"Responsibility is a Myth" | Robert Sapolsky's Determinism

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice04241 If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at [e-mail]. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

[@CMA418]

A fool blames others, blaming one’s self is sign of progress, but the wise blame no one.

[@samandarkhan2431]

short subtitles destroy coherence. either use subtitles consisting of long sentence or don't use it all.

[@michaeljensen4650]

This is a ridiculous theory. There are many things in life which are not in our control. Our actions and choices may be influenced by many factors but that does not make our choices and actions deterministic. If a baby is screaming and will not stop should I smoother the child and kill it? I could say that I had no choice because the crying was disturbing me? We all have urges and impulses, should we act on them with any thought or restraint. Only children and emotionally immature people behave this way. This is nothing but another useless philosophical exercise. Robert Sapolsky is a fraud. "Evolutionary Biologists" teach that human behavior is deterministic and solely driven by our instincts and biology. That is narrow, politically driven and counterfactual thinking.

[@CMA418]

@@michaeljensen4650 Yet you didn’t take on any of the arguments presented. 🤔

[@michaeljensen4650]

@@CMA418 There is no reasonable argument! I gave a perfect example. A longer argument would not be possible in this format. The data does not support Sapolsky's assertion.

[@dependsonallthings]

Videos on these topics often lead with a very "pro" or "against" formula yet yours feel much more nuanced and respectful of your viewers' ideas and abilities. It's encouraging the viewer to be curious about a particular concept instead of trying to change their minds. While I love reading about philosophy, I'm not college-educated and tend to read things I partially agree with. The lack of exposure makes me react more emotionally to other ideas I'm not comfortable with, such as Determinism. Your content and most importantly, the way you lay it out, is helping me a lot to improve this. Just wanted to thank you for sharing your knowledge in this way!

[@voxsvoxs4261]

Yes, I'm quite happy with how unbiased he goes into these I suppose it might be put 'pop-philosophers' and explains their arguments.

[@davemathews5446]

Sapolsky's book rocked my philosophical worldview. We can argue all day long about what certain words mean to us, but the broader point demands a huge shift in our moral judgement of ourselves and others. It is worth honestly examining any belief system which assumes that something magical happens in the human brain which does not happen anywhere else in the universe we observe...

[@deanmccrorie3461]

What happens if you use your right foot to kick your right foot. What happens?

[@HarryBuxley]

If free will is an illusion or a myth, then so is morality, happiness, fear, vengeance, resentment, the earth, the court systems, prison, and literally everything except fundamental physics forces which we still don't understand fully. If free will is a myth or illusion by virtue of running on a deterministic machine, then so is everything else, including concepts like responsibility, praise and punishment. Its a position devoid of any information, a tautology that simple says we exist in a reality than runs on physics.

[@deanmccrorie3461]

@@HarryBuxley spot the fuck on buddy!! Preach! I would add also even true knowledge is impossible too

[@davemathews5446]

@@HarryBuxley I think your list is a reasonable start to the consequences of my point. Everything you listed is a useful thing for someone to perceive, or a useful thing for a society to employ. I think you may be mistaking what is subjectively useful for what is objectively true. We have evolved many useful mechanisms which guide our actions in a survival of the fittest world of Game Theory dynamics. It is not necessary to believe in free will to act as an agent in a perceived world. Free will is simply a story we tell ourselves to justify judging the actions of ourselves and others as "good" or "bad" in our subjective opinion. Do you have conscious control over what you want? Over what makes sense to you? Over what you like? Over how you feel? I think it's worth wondering if we are being guided in large part by thoughts and feelings which we do not consciously choose. We can debate the tautology if you want to, but I think you will find your position to be circular and recursive if you are saying that you make choices separate from anything going on in your brain and your body. I appreciate your comment and interest in this challenging subject....

[@viviantriana5146]

@@davemathews5446agreed. In my opinion, it’s a debate that will take similar tones to the religion debate. Believing might not find a physical, objective way of being justified, but has sociological and psychological benefits that pragmatically speaking have value… I read his “Behave” book and it certainly rocked my whole world view for a while

[@FryJones]

Dude your output of content is ridiculous. I discovered this channel like a month ago and the amount of videos you've put out since then is staggering. One of the hardest-working folks on KZbin rite here. Great stuff. Well done

[@alik5972]

Also the quality as well

[@alineharam]

He is on fire. I'm afraid he will leave himself a bit singed. From California.

[@BubbleGendut]

Agree but I think Prolific is a better description than ridiculous for content output

[@alineharam]

@@BubbleGendut but I do like the word ‘staggering’.

[@zerothehero123]

Whether you have free will or not ultimately doesn't matter. The feeling of life stays the same. Instead acknowledging that we aren't absolute free agents, but vulnerable to influences outside our mind and body, can give us a more forgiving stance to reality!

[@stickofthetruth9408]

Pragmatic philosophy is my favorite

[@StrangePerson69]

This is pretty much what I concluded after a few months of trying to figure out what I thought about the free will/determinism question. Through life I experience free will, and life is in itself the only thing I experience. Whether or not there truly exists free will, is not relevant to my life.

[@luxeayt6694]

Knowing that things can influence your thinking can be freeing in a way.

Or a less forgiving one. You could just as easily follow that line of thought to removal of offending geneologies... Not saying we should but that it's so open you can take it however you want. Like Astrology but for people who haven't had as much hair dye side effects.

[@bobbrian6526]

@@StrangePerson69 more accurate to say that throughout your life you experience determinism and call it free will. Whether you all it free will or not does not change the fact that it is determinism. You cant do anything about it. Nor can do anything about the fact that having watched this video and read these comments your thoughts are different to what they otherwise have been

[@connerblank5069]

Two very important points you have to consider when discussing Sapolsky in this manner: frst off, he is emphatically _not_ a philosopher. He's a behavioral biologist. He's arguing from that basis first and foremost, and that colors a lot of his rhetoric. Second, his stance on absolute determinism is _extremely_ political in nature, as in explicitly for the purpose of questioning how we _act_ in society for the purpise of changing it. He cares much more about the moral nature of assigning responsibility in a world ruled almost entirely by things out of our control than the handful of things which might debatably be _actually_ free will. It's always seemed to me that he's basically planting his flag in the most extreme position possible, on the basis that any movement in the direction of addressing it will be better than the way we structure society now. I also think you massively missed the mark in actually discussing the criticism of his position. His position acknowledges that decisions are made and not necessarily deterministic, where he argues determinism exists is the weights you put on your decisions. To paraphrase him, you very well might make moment to moment decisions with some variability that could be different, but you did not decide to be human at any point. Your will did not decide to have your parents, be born into your culture, go to a school colored by the particular flavor of propoganda you grew up with, have a specific amount of sensitivity in your cortisol and dopamine receptors, not be able to afford to eat a balanced diet and practice good sleep hygeine when you were four, or any of a thousand other things which shape the person you are _in_ that moment you make a decision, and the kind of person you are does, indisputably, determine what decisions you're going to make. Your decisions are probabilistic, but your behavior _over time_ has so little to do with any free will that, even if it is indisputably proven to exist, centering it as much as we do is factually unscientific and morally dubious at best. He basically says that it's functionally impossible to draw a line between "things in your control" and everything else, since things outside your control are so drastically overepresented and so massively influential. The main body of his work is actually taking a very detailed piece by piece analysis of all the parts of your behavior that specifically _aren't_ in your control, and showing how little space remains for here to be a free will that belongs to you. The way he describes it, he arrived at determinism by process of elimination, after exhausting almost every possible realm in which will matters and having found that it is much less significant than our intuition wants to convince us is the case _every single time._

