Robert Sapolsky on Determinism, Free Will, and Responsibility 10/23/23

[@BSamuel1874]

Robert is a once in a century type thinker and a master educator who knows his subject like no other...highly recommend reading his book Behave on human behaviour

[@sherrydionisio4306]

It is sincerely mind blowing to image the individual nuanced differences of seven or eight billion humans. I am one who lives with generational trauma, however; mine pales in severity to that of my mothers and her mothers. I rather shockingly, see so clearly there is no free will and everything very simply is determined. We come from the chaos of this beautiful planet of life and we often are and “should be” as chaotic as the natural, organic world outside my window; which is intriguingly masked in the illusion of peace and beauty. I have seen most all the podcasts in which Robert has been interviewed on his newest book. He and Bernardo Kastrup are among my newest heroes. Thank you Robert and of course, Russ.

[@kcp786]

Well said..

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Generational trauma is indeed repeated. Breaking free requires a lifetime. I wish it was easier. 😂😅

[@zachvanslyke4341]

Well said 🙏

[@ardentenquirer8573]

I find this most enlightening: The interplay between the biological factors we have no control over and the environmental factors we also can't control doesn't justify blaming or punishing someone. Similarly, it doesn't warrant honoring, rewarding, praising, or feeling of regret.

[@davidtildesley3197]

It is very liberating. Materialist conception of history has received a solid proof from science, whilst the magical "great man" conception of history has been fatally impaled.

[@robertmarks8701]

I wonder if you would say that the Allied powers were wrong to try, and execute the nazi leaders captured at the end of the Second World War? or were they too merely blameless products of environment and genetics?

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

In other words, relax and enjoy the ride

[@ardentenquirer8573]

@@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353 I agree enjoy the ride/delusion

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

@@ardentenquirer8573 exactly... and it's actually one of the many delusions we came to believe in due to the limits of our senses and even our languages...

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

This was awesome. I have been a big Robert fan for a long time and now I am a Russ' fan as well - and a new subscriber. BEST discussion I've ever seen on this topic - which I've been studying for 20 years.

[@sennasdrive]

fully echo these sentiments - i haven’t been into this for 20 years but am pretty sure i’ve watched every youtube discussion robert’s had since the book’s release and have read both behave and determined - in my opinion, this was far and away the best conversation extremely grateful for these two, and deeply humbled to able to witness and take part in what *feels like* the catalyst of humanity’s greatest intellectual paradigm shift

[@syourke3]

Anyone who has ever suffered from addiction knows that “free will” is an illusion.

[@stefus97]

ITS not even An illusion, the illusion of free will Is An illusion, sorry for keyboard corrects.

[@mikep2262]

And yet, millions of people throw off the yoke of addiction all the time.

[@syourke3]

@@mikep2262 Millions more die on the streets. No one overcomes addiction by exercising “will power”. Not if they’re really addicted. Addiction, by definition, means an inability to quit on your own. That’s why we have rehabs and AA meetings. Because quitting by simply deciding to quit is just impossible.

[@MrManny075]

Anyone who suffered from addiction knows free will is not an illusion, If you added and don't believe in God that would make your point, but anyone who does believe in God and knows he happens to be a spiritual being and not just a body knows the body is a tool for the soul to experience life, that's why an addict when he took drug the body feels good but the soul feels bad because the soul wants to keep the body in good shape to experience life that is why a person who take drugs always feel bad afterward and always know he has to stop because the inner self which is the soul doesn't want to harm the body if you know that you are not the body then take the driving seat and follow your true self

[@SunflowerFlowerEmpire]

I know addicts who instead practice various forms of martial arts instead of belief in a supernatural daddy who will make everything ok again lol.

[@zumpano33]

Excellent interview, I appreciate your openness and skepticism and Dr Sapolsky's patience and understanding. I tend to agree with him and found your reservations thoughtful.

[@young9534]

Great interview. I still think that I can be proud of myself if I accomplish something difficult though because even if I didn't accomplish it through my own free will, I still had to experience the pain and effort it took to accomplish the goal. Free will might not be real, but my thoughts, feelings, emotions, experiences are real

[@David_four_twenty]

This was a fascinating interview Russ thank you so much and thanks to Dr Sapolsky even though of course neither of you deserve it lols. This interview shot down my notions of free will that I had been clinging to. Basically the idea was that since every motion appears to be governed by laws of nature that never appear to change their behavior, that if we do have anything like free will, it must be found in our capacity to remain still rather than to display a behavior, say, a harmful behavior that we are feeling motivated to do. But now I realize that whatever the outcome, it would not be "me" making the decision, it would rather be say, the past 3.8 billion years of life on earth and all of their decisions that led to me, being illustrated in whatever I did (do the harmful behavior or do nothing). Wow. What a forgiving perspective. Thank you both again (dammit lols).

[@ardentenquirer8573]

28.24 Russ highlighted a compelling example of how culture can develop in response to constraints and the incentives faced by nomadic pasture people. The challenge lies in the fact that, in the vast majority (99.9) of cases, we are unaware of this influence, making it impossible to overcome.

