Is Free Will An Illusion? | Really? no, Really?

[@SkysMomma]

After a series of horrible losses in my life, I started drinking more alcohol because the emotional pain was unbearable. I eventually developed alcohol use disorder. I tried for a long time to control it, but because of the thoughts about alcohol and cravings I had, I could not control it. My doctor suggested trying Naltrexone medication to reduce the cravings, which I did. Naltrexone is an opioid receptor blocker, and that means that it blocks some or all of the pleasurable feelings you get from taking opioids or in my case drinking alcohol. I was SHOCKED that almost right away, it not only eliminated my cravings but also eliminated my actual thoughts about the alcohol! I think that must mean that the chemistry in my brain was causing my thoughts and cravings about alcohol in the first place. That is just stunning, to me. I also note that not everyone who drinks more for a time develops alcohol use disorder. … I had heard Dr. Sapolsky’s assertion that we don’t have free will, and I thought about that right away when I experienced this drastic change in my thoughts and desires from just a change in my brain chemistry.

[@SkysMomma]

@@suraya1224 Clinical trials were done with Naltrexone that showed that it worked for about 80% of participants, and those particular trials proved that it works independent of the placebo effect. Now, the placebo effect additionally might be possible, but I think you would have to set up an experiment in a different way to find out. I believe that life circumstances and personal choices of course play a role, but there is science-based proof that biology plays a large role. I’m still pondering Dr. Sapalosky’s opinion that we have no free will, including that we really have no control over our choices. It feels like we have free agency to make our own choices, but I’m considering and reading more about what science says about free will. It is very interesting to think about. If many of us decided we don’t have free will, maybe we would do more science to find out why people are the way they are and maybe that would lead to solutions to more of our problems.

[@meteor1237]

Read his book and it made me think to stop blaming myself for decisions I made when younger. It was genetics in many ways and the ways I was raised and born. I stopped blaming myself for many things. Made me feel better about myself. Thx!

[@user-ej5gx7ph7q]

Rather than predictive,I think the best use of this knowledge is in the dynamics of how we manufacture socioeconomic cultural relationships. The less inequality, it appears the less deception and violence at our cultural core.

[@kavorka8855]

What Sapolsky's saying concerning crimes is to stop thinking in terms of punishment, that doesn't mean don't prevent people who committed a crime from doing it again. Prevention vs punishment.

[@theofficialness578]

After what has occurred, seemingly has always occurred and is likely to continue occur, intervention, prevention, confinement for the purpose of rehabilitation, and only when absolutely necessary non punitive confinement for life. Is the only path forward, because just saying don’t exist in the first place and a sense of justice has only made everything worse due to lack of knowledge. Whether there is absolute “free will” so called limited “free will” or no “free will” Noway has proven punishment accomplishes nothing. It doesn’t have to be done to the degree of Noway but absolutely needs to be reformed. I feel when it’s suggested an individual chooses to be “evil” that suggests everyone is in a “evil” state of mind and is just resisting using “free will”.

[@danmer8995]

Truly fascinating!

[@kazkk2321]

The paradox alone is enough to drive you crazy. I appreciate that he acknowledges this innate paradox between lack of free will and the necessity of intervention

[@mariannaark5899]

If u can open ur umbrella to protect yourself from the rain without moralizing abt the evil intentions of rain, if u agree that an old ass person with cataract shouldn't be behind the wheel without attributing unethical intent behind getting old and infirm, sooner or later you'll also see there's no paradox. It's just that for some actions we use prevention/self protection/intervention interchangeably w/ punishment and rettribution and once you disconnect those there's no contradiction. (I'm not saying u should agree I'm just explaining why there seems to be a paradox when there's not necessarily)

[@Ephesians-yn8ux]

Thanks for the existential crisis, glad I stopped by.

[@NathanWilliams-j9n]

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” - Socrates

[@thecuriousquest]

Joseph Heinrichs hit on so much of what sculpts humanity in "the weirdest people in the world". I think that's the title. So insightful! Very open ended in some areas. Excellent book.

