are. You can choose only where choosing is available. Think about it ...you're not free because you can't change who your parents are. There is no choosing parents but there is choosing in what you're going to eat next. I don't deny biology but free will is not a concept you can define through biology. The fact that you want to do something is part of you, you can't change yourself, your height, natural colour of your hair, how smart you are, there is no choosing in your biological traits, but there is choosing in how you interact with the physical world. Sapolsky is saying that we can't choose who we are and therfore we are not free. The fact that you are who you are is not connected to your freedom. Freedom is not a biological trait but our biological traits are involved in how we use our freedom, that doesn't mean our biologicar traits are controling us, because we are those biological traits, so we are in control. When your biological traits are involved in making the decision it's YOU making the decision. You ARE YOUR BIOLOGY, even while being influenced by external factors (how you're going to be influenced by these factors is all part of you) and your biology making you do things means you are FREE doing what YOU WANT.
That's exacly what I was thinking. Me being influenced by external factors is all part of my biology and my biology effecting the decision making, is exacly what it means to be free and make the decision.
Counter intuitive, but far from being ridiculous.
This hour long discussion barely scratches the surface.
Maybe read his book Determined and chew it over ...
Maybe.
The concept of freedom is wishy washy and vague, to the point of being meaningless (to me).
Free from what exactly?
We are essentially all that was and to all that is - within this moment.
Our "sense" of freedom is a narrative, when in reality we are all on a conveyor belt (as such) - from cradle to grave.
We are pinned to the processes.
The reason you choose the chocolate muffin over the berry muffin is predetermined - it doesn't just spontaneously erupt out of nowhere in particular.
Apply this understanding to each and every action we take.
To say we have a "free will" because we choose a chocolate muffin is to miss the point of Robert's work.
Our sense of agency may well be a perceptual distortion - that the mind employs to help modulate us.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 I'm saying that being free in a physical reality we live in, literary means if you're hungry nothing is physicaly stoping you from taking food. The fact that you became hungry is not due to the external events or passage of time it's because of you, if you didn't exist time would still be passing but you wouldn't be hungry. So when your brain wants you to take food it's all part of you and it's your free decision, free means you are able to take food, nothing it forcing you to take it, except you being hungry. There is no external influence on you taking food, you ARE FREE TO TAKE FOOD BECAUSE YOU ARE HUNGRY (what is making you hungry is the fact you exist, it's not hunger that is forcing you to take food, but you're hungry because you exist and you can't change that). By looking at it that way you can't say freedom means nothing to you because freedom is crucial for survival. That's what I'm saying, but I'm also aware Sapolsky has a different approach to freedom and his deffinition of freedom is different than mine, but his deffinition goes too far that it becomes paradoxical. If you look at it like he does, with that approach we can say nothing really exists. Everything is an illusion and we don't really live our lives we just think we are alive, it's not your life it's just a biological process in nature. How is it your life if nature sustains it ?? Not only free will, but absolutely nothing exists. You can say that you're not really a human being it's only a product of our brain and we just think that way because we are just a lump of cells randomly produced by the universe, so it is just our opinion but it's not really true. How do we know what's true then ?? That's basicaly why I don't agree with his stance of free will, he's going to such extent, distorting the deffinition to make it seem that your will is not there, that by looking at it that way, we can also say we are not people, we are a bunch of cells, does that mean you're not human ?? Yes, it's absolutely ridiculous !!
@@JB.zero.zero.1 What Sapolsky is doing when he talks about free will, he's presenting a paradox by presenting unchangable facts, and saying because we can't change some things we are not free. Paradox can't be a deffinition and freedom can be expressed only in the realm of changable facts, whare choosing is available and where change is available. That's why I don't agree with his stance. He is talking about freedom where freedom can't be expressed, it's like talking about animals on the Moon, there is no animals on the Moon but it doesn't mean animals don't exist. You can always find some facts that will make something seemingly look like truth, and you can also find facts that will make something not look like truth. But what is truth ?? So if we feel like we are free, and act like we are free, are we not free ?? if nothing is stopping me from writing this comment and I see it as freedom, am I allowed to call that freedom ? Or is freedom just a word and a product of our mind ? But than we can say every word, every deffinition, everything is just a product of our mind. And does that mean nothing is real and it's all made up ??
One is not free to do what they want to, because they're determined to want what they want. When does one choose their sexuality? When did they choose to like their favorite color, or song? When did they choose to forget an important piece of information only to be recalled later? How could intrusive thoughts exist as a concept if we choose our own thoughts? And if we choose what we want to think, when do we choose to choose to think? Or to choose to choose to choose to think? This recursion ends in a paradox of infinitely choosing to choose. It is incoherent and post hoc rationalization.
I've known there is no free will since I was kid. Yet the illusion of having it is fun and I live by it.
There is no way to know whether or not the entire universe (including your memories) suddenly came into existence a moment ago, but it doesn't really matter. 🙄 These things are super fun to think about, though! 😁
I am so thankful for you Alex
I am older than you but your list of topics and characters that you discuss and interview could all be of my wishlist.
Best wishes on your consistently increasing success. I look forward to your future.