[@user-js9in4lr3e]

I follow you, but I'd pose a question in turn: if we become aware of an influence over our behavior/values that we were previously obvious to, that gives us the power to change things. Would you personally consider that free will?

[@ardentenquirer8573]

@@user-js9in4lr3e it is not you that has the power to change *** the mind sees the faulty thinking and updates its program and then there is awareness of the update We would be all dead if the mind was not able to act on some of the new information see experience

[@bellakrinkle9381]

What gave you the incentive to change, and why are you different from those that had no will to change - you were built differently--preprogramed? @@user-js9in4lr3e

[@jonkerjk]

Robert is an absolute genius.Love you man keep it up

[@RohitRaj-ve7ly]

Great Robert sapolsky sir 😊

[@soupmeat3363]

I think I've benched every interview about the book and Robert's view of free will and you asked the most interesting question that it seemed you really thought through. Especially when you mentioned the article you wrote on deservingness and reflecting on whether you deserve what you have, it made me a bit teary eyed as it looked very personal to you.

[@SunflowerFlowerEmpire]

Reminds me of the Zen story: "A Monk and a Scorpion" a life lesson about one's nature.

[@susanm7089]

I laughed out loud when Russ said “darn!” near the beginning of the podcast. He echoed my sentiments.

[@ardentenquirer8573]

I like this talk excellent

[@cb73]

Even people who are successful and attribute their hard work and ambition to that success will concede that there was a particular person in their life when they were young had a huge impact on them, and that without their influence, their lives would likely have turned out much worse. (Sorry, I didn’t know how to break that into smaller sentences lol)

[@TroyDeFrates-jh8fc]

My high school English and Latin teachers enabled me to look at life through a different lense than others have. And I fully concede that I was born gifted intellectually, it is an amazing gift, truly and humbly a gift. It took some special people to help me see my potential early as a young impressionable boy. This enabled me to make some very good life choices I may not have understood otherwise.

[@Sadri778]

I truly got goosebumps...

[@ardentenquirer8573]

At 17:56 let me restate: The person's rationale for their actions amounts to a post-Hawk confabulation of the mind. Let's just take a moment of reflection This means that the explanations individuals provide for their actions are formed after the fact and do not accurately represent their true motivations or thought processes. The term "post-Hawk" implies that these explanations are created in hindsight, and "confabulation" refers to the act of creating fabricated or inaccurate explanations to make sense of one's actions. In essence, it highlights how our minds construct justifications for our behavior that do not reflect our actual reasoning at the time of action. Now I know why judges in family court do not use reasoning: Their mind tells them to lie, wishful thinking --- Think about it how would you ever pick sole custody

[@Jimbilbelle]

It’s post hoc, just fyi

[@zulya007]

Iain McGilchrist has a lot written about the left brains capacity to confabulate.

[@nancychace8619]

Respect and care - couldn't it be said that people are a product of their choices within the broader scope of "no free will"; i.e., that ultimately we are all made out of the same "stuff"? I can see how our responses or reactions are determined by all the factors throughout time that form who we are - that part I get. However, where the rubber meets the road - to give an example - I'm still here able to write this b/c I made a good decision not to get into the wrong car hitchhiking years ago, among many more. Indeed, I've decided to continue listening to your videos to continue learning and exchanging with some new, fun, interesting and knowledgable people. Is that a non-sensical choice? Did I make that 'determination' by simply rolling the dice? I certainly could choose otherwise. So "choice" has to count for something. Should a harmful person who has made seriously bad choices be absolved from responsibility, even if there is no free will? Wouldn't true chaos ultimately ensue? Appreciate your discussion on this later in the video. Liked Russ' summation about being non-judgemental, giving people the benefit of the doubt, etc. People are way too quick to judge and stereotype sometimes without considering what others are going through. Not sure what is meant by humans being biological machines. Depends on one's definitions? To me, a machine has no feelings or soul. No flesh and blood. No connection with nature or the natural rhythm of life. If life stopped, machines could keep going, but to what avail? How incredible and life affirming that we can feel and share emotions with one another...through which we might connect with our higher selves? Or with the universe? Machines or not, dopamine is real - whoa! 😮

[@mausperson5854]

I accepted the evidence against free will long ago and it didn't make me sit on my hands in some paralysis of fatalism, nor did it make me feel wholely irresponsible for my actions. In fact the parameters of reward and responsibility have set up my intentions and goals, at least insomuch as I can be aware of the implications or consequences of my behavior. The illusion is stronger than the knowledge, functionally.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Generational trauma perpetuates more of the same, resulting in delusional thinking. Until those false beliefs can be changed/reversed, 😮society at large is trapped by a catch22 scenario. Heathy people have parents who own empathy and compassion. Perhaps 5%?

[@JesseMongia]

There is no free will ever . Every will is influenced by other things and the choices we choose is always based on the strongest influence upon our wills . If it were possible to make a choice without influence upon those choices ,then that would be free will .But our wills/choices are never in a state of nuetralality while being influenced .