[@robertgaunt59]

I’m with Sapolsky on this

[@Cheesesteakfreak]

Yes, it is a scientific fact. Not up for debate.

[@Alex-js5lg]

​@@Cheesesteakfreak I disagree. We don't understand physics _or_ consciousness throughly enough to say that with certainty.

[@milesgrooms7343]

⁠@@Alex-js5lg no we surely don’t have all the answers and understanding, BUT, what we do know and understand enough that makes free will a ridiculous notion. It’s ok, “you” and “I” should enjoy and/or live out the life that we want (“want” being a vague statement of the nature of being and living, and living a “ethical, moral, just” life). It’s “yours” because factors that are completely deterministic (I don’t mean “predetermined”) but your experience of being is literally thrust upon you! There is absolutely no atomized/singular mechanism that accounts for any decision or action that takes place in “your” life. You are irreducible to no singular factor or event! It’s amazing, yet incredibly depressing….staring your meaningless, nihilistic existence in the face isn’t a highly adaptive mental model, but it would seem to be what is. Just let it go….just let it go…….and so it goes…………..

[@MandiJynx]

A movie I recommend that expands upon this theory is the Tollywood movie Bro(2023). It follows the story of Mark who dies in a car crash and meets the entity Time, who controls life, death, and fate. Mark makes a deal with Time to go back and help his family before he has say his final goodbye. Later in the story you find all of the choices Mark made prior culminated into the car crash, and his actions were following that of his past experiences. And, ultimately, no matter what he did, the same outcome would have happened regardless of his interventions or not. It expands upon the theory of fate and free will and how we relate to it. It's a very interesting watch and is one of my favorite films of all time.

[@TheJonHolstein]

There is pre-determenistic, the same as fate. And then there is deterministic what sapolsky believes in, where there is not pre determined outcome, but that you can explain why a person did what they did i a situation.

[@christopherallen9580]

Why is Jason doing a podcast with Al Pacino?

[@markwyman6753]

Woah where? Link?

[@Ephesians-yn8ux]

Whooo ahh.

[@guidohavelton6280]

😅

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

The way we respond to our experiences is determined by our set of preferences. In this way, our set of preferences is like a "psychological sail" that inescapably influences the direction we are pushed through life by the fundamentally indifferent flow of our own subjectivity. We have absolutely no hand in the construction or angling of these sails, as to have such a hand requires the direction provided ONLY by an already constructed and angled sail. As such, our sails must have been moulded and angled by the situation into which we emerged.

[@JustVisiting]

Big hitter, the Lama.

[@raleighsmalls4653]

Stunning kruger effect

[@illthinkofonelater]

Stunning Kruger effect, now that's funny

[@caesarvolz6945]

My bank has little baskets of lollipops at each teller's station.

[@TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

The guy on the right wouldn't let Jason get a word in edgewise!

[@Mr.PhatsVarietyVibesShow]

he looks like George costanza I like this show it's funny .. I get a sense Costanza's in the house

[@Alex-js5lg]

There are lectures on Stanford's KZbin channel about human behavioural biology delivered by Sapolsky. They're insightful and entertaining (if you enjoy listening to him talk).

[@ChildPerson]

Omg! That. Explains the adult dirty diapers in the courtroom!

[@KingJorman]

Free will is the experience of doing something for a reason

[@RyanJesseParsons]

Every occurrence has a reason, even if we can’t perceive it, which is why free will is an illusion.

[@KingJorman]

@@RyanJesseParsons it doesn’t seem like you understood my point. I’m saying that the illusion of free will comes about when one associates an action with a conscious thought that references a reason for the action. Essentially, a conscious thought process correlated with an action looks like free will.

[@Dimebag_Darrell]

Is that Al Pacino with George Costanza?

[@TRRILCS]

Reminds me of the old adage. CHOOSE YOUR PARENTS WISELY. 😅😊

[@TW-SB]

The argument against free will is that if you were able to replay your life in reverse and observe the sequence of events unfolding backwards, you would realize that everything follows a model of forced choices. You never chose when or where you were born, nor who your parents would be. As a result, everything is a matter of agency. And agency is where individuals really differ.

