Robert Sapolsky: Debating Daniel Dennett On Free Will

[@claudesylvanshine6551]

Free will clings on because we're capable of envisioning alternative choices post-hoc.

[@travisbplank]

I will never not be amazed by compatabilism. It seeks to rewrite the definition of free will in order to save the concept, but what it calls "free will" is still not sufficient to support the concept of just deserts. It's an error of metacognition, I think. Since we have a subjective, first-person experience of what it feels like for a neural network to process information and commit to action, we conflate that with "the ability to do otherwise." Realistically, we are deterministic processes that are playing themselves out with a layer of consciousness added on top. Not only is free will incompatible with determinism, but the idea of causal agents (within time at least) is incompatible with determinism. Just illusions of human perception.

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

That assumes are brains are classical systems and can be expressed with linear algebra and that has yet to materialize also emergence is a funny thing that cares very little about determinism. Also assuming are brains are neural networks is high clown level and is more of a reflection of culture and not a real insight.

[@travisbplank]

@BaphomentIsAwsome666 Our brains are definitionally neural networks. They are networks of neurons. It's not meant to be an insight. The insight is that compatabilism, belief in determinism and free will simultaneously, is incoherent. A "determined choice" is a nonsensical and useless categorization. If determinism is true, then everything is moving in a deterministic trajectory, there is no room for a true choice to be made by some causal agent that is not just being moved by preceeding causal events. What we categorize as "choice" are just deterministic interactions that we have meta-awareness of. A "choice" interaction is not fundamentally different from any other deterministic interaction, other than complexity and our inability to easily predict the outcome.

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

@travisbplank Definitely not neural networks that is still up for debate as there are claims that our brains us quantum principles in there processing which would undermine any claims of determinism since the quantum is probabilistic. Determinism is a classical approach which I still don't see evidence that's how our brains work otherwise yes you are correct if they are classical in nature then no free will.

[@travisbplank]

@BaphomentIsAwsome666 I'd argue that probabilities only exist as placeholders until we fully understand the underlying mechanism, so eventually we will understand quantum mechanics in a deterministic light. But even if there's a quantum component that is non-deterministic somehow, that defeats pure determinism and comptavilism with it, plus the concept of free will is still incoherent unless you consider randomness to be "free".

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

@travisbplank I don't think hyper computing is possible not with understanding of mathematics at this point seeing as the incompleteness therom shows that our mathematics is not compatible with deterministic word view. I do think randomness is the out for freewill, if our brains can truly preform that action then free will stands.

[@xavier7666]

I struggle to care about a debate that doesn’t seem to have any consequence on the world. People are convinced that free will is an illusion + immediately fall back into deciding things every day. So, what is the point? It’s like arguing that blue doesn’t exist outside of your mind. Whether you’re right or wrong, we still collectively agree that’s an odd choice for hair color if you’re a grandparent.

[@yaiirable]

The difference is huge. Most importantly - what is the best way to deal with societal issues like crime. Do we put the blame on individual choices and call it a day, or do we try to understand what led to those 'choices' and try to reduce them in future?

[@xavier7666]

@ sounds a lot like you’re offering choices. Which is exactly my point. We can’t not behave as though free will exists. It’s a little absurd to say “ok. We’ve got the answer. Free wills confirmed nonsense. Now what should we choose to do about it?”

[@sjoerd1239]

@@xavier7666 That just means you fail to deal with the language of choice and accountability. People select options. The language of choice and accountability have different interpretations depending on whether the selector of options believes in free will. If there is no free will then we should change our behaviour that deals with reward and punishment.

[@readynowforever3676]

@@xavier7666 Using @yaiirable reference to "crime". As a society we can't bother with whether or not someone is biologically *programed* (by nature or nurture) to make choices that are predetermined. We have to hold people accountable for actions, not free will. Me being a "victim of intuitionism", I'd say we're all malleable (by nature and nurture), so where's the free will in that ? Holding individuals accountable for actions, instead of free will, and it leading to a deterrent for the observing society, does feel like free will, because some may defy the deterrence and some may adhere to it, but is that free will ? The same ailment for one person might be redressed by a particular medication, but not another person, why ? But ultimately does it matter ?