[@robertmarks8701]

Like most people I have thought about this question for a long time. I don't see anything that could be described as evidence in the scientific sense. The human mind functions at both the conscious level and also at the sub-conscious level. In the sub-conscious how a decision to act/not act is arrived at is unknown. The decision to act is made before the action itself but we do not and cannot know what prompted it. So at the sub-conscious level we do not have free will. Free will does not and cannot apply to an essential activity of the organism such as breathing or digesting food etc. The other category that does not fall under free will is the small, trivial actions that we all do. You sit for a while then get up and look out the window. You stir your cdup of coffee. You switch on the TV etc. Why did you do that? You don't know in many cases and were unaware of making any decision. On the other hand, those issues that are decided at the conscious level, where you are aware of your actionsand the possible consequences for yourself and others are definitely covered by free will. Will I join the military hence putting myself in a situation that might lead to me being killed or being requird to kill another? That is definitely covered by free will and we should be fully answerable for the decision we take.

[@mausperson5854]

There are always answers to why we do what we could not have done otherwise than we actually do in retrospect irrespective of our recognition of those answers... determining elements of decision making.

[@LIQUIDSNAKEz28]

34:41 People would take *NO* personal responsibility for things and "give in" to their negative urges more often than they currently do. They'd be much more willing to take the path of least resistance, knowing that it's "not their fault." Things like blame, shame and regret still *NEED* to exist for this reason. They serve as motivating factors to keep people's behaviors in check.

[@3434animal]

Not always. It depends on how the brain is wired, and what environmental factors are present. For some people blame can redirect behavior, for some it can breed anxiety and resentment, and for some it teaches the behavior not to get caught, but doesn’t actually correct the negative behavior. It feels intuitive, but there’s lots of research that shows blame is more counterproductive than not, especially in children and adolescents.

[@bebe8842]

One can clearly see the difference in reasoning between the 2 in this podcast. To me, Robert Slaposky won this debate, as all the other debates I have happily watched on youtube. Thank you, Sir! You brought clarity, common sense and the perfect mix of words to explain how this world functions. Sad to see how people in 2023 still try to be against some of your, if not all, ideas and perspectives.

[@jimmuncy5636]

Yes, he's an intellectual hero, calm, cool, and convincing. Kudos to Dr. Roberts for managing to repress his frustration almost completely: No one likes to lose an argument, especially on your own podcast; but he took it like a mature, wise adult. Unfortunately, incompatibilism requires, for most of us, a paradigm shift, which we can probably make in the quietness of solitude. But, tomorrow, when back in the rat race, we'll almost certainly revert to the old ways of thinking and believing, e.g., if someone insults you, you'll automatically and powerfully believe that that person is a jerk from hell and deserves to suffer from your spontaneous wrath. Even Dr. Sapolsky says that he's a "flaming hypocrite" and that he fails to act and think according to the dictates of incompatibilism 99 percent of the time. For he too is a product of his DNA and environment. The psychologist B.F. Skinner argued for complete determinism decades ago, as have many other scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals.

[@bebe8842]

@@jimmuncy5636 I'd 'embrace' anytime the idea to lose my arguments if what my interlocutor gives is the truth, logical and straightforward ideas and opinions. that's how we change the world in a good, clean way. it shouldn't be about position or reputation, it should be about truth and the most careful, factual ideas made in honesty and based on how the world function. and, speaking about insults and bullying, i wouldn't care where bullies come from, I'll take the bullying or the harm done as it is and stay away from that person. I'd not put much effort into thinking why and how, bc it's pretty clear especially in our times how and why such characters are built

[@dspondike]

Watching Russ being what he could not help to be was really amusing as well as informative.

[@treyb3693]

The question is from metaphysics because it involves whether we could have chosen differently than we did choose. It's metaphysics because we cannot go back in time to determine whether it was possible to have done something that was otherwise. The moral problem is that if the freedom is totally illusory, then morality is destroyed because one has to have some alternative to action in order to be morally blameworthy or morally praiseworthy. It is problematic to say that the will is unfree because there are scientific studies that show that hesitation results in the upcoming decision-making process as a result of that way of thinking. So, upholding the stance of determinism could undermine people's moral decisions. The issue is not so much about intent (that's for legal studies) as it is about purposive action that comes from people's individual sets of values. The moral values are resistible forces whereas the laws of nature are irresistible forces. The moral values are ideal and involve us conceiving of perfection. It appears to be the case that we can indeed freely choose to be courageous, generous, just, patient, and punctual or not be. The insistence on this other stance called determinism really ignores these facts and focuses on other animals, like insects that are already well-equipped to adapt to their niches and act according to instincts. Humans are helpless at birth though, and we have moral demands that we place on ourselves.

[@BSamuel1874]

57:21 Robert looks as Russ with eloquence, knowing he is about to unleash the monologue of a lifetime יש פה חכם

[@dspondike]

To assert Free Will is to assert the ability to act without cause. (An inference or paraphrase of mine from the words of Robert Sapolsky.)