[@william6223]

I wish you were my friend. Thank you for your exquisite criticism.. My intuition is my soul, and it is the right brain activity normal for humans. Intuition is often correct and superior. My opinion is that the Left Brain, and the Individual needs to be developed enough to analyze the intuition usefully so her/his actions may be wise. My concerns partly, with determinism, is the loss of freedom for individuals within society.

[@jeffreykeith6494]

Thank you, young man. People like you give me hope for the world. Intelligent people who refuse to let others do their thinking. Please, don't allow anyone to quash that glorious curiosity.

[@MattHabermehl]

I have a master's degree in philosophy and I'm humbled by your grasp of the history and scope of the various positions and your exemplary, objective, rational analyses. Thank you for doing this.

[@Finnatese]

I know, it’s great, it’s almost like he’s been researching each topic and creating a guide of his argument before presenting it. Still great research, composition and presentation though, don’t want to take away from that

[@MattHabermehl]

@@Finnatese lol obviously he's prepared, but it's no trivial thing to move from centuries of literature to a clear and accurate review of the conceptual landscape. Give the man his due :)

[@MattHabermehl]

@@Finnatese granted, now with chatGPT this is a lot easier than it used to be :p

[@_xBrokenxDreamsx_]

'nothing is ever your fault' - sapolsky 'everything is your fault' - my wife

[@MNorbert89]

Your wife is a wise woman.

[@JB.zero.zero.1]

@@MNorbert89 Hmm - no, a lot of people like to use shame and guilt as leverage within relationships.

[@MNorbert89]

@@JB.zero.zero.1 I was not referring to what you're saying at all. I meant she's wise compared to this Sapolsky guy, because she understands the weight of responsibility.

[@TravelingZebra]

@@MNorbert89 responsibility is stupid, morals are just human creations, so what if another guy does something bad? Why make a commotion? Why freak out? It's not that crazy, our world is much, much smoother than it was previously. You have no reason to do anything if you don't want, only do things that help your goal.

[@mesafintmojo5751]

​@@TravelingZebra Try doing that for extended periods of time. You will find yourself somewhere you don't want to be. And if we create morale, do you think it comes out of the blue?

[@gsreeja1743]

Omg thanks for uploading! I aspire to have this much knowledge and grip over the language someday😭 This is my favourite channel❤

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! Though don't be fooled, I am actually quite dim a lot of the time

[@Chigo-nr8jg]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198even humility looks good on you, nice one old chap!

@unsolicitedadvice9198 Lol the true sign of a genius is knowing how absolutely idiotic we can be. Discussing great ideas while walking into a table or wall, and missing the most obvious solutions entirely.

[@natalier7548]

hello, joe! your videos and passion have really encouraged me to continue my education in philosophy

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you! I am really glad. That's exactly what I hope this channel would do

[@moshow93]

I made the only and best decision I could have made. I'm am at peace.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

That's really cool!

[@colonelradec5956]

That to me is what I pull from it. Technically determinism is probably true except for human reaction. Which I believe is too random to be able to fall into determinism. You can give 2 people the same circumstances and they can react literally opposite of each other. Id also like to see somebody explain this to David goggins 😂 a guy who runs 100 miles on broken feet just to be tougher. He's not even after the health. I think humans are too complex to be determined. Everything else I believe can be calculated. Explain that to me when I'm drunk and pissing in a closet 🤣 could you have determined that was gonna be on the table as possible actions lol? I agree 1000% though. You did the best you could with the knowledge you had. And if you had a time machine you'd probably do the same thing without new information. I believe some people are too hard on themselves. Were human. We can't see the future nor control anything but our own choices and actions.

[@deussivenatura5805]

@@colonelradec5956 Randomness ≠ Freewill

[@JeffEmmersonSocialWork]

​@colonelradec5956 *AMAZING response. As a 47 year old future therapist, I couldn't agree more with your statements.*

[@colonelradec5956]

@@deussivenatura5805 it certainly can't be determined if it's random so I disagree 😂 you can predict what a meteor will do. 100% of the time. Good luck with humans. That's called different views of free will. For you to be free will means choosing without influence. To me it doesn't. We are all influenced. But if you can't predict exactly where a human will end up then it's not determined. And no amount of understanding humans will ever give you 100% accuracy. Humans are more random than any quantum calculation. Even on probabilities and and wave functions. Imma go with my free will and smoke a dooby and drink some coffee 😂 or will I clean my house? Maybe some yardwork. Who knows lol.

[@graphixkillzzz]

Sapolsky has been one of my science heroes for over ten years. "Stress: Portrait of a Killer"... damn good documentary 🥰👍

[@PhaedrusAK]

This seems depressingly familiar...every few years a physical scientist gains some celebrity by pointing out that the deterministic universe means that there isn't any place for the popular concept of 'free will' (i.e. that there's some kind of counciousness in your head making choices as it drives your body around), while ignoring that philosophy mostly accepted the materialistic view of the universe centuries ago and now considers the repercussions of this.

[@waterfallfaerie]

I understand your frustration-but I think the reason scientists write about these topics for a general audience is because philosophers aren't doing it and because science as a medium and in its facts and findings is simply more accessible than philosophy. 😬 If all of philosophy was written in simple language that middle-high schoolers can understand and then made widely available and taught mandatorily in school, I'm at least a little confident that the author wouldn't have felt the need to write this book. Either way, I don't think the author claims to have invented the consequences of accepting determinism, so if anything in my opinion we should just be thankful to him for working to popularize a set of ideas that might make the world a better place.

[@donjindra]

@@waterfallfaerie This is not science, though. It has more in common with Calvinism.