[@yaiirable]

@@xavier7666 It's not clear to me what your argument against determinism actually is. You say: 'We can't not behave as though free will exists." Is the fear is that with no free will, there will be no accountability, punishment for bad behaviour and rewards for good behaviour? And that this will lead to the breakdown of society somehow. If so, then you don't need to worry - deterrance and encouragement of certain choices is still a part of a determinist society's toolkit. Its just that we also look beyond those two tools for solutions to society's problems.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

If you’re reading this and think Sapolsky is wrong, would you mind telling me (A) what do you mean by free will? and (B) can you give me a concrete example of you exercising it?

[@HarryBuxley]

Free will is the ability to make choices, to come to a decision on taking a particular course of action. This morning I decided to go out and buy some coffee, instead of making some at home.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

@ okay, good. You decided to buy coffee instead of making it at home. Just a moment ago I decided to brew a cup at home. We both feel that we decided to do something and then did it. But why right then? Why did the thought to have coffee occur right when it did? Why do we even drink coffee? Because we like it? Did we _decide_ to like it? If so, can we decide to _not_ like it and then actually make ourselves experience that we don’t like it? I know Sapolsky’s claim that we have absolutely no agency is hard to wrap our heads around because our intuitive experience is contrary to it. He basically says, “You don’t consciously _make_ decisions. You just consciously _recognize_ decisions that have been made.” I myself am not absolutely convinced. But what substantial data do we have to counteract his claim, other than “in our personal experience we _seem_ to be exercising agency in making choices”? How do we know for sure that at any given moment we could have made a different decision than we did? There is, of course, the fact that we often mull over a decision for some time before going through with it. But does that, by itself, demonstrate that we _could have_ chosen differently? Or does our choice-every choice-irreducibly come down to a “weighing” of a variety of factors outside of our control? And is the outcome of this “weighing” predetermined by those factors even though it seems to not be predetermined to our consciousness? Is agency nothing more than an illusion of consciousness?

[@jacoschut1139]

What he fails to notice imo is that what free will is is the agency that one can learn to react differently to the same situations, that happens through a determined process. So viewed from first person for any moment ofcourse free will is impossible. Viewed from an outside of time perspective, the possibility for a person to handle inputs differently exists. Yet its very debatable if we should call this free will or just agency in different competency. I try to stand in between these two because they both seem to emphasize their stance from different perspectives. I do think there is a emotional attachment to believing you have a choice in the moment, we feel we do and it's very interesting why we feel this way and how such an illusion evolved. Then there is also something to be said for even if an illusion we could acknowledge the existence of the experience of feeling free to will things, and call that experience free will. So there are different ways to be a compatibilist I include the experience of and the property to learn of agency into a deterministic universe and call it compatibilism and will defend it that way. Semantics though...

[@sjoerd1239]

Dennett had a different notion of free will from Sapolsky. Dennett's notion was a social construct and the two talked past each other. Dennett thought Sapolsky's notion did not make sense and did not want to argue it. Dennett implicitly agreed with Sapolsky about that free will not existing. However, Dennett only disparaged Saoplosky's notion, and did not pursue the consequences and argued his own notion of free will. As a social construct it was not a question of whether Dennett's free will existed, because it was deemed to exist rather than being an innate capacity. It was a mechanism holding a person accountable for their own behaviour, rather than a justification. Sapolsky's intuitionism criticism is still valid. Dennett, a determinist, attempted to evade the accountability consequences of determinism.

[@ryanclark4674]

Dennett's notion is the predominant one among philosophers. He is a compatibilist. You have offered no proof of Dennett being a crude intuitionist, nor has Sapolsky.

[@sjoerd1239]

I know Dennett was a compatibilist. I gave my reasoning. Your comment amounts to indignantion that Sapolsky or I would dare challenge Dennett.

[@k-3402]

Unfortunately, this is is a topic that most philosophers seem to struggle with.

[@TMK1450]

It’ll change, over time.

