We Really Don’t Have Free Will?: A Conversation with Robert M. Sapolsky (Episode

[@adoxographer]

I find the idea of no free will incredibly comforting. It somehow solidifies the futility of ruminating over my past decisions.

[@skovvy7]

Great point! It helps one not to dwell in the melancholy of regret for too long 👍

[@Nowheart]

Not only that. As someone with OCD it's extremely comforting to know that my mind tempting me to ruminate and to be constantly afraid is not something I choose to indulge in because of the lols or because "Aww look at me. I am such a victim." or any other stupid reason people attribute to people struggling with mental illness.

[@matteframe]

and judging other people for theirs...

[@Nowheart]

@@matteframe Yeah exactly. Like why hate people and stuff?

[@adoxographer]

Yes exactly. Whatever the source of your mental anguish, acknowledging your lack of prior free will is an antidote to shame, and makes forgiving yourself much easier.

[@anonymousspiritualvlog2961]

Not believing in free will is the only thing that cured my self hatred

[@19katsandcounting]

Same

[@stringX90]

How so?

[@CDDguy]

​@stringX90 I hesitate to answer for OP, but for myself it allowed me to chalk up some of the worst things I've done as: I did what I could with what I had.

[@geonaedwards7134]

The possibilities are endless for improving all sorts of personal and societal psychological frameworks

[@breadfan7433]

Thank you both for this conversation. (Writing this comment and liking the video was totally a result of my free will, and has nothing to do with having listened to and admired the work of both Sam and Robert for years.)

[@jgarciajr82]

😂

[@AaronPatterson-mn2oj]

​@kavorka8855As much free will as your post. And in fact as well as mine 😂

[@AaronPatterson-mn2oj]

@kavorka8855 xD

[@Eli-xc2bk]

I’ve literally been watching both of your videos pertaining to free will throughout this last week & then this notification just pops up. Awesome.

[@kappla]

Literally or for realz like?

[@mchapman2424]

​Did you choose to make this smart ass comment or was it always inevitable?

[@skepticusmaximus184]

​@@kapplaI usually prefer watching videos metaphorically, but I literally watch the ones on freewill as I don't feel I have any choice. 😊

[@wanka078]

@@skepticusmaximus184Not only did you not chose to watch them, you weren't the one who watched them as there is no 'you'.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

@@wanka078 Shit! That's deep dude. 😂

[@ataraxia7439]

I remember in an old Sapolsky lecture he discussed how people with Huntington’s disease years before they show easily recognizable symptoms will end up cheating in their spouses, getting into fights, stealing, and running away to different states without telling their family. We understand now tbis is because Huntington’s disease damages the structures in the brain responsible for self control and inhibition. It feels unnecessarily cruel to say people with Huntington’s disease effected this way are evil people or that they deserve to suffer for their wrong doings beyond any aim of harm reduction or that they even deserve and less respect and love than people lucky enough to not be effected by the disease. If you take that position seriously though then trying to explain why those wrong doings are just an unfortunate consequence of something wrong with their brains that they’re just unlucky instead of being evil but other people really are responsible for their wrong doings and they really are inherently evil and lesser for it becomes irrational. Everyone is just the product of factors beyond their control and even if it makes sense to treat someone who kills someone’s by accident differently than someone who does it on purpose, both are just unlucky in an ultimate sense. This is one of the most uplifting understandings to have about people. It sounds super woo and crazy but I mean it in the most secular and non-magical way, I really feel like everyone is just my family now and every bad thing anyone has done is no reason to hate.

[@Zoomo2697]

Thought provoking. 👍 "Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense, every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else... Every act is an irrevocable selection and exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses… Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in you bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel from the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end. Somebody wrote a work called “The Loves of the Triangles”; I never read it, but I am sure that if triangles ever were loved, they were loved for being triangular. This is certainly the case with all artistic creation, which is in some ways the most decisive example of pure will. The artist loves his limitations: they constitute the thing he is doing. " G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy 🙏

[@Re3iRtH]

We are missing the region in the brain that is responsible for monogamy. Human beings being monogamous is not natural it actually goes against our biology. Both men and women are non monogamous but women tend to be more monogamous than men.

[@Re3iRtH]

Someone cheating on their spouse is more a sign of them being a neurotypical human, not a sign of pathology

[@thehighlightsreel953]

Hate the game, not the player.

[@miltown3920]

@@Re3iRtHi say this in good faith - wat?