[@waterfallfaerie]

@@donjindra No, it's not like Calvinism because it is based on findings in physics and neuroscience and not on mystical and supernatural beliefs. You cannot prove anything, you can only disprove things. Determinism has not been thoroughly disproven, is not nonsensical, and is a logical conclusion to make based on what we know (unlike Calvinism/religion), so for now it only makes sense to treat it as the truth and find what follows from it. If you read the book, you'd learn about various findings, like that researchers can determine what choice you'll make based on brain activity *before you are consciously aware of having made the decision*. Other research showed that you can stimulate a person's nervous system to move a part of their body and they'll claim that they consciously chose to make that movement. It's widely accepted and not disproven that physics is deterministic, and there are various interpretations of quantum mechanics that result in determinism, too. If that's not science or at least genuine attempts to get to the truth of reality, then please enlighten us by proving all of this to be false or by presenting better evidence that results in a different conclusion because only then will your argument will be valid.

[@donjindra]

@@waterfallfaerie It is not based on findings in physics. Quantum mechanics rejects radical determinism. It is not based on neuroscience either. There is no way to experimentally test the brain in a manner that would scientifically prove it responds to snapshots of the state of the universe. It cannot be tested because we cannot rewind the stare of the universe to perform those repeated tests. "You cannot prove anything, you can only disprove things." This radical determinism is a non-falsifiable theory -- pure faith. "If you read the book, you'd learn about various findings," I'm not coming at this issue from an ignorant state. I've seen people like Sam Harris make these "scientific" claims for years. When you look at the supposed evidence it's weak, to say the least.

[@waterfallfaerie]

@@donjindra In quantum mechanics, as far as I know, there are various interpretations of how the quantum may actually operate at the macroscopic level of atoms, with some that are consistent with determinism and others that aren't-it's true that few if any interpretations suggest there is a singular future, which is what I assume you mean by _radical_ determinism. Regardless of what is found in quantum mechanics, it will only ever be evidence against free will since it's based on probabilities and not something that would result in any kind of consistent pattern or meaningful action in human behavior. I understand your position here but I don't actually think radical determinism is required for Sapolsky's argument. Even if it's true that there can be many branching futures because of quanta or some other fundamental features of the universe, that doesn't mean that humans have the ability to control which branching futures will occur by invoking their will-the branching futures would be based on probability distributions. If you don't conclude the same things as Sapolsky, what is your conclusion given what is known and not known? I don't really think there's any need to rewind the universe to prove that brains are following the physical laws that we are aware of, since you can just look to see if brains behave as expected when considering those laws and thus conclude that they behave like all other observable matter. I don't see why the human nervous system is somehow an exception that would break the convention of determinism as we use it daily life to know that our glass of water will reliably be where we placed it or that the sun won't bounce around or that your working computer will turn on when you press the power button.

[@brendangolledge8312]

I saw an argument once which I thought was convincing: In nature, everything is either determined or random Neither determined nor random actions are free will We are entirely constructed of natural processes Therefore, we have no free will Every "thing" we deal with is not a free agent, in that it seems to follow predetermined rules (as described by the laws of physics). If we are entirely constructed of things, then we ourselves are also things. Therefore, it doesn't seem possible to me that we could have free will as the Christians conceive of it without also having a supernatural soul (one which does not follow any kind of law). Of course, as discussed in the video, even if our will wasn't "free", we obviously still have a decision making process and thus some kind of "will", and this process is so complicated that it is impossible in many cases to predict in advance what decisions it will make.

[@vincentrockel1149]

One may not control the environment in which there are other components that are beyond personal control. That doesn't mean that the individual is powerless. One still controls the mind/body in which they inhabit and what they do with that power, while perhaps affected by past experiences, still is within one's power to control. How someone chooses to commit a crime is within their power, whether they are cruel is within their power. You can only excuse the need to commit a crime, not the means.

[@klosnj11]

Five minutes in and I know I am going to have to listen to this one at least two more times to follow. My brain is already bouncing the ideas off Epictetus' Discourses, namely Book 1, Capter 18 on why we should not be angry with those who do wrong. If someone does not choose to do the right thing, they either need to be taught what the right thing is, or why they should choose right things over wrong things.

[@kfarestv]

Determinism is true for the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent perspective. That perspective is not our perspective, and therefore for us, the illusion of free will exists whereas determinism is the absolute reality. It is important when discussing these things to keep in mind that there is multiple perspectives, none which look the same as another. I liken this reality to a highly interactive movie. It seems very much like I live my life as I want to, making choices. But there is only one choice, the one we make. We could not ever have chosen differently (barring the existence of time travel) so choice is an illusion. We are excempt from experiencing the deterministic perspective, but we can deduce its existence using logic and many have done so, therefore the existence of terms such as "divine plan", "fate", etc. From the absolute perspective, we are all innocent. From ours, consequences of our actions have to exist. If there was to be a "Judgement Day", we would all have to be found not guilty. Even the worst of us, merely playing a role in this divine comedy. Perhaps this understanding is at the heart of why Jesus asked us to forgive our "sinners" over and over again.

[@waterfallfaerie]

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this book and subject matter! I deeply feel for all those whose defense mechanisms currently prevent them from genuinely engaging with this subject and those who immediately search for faults in the arguments in order to dismiss their potential validity, especially given the weight they hold. I think that you very astutely point out the need for further argumentation and I absolutely agree. I tend to feel that Sapolsky did what he does best in presenting much scientific research that calls into question many common intuitions about the mind/decision-making and character/morality which will ideally lead people towards a more curious and open stance on these topics.

[@theprocess1993]

I am freely in control of my actions. I know because I can’t choose otherwise

[@Delmworks]

You make much better arguments than I do reading this book. The main issue I have is the assumption Robert makes that retributive punishment is possible to avoid. In a world with no free will, why would we have the ability to avoid committing acts of retribution? Certainly, our context and history may make us choose otherwise, but by his own rulings they may also make us choose retribution.

[@rockapedra1130]

In my experience, deep philosophical inquiry always runs against the limits of our brain capacity and then stalls. Seems inevitable to me that no matter how smart one is, there will always be a limit to comprehension. Free will is a typical example of this. My chosen stance is a practical one, get comfortable with the existence of certain unknowables and move on.

[@SchizoRants]

I've thought about determinism extensively and it's implications, and I've come to the conclusion that knowing that the universe is deterministic is ultimately useless in terms of guiding action. Determinism does not mean that you will always be the person you are now, or you are always going to be another person. Determinism accounts for everything, from the stagnant to the ever-changing, taking into account the perception that you will always be the same, and the perception that you are capable of changing and evolving. Reality, life; it's a playground, and determinism is the fence surrounding that playground. You can choose to hop on the swings, or to go down the slide, and while it's the perceivable truth that everything you are is simply a product of your environment and the body you are born into, it doesn't (or shouldn't) detract from the fact that you are perceivably you. You have your own interests, there are things you like doing, there are opinions you hold. Determinism doesn't necessarily have any tangible effects on these things, beyond your own perception that it does. The ability to choose and determinism are not mutually exclusive concepts. How we conventionally define "ability to choose" is the root of this unintuitive-ness and confusion, and once you reframe your perspective on the subject, tensions and worries about the topic pretty much evaporate. Furthermore, from the neurological research collected, there are conditions of birth and environment that do have life-changing consequences which are unlikely to be alleviated (mental handicaps, genetic defects, trauma at a young age). On the other hand, the potential and ability to change is likewise prominent, such as learning new skills or becoming more athletic. All in all, we are better off focusing on the things we can change, rather than the things that we cannot. There is nothing to be gained from groveling at the feet of that which is unalterable and unmoving.