[@cultofscriabin9547]

What ? Philosophers are the least confused on this. Sapolsky and the likes are confused scientists who don't grasp the basics needed to debate the topic unfortunately

[@cht2162]

It's FREE WON'T not FREE WILL. We're not born free.

[@ronjones1414]

I really enjoy Sapolsky. His lectures and publications have provided me with a significant amount of information and methods to apply that information that take advantage of on a daily basis and that have significantly contributed to my quality of life including financially; but I have never heard this argument of his that is persuasive. Who cares what happened in the past? Without any doubt, the past is what led you to this point, but the past CANNOT influence this point in time. Memory is not the past, and neither is chemical reactions that are occurring because of past conditioning. There may or may not be a thing we call free will, but the arguments of the past are immaterial.

[@sjoerd1239]

You show yourself to be anti-science. That is, you do not care about evidence. You do not care about cause and effect.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

You’re looking at the past too superficially. It’s not that any one incident from the past is making you decide this or that. Sapolsky’s point is that literally every single moment of your past, every single experience, every single sensation, every single thought and feeling-all of that has led up to your “choice” or “decision” in this moment. And not only has it “led up to” your decision; it has all combined to _absolutely condition and determine_ your decision.

[@ronjones1414]

@CrazyLinguiniLegs I disagree with your opening statement, and that is because I find Sapilsky's argument, which you restated, unpersuasive for the reasons already stated.

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

@@CrazyLinguiniLegs You are absolutely correct.

[@JohnTwarowski]

Free will? I didn't choose to write this comment, its what happens, that's all. The bigger question is whether there is even you or me? What exactly do we mean by those pronouns? It points to the body doesn't? But the body functions without us. The heart beats, the blood flows through the body. The hair and nails grow of its own accord, we can't speed it up or slow it down. We have no hand in it. And so is with everything else, IT'S WHAT HAPPENS.

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

So the main case against free will is determinisms which is a result of of our increasing understanding of physics yet in cutting edge theoretical physics space time is being called into question plus the elephant in the room which is the idea of emergence. Saying free will is an illusion is a edgy thing to say with no meat on the bone. All the neural correlates in the world don't mean much when you have the hard problem to deal with.

[@sjoerd1239]

Emergence is not an elephant in the room. Emergence is deterministic and comes from the repetition of processes on objects, which can be very simple processes on very simple objects. There is an overwhelming amount of meat on the bones of determinism, by way of the success of science. There is no meat on the bones to support free will, there only being intuition. Stop looking in places you don't understand in the disparate hope that free will, will reveal itself, unless you come up with a tested hypothesis. In other words, the onus is on believers in free will to show there is free will. Deal with the intuitionism that Sapolsky talks about in the video.

[@TMK1450]

@@sjoerd1239This. Theoretical this, theoretical that, god and free will both are to be found in the cracks of knowledge where we don’t know enough… Until that day of discovery, we don’t have either. Reality sucks.

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

@sjoerd1239 Literally have no idea what emergence is congratulations because it's the complete opposite. If you think classical mechanics applies to the brain then that's some low level science understanding.

[@sjoerd1239]

​@@BaphomentIsAwsome666 So show free will instead of just simplistically claiming to know better and just being a denier of things we do know. Most importantly, deal with the topic at hand, being the intuitionism that Sapolsky talks about.

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

@@sjoerd1239 If his claims are derived from brain scans then that's a no from me as like i stated earlier if you are making claims on the operation of the brain its nothing but a place holder. If people want to believe in free will in a particular way that makes life easier that's fine but saying its a case of science that freewill is not real is one of the least scientific statement's one can make.

[@apolloforabetterfuture4814]

Can you blame anyone for wanting to believe in free will? It's like God. It's a very comforting thought.

[@tunes012]

It's a rational position to take, depending on what you mean by free will

[@HarryBuxley]

If you don't believe in free will then you don't believe in any concept; gravity, electricity, speech, love, marbles, crime, justice, vengeance, triumph, accomplishment, ice-cream and anything else you can think of, it all "runs on a deterministic machine governed by the laws of fundamental physics". It's equivalent to saying nothing is real, everything is in an illusion, the only real thing is the underlying physics, which we don't even know. It's a pointless dead end pseudo-philosophical position used to sell books, which is what Sapolsky is most interested in doing these days.

