Do We Have Freewill? / Daniel Dennett VS Robert Sapolsky

[@gnarlow996]

To say nothing of where I stand on this argument, these speakers have definitely helped me decide what kind of old guy I hope to be someday.

[@nuynobi]

The kind that grows a wicked beard?

[@ninadgadre3934]

In my culture we have a saying, There are two kinds of grandpa: 1. Grandpas who return the ball fallen in their front yard. 2. Grandpas who confiscate the balls fallen in their front yard.

[@ehsanakbari3185]

@adre3934 Dan is definitely the grandpa who confiscates the ball

[@Ashrubel]

@@ehsanakbari3185 But he didn't have a choice in the matter, unlike what he thinks...

[@kittyvine823]

You mean Old Lady!

[@ralhamami]

"It's hard to keep that in mind. Keep it in mind for when it really matters...for when you're judging harshly." Loved that so much.

[@porter9260]

and that was right after the moderator took a jab.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Why do you suppose it is possible*not_to* judge?However you put your finger on *why* those who dreamed up the idea of so-called free will, dreamed it up; in order that they might *what* in relation to which they are abject slaves?

[@porter9260]

@@vhawk1951kl by judging I think Sapolsky mean taking all things possible into consideration that were out of the subjects control which lead to the undesired outcome. these events will happen as a fact of being human and having flaws

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@porter9260 From where do you suppose men(human beings/dreaming machines) got the idea of free will?

[@porter9260]

@@vhawk1951kl We pass down the illusion of free will through story telling and as a way to pass judgment in a way that solidifies the existence of free will. I don't claim to know when we started but at least far back the first first edition bible. Probably even before that . Do we have accurate history of a society without free will ? I bet so but heavily reliant on the gods as an explanation for messed up human acts .

[@Dark_metta]

I love this conversation and have massive respect for Sapolsky especially, I can’t help but feel like this is mostly an argument about the semantics of what free will means to Dennett. And not actually about the lack of “will to will” that Sapolsky is referring to.

[@tommitchell6307]

I agree. Dennett wants us to agree that we have all the free will worth wanting, even if we have no ability to do otherwise in a given moment. Sapolsky says (and I happen to agree with him) that it is incoherent to say that an act is either free or morally praiseworthy or blameworthy, if the agent could not do otherwise.

[@saidlucasmusic]

That is true. This is not an easy topic, and you should really deeply think about it together instead of just exchanging arguments in an aggressive way.

[@mathnihil]

I think Dennett is right, but I don't know if he knows why. It seems to me that he takes as a pressuposition that the "Laplace's Demon" does not work as a scientific endeavour, and then he shifts from an ontological perspective to an ethic perspective (as J. Searle would argue) on free will. And, yeah, if this is his pressuposition, then I think he's spot on, because 'determinism or not' ends up as a purely epistemological discussion, where we have to discuss the possibility of prediction of someone's action, and, when we get to that, we have to extend a lot our definitions of what is a "prediction" to defend the "determinist" position. For example, I can predict someone will dislike a movie based on if he's angry or not while he's watching it, but can I predict if he'll get angry or not? If I can, can I predict he'll get angry again in similar circunstances in the future? I could say that yeah, he'll, because the past experience made so that he would learn from that. But to which point I can treat this a priori as something more than a mere probability? If he can control himself as to not being angry at that moment, can I really say that his past experience acted as a necessary cause of his behaviour? I don't think that it would make sense, we can only argue so retroactively. And appealing to a experiment with more participants here wouldn't help either. Even if most people, after the first experience, wouldn't get angry again in the repetition of that experience, how does that relates to individual choice of the first person of getting angry or not? If he got angry, he would only be treated as the lesser probability (or maybe as an outlier) in that experiment, and nothing else. You could insist that there's a possible cause to investigate his behaviour and I agree that it could be the case, but it wouldn't, under this circunstances, this question be rendered useless? I could investigate after the first experience the sort of behaviours that this person made, and predict if he would learn from his past mistakes or not, but then, we get another question of how could we measure that. There's a pattern we observed in people overall that says they will behave in a certain manner? Then we get back to the probabilities. But then we could search for the behaviours of people with a characteristic "x", and then we verify that taking this into account helps in the prediction of the expected behaviour. We could do that indefinitely, and try to define everything that a person is, but can we? Is dissecating every information out of someone and then remending it in a whole enough to make us able to predict the relation between these factors when acting on someone? Yeah, we could observe a pattern "z" that appears when characteristics "x" and "y" relate to each other, but where does it leave us? Now we have to observe every relation like that, and then, when we observe every relation, we get to the relations between the relations, and so on. In the end, the pattern that we'll create is so unique and unfathomable that we cannot even begin to imagine other occurrence in the universe that could replicate it, and, if that's right, we end up with a problem. If there's only one example of what we are studying, how can we relate that example to other equal examples so that we can generalize a behaviour? We can't, that's the end of the line. In the end, we could probably predict with 99,999% certainty every single example of this person's behaviour, but did we took into enough consideration these 00,001% that were left behind? That's our ipseity. If we still end up with a predictive generalization in the end and there's still a probability of an adverse behaviour to our expectation, then what we are really saying is that every action is completely unique. Every set of considerations is completely unique, and it's always open to that person to choose how to act. It doesn't mean that free will is the same as being an outlier, but it does mean that it's the same as the possibility of doing so. And depending on what you do of yourself, I would argue that this possibility can become more and more real.

[@noahbrown4388]

“A man can DO what he wills, but he cannot WILL what he wills”

[@captainbeefheart5815]

But to a compatibilist, free will IS doing what you will.

[@dominiks5068]

But why on earth would willing what one wills be required for moral responsibility? That's a totally absurd demand, which is why the vast majority of people writing on free will are compatibilists.

[@noahbrown4388]

@@dominiks5068 I honestly don't know what your inquiry is. There are no 'morals'. There are only those principles that are conducive to the functioning of optimal human social co-existence

[@jayp3570]

Nice amigurumi!

[@jlrinc1420]

​@@noahbrown4388It's great of you to toss out all morality, but I doubt you have thought that through very much. We can in fact.make moral.judgements about people, we do it all the time. There could be a lot of situations where the moral thing to do is not the optimal thing in any meaningful sense. I'm not even sure the word optimal has any real meaning in your statement. You can't for instance define optimal even provisionally so that your decree on morality makes sense.

[@alexxx4434]

A grave misstep was allowed before starting any arguments - that is not agreeing on the definition of the 'freewill' beforehand.

[@MEGAsporg12]

thats what the entire debate is about lol.... We all agree it feels like we have free will but do we actually. The debate is the definition.

[@whwhywhywhywhywhywhy]

Yeah I noticed this too. But Robert argues that any definition is wrong so it almost doesn't matter

[@jamieanderson4546]

Well put.An observation I hold over most freewill debates. Furthermore the concept of modern debate largely relies on the undefined status of the point in question.

[@andrewmueller9986]

I have noticed this in many debates, and it occurred to me that debates would be cut down by hours if they just agreed on definitions. Some eliminated entirely. More efficient but less entertaining.

[@AnnaPrzebudzona]

Towards the end I had an impression that they're talking about two different things calling it the same name and hence the discussion was heated unnecessarily if the point was to actually understand each other but I guess this is KZbin and what matters ultimately is the numbers. I think I agree with both of them because, as I said, they were talking about two different things. It's much easier to agree with Robert Sapolsky because his argument is very straightforward and scientific whereas Daniel Denett being a philosopher feels responsible for his views and it seems that he wants to promote self-agency because he believes it's good to believe in free will.

[@Greyscale884]

"The past isn't even past. The past is who we are now." - Robert Sapolsky Powerful.

[@theStrayKat1980]

that's exactly it in a nutshell. that's why I've always called it 'qualified free will' - past qualifiers create and DICTATE our current life(style) and our choice availabilities...

[@sergiosantos9534]

Baron d'Holbach said almost 300 years ago: Baron d'Holbach believed that free will is ultimately illusory. While human beings are more sophisticated machines than other organisms and objects, they are nevertheless causally determined. Thus, they are caused to experience the illusion of free choice. Also Laplace, in his A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (1825), and d'Holbach, in his The System of Nature (1770), both defend the idea that the truth of determinism shows that free will is an illusion. After this, philosophy has moved a lot. But I think these guys dont read much

[@sergiosantos9534]

Nietzsche: The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Sapolsky is a fool; from apple trees you get apples, while from fools you get foolishness like ""The past isn't even past. The past is who we are now." When fools wish to be taken for the wise, they spout nonsense like that, which even they don't understand, thus illustrating their complete innocence of any kind of intellectual ability or accomplishment

[@avasdv]

Yeah it's like we (our brains) are like sequential logic circuits

[@tommitchell6307]

Wonderful stuff. Definitely the debate I wanted to hear on this subject, between two of the thinkers I admire most. Dennett has a line about 'sophisticated' theists. Not quoting exactly but he says something like 'they're not stupid. They don't believe but they believe in belief.' It's a great line. The more I read and listen to him, the more I sense that he doesn't believe in free will, he believes in belief in free will. His slightly disbelieving 'but don't you want to be held responsible, Robert?' really brought this home to me. Like the believers in belief, who think we would lose our ability to act morally without it, he's terrified that without belief in free will, we'd 'run amok', as Sapolsky puts it.