[@yinYangMountain]

Having studied philosophy for years, and currently in law school, the topic of free will and responsibility is in the process of revision. The holdups are, in my opinion, driven by religious and political considerations. The solution, in my opinion, is to use the technique Prof. Stephen Law suggests: Don’t approach the subject head on; instead, approach from the side or from around the back.

[@brettstarks1846]

I read *Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will* a few months ago and loved it, which is saying something because I’m usually scientifically illiterate. EDIT: In defense of Sapolsky’s point about environment, he repeatedly stressed throughout the book that people are the product of uncontrollable genes interacting with their environments. He also doesn’t deny that people can change, and indeed acknowledges that people can be changed by their environments. He just rejects the victim-blaming, self-help logic that people can just will themselves to change.

[@colonelradec5956]

Finally something i agree with you on. That said i still think its importanr to try.. because thats also part of determinism. It takes you as a person into account. For example my dads impatient. I know him well enough to know what would happen if i stayed in a store too long and he was my ride 😂 hed leave 🤣 So its not that we have no control. Its that its already factored in. Most people agree on this they just have different views of what free will means. For me its choosing what i do day to day. Where an ultra elitist determinalist would say i didnt choose that cause it was all influenced or caused by my previous days actions or lifes actions. Which were all determined by my ancestors 🤣 Which i agree but... Like come on lol. I guess im saying dont use it as an excuse to do nothing. Part of determinations is your watching this video and reading this comment. Let it influence you in a good way. I am not convinced that humans are that simple. 2 different people can be handed the same circumstance and react entirely different. If you want to be affected by this philosphy just realize most of the bad things in your life arent your fault. But you can still do something about them. Let this info be a good thing and not something that makes you just stop caring.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Oh definitely! I touch upon a lot of this in the video

[@colonelradec5956]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 sorry had a lot of coffee lol I sometimes type an watch xD

[@Cijil]

First off, I really enjoy your content and have been sharing it with my friends. I'll be honest, when I saw this video coming out with the title it has, I was rather reluctant to watch it as I find the idea of determinism to be rather off-putting in some ways and I was worried you were going to take a stance that I was going to struggle with. I was alleviated to see that you did with this topic what you do best and stay rather objective, and discuss the pros and cons. How does determinism not mean you are forced to suffer meaninglessly and that there is nothing you can do about it. I don't believe we suffer pointlessly unless we choose to let the suffering be the end of the story instead of the start of another. If we can trans morph that suffering into something positive through experience and learning, does that not imply free will if we have the ability to choose it over despair? The death of a family member isn't good, but it can be a time that brings those you love closer together by creating a stronger bond over the connection to the one you lost, through this you can create a better future out of the inevitable. I don't believe science is equipped to answer questions of ethics or what you ought to do. To believe otherwise seems rather dystopian and likely to promote giving more power to the government to "fix" these inequalities or moral injustices that are systematic, invisible, and out of our individual "delusional" free will believing hands. You can vote if you want but we have already determined the action you will take and decided not to include your vote because it goes against the present science, we don't care if you think its unethical or immoral because we have determined through "scientific consensus" what is ethical and moral. In conclusion I don't think free will or lack thereof is something you can prove empirically as it seems to me to be a question of philosophy not a question of science. Science answers how things happen not why. Why you should do something or why it happened has a moral implication, whereas how you do something or how it happened is devoid of that implication. Knowing how to think is important but gives you no motive. Without a motive or a why everything becomes arbitrary and meaningless and choosing a right direction becomes improbable if not impossible. The why is at least as important as the how if not more important. I don't want to live in a society that believes in determinism. I want to live in a society that believes in free will and promotes reflective measured justice, one that treats me with respect and as if I am responsible for my actions so that I may reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. If I imagine I have free will, am I not creating it within me or at least fertilizing its potential?

[@lhays117]

I think we actually have an over abundance of free will to the point that it overwhelms the vast majority of us and we willing decide to go on autopilot essentially as NPCs just to make life much easier to engage in by simply following in the footsteps of some well-established archetype rather than just facing the daunting challenge of being someone truly willfully liberated that you can’t neatly fit into a predetermined societal mold.

[@lawtonbrewer4107]

I have been determined not to believe in determinism.

[@maraapolide8859]

I have yet to read this book but I have read Sapolsky's "Behave", and as a biologist I can see where his reasoning comes from: the more research is done, the more we discover how every action and behavior is influenced by a complex biological system. Sapolsky likes to explain that our behaviors are not simply influenced by one specific domain, rather by a combination of different biological processes, environmental influences and our world's dynamics. I guess his argument relies on the fact that complexity does not make actions and reactions free will, their existence depends on more determining factors summed together. Like you argued, we have to first decide what we mean by "will", in order to understand Sapolsky's reasoning. To me it sounds like the meaning of "Will" for him is the sum of complex machinery sparked by thermodynamic principles, instead of a purely separate entity. The question of morality and choice is probably an evolutionary adaptation to our constantly growing populations and communication skills, adaptation that would've inevitably happened due to organisms having to evolve in a certain way due to the previously mentioned complex structures influencing their existence in the first place!

[@beepbooptheshequel7740]

How could anyone skip the sponsorship, this man is lovely to listen to. Fabulous hair

[@soaked189]

The more I listen to Robert and chew on this the more I see it everywhere

[@Lubeck0451]

Brilliant video, I will definitely have to check out his book at some point I am also currently going through another book, "Ethics" by Baruch/Benedictus de Spinoza, that also talks about what determinism means for morality, and also coming with a new idea of what it means to be a "free person" despite the lack of free will

[@Dimitar997]

Nice to see you sponsored. Your work is very impressive. The time and effort put into detail is much appreciated. I never really bothered with Sapolsky's or Sam Harris' ideas about free will because I sort of see it as a byproduct of Cartesian dualism, or rather the notion of 'will' is. It's flawed, in much the same way the cogito ergo sum is valid only in a certain state.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! I totally agree about the Cartesian thing! I struggled to put it into words in the video but in my notes I have written that I think Sapolsky is “stuck with a religious idea of the will and a non-religious idea of the world”

[@Dimitar997]

​@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Very aptly put. I also think that moral responsibility is a more complex topic and I wouldn't put money that historically people didn't have a sense of externally determined aspects of our character and cognition. It's definitely a core aspect of Karma, for example. Sapolsky as always provides a huge wealth of information and that brings its own challenges for constructing a model for moral responsibility, since we're aware of complex causal interactions we weren't aware of historically.