[@user-vi6ro8bd4l]

Has some tense and intense moments. Towards the end it looked like the wheels were coming off the host's wagon. His machinery just couldn't look directly at the machine. Would have leveled his ivory tower. And he was too deeply invested in the "merits" of privilege to allow for a more humane economic model beyond the 10%er Club. It would be remarkable if he could sit with the hard reality of biology long enough to fill in the disconnect between his world view and this new reality. But my bet is that he shook it off by the time he interviewed his very next guest. Not that he'd have been able to do otherwise. His questions were as honest as could be and he made several fairly strong attempts to adjust. But he lost his balance after a couple of Sapolsky gut punches and jab combos. The TKO happened when he got cornered against the ropes between Respect and Delusional. Sapolsky truly floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee! Even as Determined as he's been lately, Sapolsky has yet to face a worthy opponent in any of his recent rounds of interviews.

[@jimmuncy5636]

He argued with a philosopher who made no points and did zero damage to Dr. Sapolsky's position. It was, thus, largely a waste of time for all concerned.

[@adamadams9517]

@@jimmuncy5636 Who was that?

[@jmgresham93]

My point of view is similar to Dr. Sapolsky's. My work indicates that economic behavior is determined by socialization of feedback on the internet which powers globalization and climate change due to global carbon emissions released in the atmosphere. Dr. Sapolsky is a biological determinist though if I am correct. We are both deterministic.

[@desert_sky_guy]

What is the duration of "now"?

[@desert_sky_guy]

To our conscious minds, do we really experience "now"? Given that every now must be processed for us to know it is now, are we always stuck slightly then before every now?

[@mausperson5854]

Everyone opposed to the facts, horrified or not seem to rush to the argument from consequences. Not liking the implications does not a rebuttal make.

[@dspondike]

Feelings are not empirical, they are subjective. "Because it feels like it" is not good evidence for anything but your feelings.

[@pedronobre8755]

I was constantly reminded of one of Theodore Dalrymple's books. As a physician, he would sometimes visit criminals and make a note of their language. "I was there and, you know, the knife went in". Maybe we, well educated and well socialized, wouldn't run amok without free will. But once the idea percolated through society, I am sure multitudes would.

[@futures2247]

the multitudes might hurt each other, as usual but the more concerning are the many lunatics with actual power.

[@FINALLYQQQQAVAILABLE]

As far as I can tell, the idea has already percolated through some societies. It just does not catch on. Very few bother to give it a serious though. A person who does is quite likely one of those "well educated and well socialized" or at least on the path of becoming one.

[@SofaKingShit]

Perhaps this is somewhat a little like the chicken and egg question. Seems to me that most people want to avoid jail and that in fact, to run with the example already used, most knife crimes are actually crimes of apparently spontaneous passion. For instance I've seen Indian friends lament their karma for practices which cause self harm but the survival instinct or desire to provide the conditions for the survival of their loved ones is still strong enough that I've seen my friends try like hell to desist in their drinking or whatever vice they struggled with, in spite of their seemingly fatalistic religion inspired philosophical premises on the matter.

[@DeepDiveBooks]

In my opinion, Sapolsky's point in writing the book seems to be denying free will in a biological sense, but in addressing chaos, he inevitably returns to a definition of free will rooted in physics.

[@mtrigleth10]

Billions of $ are spent on directing an individuals will, e.g.; Marketing, political activity, etc. If not free will, then what is the target of the massive investments to sway or influence the will of individuals? If people are not "free" to make decisions, then is, marketing or persuasion, a waste of time and money?

[@JB.zero.zero.1]

Marketing and persuasion work. Whether an individual is open to persuasion though, that is down to the causal chain. In marketing there is only a low percentage return in most instances, so in some respects, marketing can be an absolute waste of money.

[@matthewkay1327]

33:15 'logically I can blame because i am determined to.😊

[@jimmuncy5636]

True, but with that knowledge, you can analyze it, understand it, and perhaps change it, especially if you were to get rewarded for doing so.

[@Sambasue]

Behavior is contingent and determined. As to free will, there is no central figure who is deciding. No decider. No doer. So free will concerns? For who?

[@desert_sky_guy]

Does now become then? Is it a series of nows? Or is it one now, but it flows through a medium that leaves behind a wake of thens?

[@cb73]

I would suggest that praise or blame have nothing to do with projecting a moral agency on a person, not in practice anyway. The idea that we have a “meritocracy” simply because we want to reward people on the basis of their moral qualities is patently false. Even under the lens of determinism, a meritocracy still makes complete practical sense.

[@wisshard4448]

In an equalitarian society, sure. But in an capitalist society the individuals with more wealth and status can leverage that to influence society to their advantage, including disproportionate influence over what competence is valued by society and who can attain that competence. Meaning not everyone is enabled to realize their talents and the type of competence valued may not be positive for society.

[@kayaa1234567]

Meritocracy comes with the cost of following what society determines to be valuable and worth pursuing. If for whatever reason you have no interest in these things or loath these things, your life will be miserable. Either you'll end up in a golden cage with golden handcuffs or on the lower end of the merit ladder ridden with emotional stress caused by the inequalities of the merit ladder.

[@Little-bird-told-me]

Being aware and rational may not mean that one would behave in a wise state when facing an opponent who is unaware of irrational. Above all it may be "self interest" and instinct for survival which may make them behave in an Altruist or expedient manner as the case may be.