[@ihatespam2]

And yet Robert clearly explains how that isn’t the case. So I’m not sure why Dan holds on to his poorly defined unique version of the phrase Free Will at all.

[@polymathpark]

This idea is exemplified in his lecture title, "stop telling people we don't have free will." He's not arguing for the fact that we have it, just that it's dangerous to tell people they don't have it, which Sapolsky agrees with himself.

[@kittuojha]

@@polymathpark sapolsky doesn't agree with not telling people they don't have free wills. He says that just as atheism has not caused immorality, a disbelief in free will won't cause people to run amok.

[@PazLeBon]

it's just a poor appreciation of 'intelligence' itself imo

[@mariaradulovic3203]

DD sounds to me like a dishonest person. I was planning to read some of his books, but after seeing his reaction to determinism I won't waste my time.

[@christopherswanson3317]

I get the impression that both viewpoints are logical, but based on different definitions of free will.

[@karlkellar8614]

Agreed. A lot of the confusion around this issue is a matter of definition. When people say you don't have free will and then start talking about childhood experiences and teaching and presence or absence of loving parents, I feel they are missing the point. I wouldn't deny for a minute that all that has tremendous influence on future attitudes and actions, and even makes future actions highly predictable. And I agree that the more we know and understand about someone's past, the more compassion we tend to have for their bad choices. But to me, that is "just" psychology and is not relevant to "free will." Free will is whether one could behave in a different manner, not whether they are likely to. Even someone who had a wretched childhood that turned him into a serial killer still (apparently) makes a choice as to whether he wants peanut butter and jelly or eggs for breakfast. This is the ultimate free will issue I'm interested in; does the movement of every atom in the universe since the big bang dictate peanut butter or eggs, or is it truly a matter of whim and preference, freely made, notwithstanding any psychological factors which may predispose him to choose one over the other?

[@jlrinc1420]

@karlkellar8614 One thing people like Sapolsky forget is that among the factors that determine our present choices are our previous choices. This means that we do share some responsibility for our present choices as they are. If one looks only for external factors without considering that our past choices are now among those external factors, then persona responsibility makes no sense. Even if these external factors completely determine my present culpability, it is in part my past choices that have brought me to this deterministic conclusion in the first place

[@thejackbancroft7336]

Dennett's view is of compatibilism and his definition of free will changes. He becomes more or less libertarian depending on how strong he's pushed on the issue. Compatibilism is not logically rigorous. It certainly might be true, but it doesn't follow from deductive logic. It cannot. Good philosophers used to know this. Sapolsky is a modern Spinoza. Ain't nobody could logic like Spinoza

[@jlrinc1420]

@thejackbancroft7336 Compatibilism is the view of 60% of professional philosophers so the idea that it isn't logically rigorous is unfounded and unsupported. Sapolsky doesn't even have an argument against free will. It is really bad. How he is like Spinoza is a secret only you know.

[@jlrinc1420]

@thejackbancroft7336 in any case deductive logic isn't even a matter for discussion. Free will is an inductive argument. All philosophical arguments are inductive. Only math and formal logical are deductive. This is something all good philosophers understand

[@WhatIThink45]

53:49 I think what Robert is proposing (i haven't read his book yet) is that society has to stop looking at what people do, but examine what are the myriad of influences that impact people's behaviors and decisions. It's not that we don't decide, it's that are decisions are influenced by material conditions we're born into, what we're exposed and not exposed to, or biological and physiological makeup, what resources we have to make decisions, etc. We're not freely making decisions, we're deciding based on the context of our lives.

[@avasdv]

Yes exactly. Why do you want what you want? I've wanted things in retrospect I wish I didn't want. Even now - toxic women lol. I mean if there was true free will to want what you want, you might choose to want nothing, and be the envy of Buddhists everywhere. But we want what we want and we call our will free. I differentiate between three things: 1: the existence of the will. The will, your "in the moment", dynamically changing will does exist. That's what people tend to call free will. 2: the efficacy of a will. It can make a difference, move mountains (with heavy machinery) etc, or it can fail to do be able to do so, depending 3: the forming or the cause of the will. This is the most interesting territory in my view and the area dear Sapolsky gives heavy coverage to. I'm heterosexual. I didn't will myself to be that. Even if I did, who is the "I" who did, and why? You get a recursion/infinite loop paradox problem with that. Personally, we are brains, we are nervous systems and bodies and this view even allows for us having a spirit, and in the brains there are regions and circuits and neural networks. I don't know all the details, but practically, in coming to an awareness of the "I", not to be mystical or cultish, I find it best to view it as a collection of parts and subpersonalities. I was walking the street one day and a voice inside said "learn about parts psychology" so I did and it's a huge part of my model of the self and mind. There is a permanent self I think amidst these parts but they all have kind of their own personality and wills. See the "no bad parts" book. Anyway so a self can have a conflicted will, or 'ambivalence'. Parts are best when they're heard, respected and understood and then they integrate themselves. I know it sounds weird. I don't have all the theory but it seems like this is how humans are. As to the will question, and women - women's will changes so quickly based on subtle aspects of a man's behavior - if he's with another girl, if he appears too needy etc. These things are emotional and not just in women. There are I believe parts of the brain always paying attention and keeping score, noticing and reacting, beneath what we would call our conscious will or "I". But people seem to have trouble letting go of this image of how things are supposed to be. There seems to be a deep attachment to this image of the world and life but letting go is fun. The waters are fine, comfortable even.

[@dano2017]

“…even before I became daft for reading philosophers” Great comeback line. I like them both.

[@TheTuurngait]

Great quip but honestly a foolish one. Dennett does no favors representing philosophers here by being facetious and snarky. Both arguments have merit, I think Sapolsky’s case is more well argued in this debate. Writing off philosophy is not a helpful or well balanced stance though. And I imagine, or at least hope, Robert said this out of frustration for being spoken to condescendingly. None of us can remain calm and collected all the time. To anyone reading this who feels skeptical about philosophy or fed up with speculation, I’d recommend sticking to philosophical works on Ethics. Metaphysics and Ontology can be really murky waters. The best philosophy inspires responsibility to oneself and the Other, imo. Just my take.

[@theofficialness578]

@@TheTuurngait It’s hard to wrap my head around philosophy in general, most the time it’s always, well yes there’s all this, tangible and semi tangible, observable evidence that proves something, but still I think or I feel. When that I think or I fell, also falls into the realm of the biological, neurological, and it’s undeniable tangible and semi tangible observable evidence.

[@TeeheeTennessy]

​@@TheTuurngaitthe reason why what other philosophers think is relevant is because philosophy is supposed to arrive at a holistic solution and does so by applying logic. Most hard determinests are not philosophers for a reason. Tney are ill equiped to make usefull arguments. All compatibilists are saying is that while we are are ultimately not free from causation, it's simply irrelevant.

[@whitemakesright2177]

​@@TheTuurngait Sapolsky deserves condescension. He is wilfully ignorant when it comes to the question at hand, and yet passes himself off as an expert.

[@whitemakesright2177]

​@@theofficialness578 Philosophy is a higher level of abstraction than science. If you can't handle philosophy, that's fine, but then stick to science. Don't presume that it's nonsense just because you can't understand it. And don't presume to speak on philosophical matters, like free will vs. determinism, even you have no understanding of the subject. That is Sapolsky's fatal flaw here: he left his area of expertise (neuroscience) to venture into an area he knows nothing whatsoever about (philosophy).

[@garyhome7101]

How great it is to hear two great minds bring such "twinkle in the eye" tussling over the subject matter! As an aside I would like to mention the passing of Professor Michael Sugrue a couple of days ago. A seriously wonderful lecturer and mind in the world of philosophy. He will be missed.

[@AXharoth]

one great mind and one m0ron who got totally destroyed and devolved in spewing nonsense when he had nothign left to say

[@bettycrice]

David Surgrue was also one of my favorites. I didn't know that he died:(

[@DavidTizzard]

I agree with you. But I believe you might be talking about Michael Sugrue...

[@garyhome7101]

@@DavidTizzard Yikes!! You're right! Changing now...😬😬

[@Rick_Cavallaro]

>> How great it is to hear two great minds... Perhaps, but on this particular topic, I've simply never heard Dennett say anything compelling. I'm not even able to understand his "compatibility" argument, and it honestly seems to me that he doesn't either. More importantly attacking Sapolsky was uncalled for and beneath him.

[@ubuntuposix]

Daniel Dennett, just because your dog makes "pre-programmed" (has no free will) actions that doesn't mean you let him do whatever.. You just don't judge him morally (wanting him to suffer, for ex.). Its the same with humans. Even if there's no free will, you see a criminal, you lock him up, because he's a threat to society. You just don't hate him and you don't think he deserves to suffer. But that doesn't mean you let him free.

[@Shlooomth]

It’s truly refreshing to hear two people in familiar with have a conversation about something fascinating and they both actually came prepared, both are being polite and supportive, the emphasis is clearly on actually advancing the topic instead of one person saying crazy things and the other person saying normal things

[@SmileyEmoji42]

But they don't advance the topic - They prove that it cannot be advanced. Taking Sapolsky's definition, it is meaningless. Taking Dennett's it is arbitrary i.e. the only discussion you can have is about whether two people do or do not agree on which side of this arbitrary line as certain act would fall and even then that says nothing about where it would be for a third person.

