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

The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice04241
There have been few public intellectuals who are quite as well-respected as Robert Sapolsky. He is clear in his argument, precise in his speech, and persuasive in his claims. Here we will look at his most recent book: Determined: Life without Freewill. It is one of my favourite popular philosophy books I have ever read, and while I don't entirely agree with Sapolsky's conclusions, he is a brilliant writer and I really hope he decides to try his hand at more philosophical debates. He argues that if determinism is true, then despite all appearances, we are not responsible for our actions.
Thank you once again to Skillshare for sponsoring this video.
Support me on Patreon here (thank you you wonderful person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice...
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
David and Choi paper referenced: www.jstor.org/stable/25655385...
00:00 Determined
01:35 The Freewill Debate
07:07 Determinism and Moral Responsibility
16:52 Freewill and The Law
23:33 Conceptions of Will and Responsibility

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@Jeewanu216]

Free will is my absolute favorite topic! I'm gonna love this video 💜 I was right! I absolutely adored your ability to both defend and steelman Sapolsky, while also picking apart the flaws rightfully. In particular, I was really happy to see the way that you pulled the bigger issues out of the philosophical discussion at hand here. Such as discussing, regardless of whether or not people are morally responsible, in what way can we use what we understand and use this philosophical discussion to better the justice system. I did 5 years in prison and it is not good. The retribution only makes people worse, and it only damages them and destroys any ability to trust the world or be better.

[@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?

[@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

[@Norbyyyyy18]

Your wife is a wise woman.

[@JB.zero.zero.1]

@@Norbyyyyy18 Hmm - no, a lot of people like to use shame and guilt as leverage within relationships.

[@Norbyyyyy18]

@@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]

@@Norbyyyyy18 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?

[@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.

[@riyasinha8921]

What a serendipity encounter! I came across this channel randomly and here I m in a absolute awe with the command over you language and the intelligentsia you posses.

[@Fenrisson]

You sure work a lot, mate. I'm always glad to have you putting all those videos for us to watch.

[@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.

[@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

[@AhmadMoqtavHidayat]

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

[@kenzi.h]

Life would have been easier this way!! Thank you for todays video ❤

[@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.

[@alejandromarin1846]

Hey, my name is Alejandro, I am an undergrad Psychology student in Madrid. I love your videos, thanks a lot for uploading all this content!! I am always impressed by how clearly you are able to think through problems. What would you recommend I read or do to learn to work through diffucult material like you do? Analysing the premises assumed by the authors, breaking it down... Thanks a lot!! Keep it up

[@andrejg3086]

There are so many interesting thoughts in this video that I need to watch it again🙂

[@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.

[@redgey5163]

Your channel is fantastic. Very helpful. So clear and concise, especially your Nietzsche videos! Is there any subject matter you absolutely, unequivocally steer clear from in your search for Truth? Over the last few years, two historical books that have changed my view of the world have been Chaos by Tom o Neill, and Hitlers War by David Irving (I had no choice in the matter according to Sapolsky), but as a consequence, my reframing of the world has changed drastically. Not least of which, because of the reaction I get when I mention the latter.

[@tapanisydanmetsa6714]

Brilliant, enjoyable wording as usual but in this case the atheist Sapolsky has opened for metaphysics. God's will, Insh'a Allah and my favorite: TAO. I doubt that the basics for "Free Will" which Sapolsky's argumentation shattered can be glued together with any more words. Of course, a practical philosophy would be good to have to learn to handle the situation if we do not want to believe in ghosts. The assumption of us being figures in a computer game is also lurking there behind. In tight situations I personally find comfort in Tao and Alan Watt's lectures. The best thing Sapolsky has given me is the possibility to get rid of dwelling in regret/remorse. I can learn of things I've done which have caused pain for me or others but I do not have to crawl on my knees to Rome to "wash away" my sins. About this I had a hunch already decades ago when sensing the absurdity of a psychiatrist's theory at a mental institution for criminals. He declared (in a TV-documentary) that the first sign for a healthy mind is that the patient/prisoner shows remorse for the committed crime(s). My intuition showed to be very correct. A famous highly intelligent Swedish criminal acted regretful, was released but, surprise surprise!, continued immediatelly with his criminal career. If the sometimes very serious crimes were committed during mental disorders why should remorse be felt? It logically just presses the criminal back into his delusional state of mind. Is it not same with a healthy mind which WAS but is different now? ...Although there is no real reason to be upset about the moron for psychiatrist now. It could not have been otherwise. What does Voltaire's Candide mean with by the "best of all possible worlds"? Google says it is question about parodi. Is it? That hostage example you gave was a kinky one, though. OM MANI PADME HUM on that. Sapolsky feels himself unhappy with his conclusions. I, already some years older than him just try to glide in the state of mind where I observe the phenomenal world without too much participating. I hope nobody takes me hostage.