[@88godson88]

How do we reach our desired outcomes if free will doesn’t exist? Is there nothing we can do?

[@JB.zero.zero.1]

It's a startling concept isn't it. We can certainly weigh up options, that's undeniable - as contemplation exists. I don't quite know how this feeds back into notions of zero free will. Maybe just ditch the word "free" and stick to will.

[@88godson88]

@@JB.zero.zero.1 if you believe free will doesnt exist, you would also have to believe that theres no "weighing of options". You might believe you are, but in reality youre already being swayed into picking one option over the other.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

We've already run amuck. How can this be denied, especially since 10/7.

[@JoyfulChristine]

Why do I feel this episode was more about Russ Roberts than Dr Sapolsky and his book? I'm struggling my way through this book too, but I wonder if maybe the typical reaction to Dr Sapolsky's premise isn't completely off the mark. Accepting that there is no free will doesn't mean we have to accept everyone and everything, cannot "judge" nor act on the basis of our judgments. Or recognize circumstances that result in better outcomes, and even what better outcomes might look like. Who knows? Maybe what we think of as free will and agency could turn out to be something entirely different. Instinct in fancy dress, perhaps. But I don't think the world is going to come to an end if we listen to and consider these arguments. I also don't think it will revolutionize everything. I think it's good to get a peek under the hood for a better understanding of what's going on in situations we think of as acts of free will, in ourselves and others.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

I do hope that this interviewer is more conscious than others who have interviewed Sapolsky. 😅 Determinism is not easy to wrap one's brain around. Yet, I support Sapolsky entirely based on an odd dream I had during my 20s. Now I'm an elder. The dream was self actualized. How can I not believe in fate, destiny, and determination 😮

[@freyc1]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say, but believing in determinism is not at all the same thing as believing in fatality or destiny.

[@thejackbancroft7336]

Determinism is essentially the simplest philosophical trend we've ever created. How do you not understand it my brother? It sounds like someone explained it poorly to you, would you like me to clear it up?

[@dspondike]

I am an atheist because no one has provided a convincing argument as to why I should accept a concept that is not explainable as the explanation for what we cannot explain. Robert gives the reasonable explanation for "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

[@larryschiff3473]

Ever since reading Behave my judgement of others others has dramatically changed. I also think this book should be required reading for anyone that works in our criminal justice system. Being an atheist, I believe, made me more open minded to the concept of not having free will. I cant help but believe Russ Roberts religiosity is what's preventing him from fully accepting the concept as well.

[@jimmuncy5636]

Yes, you can tell he's uncomfortable with incompatibilism, and frustrated: He can't deconstruct the argument for it. (No one can.) And that's very understandable: He's lived a long life being very comfortable with the notions of God, the soul, and free will. It would be very discomfiting for him to discard all those rewarding beliefs. Few of us enjoy real change, especially the older we get. It's takes intellectual courage, maybe a dose of masochism, to step out of your old ways of thought and into a brave, new world where your old navigational aids are gone. We're social animals, and it's much more reinforcing to fit in with your family, friends, and neighbors. You wouldn't want to be an atheist in Tehran, because you're life expectancy would be about 15 minutes. Same situation in medieval Europe: You will be a Christian, you will go to church, you will believe, you will tithe, and you will teach your children to follow the herd or get out while you can.

[@randybrown4774]

We finally figured out that there's nothing wrong with being left handed. 😊

[@jimmuncy5636]

Don't get ahead of yourself, Randy. The Right-handers Club of America is working on making your lives even worse; currently, we're trying to convince Wilson and Rawlings to stop making left-handed baseball gloves. That'll put a kink in your jink (don't know what that means either; it just popped up from the dark spaces of my small mind that demands orthodoxy and despises social renegades, like left-handers).

[@qplanet]

I have had a stroke, and it wiped out my emotional filters. I could give into them, but I consciously choose not to. How is that not free will?

[@JB.zero.zero.1]

I suppose the answer would be something along the lines of - you still have sufficient executive functioning which enables you to have a measure of control. Others would not be so lucky. This is more to do with the damage that occurred as a result of the stroke and has little do with the topic of free will. We all have a will as such and can make decisions, but nevertheless, the choices we make are still part of a causal chain. What we think of as the self is just a construct and that which we call the will is an essential tool to keep the organism alive & ticking. That's the best I can do.

[@qplanet]

@JB.zero.zero.1 Actually, that makes good sense. I am still at the mercy of my early programming. Free will would be for me to choose to give in now. But I don't want to. Wow, this can turn your head inside out if you let it. Thanks!

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

Certain parts of this conversation remind me a lot "Blade Runner/Do androids dream of electric sheep?"

[@homewall744]

Innovation shows that human minds are not limited the same way other animals are, which are far more stuck on genetic-produced behaviors and have less ability to learn and act differently from others. All this human innovation is because they have free will. Just look to enslaved/imprisoned humans and note how their reduced ability to exercise free will also harm. Variation in human behavior is more due to a free will than because while we're all just meat machines, we don't have to suffer our genetic limits or do that which another mind forces upon us.

[@desert_sky_guy]

It's like our consciousness is trailing reality in time by a few ticks. Reality latency.