[@newmanifest]

I read this too fast and thought it was asking about free WiFi.

[@chewbrocka6833]

Lmao why at 49:40 did he laugh at that

[@yaongingyfmm1571]

If you guys weren't convinced about free will, you should talk to a guy named Sam Harris.

[@kazkk2321]

Sam Harris is utterly insufferable. He a pain in the ass. He is wrong

[@kazkk2321]

Same Harris is not inherently right . He is emotionally reacting to the possibility of something he is afraid of. Him and jordan Peterson does the same under the guise of pseudo intellectual moralism

[@robertpirsig5011]

Sam Harris? Robert Sapolsky is in another league in terms of academic achievement. Sam Harris is more of political commentator

[@NathanWilliams-j9n]

@@robertpirsig5011 Sam also has a PhD in neuroscience and a degree in philosophy so they intertwine quite well for his thoughts on free will. He is more interested in the philosophical side of free will as a opposed to the scientific side.

[@yaongingyfmm1571]

​@@robertpirsig5011Sam has been speaking about free will for more than a decade now, he also has a book about it named, well Free Will. Sam and Robert agree on the subject of free will 100%, so much so that Robert was on Sam's podcast a couple of months ago, the podcast is #360 on Making Sense with Sam Harris.

[@joePARKS]

I saw Dr. Robert in "The Hobbit" film i think.....

[@omenrama]

So the idea that we should predict behavior in certain people, and then segregate them. That was Dr. Sapolsky answer to the Minority Report question right?

[@jacksonmartin8899]

Interestingly, the bible actually explicitly teaches that God's will is sovereign and rejects the notion that man has free will. And the logic of an Almighty God requires that there be no free will for man. So science and the "existence" of God lead to the same conclusion. Religion, however, is almost exclusively built on the idea of man's free will. It is possible to reject religion without rejecting God. Religion is essentially man's attempt to control others by co-opting the idea of a god by trying to get people to earn "salvation". Belief in an Almighty God leads to the same lack of condemnation or hubris, and space for compassion that Dr. S. describes. The value added by such a belief, though, is it adds hope, meaning and a sense of purpose to life. Faith is generally misconstrued: it's fundamentally nothing more than the capacity to accept as true without proof. Most of life is built of nothing but faith since we cannot be sure of or prove most of the things we assume to be true and then act on. After all, we really only "know" what we're currently experiencing or pure logic at the moment we're contemplating it. Everything else is faith in our memory or faith in our assumptions.

[@johnschorr9988]

do you believe in god?

[@jacksonmartin8899]

@@johnschorr9988 I accept as true without objective "proof" that there is a supreme and almighty being, which I refer to as God. I do not believe in the god of most religions, and I do not believe in the god atheists don't believe in. You?

[@AndrewPhillips-xp6dy]

The Bible doesn't tell anyone to burn witches at the stake so I don't know where they got that practice.

[@xezazase]

Do we have free WiFi? That is the question to be asking.

[@MoeSlislack]

it's never all one thing or the other. it's some nature and some nurture. you still have a choice. this guy is going off some studies which have some truth to them but people still decide what to do and not to do.

[@kazkk2321]

I appreciate his scientism and died in the whool atheism. I hope he never changes

[@dukeallen432]

He can’t. :)

[@californiaplant-basedeater2761]

A sure whole lot has happened for no one to have chosen to have done any of it. The guy would have done a service to define all the words in his arguments, right? ... all the way down to the word "choose". Prison ought to be about rehabilitation... within reason.

[@thecuriousquest]

Is it like we're acting out a story

[@Durmomo0]

I feel like its a very complex dominoes falling. Each thing influences the next but it was all set in motion based upon where we are and what happened in the past.

[@ro2692]

You should get George Coztanzas take on this.

[@davidgrimberg4621]

"It's not a lie if you couldn't have said otherwise."