[@AhmadMoqtavHidayat]

I love your videos and the way you posit your own counterarguments, brilliant!

[@raia07]

Can't stop watching your channel!

[@dreamsatnight]

I'm hooked on these videos. They really force me to sit down and actually ponder. I wasn't aware how much I was missing out. Thanks for these as always and love the new twist to the thumbnail designs! 🎉

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

Imho you missed the most important part of the first section of the book: "where does intent come from?" And "willing willpower: the myth of grit". The whole point of those chapters is to show that there is really no big difference between the stuff that determines your intent / "willpower" and the stuff that determines any other physical process in our universe. Blaming someone for their intent and their "willpower" is as unjust as blaming someone for having a patellar reflex, or blaming a storm for happening

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

My point here is that Sapolsky says there is no difference regarding their freedom - they are all example of perfectly ordinary examples of physical causation. In order to bridge the gap from that you have to also claim that you cannot find an idea of the “will” that can ground moral responsibility, and this is a further philosophical point. As I said in the video it’s not that Sapolsky’s conclusion is definitely wrong, it is that it doesn’t follow just from determinism as presented in the book. Sapolsky basically says there is no physical difference - that’s fine. But it doesn’t follow from this that some physical chains of causation might be morally different to others. Again I am not saying Sapolsky is definitely wrong, but rather that more would need to be demonstrated for his conclusion to follow. Edit: I’ve found an article that makes a similar-ish point in case that helps clarify the position. I admit I am not always the best at making things clear: ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determined-a-science-of-life-without-free-will/

[@cliffordcameronmusic6]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I really think you should have Sapolsky on to chat with him because I truly think you and Fischer are contesting premises that are not so much absent, but not even contingent to Sapolsky's argument. For him, the book spelling is out the physical/neurological underpinnings between how the brain forms/develops and then influences the physical body to show the flaws inherent in our concept of morality (thereby expressly showing how our "will" is formed over a lifetime/evolution of a species or a moment). If by some miracle you do see this I would earnestly like to explain in detail my argument with you and this review that I have read several times by Fischer.

[@Rendovic]

You’re the only KZbinr that I don’t skip when they advertise the sponsor.

[@yushuaosoki5212]

Here is my thinking. Care to read it. A person, who is or isn't smart, can only be judged if he talks for half an hour without stopping (or appears that he is talking continuosly) and the listener brain hurts a little bit, since it takes time to reason with the propositions and language induced in the persons speech. Now certainly you are welcome to think we listeners are slow processors but no one is born with extraordinary processing and analysing skills. You too took your leisure time to make the content in a flow. Explained well, and actually was too detailed where every sentence ought to be thought and explored (except sponsor). It's new to me maybe that's why. I anyways think once I am used to it, I can selfishly manage to flaunt my language and skill to think (predetermined; I saw the explanation too many times and made my conclusion that many time) deeply. Although it's evil but .....let's just say I am evil,

[@jjkthebest]

When it comes to responsibility, I'd put it this way: responsibility is not something that is intrinsic to the world, but rather something we take on ourselves or assign to others. I feel like this is a more useful view on responsibility. I think this is how it works in practice. If we acknowledge that this is what we're doing, at least we can do it intentionally rather than instinctively. It lets us put responsibility where it is most useful. Pretty much what you say around 22:45

[@tonybrowndiprima]

The time you spent on blame can be equally applied to praise, maybe If the problem of false praise was remedied first, The thought of humility in assigning blame would be easier to accept.

[@fatihiman1631]

The difference between athe action with will and the action without will is just matter of consistency of that action and logically related possible actions in the future.

[@copykatninja]

Whoever is playing me in this simulated reality, you're an arse 😂

[@KamikazeMedias]

Okay to topple that argument down: You CHOSE to genocide a group - was it predeterministc? And thus you are not punished? or should you be punished for it anyways? I am leaving it open - let the flood gates open. P.S - a video on presentism would be needed and congrats on a sponsor.

[@alextomlinson]

Punishment or justice is necessary for a functional society. So regardless of whether it was a free will choice or predetermined interactions between an individual and their circumstances is irrelevant. With that being said, education and reformation is more beneficial to society than punishment. But punishment might also be necessary to prevent unrest, revenge etc if the society is not philosophically or psychologically capable of accepting lack of punishment. Also there will be individuals and groups that will take advantage of a lack of punishment if the only outcome is reformation, so ultimately it’s necessary while these people exist.

[@JavierBonillaC]

Sapolsky has detected that we make a decision before we can express it verbally. We don't know how the mind thinks but I don't think that His conclusions necessarily mean that the decision is taken outside of us, With us reacting as a simple machine. I think this has had too much hype. Great gideo.

[@MyeshaFatima505]

I honestly love your videos

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! That is very kind!

[@piushalg8175]

It is commonly acknowledged that the abolition of the antique concept of responsaibilty (in German: Erfolgsstrafrecht) in favour of the mre modern concept of moral guilt (in German: Schuldstrafrecht, which implies some sort of freedom) was a good thing.

[@devos3212]

You should get him on and talk through that first premise.

[@superduper7874]

I never read his book unfortunately, only his words in interviews and debates, which never persuaded me to his side. He says that he doesn't believe you are responsible for your actions, but when Daniel Dennet asked if he would hold himself accountable for plagiarism, he said yes. How do you hold yourself account for anything when you reject that very idea of free will? His rejection of compatibilitism always seems ad hoc. It seems he believes the will has no casual influence over your being. Not only is that absurd, it seems to be a given in his justification for hard determination, which alot of your objections seems to show. I suspect it's because he thinks free will exists as some immaterial substance detached from material reality, which you seem to point out at the end. Question Begging aside, I cannot understand how he thinks this view as positive for the world. Retributive justice can he undermined even on compatibilitism. On this extreme hard determination, you don't have agency, so he essentially throws the baby out with the bathwater. Can you even claim ownership of your mind and actions? How can we even speak of justice and rights? Seems like a slippery slope.

[@CHLuke37]

Great video. “ free will “ is the epitome of the intentional stance.

[@carbon1479]

'Could have done otherwise' has never jived with me, all that says is that the 'otherwise' was in the discarded part of the decision tree and the person saying they could have done otherwise isn't really understanding how they move through time, what information is available and what isn't, all of their priors at any moment are locked into place, I don't even think real spirt guides and mediumship would yield free will because that's just more information coming from occluded sources that you wouldn't have otherwise but do and if they give you an idea that you recognize as a better idea than you had (or lets say your introjects and Jungian complexes) then you had no free will not to make the better choice, and then if your willfully self-destructive and try not to take the optimal choice your still either making decisions based on that rule set or, if your lazy enough, your outsourcing it to your subconscious which also is just as locked in time as you.