[@Shlooomth]

@@SmileyEmoji42 well for not advancing the topic it seems to have spurred you to an insight you felt equal to sharing :)

[@Vaelinstorm]

​@@SmileyEmoji42That's not all what Robert was saying. He said it matters because addressing issues with understanding of how people came to the decisions they made can help us more humanely act in response to those decisions. Not without consequence but a more humane and potentially beneficial consequence.

[@karakaspar1791]

@@Vaelinstormyes I agree. Sapolsky’s philosophy on free will is incredibly meaningful and I hope he gets a Nobel peace prize

[@DankoStojanovic]

Prepared? Yes. Polite? So,so. Dennett was a bit rude a few times.

[@achenarmyst2156]

I am very much attracted by Robert‘s view which effectively cuts off the basis of meritocracy. It has the capacity to reduce self centeredness and raise a profound understanding for the Other and the conditions that framed the positions she has arrived at in life.

[@Ruairitrick]

Determinism can have no social or moral implications beyond what is determined. How do determinists so frequently fail to understand this?

[@achenarmyst2156]

@@Ruairitrick Well, let me put it this way: I am pleased with the direction determinism seems to take 😄

[@morphixnm]

But if these sentiments are deterministically controlled then what is to stop the opposite sentiment from becoming dominant, like just another set of bouncing balls? How would the balls know which pocket is TRULY better if their very desires and directions are not a matter of choice? Why would any one pocket ACTUALLY be better? Better in who's deterministically actuated mind? You would have to believe that we are being deterministically led down a "better" path for this to work, but how would you know this? This idea only "works" if you want to have your deterministically presented cake but freely eat it too. Clearly incoherent.

[@georgecurly5965]

@@Ruairitrick I don't think that determinists fail to understand any of that.

[@georgecurly5965]

@@morphixnm The Ability to know something or to follow the rules of logic in our arguments doesn't presuppose mysterious free will any more than does the ability of a computer's ablilty to follow the rules of math. The computer follows the rules of logic because it was programmed to do so by human beings whose ability to reason and follow the rules of logic has in turn been programmed into their brains by evolution, education etc etc.

[@nickj8906]

Something that needs to be added to these type of discussions is that our tools for communication, the language we use is not yet equipped with the necessary words to explain many things and on the contrary, we have through the history created words which misguide rather than clarify. Oftentimes these words do not represent an accurate meaning of something real but rather a vague feeling for which we decided to have a name. One example of that can be the word pride. These words should not be relied on when the aim is to understand the mechanism of existence.

[@alchemy1]

I am looking at these two great minds and what do I see? I see a certain display of authority/agency (meritocracy) in Dan's disposition while Robert takes no such position at all. He makes it clear that he need not be patted on the back or given brownie points for all the depth of knowledge he expresses. That is his whole point. He basically sees his presence like a vessel that things simply flow through so to speak and that is it.

[@georgecurly5965]

Spot on, and that's exactly why I consider Robert's perspective more commendable than Daniel's position.

[@GarethDavidson]

But only because it's framed as a moral position that you agree with. But that's an appeal to consequences or emotion, not logical reasoning, it's a position of virtue and not truth.

[@hihoherewego1]

If you take Robert's perspective, you don't really deserve to be congratulated and awarded. Some, more than others, really like the feeling of 'deserving' our rewards.

[@johnhausmann2391]

@@alchemy1 If you unpack your descriptions of 'impatient', 'prefer', 'feel emmpty-handed', you will see that these hold no meaning (for Sapolsky). What are we left with in life if we choose to live based on Sapolsky's interpretation. Do we just get things done for teh common good of everyone and then go to our shelters and feed so that we can do it again the next day? Sapolsky might be logically air-tight, but at some point, your theory has to reflect reality in some way, and Sapolsky's ideas do not. They are the air-tight logical conclusion of a thought experiment gone wrong.

[@ronlipsius]

@@alchemy1 Sorry fool, you got served.

[@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168]

Robert Sapolsky ❤❤❤ it’s a privilege to listen to his lectures and views. I have only discovered him a few weeks ago,he made me want to learn about the disciplines he teaches, maybe take a second degree. I always thought parallel with what he teaches professionally but learning my logical thinking process is scientific makes me want to learn on scientific level.

[@Kal-EL_Volta]

Is book Behave is pretty good if ever get around to it.

[@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168]

@@Kal-EL_Volta I just met him online still studying his lectures. I will definitely buy his books once I finish the lectures. He and his university kindly published some of his his valuable lectures on KZbin. I am hundred percentage sure, his books will be great. I currently read The King of the mountain, the nature of political leadership which also covers primate behaviour psychology in leadership. 18 years of research reflects in this book. I recommend this book too.

[@GlenMcNiel]

If you want to go deeper down the Sapolsky rabbit hole, his Stanford lecture series on Human Behavioral Biology is awesome: kzbin.info/aero/PLqeYp3nxIYpF7dW7qK8OvLsVomHrnYNjD

[@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168]

@@GlenMcNiel thank you

[@achenarmyst2156]

Observe your brain make a „decision“ for you 😊

[@Planturs]

Both tremendous individuals, glad this conversation could happen. RIP Daniel Dennett, he will always be remembered for his great contributions!

[@luisb8394]

Great discussion, Mr Dennett will be missed dearly

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Dr Dennett

[@anthonybrett]

@@theultimatereductionist7592 I don't think MR Dennett would be arrogant enough to care what you called him. He was humble to the end.

[@raleighsmalls4653]

The quibbling nitwits of yt.

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

I feel very sorry for him and he is in my prayers - but I won't miss his ideas

[@itsmethebigg9568]

@@anthonybrettDr Dennett

[@emanuellandeholm5657]

RIP Dennet. Your legacy lives on

[@TheNonplayer]

he was deaf.... at least in this conversation, he didn't went into it open-minded, but he was already made up his mind. He hasn't understood a thing about Robert's story.

[@filippetrovic845]

Now he clearly has no free will.

[@macarrion]

I just found out in the comments that he died... 😔

[@TeddyBrennan]

@@TheNonplayer It seemed to my ear that Dennett was fair and often mentioned his points of agreement with Sapolsky

[@kimyunmi452]

RIP confused philosopher. Philosopher job = enlighten the common folks. Yet he himself is so confused on the issue of free will (not blaming him though). It had to happen that way.

[@ArtiomVP]

"Some of us say that existence is imperishable, others say that everything earthly is perishable, But you listen to all this invariably. And know that everyone is right, but not completely right.“ - Mirza Shafi Vazeh. It's a poem, actually, but I didn't give my time for trying to rhyme it. That poem always helps me to not express my aggression and try to figure out the common truth in any discussion which can be going wrong because of the incompleteness of our communication tools.

[@JohnEP223]

TL;DR: Daniel Dennett and Robert Sapolsky (epic intellectuals of our time) pretty much agree on everything, except on their *definition* of "free will." Sapolsky acknowledges his definition of free will is "radical," and acknowledges Daniel Dennett's definition is classical "liberal." In the end, they both use consequentialist arguments to defend their conception of, "free will." Overall, I think Daniel Dennett had the better consequentialist and pragmatic arguments. Of course, Sapolsky would say I had *no choice* but to see it that way myself. Your mileage may vary. Thank you for this great debate between two fantastic intellectuals of our time!

[@pinkfloydhomer]

This. So many people in the comments and on the internet in general consider this problem to be deep, it is not. It is very easy to show that you can make agents on top of physics, evolution has selected heavily for it. It is also easy to show that a system can have arbitrary large amounts of agency and incorporate arbitrary amounts of live data or historical data, culture, dna or whatever. Such an agent can be arbitrarily free to make choices, even if repeated with the same atomic configuration. Computers do it all the time. Sapolsky is right in all of his points, except that his points lead to the conclusion of no free will. He is right that prior causes do play a role in such agents, he is also right that our subconscious play a role and often make decisions before we become aware of them. He is also right that people are not always responsible for their actions, for their failures or successes, luck plays a huge role in success etc. But he is not right that free will is impossible just because a neuron is following the laws of physics. It is trivially wrong and disproven by evolution and by computers everyday.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Anyone that says "The past isn't even past. The past is who we are now," is clearly innocent of any kind of intellectual or ability. God alone knows what an" epic" intellectual" might be, but anyone that delivers himself of drivel such as" he past isn't even past. The past is who we are now," is clearly innocent of any kind of intellectual or ability. What the fcuk is an" epic" intellectual? You have no idea what epic means have you titch? Epic intellectual my arse! Even that complete ass has no idea what " the past isn't even past" could possibly mean; it is as asinine as saying ' Wednesdays aren't even left-handed goldfish'.

[@Shubhamsv28]

Thank you for this. I got very excited and thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. Brilliant people.

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

I'd say brilliant person

[@johnoglesby-vw7ck]

Oh, and would you expound? Or is you expressing dislike for one participant, without justification, adequate?

[@ericgraham8150]

The more I listen to Robert, the more I really understand and can’t help but agree with his argument. It seems to explain so much of what I experience in my daily life in dealing people. I don’t have a perfect life, I’ve had a lot of struggles, but I feel also incredibly lucky that I am who I am because I was able to get through them. I’ve seen a lot of other people go through what I have (addiction / etc) and they were not able to overcome it. I’m so thankful that I am who I am and that I’ve been able to correct a lot of life choices and get my life together. I’m no worse or better than anyone else, but I guess I’m just thankful for the values that I have, the upbringing I had, and the brain chemistry I have. I have no idea why I decided one day that I was tired of being a loser, because being a loser was a lot easier than all the work I have to do now, but I’m grateful that I did.

