Robert Sapolsky: There is no free will. Now what? [Vert Dider] 2020

Dr. Robert Sapolsky talks about his new book Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, what we should do if we have no free will, and answers questions from his fans.
Watch previous interviews with Robert Sapolsky:
- Robert Sapolsky: Justice and morality in the absence of free will [Vert Dider] 2020: • Robert Sapolsky: Justi...
- Human Behavioral Biology. New interview with Robert Sapolsky [Vert Dider] 2019: • Human Behavioral Biolo...
- Robert Sapolsky on science, morality, religion and human behavioral biology [Vert Dider] 2017: • Robert Sapolsky on sci...

[@theofficialness578]

I have a sense I’ve always felt like “free will” never existed, anyone I’ve ever meet just is, anyone I’ve ever seen change, the change just happens. I include myself in this notion, any changes I’ve observed in my personality has just happened. There’s the story my brain tells me about, what I did “wrong” what I did “right”, how hard/not hard I was trying. I’ve had to ask myself, can an organ that’s fundamentally designed by nature for survival, selfishness, self preservation be trusted. What else is nature but brutal…

[@rafaelseer4246]

Really liked the last bit with a few personal questions!

[@fernandopineda5505]

This is one of the best podcast Robert S. Has done so far

[@Freya888]

Спасибо огромное за англоязычный вариант,очень хотелось послушать в оригинал гинале🙏🙏🙏

[@benhudson4014]

Hi vert one for the algo as all your bo bo interviews are 100% Should have way more views

[@whoaitstiger]

I feel like Robert is _super_ close to realizing the teachings of the Buddha have already dealt with all these issues, but he just needs to have that "aha" moment when he notices that all the problems are contingent on the illusory self.

[@debpoarch6691]

I think he already knows that and has for most of his life.

[@whoaitstiger]

@@debpoarch6691 Perhaps, but I've never heard him mention anything that gives me reason to believe he has has experienced transcending the illusion of the self. I'd love to ask him.

[@deatached]

in he's words and scientific terms he's talking about the teachings of the buddha ..

[@untilheaven]

I agree. His rationale goes hand in hand with a lot of Eastern religions/ philosophies. In Buddhism, there are many methods by which one can journey towards enlightenment (even though that’s not the real aim). One of those is through deep, logical inspection of what is. I believe that this is that method on display. His concepts concerning free will and the interconnectedness of all things also align with Eastern Orthodoxy. From that perspective, biological determinism is akin to attempting to understand Divine will and other panantheistic ideas.

[@plotofland2928]

YES this is exactly what I have been thinking. But because he takes the neuroscientific lens, he sort of overcomplicates it and takes a more convoluted route to the conclusion (although it is very interesting to hear about all these studies) while also missing the full point. Awareness/consciousness is identifying with thoughts and feelings so it feels like "you" are thinking them in real time and it feels like the real you is your mind and your feelings and your personality when that is really an illusion.

[@terenzo50]

Now what? We carry on regardless.

[@nancychace8619]

Thank you for sharing. Have been enjoying listening to your videos. Agree about social media. It's a wonderful way to connect, until it isn't. I find myself having to put down my phone sometimes b/c I've gotten addicted to it. Step outside and get a life, right? Yet I'm able to watch educational videos such as these and continue to learn about the world and maybe even contribute once in awhile. I've frequently felt there must be a hunger for videos such as this b/c there may be gaps in our standard educational curriculum, and maybe culture. There may be a lot of ignorance out there, but that doesn't mean people are innately lacking in intelligence or don't care about learning. I fret over the kids, too, in a more general sense. The world is changing so rapidly. But they are incredibly reslient. There is hope in that. I do think that violent TV shows have had a negative impact. I quit watching TV altogether aeons ago, but wound up addicted to the internet. Agree, it's important to try not to be judgemental. It's very easy to make snap judgements about people, only to find later our assumptions were way off base. It's for this reason I try to exercise some modicum of humility in my judgements. I could be mistaken or there might be things going on under the proverbial radar I don't understand. None of us have a corner on the market of all knowledge or wisdom. I think empathy and compassion may have evolved as survival mechanisms. They are not just genetic sidenotes. Without them the future is pretty bleak. Perhaps this is one of the greatest dangers of AI. It's nothing but cold machinery. Am intrigued by your view of fractals. Fooled or informed by patterns? Cats are cool, too. You just have to learn to speak their lingo. I was thrown a curveball with the question "how do you think humanity will die?" I know the question had no ill intent. Respectfully, however, a better question might have been something like "how do you think humanity will pull through to survive?" It's important for all of us to envision ourselves surviving, not dying. Excuse me, but I'm not ready to cash in my chips just yet 🙂. It will take all of us together to do it. Once again, enjoyed listening. Hope I'll be forgiven any contextual faux pas here. It's getting late. Hope things go well for you.

[@robertkoekoek9630]

"Why are we fooled by patterns?" means "Why is a sense of 'I' fooled by recurrence?" Because of fear of chaos. A sense of I needs predictability, persistance, to avoid death. I.e. the end of "I", a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without absolutely any free will, can 'I' exist as a full fledged entity? Or as a biological system, without any initiative of its own? Getting fed up with pattern seeking is the beginning of the end. Of 'I' doubting (and investigating) its own reality.