[@ashishpatil9774]

Watching you is making my language and expressions like yours....

[@Kawlinz]

There are no shoulds in a deterministic universe. Saying "the justice system should change" has the same weight as "we should have breakfast for dinner". Certainly saying that any aggregate of atoms doesn't have control over itself conflicts with "but they should do X"

[@piushalg8175]

People have always known the beneficial effects of education or socialisation and the potential dire consequences of a lack thereof.. This fact does in no way favour either strict determinism nor indeterminism. There are also good reasons for the assumption that certain people are born with qualities which make them more suceptible to antisocial behaviour.which does not exclude free will.

[@russruss2446]

Upbringing influnces the decisions we make. But we still make the decisions. Children who were abused often become abusers, but not always and not even mostly. Physical child abuse has become less common in developed countries over the past 50 years. This is a measurable trend, a trend which proves that people can decide not to abuse. If they couldn’t then there would be no decrease. Free will exists, and not just because we want it to.

[@linuxramblingproductions8554]

That doesn’t prove free will that doesn’t even support free will. That can easily be explained by easier access to therapy improved societal conditions etc etc. This doesn’t prove free will it proves ability but fails to prove it wasn’t still outside of them and their control since you expressly ignored all the other factors.

[@MorteWulfe]

"The Devil made me do it". There is a reason this concept went by the wayside. It is dangerous for one to believe they can escape the guilt of their actions. Look at the modern crime wave stemming from the concept that certain people commit crimes due to being disenfranchised, relieving them of the responsibility to account for their actions.

[@jamespierce5355]

True. It's very telling that determinists have to bite the bullet that moral culpability is an illusion, but they admit that we pretty much have to just pretend that freewill does exist. I.e. we have to pretend the deterministic position is false 🤣

[@DJWESG1]

There isn't a modern crime wave with such a description. You are making stuff up.

[@deussivenatura5805]

@@jamespierce5355 The one's that pretend are compatibalists, not determinists.

[@jamespierce5355]

@deussivenatura5805 If , for example, you were merely determined to propose that determinism is true and I was merely determined to propose that freewill exists, on what basis can we say either of us are right or wrong? Both positions would have equal valence under the determinist view (both equally as determined to happen).

[@aemambacus]

@@DJWESG1agreed, the way the statement was made implies there’s an understanding among working class/poor people that commit crime/criminals that because they are poor they will be absolved of their crimes which in turn allows them to go on and commit crime. Completely ignores the fact that the primary cause of crime is poverty, be it actual or relative poverty. Also paradoxical because if poor people are committing crimes and were being absolved of breaking the law for whatever reason there wouldn’t be a crime spree as crimes won’t be charged, arrests would be down, for the suggested scenario to be true there would have to be a large scale conspiracy amongst police forces around the world to downplay crime and work towards getting them defunded Thank you for attending my TedTalk

[@rockpapershotgun2810]

Like I haven’t watched the video fully, but according to your definition of “free will” it may be only somewhat correct, we all think axe is a tool which we use, but without axe we wouldn’t be able to cut wood, so maybe it’s the axe who does the job like we all think of ourselves as something separate from the people around, things we learned, or the universe itself. But if we act randomly it has opposite effects on morality, because I think we should care for consequences rather than anything else this makes people more unpredictable, which probably makes them less consistent. If we isolate somebody for robbery we should do that not because of our ancestral side, but because he will most likely do it again, and to help humanity preserve itself, we should try to rehabilitate such people

[@giovannimartin3239]

The other thing I never understood about determinism is that just as the person is not morally responsible for their actions, then the judge should not be held morally responsible for his judgements. So the idea of not blaming someone for unjust actions or that being something one shouldn’t do was weird. Because would t he be doing the very thing he is claiming is nonsensical?

[@Sid_sharma-0000]

Great video ! Robert saplosky is such an interesting author.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! I really enjoyed his book!

[@WasOne2]

Has it dawned on anyone that if actions are determined, that choice must be a prerequisite? That our choices are determined means that there must be a choice.

[@Ptf74]

As a topic it's hobbled by terminology from the start. "Choice" is probably a preferable word than "will", as there are a couple of types of "will". You cannot "will" what you "will" ... as that's the cause and effect aspect of the whole thing. But learning how to react to the situations with better responses seems to be a life's work. We should keep our minds open and not think we know it either way yet.

[@shaunsalem]

I think we experience determinism with acquisition and ownership as the fundamental means of access to and control over the resources around us. It’s not determinism as a phenomenon as much as maybe conditioned within us through our upbringing. I find it extraordinarily valid in the sense that while we do have choices in life, most choices are obviously more beneficial to us than other choices. A starving man who can’t afford a meal who steals one isn’t stuck between equivalent choices and weighing these in the balance. One choice will appeal to the conditioning of his upbringing while the other choice will appeal to a biological urge (hunger), and this will unravel the conditioning in place. This social conditioning is deterministic by design, I would think. The question is what would the conditioning of a society without acquisition and ownership (some far-distant future society, fully automated, sustained abundance, etc) be like? Could such a society without this kind of conditioning ever exist, or is it a permanently “utopian” idea? Any reading suggestions for me, dear sir? I’m enjoying your content very much!

[@alicewright4322]

just because things could not have been otherwise does not mean people are not better or worse to be around/in society depending on the path of action they take when two are accessible. also, people should want to be pro-social or pleasant to be around, so there is a "mechanical" feedback loop: you want to be pro-social; you feel shame or egodystonic or guilt when you do an anti-social or hurtful action; you take notice of what happened; and you take corrective behavior. A thermostat has no choice, but it aims for a set-point reliably. in the same way objectively better people can adjust their behavior to pro-social behavior without any need for "free will". if the system (people) act intelligently and seek good outcomes, what does it matter if some abstract concept of choice is fulfilled or not? most people do not attribute free will to dogs, but they will agree that a dog that bites their child to death is bad, and a dog that plays fetch is good. the person who lost a family member will have no moral objection to ending the dog for the protection of other children, despite no belief the dog has a soul and free will.

[@matthewcharlton9649]

Will is only the aftermath of Thought. Behaviour the aftermath of Will. If a mind reflects, abstracts and reconciles, it self governs. It is emancipated from the influences of its internal and external nature. The true essence of the notion "Free Will" doesn't mean free to "do", but free to "think". I believe in this notion. I also believe that no supercomputer or God will ever be able to predict the outcome of a mind that exercises reason and abstraction against the forces that would otherwise influence it. If you're not thinking, you're half-human and you're certainly not free.

[@ЭндиВеласкес]

Good job enlightening us, keep up the good work 🙌

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

But can’t people change their habits and conditioning ? If they’ve had traumatic experiences that shape their worldview as a result for example , and the corresponding choices and actions that follow from the conditioning , can’t they learn to recondition themselves and gain more insight on how the brain works so as to shift his / her perspective , learn to live more consciously and thereby make better decisions , choices actions etc ? Would it not be their free choice to do so? To have overcome the impulse to act as they have always acted ?