[@matthewgarner8728]

I have 8 years sober and often look in the mirror and say why am I alive with my life and not that other guy who o.d. yesterday

[@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168]

Was there any changes in your life like meeting someone, someone getting ill, having a random chat with someone whom deep down inspired you? Do you remember when you were wasting yourself, one day while thinking a memory may have come to your mind and had an impact without you realising it? I had many depressions and some of the examples I shared above happened and I suddenly decided to get up and do something new.

[@ericgraham8150]

@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 Yes, definitely - some things occurred that helped inspire me move to a different path. Most specifically, meeting a particular person who has become part of my life. I don't think things would have changed nearly as drastically had that not occurred!

[@ericgraham8150]

@ScienceNow- You'd have to elaborate a little more on your position, rather than just point me to things I've read and at least have a laymen's familiar with. (I'm not a scientist but definitely characterize myself as a science enthusiast)

[@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168]

@@ericgraham8150 thank you for sharing, I am happy for you.

[@lizgichora6472]

Thank you Daniel Dennett and Robert Sapolsky: Responsibility and Free will. Responsible and self control.

[@joekelley7634]

What

[@jamieanderson4546]

Define freewill first,once a consensus is reached,the debate can then and only then be of significance.

[@ToriZealot]

Exactly, first person to get this correctly!

[@LarrenceUmpersalt]

I have always said this, about all types of arguments! So many arguments are really just both interlocutors talking at cross purposes.

[@TeeheeTennessy]

If that consensus is reached, the debate is over.

[@lenkazajic8509]

YES!! It's insane that we even have these debates without any clear definition of terms. And yes to the comment below - when consensus is reached, the debate is over.

[@pascal8306]

What do people make of the definition of free will that is ‘the capacity to make a choice based on a recognition of the consequences of each possible choice, and having been sufficiently informed of the benefits and drawbacks of each choice made in relation to a predetermined goal’? The goal has to be determined, but the choice is surely not strictly determined, since it’s based on reason and not necessarily any prior influences or conditions. This is akin to the Schopenhauer quote - ‘you can do what you will, but you can’t will what you will’. In other words, free will is based on a conscious apprehension of the facts that influence (but not determine) one’s actions, while determinism implies blind obedience to those influences in the moment.

[@johnmacias488]

How am I just now stumbling accross this! I love Sapolsky! Brilliant man! Can’t wait to listen!

[@_Weyson]

"People are conscious of their actions while ignoring the causes that determine them" Spinoza

[@stephaniecok3484]

Exactly this is in fact agreeing with Salposky

[@daanschone1548]

​​@@stephaniecok3484Spinoza lived in a time when physics were still mechanical. Nowadays in times of quantum and Heisenberg uncertainty, the meaning of determinism needs to be redefined. For one, we can't know all the parameters of cause and effect because measuring them changes them. And two, we are not certain anymore that true randomness doesn't mess with determinism.

[@aasdaa3736]

@@daanschone1548true randomness still does not mean you are free. Either way you arent free.

[@daanschone1548]

@@aasdaa3736 what does being free means to you? Aren't you free to act?

[@daanschone1548]

@@aasdaa3736 also randomness means the universe isn't deterministic, but probablistic. Which means our future isn't determined and we might have freedom of choice.

[@AJenbo]

Oh... my two favorite professors having an pleasant debate. Please clear my schedule!

[@RyanStronach]

Robert was a class act who brilliantly composed his arguments and countered Daniel's incoherent, illogical and often quite rude ramblings with direct counterevidence. All while remaining cool, calm and collected. You have to respect who this man is, and how he deconstructed the notion of free will at it's very core. It was unsurprising to see how the poll results shifted so dramatically.

[@TheRoninteam]

yeah, this is called losing the debate

[@cally77777]

@@TheRoninteam Losing the debate is not the same as losing the argument. People are swayed by things other than the actual arguments; for example how competent and eloquent each of the debaters appears. I believe Daniel made the better arguments, however rambling he might appear.

[@TheRoninteam]

@@cally77777 I think that there is a big difference in behavior for starters, Sapolsky seems pacific interested in conversation while Daniel seemed angry with Sapolsky about his position, to me that shows denial, shows that he can't counter argument logic and science with his superficial common sense fallacies, he didn't presented any scientific fact he spoke out of his ass most of the conversation like a teen trying to hold his ground while an adult could see right through him the whole time, an ancient creature acting like teenager by itself should raise red flags, being unpolite and mean, but then he opened his mouth to give "arguments", and most of them where unrelated to the complex subject, they where pure rambling about, shows a desperate old man losing his diapers over an argument he already lost before beginning.

[@ronlipsius]

@@TheRoninteam You sir, show your various failings in the style and content of this extraordinarily poor comment.

[@TheRoninteam]

@@ronlipsius and you sir, know that I couldn't care less about opinions

[@Marrow9000]

I read Sapolsky's Determined book last year (on No Free Will from a Neuroscience Perspective) and one of Dennett's books in January this year. Sad that Dennett died just a couple of weeks ago. Will watch this discussion. Thanks for uploading.

[@ivanm.r.7363]

"Choices are made, but there is no chooser" ~ Buda.

[@tonyaone2069]

There is a chooser but he has no choice

[@scribdiary768]

The he we can say he is not the choose If cannot choose ​@@tonyaone2069

[@albirtarsha5370]

​@tonyaone2069 The self is an illusion, if you didn't get that from the statement. Although you probably did.

[@tonyaone2069]

@@albirtarsha5370 I get that philosophically, but who is having the illusion ?

[@albirtarsha5370]

@tonyaone2069 Great question! I don't know enough about Buddhism to answer that from their perspective. I can, however, give my personal answer.

[@BrainOfDen]

The more I listen to this debate the more happy I become regardless if I had a free will to choose to watch it

[@Hmmmmmmm1]

It pains me reading these comments and people COMPLETELY missing Dennetts points. Dennett takes a philosophical view on free will which means breaking down what free will actually is and how it could fit in a determined world which science shows is true. Sapolskys view however, is observable right now because it's not based on an interdisciplinary philosophical approach, rather it's able about what we know now thanks to science. This doesn't diminish Dennetts ideas at all and they are both completely valid argument. Dennetts ideas also are more ground in taking evolution more seriously which I notice people find that hard to accept.

[@elgar104]

No one is missing his points. We just don't think they're very good points. He agrees with Robert in all the material sense. But then chooses to ignore the extremely important moral implications of Robert's position..... in favor of a discussion about the fictional world we inhabit in order to deal with this reality. Least that's the way I rationalize his stance. I have no interest whatsoever in this land of fiction and think if we wrestle with the moral reality of the non existence of the traditional definition of free will.... this fictional world and fabricated definition Dennett wobbles on about.... becomes redundant.

[@johnjameson6751]

I would agree that Sapolsky and others miss Dennett's point, but this is in part because Dennett obfuscates his main point with lots of additional and unnecessary philosophy about the "evolution of the skill of self control" and so on. This debate is really a matter of definition. What Sapolsky shows is what free will is not: it cannot be anything like our intuitive internal sense of a conscious choice that could have gone differently. What Dennett shows (for example at kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4rdd3turdabpNU) is that a notion of free will where our choices are not determined by the sum total of all that we are makes no sense - and is not what we should want free will to be anyway. So they agree about the facts of the matter, but disagree whether to call it "free will" - and I think that their choices here are guided by other considerations such as their moral philosophies. Sapolsky admits at the start that he believes a society which denies free will is more humane, whereas Dennett thinks this undermines personal responsibility.

[@damland1357]

It pains me reading your comment, knowing that you’ve failed to understand the philosophical implications of Sapolsky’s argument. His opponent made a very weak and unconvincing argument with no substance.

[@johnjameson6751]

@@damland1357 Philosophical implications are in the mind of the beholder ;)

[@toppinzr3743]

One can't well understand what Daniel Dennett is saying just by listening to a debate. The compatibilist position on free will is a lot more complicated and difficult to understand than the incompatibilist. But the majority of philosophers are compatibilists, from what I've read. It's easy to take an incompatibilist position, but it's also not very sensible. Daniel Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves" does explain and back up his position, but it's a long book, with many different detailed arguments.

[@umbertouno]

Sapolsky is just so much more convincing, the polls in the beginning and at the end speak volumes.

[@ralucadeantoni846]

I love this luminous idea of Daniel Dennett when he sais that « free will is a skill »and i think he is clear cristall in his demonstration!!! I love listening to these two titans !! great thinkers of our time!!Thanks for the brilliant exchange !!we are lucky to have them!

[@ns1extreme]

That's not free will then, it's just an internally manipulated will. Which is what they are disagreeing on anyways.