[@sjoerd1239]

@Madolite As with God, if it doesn't exist, then you cannot absolutely prove that it doesn't exist. Unlike God, when we make choices, it feels like we have free will. It is intuitive and should be objectively verified.

[@sjoerd1239]

@tunes012 Both Dennett and Sapolsky accpet determinism. Sapolsky's free will and determinism cannot coexist. Dennett's free will is a social construct, being a behaviour, to hold people responsible for their behaviour. If isn't a question of whether Dennett's free will exists? He defines it such that it does exist.

[@sjoerd1239]

@Madolite The whole thing is entirely subjective and reliant on intuition. To be objective, it needs to be independently verifiable. That free will does not exist means that everything is explicable without involving free will in the explanation. There is plenty of explanation for behaviour that does not involve free will, and the more we learn, the more it grows. There is no objective evidence of free will. Sapolsky's position is the common understanding of free will; namely, that there is a cause coming from the person that is not caused by prior events or random events.

[@justinhartnell6779]

Clap trap.

[@Furyan5theLoneWolf]

If Dennet couldn't get it, what hope do we have of convincing those who are less intellectually gifted? Do you think that perhaps his age had something to do with it? I'm referring to brain plasticity and confirmation bias.

[@OmniversalInsect]

No one is perfect, we're all human and we all make mistakes.

[@Furyan5theLoneWolf]

@OmniversalInsect excellent observation, but, doesn't answer my question.

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

Sapolsky is happy to criticize Dennett's views but he misrepresents them & now Dan is dead he can't rebut these straw man arguments.

[@TMK1450]

One of the most die hard compatibilists… of course he would rebut. You can try on his behalf now? Atheism he got spot on and failed to go the extra mile on the free will department. Hugely interesting.

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

@@TMK1450 *One of the most die hard compatibilists…* Of course & for good reason. *of course he would rebut.* Why wouldn't he? *You can try on his behalf now?* No I can _succeed_ on his behalf. *Atheism he got spot on and failed to go the extra mile on the free will department. Hugely interesting.* Well the interesting aspect of showing that there's no good reason to think a god exists is that if it were true we're all created by a God then even our will is created by a God since there's nowhere else it could be sourced from so what may _seem_ to be free will must actually be it's creator's doing instead but an atheist can own their will because it's all theirs down to the atoms & their subatomic constituents which quantum mechanics show are always caused by our _own_ decisions. kzbin.info/www/bejne/in-Zn6mbhbyesLcsi=dpKAmRimJ1IH25lR

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

@@TMK1450 *One of the most die hard compatibilists…* Yes & for good reason. *of course he would rebut. You can try on his behalf now?* If you're open to persuasion but I get a strong impression that nothing would change your mind so you're not fee to switch your position. If I'm wrong about that tell me what _would_ you consider as evidence for freedom of the will? *Atheism he got spot on and failed to go the extra mile on the free will department. Hugely interesting.* Then what would you consider as a good enlargement for free will? Something in which case what might it be or nothing would?

[@paulbrocklehurst2346]

@@TMK1450*One of the most die hard compatibilists… of course he would rebut.* Yes & for good reason. *You can try on his behalf now?* I can succeed. I won a debate at my Humanists group making this very argument. *Atheism he got spot on and failed to go the extra mile on the free will department. Hugely interesting.* But why go an _inch_ for it?

[@antonsmith9474]

Everything Sapolsky said doesn’t have any connection with Dennet’s ideas on free will

[@sjoerd1239]

It has everything to do with the conversation Sapolsky had with Dennett on the subject. They were talking at cross purposes because Dennett had a different meaning of free will. Dennett and was not prepared to address the consequences of there being no free will using Sapolsky's meaning. Dennett was a compatibilist who evaded the consequences of determinism as it relates to deserving reward and punishment. Dennett failed to face up to the common understanding of free will as it applies to determinism and created a social construct which he called free will.