[@vitoramim5346]

Wow, never expected a Robert sapolsky video. Love his lectures

[@baberaham]

The more willpower you have, the more free your will is. Willpower allows us to cut through and navigate the emotions that inhibits us, so that we may do what we believe must be done. We all have different levels of willpower, but neuroscience tells us that it is like a muscle that can be trained and developed over time.

[@thesufferer7276]

yea.. like i'm a little thought provoked by your comment here.. see being strong willed ( Willfully or Casually ) it will make sure your decisions are strong and you will have more power over yourself than a lunatic or someone who doesn't have control over himself always better to have will power

[@autisiens]

It could have been different is fantasy. If it could have been different it would have been. But it wasn't different, I was.

[@Simon-vh5bq]

Hey, unsolicited advisor, does philosophy come from fear of death? Did anguish force monkeys to think and to invent, in general?

[@waterfallfaerie]

The academic work on terror management theory and the works of Ernest Becker have potentially correct answers to those questions.

[@victorrorisang479]

18:44 A potential flaw in the argument: If no one freely chose to commit a crime, then the same can be said about their punishment. meaning if he says, the criminal had no choice but to commit the crime, then it can be said that the law had no choice but to punish criminal... So, no one can be blamed here... that's probably one of the reasons why this doesn't work.

[@Big_Tough_Guy]

How can someone blurt out the assessment that behavior is determined by genes without thinking about or considering eternity? Does that ever come up in his book? Because that's the only thing keeping this question from being answered... Along with whether or not we even exist.

[@ha8536]

Same as what they say, sure it could be wholly true, but humans need to operate as if it’s not or things fall apart

[@TheTrueRandomGamer]

I tend to view the universe not as deterministic but probabilistic.

[@Gibbons-t3g]

The determinist viewpoint makes sense for someone who has spent his life studying baboons. However, any thinking person can see that the difference between us and other animals is our capacity for self-reflection. Ask any lifelong alcoholic who bas achieved some length of sobriety, no matter how late in life, and they will tell you it completely depends on surrendering one's "will" to a higher power. Even if you consider the Gospels mere myth, Jesus was capable of performing amazing miracles and yet he pronounced the alcoholic to be a hopeless case. He knew there was no miracle that could keep the alcoholic from picking up again. And yet, thanks to AA many millions have found not just the ability to abstain, but freedom from the compulsion itself. They find the mere thought of putting alcohol to their lips repulsive on a visceral, gut level. That this is possible should come as no surprise to many today. Eastern philosophy has spent at least the past two millennia attempting to systematize the means of detachment from the material world, thereby gaining control over one's subjective world. In other words, elevating one's consciousness, or, attaining "free will" through sustained and dedicated effort, or sheer force of will. Among other things, I find determinism to be an extremely condescending worldview, as well as exceedingly dangerous for providing the perfect "philosophical" foundation for "benevolent" totalitarianism that is all too pervasive across the west today. For a flyby of eastern philosophy I would recommend Amaurie de Riencourt, "The eye of Shiva." As far as crime, the numbers would indicate that neither the length of sentence nor the intent of incarceration (rehabilitative or retributive) affect the propensity of criminals to commit crime, either the first time or on subsequent occasions. The only factor which would be indicated to reduce criminal action is the perpetrator's perception of the likelihood of apprehension.

[@okiioppai]

Great video, I'm curious what you think about the "tit for tat" strategy as a predictor of our human behavior for the future.

[@StephanG007]

I feel like these arguments conflate lack of power with lack of will. Just because I believe that there are powerful currents that will forces ships in certain directions, doesn't mean I don't believe the captain is real. On the contrary, the reason one tries to understand complex ways that an environment might affect an individual is so that we can try to maximize the deciding power of his will or 'soul'.

[@sunnyniki2528]

A person is an object connected by causal relationships in the totality of the universe, therefore, in no case does there exist a will that would be independent, autonomous, personal. No one has decided to be born, so there is no actual human will. A person's personal will is an interpretation of events that happen by themselves

[@alena-qu9vj]

"A person is an object connected by causal relationships in the totality of the universe....", that is of a universe which decided to split into many interconnected "objects" and while the objects exist in the material reality they play a game of separateness, "free will" and responsibility for their choices. Apparently it helps the universe in some ways.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@Zex-4729 Hehe. My 73 years old brain surely is not threatened by this old idea. And if there is anything laughable, it is the persuasion of every new generation that it is them they know the last and absolute truth. Your mistaking "universe" for our funny old tiny world is representative. I for one DO believe I chose to be born, I even chose my parents (as many spiritual teachings believe with me), and your bold statement "there is no such thing" only makes me laugh at the arrogance of the uninformed.

[@tile-maker4962]

I am not sure there is free will or determinism. Determinism is based on predetermined conditions which lead to a behavior or action where down to the sub atomic particles, particles come out of the void of energy fluctuations via a probability. So in essence your decision amounts to collapsed chaos.

[@richiebanks7551]

youre brilliant and a great speaker. but i wish you would speak a pit slower, and introduce more pauses and emphasis on certain statements. nots because we cant hear you but because some of the concepts you introduce require moments to digest and absorb, when you race through them it is hard to keep up.

[@d3clips391]

Yeah I have seen this problem before, and it hasn’t gotten better, the determinism is too one dimensional and unselfaware. Because it’s not balanced whatsoever, in fact all stances require choices beyond ideology.

[@loneylowf8876]

I think you misunderstood something about the schizo/epileptic examples. The causal chains going through the persons will would be relevant IF the analogies were arguing against free will. But they arent. Sapolsky already made his position on free will clear beforehand. The examples were making a point about how we assign moral responsibility while unaware of the full scope of the situation. Determinism is already being taken for granted at that point in the book. He was probably trying to make an argument about morality. How the more we find out and investigate causal chains, the more our moral assessments seem irrelevant. You yourself pointed out how the parents and the epileptic are causally inert, and thats the point. Those people back in the day used to think they werent causally inert so the moral evaluations were bogus. To that point i think the analogies work fine.

[@purpledevilr7463]

It’s funny. Not even the first minute and I’m in total disagreement. I don’t go about life champion free will.

[@ggexgaming6020]

All of my ideology and beliefs and view of life and purpose for existence is cemented in the axiom that free will exists. If it was 100% factually proven that free will didn’t exist, i would just become hyper efilist

[@serulu3490]

Because of the way science works, it's impossible to ever prove something with 100% certainty. But the probability that free will exists, is about as likely as earth being flat, that's how much scientifically "false" it is

[@AlmostEthical]

Free will is one area that never much interested me. So much of our lives are determined by genetics, childhood, associated epigenetics and exigency - not to mention other people - that the question whether we re free or not is largely moot. Even if we are technically free, does it matter?