[@Sean_Coyne]

Two hugely impressive minds, and a treat to hear them debate. Thank you both! Alas, it seems to me that Dennett is in part overstating and in a sense conflating the role of the pre-frontal cortex with the overpowering illusion we have of free will (which is also a part of the Self Illusion). Sure, the pre-frontal cortex adds a lately evolved check on the computational output of emotional and other impulses that the human brain uses in decision making, but that does not detract from Sapolsky's view that even with that check point, it's a not consciously controlled arbiter of "free will". Rather a useful final filter of, "Is this a stupid idea?" that the brain's neural network throws up. The decision is still made by a transient neuronal network that we are largely oblivious to, before we are consciously aware of a sort of action potential that has already taken place. Indeed, our illusion of self can come to a firm conclusion which we believe is right and will be acted upon, only to find our feet carrying us along to say, go out and buy a pack of cigarettes, even though we believed we had just made a final decision to quit smoking. In short, I believe, as others have alluded to, that Dennett, although mindful of Sapolsky's evidence, is unable to let go of his illusion that Dennett is in charge of Dennett.

[@karlkellar8614]

I find all this to be a side issue; one may or may not be able to overcome urges and past programming,but that is a psychological issue, not the underlying issue of whether free will exists. Also, I don't agree that our consciousness is computational, but that's another huge argument that can't be proven one way or the other.

[@Wednesday51]

One

[@isaacbernath]

How do I reach you off here? You seem like a fascinating individual I'd like to hang with(maybe get on a plane ride with)when I travel your side of the country..

[@ekocoffeetalk]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@steppingrazor9685]

Well said.

[@DavidGraybeard]

Fantastic discussion. I am currently reading both of their most recent books, and I chanced on this. I favor Dennett’s perspective as more nuanced, and I always suspect absolutes, but I’m trying to keep an open mind as I read.

[@ninadgadre3934]

There’s always a fundamental disagreement about definitions in such debates. Ive rarely seen two people discuss “free will” where both have the exact same notions they are bring to the discussion. More often than not they each feel the counter position is not even worth discussing, and instead “my position” is worth discussing. It kinda makes me a bit annoyed cuz i wish you’d agree before hand on definitions and start out at the same point. My understanding of the question of free will is whether my wishes today are completely predictable by a set of known or unknown equations or not? Is it computable by a computer with perhaps 3 trillion trillion times the current computational power, or is it not? Is there a potential algorithm that can be run on computational systems that can predict my next move if enough input variables are provided? That’s what i wanna hear your thoughts on, dear debaters.

[@MeisterKleisterHeisstEr]

Thanks for hosting this wonderful debate. I love Dennett and the civil calm tone. The poll at the end should have been "Compatibilism" vs "Incompatibilism", since both agree on determinism.

[@yelsu3358]

"calm" lol

[@toppinzr3743]

Daniel Dennett is a wonderful philosopher and has written many good books, include "Freedom Evolves", his main book on free will. He has done a great deal to give a rational, scientific grounding to airy concepts like free will, consciousness and the soul. I love his integrative approach.

[@iluvmuusic]

I've never understood Dennett's view on free-will. And I still don't. Thank you for enabling and sharing this dialogue.

[@notanemoprog]

Dennett doesn't even understand what he's saying.

[@sammesingson7584]

You have free will just as you have money. Both are a construct but necessary

[@iluvmuusic]

@@sammesingson7584 The question is not whether (the illusion of ) free will useful.

[@notanemoprog]

No.@@sammesingson7584

[@captainbeefheart5815]

Do you think there's a moral difference between a lightning strike killing a child and a parent planning for over a year to kill her child? If the answer is "yes." then whatever accounts for that difference is free will.

[@scy22]

Robert said, "I cannot choose to change my mind right now. Nonetheless, my mind could be changed." This pretty much sums it up. Daniel is playing a game of semantics to dance around Robert's core premise. Yes, you choose to do things, but you still have no control over the series of events that brought you to that intent.

[@Sepguru]

The same can be said in reverse. All discussion is a semantics game if one doesn’t engage with the arguments openly and honestly. No free will, as in, I do not choose to change my mind, the mind itself changed as a result of events outside of my control.

[@Ali-e5h1b]

So because I can't control which candy is available, choice isn't free will? The will is contained in the body... So no, aside from a ghost nothing can have "free will" by that definition. I suppose omnipotence is the only path to free will by his definition. It's a really sad way to make money off of chumps. It's the same gag that Shopenhauer used.

[@scy22]

@@Ali-e5h1b Correct. Your choice is not free will.

[@frilansspion]

no definition or concept of "will" or anything else is completely "free". The only reason this magic fluff is even debated is because socialist pretentious hippies dont want to put people in jail and dont want anyone to have responsibility - "EQUITY". Its a liberal agenda, not science.

[@krasimirminev2357]

Nah you can still choose cling to your biases that does not resolve it

[@traceywright7790]

They debated like gentlemen and parted on good terms. So nice to see.....!

Exceptional debate, I enjoyed the exchange of arguments. I understood that both speakers are practically in the same or very similar positions, but they had different definitions of free will.

[@DouwedeJong]

In his autobiography Dennett explained why defining things does not always help, and I will paraphrase. We are in a danger of defining things into a black hole, especially since the process of definition does not actually explain anything. We can best start talking and engage in conversation, in that way we can learn.

[@tonylocke1214]

34:00 terrible shame that Daniel seems to feel the need to resort to sarcasm. He’s certainly no Christopher Hitchens, and his arguments seem to somewhat rely on this, and apparently a certain degree of wilful ignorance.

[@maxermrh1979]

I don't think they are similar at all. Dennet wants to uphold a framework where the moral judgement of people's behavior is still valid, and Robert abhors the idea. Dennet claims to agree that behavior is deterministic, but then does some linguistic limbo to argue that we should judge people anyway. Even worse, one of the implications is that there are people with free will and people without, which is about the most classist and elitist thing a philosopher can say without straight up denying somebody's humanity.

[@petrospetroupetrou9653]

Prof. Sapolsky is great! I think he is a really nice person.

[@5driedgrams]

Absolutely. And not a grifter like 99% of the public intellectuals.

[@petervanvelzen1950]

We have no control over our past, but depending on our past we may have a more or less control over our future actions. I happen to agree with both excellent gentlemen (I think).

[@BryanJorden]

Your past, aka your interaction with the external environment is what molded you into who you are (thoughts, desires, personality, fears, etc). If that's the case, the reason you make ANY decision is out of 'your' control. (the self is an illusion) Infact, this false sense of self is the reason why determinism is hard to grasp. We THINK we are author of the voices in the head we call thoughts, but we're not. In my view "thinking" is the most interesting subject in the world. It's what allowed us to advance as a species. It's the source of all happiness and suffering. The source of confusion and clarity. Mindfulness meditation is the best practice I have found to completely dispell the illusion and give powerful insights into the nature of thinking which will also give insight into why we lack free will

[@petervanvelzen1950]

@@BryanJorden I think there are also internal factors that depend on our genes, and the way in which our brain develops. Claiming that your self does not exist, doesn't make you disappear. You and only you are the author of your external voice. (as observed from the outside). and you and only you experience what I say in the way that you do internally.

[@anthonybrett]

@@BryanJorden " It's the source of all happiness and suffering. The source of confusion and clarity. " So, if one baby was born during a famine in Ethiopia, and another was born to a wealthy family in the Western world, what has thought got to do with happiness and suffering, or confusion and clarity?

[@lbjvg]

They both agree on all pragmatic questions as far as I can tell - the disagreement seems merely verbal regarding the scope of the term ‘free will’. Dan defines ‘free will’ in operational terms and Robert in ideal/abstract terms.

[@McAwesomeDelux]

I think the crux of the argument here is the tension between these two points of view, which you're pointing out. Is free will part of rational reality, or is it an ideal we impose on what we deem Reality?

[@ericb9804]

Agreed. Sapolsky is saying "free will as metaphysics is silly." And Dennett replies, "yes, I know, but only in the sense that metaphysics in general is silly." I agree with Denntt - we are free to define "free will" in operational terms because we find utility in doing so. But I also agree with Sapolsky - we should be wary of those who use the notion of "free will" to make claims about what is "really real" about a person.

[@DouwedeJong]

@@ericb9804 Making claims about what is "really real" about a person, is one of the most fun things to do.

[@___Truth___]

@@DouwedeJong It's certainly useful

[@guidobellberg2294]

No they don't agree, Sapolsky is just a nice guy. Whoever claims that free will exists should provide some sort of proof, otherwise he doesn't really add anything to human knowledge.

[@Waibublz]

I think it becomes quite clear later on in the debate that Daniel is essentially not talking about free will but agency, and I'm not really sure why he insists on calling it free will. He even says himself that there is this "medieval concept of free will". No, there's free will and then there is agency. They are not the same concepts.

[@Perujay-dl2bs]

You can observe yourself to confirm that there's no such thing as free will. You don't need to read books about the brain. Observe yourself without any prejudice, opinion or analysation. It's all you need to do. And you'll realize one day that you do not do the observation. There's no 'you' who 'does' the observation.

[@ChannelMath]

what's the diff?

[@jcl7372]

@@ChannelMath A machine can have agency without will. Imagine a lethal drone that uses software to calculate whether someone in a warzone is a civilian or a combatant. The drone can either kill the person or spare them. That is agency (the ability to deal out life or death) without free will (because it is still just a machine).