[@sourcedirect4467]

@@davidgrimberg4621 Its not a lie if you bleive its true

[@Furyan5theLoneWolf]

Should I even bother watching this? Hindsight is a remarkable thing, isn't it? I mean, if they knew the Titanic was going to hit an iceberg and sink, they would change the route it took. Not sort out the issue with the lifeboats. Now let me just make one thing clear. Determinism doesn't say that we can't choose or make a decision. It says that we wouldn't make any other choice or decision, in those circumstances. Different circumstances, no problem, but in those conditions, impossible. Lots of people say, I did this, but, if I wanted to, I could have done that. I agree. That isn't free will. That's called agency. The ability to do what we want. Determinism is about the process which led up to you wanting to do "this" instead of "that". Any other arguments concerning different definitions of the term free will, are a waste of time. Nobody claims that we lack agency, unless we are married or have kids. In that case, we have no will.

[@matth7448]

The big problem is his argument is always right. Everything is you did x because of your past experiences

[@Erikmitk]

It’s not always right. It’s only always right if, as you say, everything is depending on the past. You’d falsify his theory by showing a neuron or network of neurons that did something without connection to past experiences. That’s the essence of free will: doing something by itself, unshackled by previous contexts.

[@matth7448]

@@Erikmitk I disagree, thats nonsense. Thats how the brain works. But you can still make choices

[@theofficialness578]

@@matth7448 Those choices are conducted in the brain. That automatically absorbs everything it sees, automatically organizes that absorbed information in a multitude possibly an infinite number of ways based on the individual and that individuals unique past. A brain that is subject malformation and impairment even in a non-observable way. A brain that is mostly designed by nature for survival and selfishness. A brain that cannot know more than what it knows and reason how it reasons. All of these causes determine the sense of a choice.

[@Erikmitk]

@@matth7448 If you take a very close look at how the brain works you’ll see that the way it works is how it works. And in these mechanisms is no room for the free will argument. That’s what he’s saying. What you’re trying to argue is that the brain works how it works but nonetheless there’s an unexplained part that opens up the possibility of free decision making. You just haven’t looked closely enough to rule that out.

[@AndrewPhillips-xp6dy]

Some people say baboons and humans are different

[@TheMiddleWaypod]

Sapolsky's free will conversation with a free will researcher: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZXKpp17jMeYrrM&ab_channel=TheMiddleWay

[@californiaplant-basedeater2761]

Can anyone do something while simulataneously telling themselves they are not choosing to do it?

[@davethebrahman9870]

Free will isn’t even a coherent concept.

[@SerenityReceiver]

This was a talk about determinism, Sapolsky's credentials lend themselves to go further into the human experience of that concept. Next time maybe. The idea of this "free will" you were talking about never seemed plausible to me. Why/how would it exist?

[@vernongrant3596]

Seinfeld meets Sapolsky. You have got to be kidding me! Guess George was always resigned to his fate hence no free will.

[@AndrewPhillips-xp6dy]