[@ChillAssTurtle]

Now we can sorta kinda do somethin about it now that we know whats actually going on Knowledge is good Now wisdom

[@alena-qu9vj]

All depends on the definition of free will. We have "free will" in that we can wish for anything we choose. Wether those wishes come true. is quite another thing. But still, that, what happens seemingly "determined", is nevertheless a consequence of our previous decisions. Say life is a virtual game, which is "determined" by its creators and the respective rules of the game. Still, the success or loss of the player is the consequence of their decisions and skills - so in this respect the player is fully responsible for his decisions and moves. Morever, the player freely decided to start playing.

[@david9920]

No free will absolutely agree with the good Dr coming from I would like to know his view on ai our first encounter with a Alien intelligence. I would like to run models with tbe concept Presented what a community would Turn out

[@lukedmoss]

Sometimes it seems like all he is saying is that humans have bodies and are constrained by he laws of physics. But the fact that we can't just decide to grow wings and fly doesn't mean we don't have some degree of freedom to act. It also seems, as observed elsewhere in this comment section, that Sapolskys determinism skirts around the illusion of self without admitting it directly. This makes his view on the matter needlessly confusing.

[@andersoestrup8066]

I think I understand what you mean, however it seems to me that what Robert is saying more along the lines of: How and why did you become this sort of person, who has this so called "freedom to act" in the first place? Many dont, and its all outside personal control, just as it that you become the person with the freedom to act. All kinds of things influences and affects how you are shaped as a person, and sometimes with massive consequences. Hes saying yeah its nice to think "im accomplished because im a good person with nice morals" or whatever because you were responsible and moral and so on, but even that is because of interactions and surroundings and all this that all massively affects and shapes each of our lives. We dont have really have that much of a choice in the matter

[@lukedmoss]

@@andersoestrup8066 yes indeed, and to which I would say~ he doesn't take his own logic far enough. I would love to hear his thoughts on selfhood and identity formation and how really that's all an illusion too, just like free will, and (taken even further yet still it follows that) we are one with the universe.

[@vortigon2519]

Since we are biological machines it is as physically impossible to grow wings as doing anything that hasn't been predetermined by our biology. It's just that the wing example is more obvious.

[@vernongrant3596]

AI will find cures for all those infectious diseases.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Dr. Sapolsky may need to reconsider what he believes about free will because he probably ignores what complete determinism entails. if each mental event is a deterministic brain event, he can't control any of his thinking. Those events could force him to believe that he had free will. If they did that, he'd have no way to doubt it. If absolute determinism is true, rational thought is impossible. This is the sort of problem some people ignore when they know science and ignore philosophy.

[@lukedmoss]

What do you think rational thought is ?

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@lukedmoss hat depends on what you mean by "is" because that word can mean more than one thing. When you say God is, you mean he exists. You attribute a property to my Venus Flytrap when you tell me it's red. So you don't suggest "Venus Flytrap" and "red" are synonyms, meaning precisely the same object. "Is" can denote set membership, too. But you seem to wonder what it means to say that thought is rational. So, I'd like to explain why I believe Dr. Sapolsky's theory is easy to falsify if it's false. Suppose that thoroughgoing determinism is accurate and that my actual best friend Tim lives on Star Trek's holographic deck from birth to natural death. The deck stimulates the Enterprise and each part of it. Tim believes he entered the real deck because he thinks he walked through the simulated doorway. Since the deck's computer forces my friend to believe anything he believes, he can't tell the machine is fooling him. He'll need to leave the real deck or know he's always been there to discover that he's been deceived. If thoroughgoing determinism and scientific materialism are true, they cause similar trouble for everyone, including Dr. Sapolsky. Let's say that those two isms are accurate and that each mental event is deterministic in the brain. Then, each time Dr. Sapolsky runs a test in his lab, deterministic brain events will make him believe he's confirming or disconfirming his hypothesis. Deterministic events will make him do that whether he seems to verify or falsify it. So, his beliefs will depend on those events regardless of whether his theory is true or false. He'll be like Tim if he, Prof. Sapolsky, is deceived. He can't know what's going on since he can't control anything that happens in his mind. So, if thoroughgoing determinism is true, deterministic brain events might convince(?) him that we have free will after all. But even then, he still can't detect the deception.

[@vortigon2519]

These kinds of epistemic problems will always exist. If we aren't deterministic machines then our thoughts are random to some extent. Hence no "rational thought" is possible, whatever that means.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@vortigon2519 I don't think so. Even if natural events are deterministic, compatibilism may still be true. Besides, if minds are immaterial, they may be able to counteract deterministic events. It seems to me that determinism refutes itself.

[@lukedmoss]

I mean it just comes down to Symbolic identity confronting unrepresentable Reality, right? What do *you* take credit for? Is there no-self, only self, or something in between? Are they mutually exclusive or complementary perspectives? I like Dan Dennett's insistence that free will (specifically will) is an achievement, it's a skill/trait that can be exercised and often impaired (e.g. brain injury, environmental factors). Really it would be more productive to talk about Self-efficacy. Sean Carroll also has a cool point which iirc is simply that the free will vs. determinism debate is functionally vacuous, it doesn't change anything. Regardless of which we ontologically suppose, we still have the experience of being a social animal. We still find value in talking about ourselves responsibly in terms of personal agency and self-determination, as well as the value in understanding the role od geo-cultural conditions and socio-historical context.

[@aziyadenurr2579]

A way too simple