[@lyonnightroad]

Free will, as a social construct, could be a kind of shortcut to saying "if we don't hold you accountable as if you could have chosen something different than what you chose, then there would be a different less desirable outcome altogether" this nuance is too much for many people and they actually believe people could have done something different. I totally agree with you that if more people could appreciate this nuance, we could optimize how we hold people accountable.

[@IntrepidOnce]

surely people can see that saying there is no true free will is a counterproductive statement in and of itself. It just provides oxygen for bad arguments. If we just lie and say we have free will we avoid philosophical pitfalls. This is deeply ingrained in the category of "common sense". Just a bunch of useful lies that have societal utility.

[@BadassRaiden]

Thats because its not a nuance. Its just psychotic. Even if we dont actually have free will, to absolve any human being of all responsibility of any action is first of all psychotic, and secondly, society simple WILL NOT function properly if we do that. I mean one look at the world illustrates that that is an undeniable fact.

[@OhManTFE]

If no one is accountable for their actions how do we hold people accountable for their actions?

[@lyonnightroad]

@@OhManTFE by using data backed decision making to define consequences for actions that change the future choices people make with an objective goal of maximizing overall societal wellbeing rather than satisfying primitive urges for retribution or justice.

[@Paraselene_Tao]

@@OhManTFE I see it like a language issue. We have hardly developed the correct language to discuss this topic. So much of our language implies or requires an agent who decides, plans, executes, and so on. It's as if the definitions of these words were all mistaken. It's going to be a farily big shift in the way we think if many of us begin letting go of free will.

[@serengetilion]

There's no where else I'd rather be.. listening to you two having a conversation about something not many people believe but the proof is overwhelming that we don't have a shred of free will

[@templecreations2351]

wrong. we have proof, some people just trying to pretend like that proof is somehow less valid than the utter speculation that are theirs arguments against free will. somehow the functional reality of making choices is “an illusion”, but basing your entire worldview on notions and speculations on brain functions we don’t in the slightest understand is not illusory or fanciful, it’s “philosophy” 😏 this is by far Sam’s flashiest and fast-food content that’s really the weakest. Im baffled how someone so meticulous about what we know and don’t know just throws it out the window when it comes to this.

[@abhishekbhandari6362]

@@templecreations2351 Interesting assessment. Can you steel-man his argument and then show its weaknesses?

[@ataraxia7439]

@templecreations2351 Sorry if I’m misunderstanding your position but I think you’re misrepresenting Sam and Roberts take. They don’t deny that people make choices and can do intentionally and that this is different than someone doing something that wasn’t their intention or that they did not choose to do. What they’re arguing against is the idea that anyone can have an intention or make a choice in a way that isn’t wholly determined ultimately by things they didn’t have any choice or control over.

[@holzhausholz8215]

​​@@templecreations2351but isn't your assertion "we have proof" also based on brain functions that "we don't in the slightest understand"?

[@ArtieTurner]

Overwhelming proof? The founding documents of this country, our system of justice, law enforcement and all legal transactions are based upon the idea that human beings have, illusory otherwise, agency tantamount to "free will." We cannot escape or deny, save suicide, every suggestion or demand of our complex biology. Science is not done offering proof of the absence of free will.

[@geonaedwards7134]

People's first response is what about my ego. The second is what about being able to blame (and hate) bad guys

[@margopadon5025]

Thank you- wonderful conversation! Although a certain linguist may have this differently, I recall when speaking of forms of pride and their pitfalls, I recalled when learning the word schadenfreude that a catechism teacher had illustrated to us “Have you ever…” situationally to point out to us that feeling a sense of gladness at the hurt of someone you have feelings of dislike, even if you seemingly had nothing to do with it?” That exists out of a form of pride. That is hurtful to you and them. Or “imagine if you felt that way…” stories came our way. I thought back when I learned the idea of schenfreude that that is the word to the other context of words which described it (easier understood by children, I thought a stroke of genius simply got the allowance to work out our hearts with our -hopefully-innate sense of the golden rule) and so I think I have understood and turned away from schadenfreude a lot earlier than when I had learned the word. Worth considering. 13:48 (not sure where you reference this here, number -wise. 14:15

[@federicocamp2231]

This is the most important topic in human behavior. Most people have no idea it is even possible to not have free will so they just ignore or dismiss the evidence that shows we do not. I am pretty convinced, thanks to Sam and Robert Sapolksky, that we don’t and that is such a wonderful feeling of relief and compassion. I still have many episodes where I react as if there is free will and unfairly judge that episode by my emotional reaction. But, believing in no free will, makes it much easier to excuse your behavior so that you don’t get as depressed for having the wrong reaction . You should still use that episode to correct future reactions but, understanding why you reacted the way you did, gives you more compassion to quickly change your view on that initial reaction. I am doing my part to spread this theory to anyone who is willing to listen and hope everyone else who understands this will be doing the same. The more people who understand this the better it will be for all human kind.