[@ruskiny280]

It is a better world and Democratic Socialism is a good thing.

[@TheBoofer331]

Whether we would call it Socialism or not, fundamentally changing our notions about free will would necessarily make us reconsider our economic system. It seems hard to argue that it would not veer *at least* in the direction of Nordic style social democracy.

[@lw1343]

Pre 1950 books by hazlit and dearden already theorize there is no free will. Include also twains' "what is man".

[@dspondike]

Every "decision" is just a rationalization.

[@LJG29]

What do you make of the spirit of the imagination that paints the illusion that we wish to identify with, that seems to be at the controls of the machinery that generates our thoughts, motivations and will? Is our mythology collective and somehow part of nature, too? Since all living things are born, live and then die, isn’t the prime responsibility of our collective consciousness primarily the protecting of the collective future that we pass along to our children?🙂

[@dragonlotion1789]

This is a common thread in theses interviews ppl seem to have a generalization of what “Freewill” means but when pushed for a concrete definition can’t articulate in detail. You can see them struggling to narrow it down. Maybe we should start with what it doesn’t mean; Doing what we want when we want…. and knowing humans, is that really such a bad thing?

[@freyc1]

You are free to use language as you please, but don't expect to be understood if you use it that way :) That's neither what is usually meant by free will nor what this conversation is about. Free will would be the power human beings would have of making decisions without being determined by natural phenomena (inside or outside of them). Or in other words, of making decisions that would not be determined by the sum of everything that happened before. If I had free will, there would be no way, even for a suprahuman intelligence, of predicting my behaviour, and that behaviour wouldn't just be random either.

[@dragonlotion1789]

@@freyc1 I’m not sure I defined Freewill in my post. Still, I stand by the Idea that it makes sense to come to a consensus on what defines Freewill before worrying about it not existing. “Usually meant by freewill” seems indicative of that.

[@freyc1]

You are right, you didn't define free will (my mistake). But I did. And saying that a word "usually means that and that" is just acknowledging that words may have different meanings in different contexts. There is no need to come to a consensus if one defines what one is speaking about in each context. I won't stop speaking about "groups" because there is no consensus about the meaning of that word between mathematicians and other people. If I say that group "usually means" a collection of people, it doesn't indicate that I don't know what I'm talking about.

[@wayne9287]

Free will or not I believe that there is a better way to exist as humans and it is not with a harsh dictator who doesn't value lives. Democracy is still the way in my opinion but we need to refine our political system.

[@paddydiddles4415]

Daniel Ds concept of freewill is not undermined by RSs thesis. It doesn’t matter how many times RS reiterates his thesis, nothing changes. It’s the same thesis, and therefore fails for the same reasons. Read DD to understand why

[@jimmuncy5636]

I've read DD. His arguments and viewpoints don't hold up under attack from those of Sam Harris, Dr. Sapolsky, B.F. Skinner, Derk Pereboom, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Herman Melville, Stephen Hawking, Voltaire, Spinoza, or Schopenhauer. (Cf. my earlier comment in this thread.)

[@David_four_twenty]

To me one reason the world may not be getting kinder is in how we appear to continue to celebrate dividing ourselves up into racial tribes, nationalistic tribes, theistic tribes and so on, even though we are all one species. But also, the world may not be getting kinder as we continue to divide ourselves up into tribes even though our species apparently evolved in the wild through tens of thousands of years, competing for scarce resources, through intertribal warfare.

[@jimmuncy5636]

True, but, again, that's how we roll. Tribes were probably essential for survival millennia ago and up to fairly recent times. We're groupies, social animals.

[@David_four_twenty]

@@jimmuncy5636 agreed that is how we roll. I agree with you that tribalism was likely necessary for our species to survive in the wild, competing for scarce resources. But we also appear to have the capacity to change. I agree we may not be able to change that behavior though.

[@freyc1]

Warfare for ressources was probably very rare for most of the existence of humanity.

[@David_four_twenty]

@@freyc1 so then how do you propose humans competed for scarce resources before domestication of animals and agriculture?

[@freyc1]

They avoided it. Because there was a lot of room and the population was small.

[@David_four_twenty]

Why care? Because those of our ancestors of the past that did not sufficiently care about other human beings likely had a more challenging time passing on their genes to inform the structures of our brains today. And structure determines function. For example think about how difficult it can be to raise a child to the age of full brain maturation in today's society. Now imagine our species having to do that in the wild. Now imagine our species having to do that without being prone to some degree, to think in ways of caring. Of course I may be wrong but to me this seems to answer the question why care.

[@mausperson5854]

We are condemned to attribute teleology to our everyday reality. Yet purpose and volition are but features we can't bore down into with high enough fidelity to understand what underpins these features beneath the level of conscious awareness.

[@jamshedfbc]

❤

[@hulya-ut1vl]

What should a person do to protect herself from the nonstop violent situations ? As a human if you prisoned to be a research object ,meaning by that having no finance s? I really wonder who is the boss of this mess ,,,,

[@KigenEkeson]

Some of this seems like rubbish. For example, the idea that there should be no punishment for crimes would surely lead to damaged individuals taking undue advantage of others. If the good Dr. had suggested rather that punishment be bestowed without moral judgement, then I would fully agree with that. That is to say anger is necessary, hatred is not.