[@graphixkillzzz]

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

[@beepbooptheshequel7740]

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

[@Rendovic]

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

[@raia07]

Can't stop watching your channel!

[@user-wx4bw3fs1i]

Good job enlightening us, keep up the good work 🙌

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@Marcymarmar1]

Mannn you explain everything so well that it's so easy to understand! Thank you

[@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.

[@MichaelPiz]

The idea of deterministic causes being willed because they "pass through" the evaluative(?) functions in the brain is new to me. I've been thinking for some time about the relationship between deterministic matter/processes and "free will" and that gives me a whole new, broad avenue to investigate. Fascinating.

[@for_fox_aches]

Unknown combined circumstances brought me to this channel yesterday. I did not decide to binge your stuff since. I must not be making the right decisions.

[@MyeshaFatima505]

I honestly love your videos

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! That is very kind!

[@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! 🎉

[@alena-qu9vj]

Our free will is expressed in the choise to come to the Earth and learn, in a specific milieu with strict set of rules. If you freely decide to play chest, from your first move your "free will" is limited by the rules of the game. Still, you are "responsible" for your moves, in that they make you win or lose the game. And it is the same in our lives - your will is "determined" by the rules, but you are fully responsible for your choices. Responsibility is falsly understood only as responsibility towards the society, but the most important part of it is the responsibility towards your self. It is primarily you who earn what you sow.

[@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

[@ChrisKarell]

I love your content! Takes me back to my college days

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@Emin.V.Aliyev1]

Great listen. Ty

[@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.

[@normadeliberty6974]

Again, very helpful discussion. Also congratulations on the Skillshare sponsorship. FYI, the link only provides the opportunity to join Skillshare. I hoped to look at their offerings but this was not simple. Also, do you have any control over when KZbin adds their breaks? They were poorly timed in this video, stopping at a critical train of thought. Thanks for getting my mind working on something -- enjoy following your train of thought. Wishing you all the best.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! And I often let YT auto-set the ads but I’ll have a look to see where I can move them

[@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

[@LundgrenLars]

Good job dealing seriously with Robert Sapolsky's work on Determinism. I have been so disappointed by all the interviews where the interviewer just fail to engage with his arguments in an interesting way - mostly because they demonstrate that they just do not understand. In particular I had higher hopes for his discussion with Daniel Dennet because of his own work in the area, but that also turned out to disappoint in the end.

[@LundgrenLars]

I think it would be amazing if you had a direct discussion with Sapolsky on this. I would certainly look forward to watching it!

[@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.

[@pace.condition]

you're a gentleman and a scholar. very solid topic and video

[@ChocolateMilkCultLeader]

This and your 1984 were your best videos yet. Can't wait for you to do Sun and Steel (it's a beautifully written book) or Murakami.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@soaked189]

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

[@anarcho-savagery2097]

I had no choice in choosing this video.

[@mr.1ntr0vert88]

Exactly and it was planned that I would reply to your comment.

[@JaydayalCharan]

Bro love you. And I would like you to take a look at Sankhya and Vaisheshik philosophies from India. May be worth it. And again, my favourite channel on KZbin and such a delight seeing your video on KZbin.

[@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.

[@CHLuke37]

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

[@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,

[@vitoramim5346]

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

[@camfella647]

I just want to make 2 observations, you described Sapolsky’s reasons for our choices being predetermined as genetics, hormones, trauma and substance abuse in the environment we were raised etc. I haven’t read the book but these seem like influences on our decisions not predetermined causes, which brings me to consciousness, how can a scientist come to conclusions about our conscious decisions without even knowing the mechanisms of consciousness? It seems to me there’s a lack of data, AFAIK it’s still a field under study with nothing but speculative theories so far, you touched on it when you discussed “will”

[@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?