[@TheHerrUlf]

If someone doesn't have free will how could he possibly do anything but ignoring or dismissing what you think is "proof" of anything that you, federico, actually is determined to believe. He is DETERMINED ffs!! He can, in fact, only do what he does and nothing else!

[@federicocamp2231]

@@TheHerrUlf not sure I understand your point. The question is “where does the want come from “ when we talk about free will. My belief is that the want is determined by prior causes and effects that caused me to make the choices I make. That is why I believe we don’t have free will

[@GiuseppeSan]

I like the compassion for your own (or other's) mistakes that rises from this, but I don't like the idea that you have absolutely no agency. I like to think that there's a balance - i.e. you definitely have tendencies, but with effort, you can change them. As in, the universe is not entirely deterministic, nor entirely random - and conscious effort can nudge the world in one way or another. But I accept that this is most likely just a way to make myself feel better 😅

[@federicocamp2231]

@@GiuseppeSan Your point of view sounds like Dan Dennet’s compatible argument. You should listen to the debate Dan had with Sam about free will. Very informative. Dan makes some great points but I still take Sam’s side.

[@FoulBundy]

I'll never understand the hate for Sam Harris.

[@tobycokes1]

His views on Palestine and staunch Capitalistist support are likely reasons.

[@justgivemethetruth]

Evil hates the light.

[@bobwilliams4895]

I have no free will over my dislike of Sam. It's too bad.

[@theotherview1716]

If you hate all forms of whiteness it makes lots of sense

[@thadgrace]

Is there anyone you find distasteful? If so, you understand more than you think. I like Sam, but I’m not choosing that feeling. 😊

[@herbb7281]

I wish it were possible to purchase individual episodes

[@TheFuzzician]

agreed. I only want to watch a handful, but have to buy an entire year, rather than, say, a month.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

Good idea. Also lots of people go to sign up, because they want to continue listening to the current episode, but are disappointed that the subscription only starts from subsequent episodes.

[@ricardoalmeida4719]

@@skepticusmaximus184really? You have no access to previous episodes? That’s a bummer.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

@ricardoalmeida4719 No, unfortunately, it's like a shifting window. You do have access to all subsequent episodes for a year, but I'd only suggest inclusion of the current episode, since that's usually what inspires someone to join. You'd want to hear the rest of the current episode and carry on from there.

[@chookiessss]

What I don't understand is when they say things like "we should change things as a society" in light of the evidence against free will, as if collectively we can decide to do or not do something. If we are not responsible for our actions at an individual level how is this any different on a collective / societal level? How are we responsible for deciding when or how to do something on a group level when it is simply a by-product of antecedent events? Is problem solving just random causal events? I don't get it.

[@serversurfer6169]

We're still responsible for our actions, we're just not in control of them, in the sense that we have no ability to "choose." An avalanche can be responsible for killing the villagers, even though it didn't choose to do so. Unlike a snowbank, we can consider our options, but we don't make decisions about what to do next, we reach conclusions. It's like solving a maze; we can do a good job or a bad job, but we don't "decide" where the exit is, and we can't decide not to hit any dead ends. It's not random process though; as you say, it's all the direct result of antecedent events. 👍

[@chookiessss]

​@@serversurfer6169 Thanks for your response. Isn't considering our options or reaching a conclusion also something that requires us to consciously act upon something? How is it that this requires conscious action but the act of executing it all suddenly falls outside the realm of free will and our control? If a drunk person causes a road accident that ends up leaving someone in a permanent vegatative state, and we accept that all the physical events that led to that point weren't of their choosing, how are they then responsible? They have been effectively absolved from their decision to get intoxicated before getting into the car and driving recklessly enough to cause a road accident. They are no more responsbile than the person that instead makes the right decision to get a taxi home in that situation. This is my understanding of a world without free will and I have a hard time accepting that whether we do something good/ bad is entirely out of our control. Moreover, what is the point of striving for a good life if the likelihood of said striving is only going to occur depending on what's happened before? To be sensitive to ideas that push us in the right or wrong direction is nothing more than the cause of circumstance. This subverts everything we know as a society.