[@italogiardina8183]

The Hindu reformist Sri Aurobindo claimed a notion of free will as a consequence of materialism evolving from a classic Indian metaphysics: "As nature has evolved beyond matter and manifested life so to life has manifested mind. She (nature) must evolve beyond mind towards supra mental truth consciousness". So India with a fatalist ontology within the philosophical schools developed through early 20th century thinkers the concept of free will which is innovative from an international relations perspective and one of Aurobindo's struggles to emancipate people form slave like ideology. Free will seems like a political agency within material agency and filtering into individuated states through forms of elite power structures that unlock a kind of freedom from traditional concepts pertaining to kinship and relations with the state.

[@TomSkinner]

I feel like I have to come to the defense of sparrows. I don't know how Mr. Roberts knows any of the claims he made about them. We are so enamored with ourselves we think we're much different.

[@srglepore]

The theory of no free will has to be falsifiable. So what would a person have to do in order to prove the theory of no free will wrong?

[@JB.zero.zero.1]

Read his book maybe, he looks at the common arguments against the position and highlights what it would take to convince him of free will.

[@srglepore]

@JB.zero.zero.1 I'm most likely going to. But is it my decision if I do or no?

[@pjgrieco]

Oh to be a sparrow!

[@TroyDeFrates-jh8fc]

If we "decide" to do something spontaneously like buying a lottery ticket, you are indicating that this is not a conscious choice on my part? Is this merely an action or behavior attributable to Chaos? We are creating chaos in our life when we force an action and are not choosing free will?

[@freyc1]

Noody said it was not a conscious choice. The point is that you couldn't have made a different choice in exactly the same circumstances (both internal and external), the past having been what it has been. And chaos doesn't cause anything : it just is the situation in which the evolution of a deterministic system becomes impossible to predict, because a very small modification of the initial conditions could lead to a very different outcome, after a certain amount of time.

[@jimmuncy5636]

Sam Harris thoroughly convinced me of the truth of incompatibility, from his lectures, books, and podcasts. It's very freeing, enlightening even. Dr. Sapolsky adds so much, however; he builds a mountain of evidence for incompatibility. The concept isn't that hard to grasp, but, like Dr. Roberts here, we just don't wanna give up our belief in free will: "I am the captain of my soul." (You don't have a soul, either, but that's for another time.) It's scary, at first, to realize that you're a meat puppet; but you always have been. You were just unaware of your existential position, the human condition, even though, looking back, it's so obvious. It's hiding in plain sight, like God, which is Nature, according to Spinoza. Here's some comments by people way smarter than me that I think most here would be interested in: Charles Darwin: "Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." Albert Einstein: "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." Peter Gill: "The enormous value of the concept of free will in relieving parental shame and guilt is the only and overriding reason, in our opinion, that the lie of free will is well nigh universally taught to all children. If and when we can convince parents of total determinism, so they are freed from their own shame and guilt, they will no longer need to teach the vicious lie of free will to the world's children. A new world will be born." Stephen Hawking: "The initial configuration of the universe may have been chosen by God, or it may itself have been determined by the laws of science. In either case, it would seem that everything in the universe would then be determined by evolution according to the laws of science, so it is difficult to see how we can be masters of our fate." Baron Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach: “Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant. He is born without his own consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of those who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. He is good or bad, happy or miserable, wise or foolish, reasonable or irrational, without his will being responsible for anything in and of these various states.” "You will say that I feel free. This is an illusion, which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it." John Galsworthy: “Life calls the tune, we dance.” John Hospers: "Whether or not we have personality disturbances, whether or not we have the ability to overcome deficiencies of early environment, is like the answer to the question whether or not we shall be struck down by a dread disease: "it's all a matter of luck." It is important to keep this in mind, for people almost always forget it, with consequences in human intolerance and unnecessary suffering that are incalculable." Pierre Simon De Laplace: "Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the beings which compose it, if moreover this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in the same formula both the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atom; to it nothing would be uncertain, and the future as the past would be present to its eye." Herman Melville: "Surely no mere mortal who has at all gone down into himself will ever pretend that his slightest thought or act solely originates in his own defined identity." H.L. Mencken: "Science is unflinchingly deterministic, and it has begun to force its determinism into morals. On some shining tomorrow a psychoanalyst may be put into the box to prove that perjury is simply a compulsion neurosis, like beating time with the foot at a concert or counting the lampposts along the highway." Marvin Minsky: "Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws." Max Planck: "The assumption of an absolute determinism is the essential foundation of every scientific enquiry." Karl Raimund Popper: "The metaphysical doctrine of determinism simply asserts that all events in this world are fixed, or unalterable, or predetermined. It does not assert that they are known to anybody, or predictable by scientific means. But it asserts that the future is as little changeable as is the past. Everybody knows what we mean when we say that the past cannot be changed. It is in precisely the same sense that the future cannot be changed, according to metaphysical determinism." Bertrand Russell: "The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will. It seemed to me that all notions of matter were determined by the laws of dynamics and could not therefore be influenced by human wills." Arthur Schopenhauer: "A man can do what he wills, but cannot choose what he wills." B. F. Skinner: "To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." Baruch Spinoza: "In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to infinity." Voltaire: "Everything happens through immutable laws ... everything is necessary ... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason."