When he talks about a cop shooting someone that goes for their cell phone and their perception can change based on what direction they look or where they grew up. I'm not a cop and I don't have a gun but I'm for guns and cops and there was a study done by a black professor that found that the number of black unarmed men being shot by a cop is very low I didn't remember the statistics but they were under 30 a year and they also showed that the number of unarmed white people that were shot by police was much higher but that's expected because there's more white people in the country. The professor that did the study said this must be wrong and he did the study again using different research assistants and came up with the same statistics. That being said. He needs to go to a police academy and do training with a gun and go through a scenario where he acts like a cop and he pulls someone over and see if he waits until the person pulls whatever it is the person has in his pocket out to make sure it's a gun because unless he's suicidal he will pull the trigger every time. I don't understand how you can expect police to put their life on the line and let someone shoot them because the person they pull over is black. If that's not racist I don't know what is. You think a black person's life is more valuable than a cop who may be black also? Nobody is saying there's not racist cops but they aren't paid well and they have to go into all situations and be able to assess what's going on in seconds and they have to make it home safe. My niece's husband is a cop and he told a story about what happened one night. He had a half hour to go on his shift and he had just got a sandwich and was going to eat it and someone ran a red light. He was going to let it go but he said if I don't go after them and they kill someone I can get in trouble. So he pulls them over and there was a girl driving and her boyfriend was in the passenger seat. My niece's husband asks the driver for her license and he was going to run it and if she didn't have any problems he was going to let her go. The boyfriend starts saying don't give him your license and the cop says something to him to calm him down I think he asked for his id but I'm not sure. The cop saw the light come on in the car so he told the boyfriend stay in the car. Then the boyfriend got out of the car and ran around the back of the car and into traffic and got hit by a car and died. He was white. My niece's husband didn't know why he ran. I think they checked his id and he didn't have anything wrong with his license and no warrants out for him. Not all police are evil and not all police are good. Nobody's perfect. I am white and I used to get nervous when I saw a cop driving behind me or next to me even though I wasn't doing anything wrong. I was taught to respect the police and if you get pulled over don't make sudden moves and don't talk back to them. Just let them ask for your license and give it to them. Let them check it and give it back and if they want to write a ticket let them and take the ticket and go. Maybe they don't have the right to see your license and if you want to make a big deal about it you can spend your time sitting in the side of the road or have them arrest you and get a lawyer or maybe they have too much power but it does no good to argue with them because they are enforcers not legislators. They have guns and they may be insane or you may have caught them at a bad time and your rights are important but they do you no good if you're in the grave because they're going through a divorce or they don't like your attitude. They're just people. They aren't super human. They don't have the ability to cut off their emotions any easier than you or me. There's some cops that think they're the arbiter of justice and there's some that just want to do the job and go home.

[@jonaspsantos]

I guess that when Jesus said to forgive 70x7 is right on it.

[@Things606]

Get a good look Costanza??? Sorry I had to say it

[@johnschorr9988]

😂

[@kazkk2321]

90% of compatibilists are wrong. It’s amazing how even philosophy refuses to see this

[@Gamesso1slOo0l]

Free will exist within a frame work. Free will neednt and doesnt need to be vast, its the small decisions we make and it is this small amount of freewill that exist, that together make up the reason for us being here. If you are walking down the street, do you smile and say hello to a person walking by, or ignore them coldly? Thats free will, and these decisions make a HUGE rippling difference to this reality. When we shed the meatsuit aka die and go home and have a life review, its this giant collection of small free will decisions, and finally understanding their effects, that helps us grow and is part of the main reason we are here.

[@8xnnr]

No it doesn’t

[@RyanJesseParsons]

Wrong. You’re implying that there can be actions which act independently of all the causal actions which preceded it, and that’s just not true, inside or outside of our brains.

[@AndrewPhillips-xp6dy]

God is a spirit you can't detect a spirit with your brain

[@AndrewPhillips-xp6dy]

If there's no free will then everything we do must be pre determined and pre programmed and if it is then there must be a God that pre determined it unless you think everything came from nothing

[@Athoseye]

I guess the hallmark of this podcast is chatty facetiousness. Sapolsky rose to the occasion, but I was surprised how on-point the questions turned out to be.

[@AndrewPhillips-xp6dy]

If there's no free will then you can't blame people for being racist or shooting someone that's reaching for a phone. If there's no free will then psychiatry and crime and punishment and many other things are rendered useless.

[@shjarks666]

Consequences still exist

[@dennisstevens4347]

If we have no freewill at all, any time, the criminal had no choice in committing a crime. But the cop had no choice but to arrest the criminal. The jury had no freewill to not convict the criminal. I have no freewill to agree or not with Dr Sapolsky. It's an interesting question, but it can't make a practical difference in our lives.

[@8xnnr]

Knowing you don’t have free will has an effect. This isn’t practical for the majority of people but for the justice system it is.

[@justinko]

It is in fact true and correct and real, but we have no choice but to live as if it is not.

[@karldunnegan2689]

I don't think you listened very closely to Dr. Sapolsky. Maybe go watch another interview or two with him for some clarification.