[@chemquests]

Just as Sapolsky conflates free will with intentionality

[@dmatthewholmes]

​@@jcl7372if Sapolsky is correct and we have no free will then there is no difference

[@TheMultisingularity]

Dennett's core of the argument based on the evolution theory is correct: evolution and also ftee will don't depend on indeterminism but on randomness and deterministic chaos. In this sense free will can be as he puts it, the unpredictable decision we choose some times in order not to be controlled by others and achieve even some possible evolutionary advantage by this very random unpredictable choise. For example the really top class tennis player among the good ones is the one who can use randomness on his usual repertoir of play in a way that other players cannot read his next move and this randomness is what gives him the edge among the others.

[@lonelycubicle]

Great format, host and guests.

[@bovinejonie3745]

Never imagined I’d see Prof. Sapolsky publicly debate. That said, I’m way into it. This man is brilliant!!

[@serversurfer6169]

He debated this recently both with Michael Huemer and with Kevin Mitchell. ✊ Huemer: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJukiqmeq5Zggsksi=R-ch_nxMg2Y9rnUy Mitchell: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGq8YoRuq82La7ssi=qzr0o49hkLCPnaLh

[@bovinejonie3745]

@@serversurfer6169 Thank you.

[@lmj5994]

Dennet is a legend. Every time I listen to him I learn something. Thank you.

[@filippetrovic845]

And something is wrong. Good job, but we dont blame you.

[@johnpatzold8675]

"Evolution is all about the evolution of the skill of self-control!" - Daniel Dennett. Now that is a quote. This was such a great debate.

[@roberthess3405]

The quote actually is a spectacular example of begging the question - it assumes that humans have self-control and, thus, free will. Aside from that logical fallacy, the quote also misdescribes evolution. Evolution is not ABOUT anything. It has no end point, much less a purpose. To the extent that we have self-control in Dennett's sense, it's simply one evolutionary outcome among billions of others.

[@johnpatzold8675]

I would agree it is simply one evolutionary outcome among billions of others, and I don't think he is intending to capture all of his understanding of evolution in a single quote, but rather speaking to the concerns of this one issue involving the question of whether human beings have self control. Umm, there is a logical fallacy by your defintion in a lot science my friend. I think you know that. Science is a tool and a process to discover truth, not a thing in itself. @@roberthess3405

[@ceriasophis405]

Evolution is a mechanical function which always degrades biological function into devolved state of existance leading to annihilation. Regardless of Self-Control..as one thinks important for sustainment of an identity as a Self which is nothing more then a construction representing a transient entity in form.

[@saeravi]

The best thing about this debate is that it wasn't a debate about if have free will or not but rather a debate about what the definition of free will is.

[@Pancunian]

Agreed, but they seem to be talking passed each other

[@Schmitty998]

I don’t think that’s fair, there’s tangible differences in the implications of the argument. E.g. is Sapolsky is right, moral accountability is completely arbitrary and judging someone for murder is just as nonsensical as judging someone for their height. If Dennett is right then it can still be rational to have those judgments, even if the causal chain that led to the murderer killing someone starts prior to their birth. The question traditionally is framed as whether determinism is compatible with free will, obviously you can choose to define free will in a way where it is or isn’t, but the important thing isn’t the definition but the tangible takeaways, which in this case are different between the two of them.

[@notheotherklaus]

Two intellectual giants meet for a critical discussion. All the reasons why the internet is great for learning, as Twitter/X is mostly about hate.

[@thomasreisman970]

Always a pleasure listening to intelligent people discussing important ideas in a civilized manner.

[@nUrnxvmhTEuU]

I'm not sure how "civilized" Dennet's "you're not responsible for not reading the whole sentence, you just didn't have the self control" was...

[@dottedrhino]

Robert: circumstances determine choices; Dan: choices influence circumstances.

[@athenachavez8]

Right. Just two different angles of the universe's same causational loop. Both components ultimately join to explain determinism. As Robert Sapolsky has hinted in other videos: The universe can only exist in two possible fundamental configurations. Either it is deterministic, or it is random. And neither configuration gives us control over what happens. If we are to give a meaningful definition to free will, we must agree that free will is not about being in control of the outcomes. Instead, we should define free will as the circumstance of living in a universe where the course of everyone's life is allowed to unfold in the easiest way possible which does not hinder prosperity and does not result in unnecessary suffering.

[@dottedrhino]

@@athenachavez8 Suppose we have Alice Bob, and Charlotte. They can choose a number. The rule is a + b + c = 0. Now they are all free to choose a number, but only with respect to each other. For example, if a=1 and b=-3, then c must be c=2, so Charlotte is not free. But she is, so she wants c=4. Them Alice and Bob are not free and so on. I don't know the mechanism, but somehow this seems to me the right way to look at free will.🙂

[@whatsdoin2392]

Sapolsky has helped me fully appreciate that "I" am embedded in a brain and body and as such "I" can only be me. Within that framework I can chose between good and bad, and between bad and worse using reason foremost but with considerations of the heart.

[@tomarmstrong1550]

Every debate on Free Will has always ended in a collapse of semantics.

[@varhelyiadrian109]

Yes, next time start with the definitions.

[@ihatespam2]

Well, collapse? maybe, be more like one guy holding stubbornly to his unique definition, thereby misunderstanding the argument. Sapolsky recognized Dans attempt to salvage the term, but pointed out it is still flawed. Dennett just described that we are sometimes free from external coercion and calls that free will. But that’s better called, freedom, because the will still remains “not free.” You can’t choose your convictions so it doesn’t qualify as free will. So no semantic problem from Sapolsky, he just pints out Dennetts error, and he refuses to see it. But then again most philosophical debates have semantic issues, that’s why science is better. Evidence or no evidence. Free will has no evidence.

[@---Dana----]

​@ihatespam2 Very well said.

[@norvinreyes2267]

Tthe most important part of our body is the brain, according to the brain😂

[@timetobenotdo]

It’s one of the most silly things to take a stance on. Only a fool comes to a stagnant position that there is or is not free will. Having a poll is hilarious.

[@eaglebald]

This is really about left vs right, the fundamental societal struggle of the last 10k years. Humans are innately egalitarian (it’s how we have survived for 95% of our existence); Sapolsky’s stance is an endorsement of egalitarianism while Dennett seems to feel more comfortable with emergent traits and circumstances such as meritocracy, hierarchy, and dominance. Society will progress better when right wing traits die off and we return to our natural roots, through rhetoric and discourse like Sapolsky’s and technological advancements that flatten hierarchies.

[@benyaeger4388]

It's amazing how complex our bodies and lives are. Did it all start with nothing, then stardust, then a single cell organism, and so on and so forth.

[@stephanodermatt5467]

I am so happy that this discussion could take part, given Dennett's recent passing. And Robert Sapolsky made his case so well, that I don't see a way how Dennett's view on free will could stand here....

[@5Gazto]

The argument between them is about the confusión in the definition of "free will" (descriptive) and what society agrees to accomodate once they settle the definition (normative) . From my point of view, Dan is emphasising on the normative part, while Robert on the descriptive. Robert's argument can be twisted to become the excuse of libertines, despots and machiavelians, while Dan's argument can be misconstrued to mean that punishing for aspects of personality people have little or no control over is acceptable. Notice the beuty and irony in the complexity of what they are doing and how hopeless we are at determining the next output taking even vasts amount of data about them in consideration.

[@mel_cosentino]

With no free will on his own, Dennet is so concerned about the potential social consequences of accepting there's no free will, that he engages in a very complex case of intellectual gymnastics to believe that determinism is compatible with free will.

[@leamael00]

"I believe in determinism AND free will" I'm a vegan but I eat only meat.

[@AhmadN]

Exactly

[@SpidermanInLondon]

Robert took his vitamins for this video. 👌

[@kenstreat6127]

It all comes down to whether the 'self' exists outside of conditioning, or whether the sense of self is created by conditions. Once the sense of self is understood to arise from conditions, no example of conditions will prove otherwise.

[@Magnus_1996]

Just as we can look at a twisted tree and not hold it accountable for the way it has been shaped, just as well can we do with people. I started to incorporate this view on fellow humans and their actions, after I felt 'oneness' for the first time, something that I had previously dismissed as new-age hippie nonsense. In that moment I learned to stop judging myself and others, and I cried my eyes out in tears of joy. For the first time in my life I felt like I was no different than anyone else. However, imho, we do have some control over our actions, it's not a simple yes or no.

[@Bob-v3g4m]

Yep, free will is not difficult to understand. Understand awareness, and there you are.

[@macysondheim]

You cried? Lmao simp..

[@dgd216]

Robert made a fumble when he answered Dan's question about being responsible for plagiarism. I would've said "no, but that does not mean there shouldn't be consequences." I think Robert should've gone back and been like "responsible meaning that there should be consequences in which case maybe that's the better word to use". Dennett is clever in getting people scared to use responsibility for things that are clearly abhorrent and trigger our medieval sense of responsibility. I think Robert made a Freudian slip here that could've been responded to without getting into Dan's trap of clever responsibility baiting. He picked it back up later, but left Dan open to differentiate between medieval responsibility and the responsibility for things like academic plagiarism, which Robert kinda recovered by saying that there are more web-like less obvious reasons to grant responsibility, but ultimately once figured out, rule responsibility out altogether.