[@abrahamcollier]

Best I’ve seen yet 👏

[@lawtonbrewer4107]

I have been determined not to believe in determinism.

[@silopante]

Oh my, determinism and nothing being no one's fault is something I always think about, I'm really interested in what the video will be about

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah I hope you like it!

[@silopante]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 really eye opening video, these are concepts I've been toying with for quite some time, the conclusion I came to are apparently really close to quantum indeterminism; I've also found Aristotle's view to be quite interesting, where one could see a person's qualities and faults as one does with plants' and rocks', coming from nature and worthy both of praise or blame even though "inanimate".

[@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.

[@JennWatson]

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

[@ashishpatil9774]

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

[@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.

[@rashidd5283]

I would honestly admit this is a video essay beyond me

[@darthtyranous4514]

Real, but trying to understand is better than just staying beyond it. Just try your best also, Sapolsky has some videos on this as well…

[@manuelgomez9027]

Hey mate, just wanted to ask about your interpretation of Nietzsche's quote of looking into the abyss in "Beyond Good and Evil". I think it could make for a great video if you're interested, or maybe just a segment of a video of anothor topic.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 😂

[@marcino8966]

Nothing is ever your fault...but you are still responsible for your actions. That thought always give me comfort because no matter what there will be always redemption. Determinism is actually the only thing that keeps my hope alive these days

[@TheLastOutlaw289]

The dude talking in this video is young…probably still naive…he’ll come around eventually. Sapolsky has been around the block. He’s been there done that. This shit is pre-determined.

[@marcino8966]

@@TheLastOutlaw289 I just been made realize who Sapolsky is. Kinda funny to seemingly quote someone without knowing him :D

[@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.

[@mamothgaming]

When are you gonna do one on Philip mainlander and the philosophy of redemption?

[@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.

[@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!

[@wex2808]

Free will is a feeling, non-Free will is a truth.

[@monke6669]

Don't say it out loud, truth hurts 😵

[@alextomlinson]

This is what I was thinking. We were given the gift of (illusory) free will.

[@divipromstojakovo3859]

​@@alextomlinsonCan you prove it's an illusion? If so, how did you manage to break free? If my thought is not mine, then whose are they?

[@alextomlinson]

@@divipromstojakovo3859 I can’t prove it, but it’s what I believe. It just follows logically that everything is a chain reaction going all the way back to the Big Bang or the origin event. I believe thoughts are happening due to the environment interacting with the “personality” or structure of the psyche. Essentially they’re triggered externally. They are “yours” because you experience them, but I don’t believe you are choosing them. Also I don’t believe there is a real “you” either. Just a personality structure created by environmental experiences and genetic predisposition. Which is then perceived by the experiencer as “I” or “me”. What do you mean by how did I manage to break free?

[@normanclatcher]

​@@divipromstojakovo3859well, you could simply be repeating the words of another, _or..._ it could be that there is no 'you' who 'has thoughts' at all, if you are a bot, philosophical zombie, or someone who otherwise simply cannot be proven to 'think.' _Cogito Ergo Sum_ presupposes causality itself, don't you think...?

[@extendedlimits]

With everything we are learning about how the brain operates, environmental factors are absolutely a major part of the makeup of someones personality. I think it would be more helpful to change the environments for kids then it would be to find a way to help adults out of a life of crime. As adults, we have to make the choice ourselves to change and for that to happen we tend to need a compelling reason to do so(such as threat of a larger punishment, or finding religion or love). If we can create a community for a child where they feel they belong, have a purpose, and are often mentally stimulated, it could remove the desire to find these things elsewhere such as crime. I would be careful removing responsibility from people, saying they have no control of their actions though. I've seen this kind of mentality being heavily abused, though it's fascinating because sometimes people genuinely believe it. They have been told over and over in their lives that whatever they have been afflicted with will hold them back and they will never amount to much. This creates a pathway in the brain that with each day believed, becomes more engraved and much more difficult to change. I wouldn't say I agree with much of Sapolsky, but I do think we need to take into account peoples backgrounds, how that affects what they've done, and how we can change our culture to help to keep it from happening in the future.