[@December151791]

God has free will and us humans can be as deterministic as we want, it is not up to us.

[@timb350]

I can unconditionally destroy the ENTIRE premise of this book in one VERY simple sentence: “Can we (you, I, they) make choices that will change the direction of our lives that you (Sapolsky) cannot definitively explain? The answer is…irrefutably indisputably and unconditionally YES (…in fact…I am doing that very thing right this moment…and so is every single human being on this planet…and it is done trillions of times every day!)! THAT…is free will. It is nothing more than that…AND nothing less. The truly offensive thing about how blindingly and trivially easy it is to UNCONDITIONALLY confirm that you are WRONG (…in fact…I would go further…to borrow a phrase from a fellow scientist…I would say you are “…Not even wrong…”)…is that YOU are an internationally acclaimed scientist. You have ENORMOUS influence, authority, and credibility…and in this book you are assuming you have not only the right but the means to successfully dismantle one of the very foundations of human identity. And you fail …utterly and completely. And worst of all…your failure is so blindingly obvious and easy to verify. And the embarrassment does not only fall upon you. Countless supposedly intelligent interviewers seemed somehow to lose every ounce of intelligence they possess since not one was able to locate the trivially simple and utterly fatal flaw in your supposed grand thesis.

[@quentincrain1472]

man .. i feel bad for roberts: he must be walking up every day worrying about if and how he is special (@ 50')

[@user-fs8tl7ni1w]

What is a farcical claim in science? Easy, here’s the test: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”~Carl Sagan Where’s the extraordinary proof here? Did he just save it for the book? I haven’t heard him speak it yet. Best wishes!

[@user-vi6ro8bd4l]

Sapolsky says: "In terms of caustic, scarring impact on brains and bodies, nothing in the history of animals being crappy to one another about status differences comes within light years of our invention of poverty."

[@jimmuncy5636]

Yes, homelessness is a real scourge upon humanity. There but for fortune go you and I.

[@annedobson-mack3688]

If poverty is a predetermined outcome, in what sense have humans “created” it? It is a fact of life. The important question is, how do we respond to that difficult fact.

[@thejackbancroft7336]

​@@annedobson-mack3688humans built all the things that homeless people use to sleep

[@ardentenquirer8573]

Yes it's a universe that follows universal laws*** The wonders of star stuff and some wishful thinking

[@kirstinstrand6292]

What if God is a myth? 😮 What a furor this question will be!

[@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353]

"We're something more than a sparrow" shows a bit of human arrogance.

[@doviejames]

Poor science. It's looks in the mirror and only sees a machine.

[@BillMurey-om3zw]

Don't be a human supremacist, sparrows have consciousness. Live vegan.

[@utubenumberone]

Russ Roberts is a rude host.

[@Booogieman]

i choose to dislike the video. I have free will. 😝(joking, but you know that I could...)

[@DeepDiveBooks]

🤣

[@DeepDiveBooks]

In 'Determined,' it is mentioned that your decision of 'disliking' is shaped by the sensory experiences of the past few seconds to minutes, hormone levels from the past few minutes to days, the shaping of your brain through experiences and learning from the past weeks to years, events during adolescence shaping your prefrontal cortex (PFC), incidents from childhood, and the overall cultural environment of the current society. You have no free will!!

[@matthewkay1327]

Rejection of rationality in real time. 🍿

[@bebe8842]

spot on!

[@MichaeldeSousaCruz]

Pre-ordained? Pre-determined? Huh??? Where are you getting those conclusions from Sapolsky’s work? Are you from the Austrian/Chicago School of Mythonomics?? You smell of a Libertarian with your language.

[@woodysdrums8083]

Host isn't very bright.

[@bryanutility9609]

Free will is irrelevant when you can simply deal with poorly behaved people like other animals you don’t want around you.

[@user-fs8tl7ni1w]

Robert tell us about how you don’t really want money for writing your book, it’s just that you’re determined to keep it! You don’t have the free will to give it back. Lol What a farce!

[@MULTIintenso1]

What exactly is the farce you are pointing out

[@user-fs8tl7ni1w]

@@MULTIintenso1 What is a farcical claim in science? Easy, here’s the test: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”~Carl Sagan Where’s the extraordinary proof here? Did he just save it for the book? I haven’t heard him speak it yet. Best wishes!

[@MULTIintenso1]

Extraordinary. Claims like the existence of free will? Sapolsky provides very compelling determinism, it’s Freewill that needs to be proven.

[@user-fs8tl7ni1w]

@@MULTIintenso1 Again, blanket statements without any evidence is meaningless. You are just a cheerleader for him. It’s your free-will. Lol I will not be responding to you again. You provide no support, just conclusory statements about how compelling Sapolsky is to you. Good for you!

[@krishnapartha]

❤