[@John-popc]

All is well

[@alextomlinson]

This question plagues me. Surely will is the accumulation of life experiences and circumstances interacting with the genome and personality and then playing out as external actions. A chain reaction of processes interacting with and playing out alongside all other chain reactions in the environment and the psyche. Not quite sure where the “free” part is 🤔

Problem is this is a nurture versus nature and there is no nature without nurture and no nurture without nature. You can't fully win either. Psychopaths and some brain damage are one way streets. Iq also seems to have large play in changing patterns.

Also the redecivism rate of a country with an 83 or 85% unsolved crime rate in 2020 might not be the best basis. I am going with Sweden as an example. I don't believe in the retribution aspect as relieving anything but strongly discouraging crime might help guide some groups away from it. Otherwise you could use the same argument to get to a famous mustache man's approach and I don't mean Charlie Chaplin.

[@SchizoRants]

The arguments connecting determinism and moral responsibility are without much use to people. While I am determinist myself, I do not agree that the (in my opinion) reality of determinism should have any bearing as to what moral responsibility is considered "correct", "right", or "good". Determinism, in my eyes, simply tells us that causes have predictable effects. It does not tell us whether some effects are preferable, which is what the argument connecting determinism and moral responsibility perpetuates, not to mention the false equivocacy that is made when the argument is presented. There is a difference between causal responsibility (i.e. you aren't responsible for your actions per se, because you are a product of everything before you) and responsibility (i.e. actions have been made which result in consequences people do or don't like, and reward and punishment are assigned based on who is identified as the source of that action, and those criteria are modified through culture and beliefs). Causal responsibility only has a place in responsibility if people *think* it does, and the track record and opposition of the idea shows that trying to shoehorn causal responsibility into responsibility itself is confusing, and it creates a lot of problems practically and theoretically.

[@Oaz_Oliver_proof]

Determinism is a tough one until you the impossibility of rational deliberation argument

[@theofficialness578]

I have a sense I’ve always found it’s interesting that we truly think any individual chooses to be “evil” or “good” or even as simple as a “asshole” or “nice” (Important to mention I’m not implying this is suggested in your argument, I’m Implying it seems to be common belief). People just are, To me it seems literally everyone I’ve ever met just is. Anyone I’ve seen change it seems to just happen. I include my self in this notion. I’ve noticed any changes about my personality have just happened. Riding on the wave of self awareness, but that’s about it. Where does “will” come from what shapes “will” There is the story my brain tells me about the any personal change “good” or “evil”. The what I did “wrong” and the what I did “right” and how hard or not hard I was trying, the what I could “control” and the what I couldn’t. I can’t help but ask myself can an organ that seems to be designed by nature for survival, selfishness and self preservation ever be a trustworthy source of reality. The fundamental problem is capabilities person A should act and behave a certain way, simply because of the fact that person B acts a behaves a certain way. (Important to mention I’m not implying this is suggested in your argument, I’m Implying it’s a common belief.) It strongly suggests the exact same physical mental capacities. Physical wiring of the brain (the white matter that connects the brain regions). The physical size of each brain’s various parts. It doesn’t make much sense to me, when there is so much evidence that seems to proves, every brain’s anatomy functions either slightly (even a slight difference seems to mean a-lot) or drastically different (which obviously seems to mean a-lot). There is no such thing as the ideal brain, just the most commonly similar (

[@gaspachoo5046]

ever wonder why civilizations collapse? or that there have been no long standing secular societies in history? Me-thinks this “revelation” of yours is entirely not new, and ironically darwin’s itself out if allowed to be the dominating ethic/belief in a culture.

[@theofficialness578]

@@gaspachoo5046 What notion(s) is original any more?

[@gaspachoo5046]

@@theofficialness578 absolutely nothing.

[@theofficialness578]

@@gaspachoo5046 Also yes I do agree and it makes sense, it definitely, Darwin’s itself out. Also yep absolutely nothing, I was speaking with a coworker the other day and he said something interesting to me. “Nobody has ever invented anything, and no thought has ever been original, it’s only been discovered.”

[@georgewarner5496]

Aristotle said : It is impossible for what has happened not to have happened. For one thing is denied even to God : To make what has been done undone again. End quote. One thing that humans do not have a choice about is being faced with choices. And time limits are a compulsive factor behind every choice that we make. You cannot deliberate for 12 hours about what you will do in 20 minutes from now and you cannot deliberate for 4 weeks about what you will eat tomorrow. Time and tide wait for no man. Nine tenths of wisdom consists in being wise in time.

[@alena-qu9vj]

And it is impossible not to be responsible for what have happened according to your choise. This "logical" approach to basically transcendent matters is total nonsence, absolutely incompatible with the subject matter and only preventing understanding it. In fact it is almost funny how stubbornly the "logicians" are using their primitive limited tool to try to control the complexity. Just unable to call it quits where due.

[@georgewarner5496]

@@alena-qu9vj One thing that humans do not have a choice about is being faced with choices. That is irrefutable. Aristotle said : The starting point is the fact and if this is sufficiently clear there will be no need to ascertain the reason why. Aristotle said : That man is best who sees the truth in himself. Good too is he who listens to wise counsel. But who is neither wise himself nor willing to ponder wisdom is not worth a straw. End quote. When I was young an older man said to me : You can turn your back on a liar. They tell one lie and then they have to tell another one to cover up the first one. End quote. Truth is known by its links with other truths but falsehood is known by its inconsistence. Truth is known by its impartiality but falsehood is known by its preference for the gullible. Truth is known by its fearlessness but falsehood is known by its fear of the truth.

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@georgewarner5496 As I have stated above, our life is just a (cosmic) parlour game, and the purpose of every game is to make choices. I think there is no doubt about it here, the question is "are we responsible for our choices if we have no free will?". It is difficult to explain to the "logicians" that this is an absurd and inadequate approach to the problem steming from total misunderstanding of the very essence of our life.

[@beerman204]

Animals are not free to not act as their species does. Human beings are free to act out in creative ways that defy programmed behavior.(I can choose to hop around to mimic a rabbit, but a rabbit cannot choose to mimic how a human walks around) If you think that is wrong, who or what caused you to say so?

[@mut8inG]

Oh, Yeah⁉️🌸

[@Skyflower44]

Cluster B psychology would argue against surely. They didn't understand psychopathy .

[@JennWatson]

But I want credit for choosing this excellent video !!!

[@Emin.V.Aliyev1]

Great listen. Ty

[@m.c.martin]

“What if you’ve been lied to your entire life.” Gee, I’d love to live in a world where that’s actually a question 😂

[@huzaif5183]

Robert splaowsky didnt wrote that book it was a set of determined causal events that wrote that book. How people rationalize there thoughts on determinsm if there is no free will