[@athenachavez8]

As Robert Sapolsky has hinted in other videos: The universe can only exist in two possible fundamental configurations. Either it is deterministic, or it is random. And neither configuration gives us control over what happens. If we are to give a meaningful definition to free will, we must agree that free will is not about being in control of the outcomes. Instead, we should define free will as the circumstance of living in a universe where the course of everyone's life is allowed to unfold in the easiest way possible which does not hinder prosperity and does not result in unnecessary suffering.

[@KayZee-c2x]

I am a higher than average functioning left amygdala hippocampectomy patient. MRI’s displayed an anomaly cluster of densely compacted neurons in my left prefrontal cortex. The logical conclusion I’ve come to is that this was a compensatory measure to help balance out the functional deficit resulting from the removal of the left amygdala hippocampus. I have been a fan of Robert’s work since Why Zebra’s Don’t Get Ulcer’s. Not that familiar with Daniel Dennett. Only seen a couple of his lectures online. I learned about brain plasticity back in 1991 post-op, but was too cognitively detached to put it into practice. Over the years I discovered brain plasticity pioneers like Michael Merzenich and V.S. Ramachandran. Mike’s brain games verifiably increased my IQ scores according to very thorough 2 day long tests conducted at separate universities: University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern University. In my personal experience, there’s no tax on Free will and biological determinism living in the same space at the same time. Life is a back and forth of both these frames of mind. It’s just a matter of which is prudent in what particular space and at what particular time. P.S. Also, just wanted to say thanks to these two intellectual giants. Particularly Robert. Listening to him throughout the years has helped me survive my situation. Relearning the process of proper threat identification has saved my butt more than once while traversing the sometimes wicked streets of Chicago.

[@ns1extreme]

How did you "Relearn the process of proper threat identification"?

[@CoreyAnton]

Does Sapolsky believe that people who understand determinism will thereby become more compassionate or forgiving. Why would that necessarily follow? Couldn't people just as well be determined to accept social inequality as how things are (or how they have been determined to become)?

[@ihatespam2]

I don’t think he would say you automatically always do. Since many of us are often irrational. However, you could argue consistently against being more compassionate and forgiving. Empathy is also a thing that you are determined to have in various degrees. But like everything else it does have some potential for improvement.

[@kittuojha]

From personal experience, it filled me with empathy. It's very useful if you are in a habit of being too hard on yourself or others. As to determinism causing us to be passive, I think the main motivator for doing things, fighting inequality for example, is not that we have free will but because we suffer. The pinch of relative poverty will drive me to take actions, no matter what the odds.

[@phillystevesteak6982]

This is easy. If you don't believe in free will, then NOTHING is anyone's fault. They're simply a byproduct of cause and effect. Therefore, people aren't willfully committing "evil acts". They're behaving in a way that resulted from their environmental upbringing and/or biology. So, essentially everyone is blameless. Period. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act to punish or rehabilitate (or in extreme cases, remove them from society altogether), since this can and does alter their behavior. But it does mean you can now be empathetic with "evildoers" since you know they couldn't help it. It's not their fault. Get it?

[@mariaradulovic3203]

oh, Christ. Maybe we will, but it still doesn't disprove determinism.

[@daviddeida]

It may,it may not.I dont think behavior would change so much,rather resentment may go,guilt and pride lessened and a more acceptance of whatever happens is meant to happen.

[@kostailijev7489]

People can exercise free will by rising above past conditioning via raising their level of consciousness or by various self-help measures such as affirmations, visualization, hypnosis, etc.

[@Wingedmagician]

gad damn you guys really got them both together 😮 I thought this was going to be a compilation of clips of the two

[@koprinayordanova6419]

Thank you..! Truly enjoyable debate..! Both perspectives hold a valid point.

[@squakke]

Unless you're a duelist you can't believe in free will

[@cyielding1]

Simple observation but I like the way the Sapolsky did not rise to Dennett's condescension and personal insults. Dennett knew he had been defeated, he looked hurt and even became respectful and conciliatory at the end.

[@quitmarck]

A blast to watch two intellectual giants duke it out in debate like this.

[@ToriZealot]

sounds rather like low IQ stuff

[@willmpet]

It is not really a debate because they are agreeing to disagree, though they have different reactions to the subject of free will. It is a discussion that would happen were they with each other.

[@ronlipsius]

I'm thinking that you really really love sports and contests and competitions.

[@fernandopineda5505]

Amazing how Robert Sapolsky makes the comparisons of precedence to everyday life. And what a relief to have heard him admit he doesn't resist a well made argument.

[@DonaldMcCutcheon-b7p]

I DO blame Dennett for being faceisous, somewhat unlikeable, and rude since he IS so eager to take responsibility for it.

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

So you prefer people who act faceciously who *won't* take responsibility for their behaviour do you?

[@ihatespam2]

@@paulbrocklehurst2346guess you missed the sarcasm. Dennett used it ad nauseum. Either way moralizing and misunderstanding the facts of cause and effect or recognizing the lack of free will, you will be held responsible and you should understand that (although with or without many people will not want to be held responsible) Just because you realize people don’t have free will doesnt mean you won’t want them held responsible. If someone behaves in a disfunctional way, society still has the right to protect itself from said person and they will be “held responsible” but minus the judgmental attitude and moralizing about it.

[@antitheistvegan]

Well done and agreed!

[@phillystevesteak6982]

Lol!

[@chemquests]

I love Dennett’s sense of humor; I’m sure Sapolsky got it.

[@thomasmathew1324]

I finally got it. Daniel Dennet wants to establish free will exists by radically redefining the term. Like for example "Do Ghosts exist?". Well, it exists as a concept. We have a collective understanding of what a Ghost is and hence in that sense, it exists. 😎😎

[@GeckoCraft13]

In other words, as long as we have a collective consensus for what ghosts should be, we will collectively agree on creating the same concept in our individual minds that this is how a ghost looks, creating the ILLUSION that this particular concept of a ghost must be the ONLY concept of a ghost POSSIBLE! I love this idea! It makes me feel like I have more control of my life because I now feel like I have more control of how I THINK - giving me more control of how I FEEL! 😮 Robert, on the other hand, explains something that might be true in ONE sense, but is FALSE if you want people to feel WHOLE WITHOUT the PROMISE that there will always be someone to mourn for you or stand up for you in the face of your challenges!

[@Jon-dh3ki]

How would you define free will? Free from what?

[@sorenwintherlundbys]

Yes, that goes back to John Dewey. Dreams exist AS dreams.

[@sunwukong6917]

Does a piece of music exists? You can play it on a piano, but it's a bunch of symbols on a paper interpreted as key strokes, a bunch of independent sounds separated in time by various intervals...etx... Does music don't exist just because it's a social construct? It does.

[@sebastianmejiacamacho]

The only thing they don’t agree on is the definition of free will, but within Robert’s definition neither of them believe, and in dennetts definition they both don’t believe

[@MarioTsota]

Daniel is not listening. He is defending the same points Robert refuted like 20 mins ago.

[@peacefulisland67]

These last many years, as a recovered alcoholic and becoming recovered from CPTSD, having an ACE score of 10, having been swamped with autoimmune disease, I've come to realize that free will is highly dependent on my level of consciousness. If I've relinquished the steering wheel, a little dude I refer to as Ego (lovingly) hops in the seat because someone, no matter how selfish and reckless, no matter how drunk or enraged, has to drive the damned bus. If no one's driving, we're going over the cliff for sure. At least a knuckle dragger has a shot and historically most people I've known including me have had multiple chances to change trajectory. It's brutal and the hardest work ever to break out of old patterns. But when I wake up and gather the courage and curiosity to care about what happens next, when I face instead of turn away from my deep rooted and misunderstood ancient fears, that little part of me happily accepts a lollipop, sits in a corner and lets me have a go at the driving again. That liminal space between old patterns and new experiences, new thinking, is like gold. It's the way in and through. It's fleeting and slippery for most. And it takes others being there at key moments to support the shift, to bear witness to the shredding, not shedding, of skin. Everything I can do is completely dependent upon letting go of insistence that I can't, and letting go of how it comes into reality no matter the evidence against me. It's also dependent upon how awake I am to the reasons for wanting what I want and whether my faith is conditional or black and white. Our histories, genetics, beliefs, cultures, finances, are all just a ladled swirl in the giant caldron of human experiences. Those are my canvas, paint and tools. Once I see I can use them to create and have a desire for expression, I can begin to see the difference between a dark, mindless and spiritless dumping of paint, and a conscious peeling away of everything that is just dead weight holding me back from my highest being. All that and karma. Karma is unavoidable and has to be worked out. Cheers.

[@seanmolloy9297]

Well, yes! Unless your 'level of consciousness' is arrived at because of all the preceding events that must, by necessity, have unfolded... Maybe that's what you meant. Here's a question. If you're of a certain age, you've probably had the experience of being frustrated trying to recall a phone number. A phone number that you know you know! You've recalled it many times in the past, but for some unknown reason, you can't recall it now. If Mr. Dennett is correct, then there must be some other, lower level, 'YOU' who is trying to keep that phone number from YOUR conscious mind. He fails to explain how and why that happens. Conversely, Dr. Sapolsky's model does explain it, easily... Good luck

[@ninadgadre3934]

Lol i am in the “there is no free will” camp but i like the counterpoint debate style more. Very comprehensive and thorough, very well put.

[@varhelyiadrian109]

So free will is how strong is your prefrontal cortex.