[@Azortharion]

​​​@@chookiessssThey're not responsible, you're correct. Nonetheless, we'd still want to disincentivize such behaviour in others, and possibly lock up this person if we have good reason to believe they'd repeat their hit and run given the opportunity. Then you might say, "how can we choose to do any of that", well, we can choose, we can just not freely choose to do something other than what we end up choosing. "How can you disincentivize someone without free will?", their non-free future choice will possibly be altered by our non-free present choice of what to do about this drunk driver. Choices are real and choices do matter, they're just not free. I decided to write this reply for an uncountable number of mysterious reasons, but one of them was that you seemed appreciative of the person who first replied to you. This was one tiny link in the causal chain that led my brain to decide that typing this reply was worth my time. I was not, at any point, "free" to choose not to respond.

[@chookiessss]

@@Azortharion I appreciate your response, thank you. From what I gather, ultimately, an event that happens is simply a consequence of an anterior event; the event itself is unconcerned with whether it is good or bad, it is just simply a physical outcome. Projecting morality onto situations I think clouds being able to accept this idea a bit - having a conscious agent do good and bad things makes us resistent that there isn't conscious action involved. Driving a car drunk then on a physical level is no different than wind buffetting a rock, they are things that are just happpening. Outside of a human brain able to conceptualise and judge such actions, the question of right and wrong is irrelevant. This for me is what I trip up on.

[@Azortharion]

@@chookiessss It doesn't seem to me like you're tripping up all that much. I don't think the absence of free well and projecting moral judgments onto actions are incompatible or contradictory, which is what I think you're saying? To me, what's actually salient about morally evaluating action is not trying to label the person who made the choice as "evil" or "not evil". What is of interest to me is how we might organize our lives and culture to cultivate and inventivize the kinds of decisions we want to see. When a person drives drunk and kills a child, as horrible as it is, it is not of interest to me whether the person was good or evil, but it's clear to me that I don't want this to happen again, and my feelings about it are purely concerned about how to optimize future outcomes. If we could, hypothetically, know for a fact that this person would never drunk drive or do something similarly irresponsible again, then it's not obvious to me that punishment is warranted. Perhaps only to deter others? Or to provide some sense of justice to the bereaved, but then the whole point for me is that this need for retributionseems more like a bug than a feature in our software. In my opinion, it is basically a waste of energy to spend any time deciding if the person is good or evil. The criminal justice system should be about prevention (and punishment is a part of that puzzle) and rehabilitation (if deemed possible, sometimes it probably isn't), and nothing else.

[@johnpetkos5686]

I can't understand why Sam Harris says he doesn't understand why people feel uncomfortable when their notion of free will is undermined. It's so obvious it's precious to people. It gives people meaning for their actions and behaviors.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Yes but it’s delusional comfort, like believing in Santa.

[@MariposaRedimida]

Yeah, I read Sam’s book about Free Will years ago and even though it makes so much sense to me, it makes me feel so powerless! How do you reconcile with that?

[@beataignioranza]

Of all things, it's probably the most precious to people. It's at the core of what we (think we) are.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@MariposaRedimida You have all the same powers. We can only know what is determined by looking backwards. We can choose and will things, it’s just that we aren’t responsible for the outcomes. It’s liberating!

[@TheHerrUlf]

Sam is of course determined to say what he says and nothing else. So how could he say anything else?

[@AngelaPanArt]

Deserves more views/ more people listening!

[@Rave.-]

I'm listening to this after having watched Robert's conversation with Alex O'Connor, with anticipation of Alex's upcoming podcast with Sam. Such a surreal feeling.

[@dylanevartt3219]

I've been hoping for Alex to have Sam on. Can't wait

[@SemiStableM]

"Life is short. Let's use the time wisely." We have no choice in whether we "use time wisely" or not. "He has fully accepted the implications of this topic." He did not accept them. He only experiences the acceptance. "Sapolsky authored a book" False. He experienced writing it, but he did not write it. "By all means, pick another podcast today". We have no choice in the matter. "We've reached the same conclusion". Sam and Robert have only experienced reaching the same conclusion. They did not reach the conclusion. Others are not so lucky. "What arguments do you find the least persuasive?" There is no "find". No one chooses to think as they think. Sam and Robert's bodies are talking about arguments as if they matter. No body has any say in the matter. Condemnation of other experiencers for not taking their arguments on board in a world without free will is like condemning the universe for having gravity. "Dan Dennett conflates them". Nope. Another deterministic or randomly determined meat-robot is conflating. Dan, the experiencer, has no say in the matter. They ridicule Daniel Dennett for having ridiculous views on free will. Sam and Robert: he has no choice. Sam and Robert's bodies may emit sound or scribble words that eventually convince Daniel's body of their ideas. "The way I often frame it is if you took a chimp..." Robert's biorobot body still hasn't taken into account that there was no will in "framing". "We are not denying that there is a distinction between voluntary and involuntary behavior." Um, what? The word voluntary is meaningless within a Universe without free will. "If you want to be a good friend or a good husband" We can certainly experience want, but that experience is irrelevant to outcomes. Sam is a good husband (I assume) because his consciousness happened to emerge within a biorobot that is one. Robert: "You wanna be able to..." Whether we do want to or we don't is not up to any of us. "I've never understood why people imagine that (randomness) gives scope to free will." Sam: you have no choice in not understanding, and others have no choice in using randomness to give free will "scope". I also had no choice in wasting a hour writing this. And Sam and Robert had no choice in making this podcast.