[@thenameless2016]

Well, we haven't been lied to, we just have to define the standard by which we say we've been lied to. Depends on how you characterize free will, if you're willing to say, "Just as easy as picking another," then you also have to explain in what ways is it easy. It is not obvious. I can definitely say that picking a toothpaste may require the necessity of struggle, but not as easily. However, if we are going to impose a standard by which we cannot abide to; such is the standard of assuming it was equally as easy. We cannot. We could conventionally say "we are the masters of our own fate" in regards to being able to choose the relativity of comfort in which we are in. If we are to make the hypothetical scenario of a society without free will, we will have to acknowledge a collapse in world belief driven by one's choices, therefore free will is out of the reach of determinism to make that sudden decision. Free will does not have to be purely causal. I deem Compatibilism an untenable stance if it says that a person had no other choice but forced to choose one, and not even two. I bet that person had a lot of will in staying inside the shop than getting killed.

[@Sid_sharma-0000]

Great video ! Robert saplosky is such an interesting author.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! I really enjoyed his book!

[@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.

[@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.

[@rishibohra9745]

Okay, so i have to study for exams so i will watch the video later. But still Determinism being true, doesnt change humans much. Like i see why he views that humans arent responsible for their actions and also equates humans to just their consciousness. That youre just experiencing stuff. But that is by his definition of 'YOU'. I could define myself as my body, mind and consciousness. Then that makes me this whole mechanism which is the one doing everything, Then everything i do is my fault. But then these are perspectives which are incomplete without the other. Next big point is, The biggest issue one may have thinking ' I have no free will' could be ' I cant change anything, nor me nor my ife'. Which is also false, cause its based on an imaginary future path, and future doesnt exist yet. So a person can change themselves or their lives. Now A person would want to change based on thier will ( which is not up to them, but it is a huge part of them), so it becomes important to see how change is possible. So we in psychology, use the biopsychosocial model. Which can aslo be used to see what is limiting a person from being better, or doing what they want to. Thats more important to talk about than just saying you have no free will. I have many thoughts on this. Maybe i will return in the future, after exams or whatever to comment. Hope you see this message and respond. ❤

[@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.”

[@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.

[@copykatninja]

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

[@theprocess1993]

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

[@jacobryan8483]

Woot the hot topic of the month

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! I notice it has resurfaced in the public consciousness

[@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?

[@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.

[@paddleed6176]

"Determinism does not rule out moral responsibility. In determinism all physical events are caused and determined by the sum total of all previous events. If people are determined to act as they do, then what about personal responsibility? How can we hold people responsible and punish them for their behaviors if they have no choice in how they behave? We hold people responsible for their actions because we know from historical experience that this is an effective means to make people behave in a socially acceptable way. Holding people responsible only works when people respond to the state of affairs by controlling their behavior so as to avoid punishment. People who break the rules set by society and get punished may be behaving in deterministic ways, but if people don't respond to the threat of punishment, people would behave even worse. This is a totally utilitarian approach to the issue of moral responsibility. Is it moral to punish people behaving in deterministic ways? Yes, people have the right to create rules and enforcing them. We would be worse off if we did not do so, an argument for utility. Moral sentiments may be viewed as a reward mechanism, to make someone more sensitive to distant rewards and punishments. If people do not have real behavioral choices, why not collapse into fatalism? People who lose the feeling that they can plan and execute alternative behaviors tend to stop struggling for survival and become fatalistic. Evolution has designed us to feel that our effort of planning pays off, that we control what we do. Free will is merely the ability to choose among available options. The ability to have all options available is not free will but omnipotence. Humans are not able to kill everyone by simply wishing it; does the lack of this ability mean that humans do not have free will?"

[@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.

[@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 🤔

[@ahmetdogan5685]

Nothing is determined. Change will change it.

[@devos3212]

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

[@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.

[@impatient_eternity]

i liked the examples

[@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.

[@vighneshbankar101]

Nice 👍

[@MrJeffrey938]

11:30 But is the question whether your will is a causal factor, or whether your will is?

[@kangmyungjae]

IMPORTANT! (at least it seems to me atm) Responsibility is an illusiory concept. But if criminal behavior can be lift off from it, so does every other area of our behaviors like for example being late at work, receiving praise for good deeds, etc. every single thing. I think this is a crucial distinction. Why focus on only very specific sort of behavior?