Haven’t read a book for years but this conversation got me very curious to check out his free will book
Reading can change your life. Hope you try the book and many others
For years? How? Why?
A good metaphor on the same level is we know scientifically, that love is just a series of hormonal reactions in the brain that we've evolved to have, but at the same time, even knowing that, we can still be in love and enjoy love.
I assume you are talking about romantic love here but the realization that there is no free will opens up the doors for unconditional love toward all beings.
About punishment/praise in the case of the absence of free will.
I am wondering, wouldn't the knowledge of the existence of a punishment/reward system count among all the factors that would determine the actions of an individual?
And in that case wouldn't it be completely logical to maintain such a system?
Not seeing it from the perspective of "this individual had no control over what he/she did, so he/she doesn't deserve such a treatment." (which I would agree with).
But rather as a sort of preventive or incentive factor/input that could nudge people's actions, without there being a need for free will.
exactly, good point
Like Sam Harris says, we can still isolate dangerous people and reward good actions, but seeing through the illusion of free will is the gateway to compassion. I can avoid someone who seems like a threat, without fabricating moral judgements about them, since I know that we are both products of our environment. I also agree with him that it's not like there's no possible use for the term "free will", but that it isn't what it we think it is.
Yes of course it does. Fear of punishment and rewards for doing good things are amongst the most powerful motivating forces for humans. I found all of that to a silly argument. Also, does he really think that praise/pride vs scolding/shame can just be removed from the human psyche? If so why? Has he never owned a dog or raised a child? Does he have kids and not allow them to feel pride in their hard work or achievements? He seems to understand nothing of human psychology.
@@dylanevartt3219 Fine but what is the problem with forming a moral judgement on a paedophile murderer?
@RaveyDavey the problem is when we get hung up on morality and start demonizing people over personal preferences, or treating a person as "all good" or "all bad". Righteous indignation can cause a lot of problems
Amazing collaboration!
Always a joy to listen to Sapolsky!
I'll bite on the question "What is free will". Free will is the ability to consciously consider and decide an option among several avenues of action. Phineas Gage could be used as an example of someone who lost free will, as a result of damaging his prefrontal cortex. The fact that someone changes as a result of brain damage is not an argument against free will itself.
5:25 I don't think we are nearly good enough at predicting human behaviour to preclude the existence of free will crack;)
Yeah i hate when academics who think they are so smart make definitive conclusions about such important complex stuff that we know so little about. All you have to do is look back 100 years, or even 50, to see how incredibly dumb academics were about the big things. Just always wrong.
Century before last doctors still practiced the 4 humors…. You know, you have too much sputum in your body and that’s why the ghosts can so easily swim in your brain…. The issues with academic research, particularly in psychology around repeatability should give people pause with any of this… psychology is a very new field with an immense amount of BS polluting it’s history and after the last decade it’s clear the issues continue on under new guises into the present.
"Free will is the ability to consciously consider and decide an option among several avenues of action."
What does that actually entail, though? What do you mean by consciously decide? I realise I sound like Jordan Peterson but these are actually questions I have. Phineas Gage was surely able to consciously decide things even after his brain damage, but the fact that he was a completely different person still remains. I think the point Sapolsky is trying to make is that there are so many circumstances, macroscopic and microscopic, that we cannot control and that are directly or indirectly influencing what we consciously decide. I think you know this, however, and that you simply have a different definition of free will than I or he does. I actually don't know what's different about it, because I would frame my definition almost the same, so hence my questions.
@@Jacob-sl6ur "Phineas Gage was surely able to consciously decide things even after his brain damage..." I would argue he probably wasn't able to do that, or to a lesser extent.
"I think the point Sapolsky is trying to make is that there are so many circumstances, macroscopic and microscopic, that we cannot control and that are directly or indirectly influencing what we consciously decide" That's absolutely true, I indeed don't disagree. Sapolsky's way more extreme, and I would say unscientific claim, is that all these circumstances is all there is. So Sapolsky says that that conscious decision is an illusion, there is no agency involved. In other words, the world today is the only possible world there could have been. It's tempting to think that because all of history always converges into one single reality (as far as we know), so looking back you're always perfectly able to predict past events. That's not nearly good enough of an argument to preclude free will. I'll be more impressed if we were indeed perfectly able to predict someone's life path or choices. Ultimately my point is that I don't think that the feeling most of us are so familiar with, of weighing various factors and making a decision for one thing or another, is an illusion. I think that's real and not perfectly predictable.
Also hearing him here practically making the old argument "the murderer had a bad childhood therefore we can't judge" argument is just more than disappointing. It might have been the dumbest thing I have heard him say ever. How did Alex not immediately confront him about that???
Well, as always, this was excellent. PS: I was diagnosed with dyslexia when I was 6. But that abnormality has given me a tremendous gift- the ability to paint and do art.
That is so cool! Robert Sapolsky answered the question I would have asked him: Does he ever catch himself in the believing free will? What a satisfying and revealing answer.
45:39 Everything Everywhere All at Once is basically a two-hour thesis on this.
It runs through existential crises and different ways people handle nihilism and absurdism. Apparently it was originally intended to be an exploration of a metaphor for ADHD, so there's also a focus on how your biology and environment influence everything.