[@antonsmith9474]

@ thank you for reply! I didn’t watch that conversation. I should watch. I don’t know what Dennet said there. In his books and articles devoted to free will he doesn’t say that free will is a social construct. His line of argumentation is different in his works. He is a supercompatibilist. It is a thesis that both physical determinism and indeterminism do not have any connection with free will because agents do not exist at level of atoms and quarks. It is simply a non starter to try to find free will there. Here he uses his well known idea of three stances: physical, design and intentional. It is not a defence of his views. I just want to say that the best way to learn about his position is reading his works as well as others philosophers who work on free will.

[@claudesylvanshine6551]

Dennet's ideas are throw shit at the wall with flowery language.

[@HarryBuxley]

If free will isn't real, if it doesn't exist, give me an example of something that IS real and does exist.

[@ChannelMath]

you? me? a rock? I assume this is a joke I'm not getting

[@HarryBuxley]

@@ChannelMath they are illusions, a rock is simply a collection of atoms, you or me are simply a collection of atoms, they are not even distinct from the atoms or atmosphere and air in which they exist. They are all just manifestations of an underlying "deterministic physics machine". If you want to say that free will isn't real or is an illusion because it runs on a deterministic physics based machine then you have to commit. Everything runs on a deterministic physics based machine. Why single out free will and say it is not real or an illusion? Everything from gravity to electricity to marbles to ice-cream runs on the same machine, if you are argue that free will is an illusion you have to argue everything is an illusion, which is a pointless pseudo-philosophical position that is more useful for selling books than any insight. I ask you again, if free will is an illusion because it runs on a deterministic physics machine , give me an example of something that is not an illusion.

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

@@ChannelMath That's an assumption, the Boltzmann brain hypothesis or anything in the same school of thought calls in to question what is real.

[@HarryBuxley]

@@ChannelMath the claim, that free will isn't real or it's an illusion, is based on the argument that because it runs on a deterministic physical process it is an illusion that humans make choices. But in fact, unless you believe in a non-materialism, everything 'runs on the deterministic physical process'. The boundaries of what is a rock and what is the ground, between what is you and the air, are simply a manifestation this underlying deterministic physics machine. In short, if everything runs on this "physics machine", why single out free will and say it's an illusion, the logical endpoint is that everything is an illusion, which is a consistent position but not very useful. For example; Sapolsky argues that free-will is an illusion and that maybe could be taken into account in how we treat criminals. But punishment, suffering are just illusions too. Living, dying, happiness, all illusions, everything except the underlying physics machine is. So why single out free will ?

[@paulneelon8343]

@@HarryBuxley Excellent point. But free will is the only thing that really "feels" like it defies all those mechanistic rules and is commonly believed to exist above the physical plane. What will I have for lunch? - there are 79,856 "standard lunch items on Earth, but I will only stomach 37,586 of them and if I review what's in the pantry or the fridge right now, I only have 115 standard lunch items available, so today I will have the leftover tuna salad I made yesterday. Where does free will exist? - was my choice of tuna pre-determined at the moment of the Big Bang and all subsequent deterministic actions of space/time/particles/energy and I have no say in it? What if by some cosmic accident tuna never evolved? What if the tuna went bad overnight, can I make another choice and upset the cosmos? IMHO I am in between the two philosophers - that we have some form of constrained free will - my choices are very limited as Sapolsky says, but not completely pre-determined as Dennett denies.

[@jlrinc1420]

Of course he didn't change his mind on anything. The guy doesn't listen. He knows there is no free will and the most preeminent philosopher on free will isn't going to change his mind. His book is just bad. Nothing but assertions.

[@ChannelMath]

How can Sapolsky become so well known without understanding the first thing about being a public intellectual?? Bob, you're supposed to tell us what WE WANT to believe, not what YOU believe! Any idiot can do that. I'm less than half joking

[@JohnTwarowski]

Oh, these atheist (and others too) are so full of themselves, they seriously think they exist, that they were born and that they will die (the body that is). But none of them (with the exception of the very few) haven't even begin to explore what the consciousness is, since all are conscious beings.

[@MedBeats1]

What's your mechanism for libertarian free will?