[@theofficialness578]

Like always in this debate, determinism is so blatantly mistaken for fatalism.

[@TMK1450]

Strawmanning… how about steelmanning to get the neuroscience behind it?

[@zachplm]

The argument against free will is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, people have the ability to make choices regarding their actions. While genetic factors, environmental influences, and habitual behaviors can shape our decisions, we ultimately retain control over our actions. It is not always easy to make these choices, nor is there a lack of a path of least resistance. However, we have the capability to defy any innate preferences at any given moment. To claim otherwise is not only mentally debilitating-it amounts to a form of brainwashing-and represents a simplistic and erroneous interpretation of human responsibility and the human condition. This perspective seems to be nothing more than a dramatic revelation that the individual had at the age of 14, which he has since promoted in an attempt to appear intriguing and profound. His viewpoint aligns closely with nihilistic philosophy.

[@matthewstroud4294]

Yes, the arguments against free will do not address any of the arguments that we do have free will. Or in other words, these guys always try to refute a free will position that no-one actually holds. The most obvious hole they never address is at the foundation of many philosophical arguments, and it can be stated in two ways: 1) the fallacy of self-exclusion and 2) reaffirmation by denial. For 1) they are mostly all determinists with a "billiard ball" view of causation, which means that ALL current and future states are completely determined by previous states, in a causal cascade from the beginning of time. This does however, mean their own thoughts are also determined and as such they are compelled to think the thoughts that they think. So, how could I take their argument seriously? They are compelled to think it. Hence, they forget to include their own brain in the determinist equation, never considering that if human minds could make mistakes, maybe theirs is too. During a free will debate they are implying that they are infallible and reasoning perfectly, whilst telling everyone else that our thoughts are compelled. For 2) To know that a concept is axiomatic and foundational, you can try to deny that the concept is true, but then find yourself using that concept in the refutation of itself. This would be incoherent nonsense, and is the basis of validating axioms via "reaffirmation by denial". Concepts like Existence, Identity and Consciousness are like this, as is Free Will - the ability to focus your mind and know that you are using reason in relation to reality, and that your knowledge is not arbitrary. Free will is a foundation of knowledge, reason, truth and the methodology we use to know what is true or false. You cannot use human reason to refute one of the axioms of reason itself. If there is a system of knowledge that permits compelled and/or arbitrary brain chemistry to make truth claims, then the product of that process is arbitrary too, and cannot be knowledge.

[@kavorka8855]

@@matthewstroud4294have you read either Behave or Determined by Sapolsky? No, of course not. In Matrix, the Oracle tells Neo: "You've already made the choice, now you have to understand it." At least read one of the books mentioned above to understand why you made the choice. It's much more complex than your simplistic argument.

[@davidspencer343]

Your point as been explained a thousand times over. If that's your problem you haven't honestly looked at the subject long enough

[@matthewstroud4294]

@@kavorka8855 My points are not simplistic, they are basic and fundamental. Whatever Sapolsky has said in his books is only applicable if he directly addressed the points I made - did he? As someone whom has read his books perhaps you could tell me where he refutes the basic axioms of objective reality. All I ever hear from his interviews is that he can't find free will in a petri dish. "Simplistic" is a smear, designed to imply that the opponent is of low intelligence or hasn't looked at the evidence or struggles to use abstract ideas. That kind of anti-concept should be avoided, if for no other reason than it demonstrates a willingness to try to intimidate rather than be honest.

[@kavorka8855]

@@matthewstroud4294 your points are simplistic and cliche, they're "language gone on holiday". Sapolsky's arguments aren't philosophical, they're biological, you have not read his books, you just think you're smart and his arguments must be philosophical determinism, no, they're not, they're biological determinism. He doesn't repeat the basic, simplistic arguments, he doesn't assume them either, he provides statistical data, hormonal evidence, and other scientific arguments.

[@guidohavelton6280]

Free will? If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

[@shjarks666]

Swing and miss

[@Alex-js5lg]

Thanks, Geddy.

[@cheapshot2842]

Of course we have free will. We don't have a choice!