[@accidentalpatient4152]

No, that's not what he's saying, were you listening?

[@ihatespam2]

The human brain has become very complex and can ruminate, calculate, reflect etc. our decision making has become better. But it all still determined and its future decisions only occur based on what it is capable of and the newer environment it is in. In other words, not freewill. Dennett wahats to say because we have some options that are not restrained by external forces, that we have a sort of free will. But to me that just means we have some freedom, but our will is not free, which means our convictions to choose from options is determined by the past.

[@ToriZealot]

please don't believe such nonsense

[@jonathansobieski2962]

Dennet completely lost it by trying to argue, “don’t you want to be able to take responsibility”. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is free will.

[@devonadler5835]

Yes, and I believe that is a common mindset amongst those that do believe in free will. It is a concern over the implications and consequences of the inexistence of free will. A requirement to radically redefine their ethical and moral judgements. It means completely reworking our sense of self and ego. After looking into it for a little while now, I haven't found any legitimate counter argument to sapolskys position- just people that want to invalidate it for fear of the implications that a lack of free will necessitates.

[@jeffkilgore6320]

It’s the same poor argument for religious beliefs. They’re beliefs, not knowledge.

[@lost_boy]

Every time I've heard Dennett defend the position of Free Will he redefines what "free will" means each time to suit the angle he's taking. Makes me wonder if he actually believes what he's saying or is simply playing devil's advocate for the sake of debate. Either way, it's not very convincing if redefinition is essential to laying out pro-free will arguments. But, as Dennett is basically using a "god of the gaps" argument for free will, it's unsurprising. There is a disturbing, almost colonial edge to Dennett's arguments too. Like, we (elderly white folks) have evolved free will, whereas more primitive peoples have not. Great responses from Sapolsky though - I think he laid out his case eloquently and accurately. Definitely the winner of this debate, I think.

[@LotusHart01]

I think it’s valuable to move on from the concept of free will as though individuals author their own choices from space. It will serve us greatly in structuring society, like forming much better policies and laws that align with a more accurate understanding of the mechanisms underlying human behavior. If we are looking for equality, the extent of that equality can be achieved by understanding we don’t have free will. And we will predict how far is too far because we will consider the differences between sexes and classes and ethnicities in the process. If we want to develop humans in the most efficient ways, we must understand there isn’t free will. This way we can build our schooling and curriculum in harmony with the highest human behaviors while leading our children away from their susceptibility to their lowest inclinations of human nature. This could potentially yield much more independent citizens who are then able to afford much more charity and contribution towards greater society. Thus, we will elect better leaders and hold our capitalistic markets to higher standards of operation, including better benefits for workers and so forth. All because we update our thinking on free will.

[@flappyluke719]

This is a very difficult and, for that matter, a very interesting topic whether there is a free will or not. The more it makes me happy to see such a civilized and encouraging discussion between these two intelligent men. Very good work done here👏

[@GregCameron-e2k]

I've read a lot of Daniel Dennett and I love so much of what he writes. He certainly seems on the losing end of this argument. Sapolsky's arguments seem infinitely more logical.

[@karlkellar8614]

Here's my brilliant take: I don't know if there's free will. It's hard to argue for free will scientifically, if you believe in cause and effect, though I understand that some argue quantum indeterminacy gives you an out. But really, it doesn't matter, because if free will does not exist, the illusion of free will definitely exists, and is so strong that one CANNOT escape it. Try as you might, no matter how strongly you "believe" in determinism, everything you do or don't do appears to be a product of a conscious or unconscious decision. I decide whether I will get up off the couch. I decide whether I will eat. Even for "involuntary" actions like taking a crap, I cannot escape the subjective experience that I decide where and when I will do it, or I decide not to decide and just let it happen (and ruin my pants). Even if you say to yourself "I don't believe in free will so I will do nothing," the fact that you do nothing results from an (at least apparent) exercise of your will. You simply cannot escape that experience. Since you cannot control or avoid the "illusion" (if it be such) of free will, the only rational, pragmatic approach is to assume you have it. (To me, the issue is analogous to the existence of time; physicists tell us that time's arrow is an illusion and the whole universe past and future exists simultaneously. Maybe so, but there's literally no way a human mind can stop experiencing the illusion of time passing and moving in time, if illusion it is; as Einstein said, it is a "strangely persistent" illusion.) (Let me also note that, in so arguing, I am in no way arguing against the proposition that past experience changes your brain state and in a sense (but ONLY in a sense) programs you to react in certain ways to stimulants in the environment or within your brain. This is a separate issue. I don't argue that one's psychological state and reactions aren't molded by past experience and in that sense predetermine, or at least strongly influence, future actions, but that's a different issue from the abstract question of free will. Yes, I may have a psychological tendency to react in a certain way, but even then I theoretically could surprise everyone and do something different. Even if I am psychologically incapable of an action, that doesn't mean that I couldn't do it; there is still the (fact or illusion) that one must decide on a course of action, even if based on your personality and experience that decision seems predictable.)

[@karlkellar8614]

@@willbluefield5776 Interesting.Could you elaborate?

[@karlkellar8614]

As well as being analogous to time, is there an analogy to random events? In the real world, on the macro level, we say the numbers that come up when you roll a pair of dice are random. And for all practical purposes they are. But not really. the results of a dice toss would be entirely predictable, if we had enough knowledge. That is, if we knew every force that influenced the dice, we could predict with absolute certainty where they would end up. This would include the exact angle at which each die left the hand, the exact amount of force exerted by the thrower, the ambient air pressure, the force and direction of any air currents, the resiliency and "bounce" of the table surface and the backboard against which the dice must strike, the exact weight of each die and how it is distributed within each die .. . There is no theoretical reason why we couldn't calculate the exact behavior of the dice, if we knew all these variables (including how they change from moment to moment while the dice are in flight). This is just cause and effect. As a practical matter, we don't and can't have such perfect knowledge nor the computational power to predict in real time. So we must and do act as if the dice are random, and for all practical purposes they are. In fact, the whole craps industry in Las Vegas is built on this assumption. But that doesn't mean that the flight of two objects through the air cannot be precisely determined given sufficient information.

[@brianwillis4163]

I mean, you could also subjectively argue that the earth is flat based on your own experiences and observations and live with that illusion day-to-day with little, personal, implication as well. However, to assume the earth is flat despite the scientific evidence... well... I think that's where philosophy and science diverge.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

@@brianwillis4163That's a false analogy. Most people on Earth got out of the illusion of flat Earth. No one got out of the illusion of free will or the arrow of time.

[@brianwillis4163]

@@piotr.ziolo. Sapolsky himself admitted he struggles with the concept despite the nueroscientific evidence that supports his findings. However, if his theory is sound, it holds larger implications, not only from a crime and punishment perspective, but also meritocracy as a whole.

[@Raw799]

I couldn't believe what Dan said at 21:34. Them fighting words....

[@willmercury]

Not with your grammar.

[@angramainyu2026]

@@willmercury it's a common idiom.

[@skrifefeil3634]

A live stage discussion between these two enormeous brains would be awsome! 😊

[@ivandate9972]

this is the best discussion about the issue, so far

[@cueva_mc]

RIP Professor Dennet

[@sprink88]

I agree with Sapolsky, because of the big bang. Great to listen to these wisemen.

[@kimyunmi452]

I agree because of the initial conditions (the big bang) and superdeterminism of quantum mechanics. I wrote precisely these words. Could not have been otherwise.

[@taposhbarua875]

such a wonderful discussion. watched spell-bound.

[@ToriZealot]

did I miss the definition of free-will?

[@recalcitrantrecidivist5927]

Sapolsky had Dennett for breakfast in this debate. Sapolsky sounded rational. Dennett sounded reactive. Like he was offended by Sapolsky's argument.

[@user-by3ks9bp5d]

He was offended by the stupidity and the fact that anyone takes that bridge troll seriously

[@ubuntuposix]

46:17 Sums up Daniel Bennett's position: "(Yes you have no free will in choosing from options) but don't you want to take responsibility for your judgement?" Dan, we try to use our "CPU" the best we can (trying to foresee the consequences of our judgement), but we didn't create our "CPU".

[@leesmoak3125]

As I watch this I think it doesn’t matter. How I experience my own life is personal. No one can share my personal experience . I think of what I know is the truth for me. And I enjoy learning and changing how I live. I have spent years paying attention to my feelings, what I think and how I act toward myself and others. It has never been a bad thing for me. It helps me make better decisions. If it works, it works! I enjoy the pride in growing and seeing how I have changed. I think if I had no control over self I would not try. But I enjoy trying.

[@bicycleutopia]

dumb comments. typically arrogant too. irony ;

[@silberwolfSR71]

I sympathize with this perspective. While I share Sapolsky's view that free will is an illusion, I think that at some level, that's not so important to me. It sure feels like I have free will, and that feeling is a major part of how I experience and act in the world. That said, I think it's good to be mindful of the lack of "true" free will, especially when thinking about, interacting with, and judging others. We can try to prevent others from acting in harmful ways, I think we are even "justified", in some sense to harm them in doing so. What I feel we are _not_ justified to do however, is to proclaim that we, through the quality of our character, of our own choice, are "better" than them, "more good", "more perfect". Claiming such, to me, rings hollow, cruel, hypocritical and _untrue_.