[@yyguuyg]

Now, HERE'S someone who has truly accepted the implications of having no free will. Bravo! (embeds tongue firmly into cheek)

[@Ken30NYC]

It’s funny that 2 guys arguing that we don’t have free will , yet every other sentence they utter is making it sound like we actually do have the free will to make our own decisions. Sam Harris starts by saying “if this podcast upsets you then feel free to stop listening”. So Sam is saying I have the choice of whether or not to listen to his podcast…. So I must have free will to make that decision. Hmmmm

[@Ryanthebrobdingnagian]

You guys lack a basic understanding of the topic. Not having free will doesn't free us of our agency or responsibility. It's the opposite. It binds us to it. We cannot escape it. A computer can come to a conclusion based on information just like a human can. Choices and decisions are still made. They are conclusions reached randomly or deterministically. But our brains still do the calculation. None of us can escape that. You should take more time to think about why free will doesn't make sense. Try defining it in a way that is logically valid and only applies to human beings. (Unless you do in fact think computers have free will, some do)

[@natexyz3d]

You're assuming that once someone is convinced of determinism, that they are then going to change their behavior/act in a deterministic way. This is a ridiculous assumption because there is no way to "act like a determinist" It's just a facet of reality you think holds true. Determinists are still going to act and go about their day to day lives as if they are making choices, they simply reflect on these choices, after they've happened, that they couldn't have gone another way. Determinists don't go for a run and try to map out the course ahead of time, it's just a reflection that the course you ran was the only one that could've happened. You are conflating ideology with practice as being one and the same. For instance, if you are a Democrat, that means you have or chosen to vote Democrat. But how does a Democrat act? What does a Democratic do when there's no voting or political action to take part in? If they're not constantly acting as a Democrat surely they can't be one. When you conflate ideology solely with action you disregard the nuance of what the ideas even are.

[@plyboard9]

Was thinking the same thing! Lol. Impossible to live out… a bit of a problem with the view. It doesn’t describe reality as we experience it. I know I am me - a real person, who is a conscious being, can choose things, just as I experience 5 senses, and a conscience…

[@Pinkfongfan24]

Hey Sam, thanks for the subscription to your podcast ❤ I’ve been following you since the early 2000s. I appreciate your work 😊

[@DavidLowe1974]

One of the best and most important conversations on the Making Sense podcast.

[@jeffkilgore6320]

If people could be convinced that they had no free will, they wouldn’t murder, pillage, and rape. Simply thinking about something doesn’t create depravity.

[@ivantomic9986]

Great conversation. Thank you Sam and Robert.

[@stephenpaul7499]

This subject is the ultimate Rorschach test.

[@Jbobbybob]

From my understanding of downward causation or top-down causation, the idea is that higher level organization can influence the lower levels that make it up. For example, tree absorb sunlight in order to get energy and make food which they use to constitute their branches and leaves. The higher-level structures of branches and leaves organize to themselves to spread out to increase the probability of gathering more sunlight and the positive feedback loop continues as such. Organic complex systems rely on these feedback loops for autopoiesis, and these dynamic complex systems rely on a dynamic. The organism is shaped by bottom-up causation and the emergent structure of the organism puts top-down constraints on how that bottom-up causation introduces variation into the system. Selective attention is one of these top-down constraints that human beings have control over, and it allows us to the freedom to choose what matter and energy in the environment we make ourselves out of. If free will is anything, it would have to do with selective attention and the ability to restrain action and delay gratification. These can be summed up in saying free will is the capacity for an organism to shape its own development by conscious mediation in its own sensory-motor loop.

[@Jbobbybob]

The implications of this characterization of free will is that free will becomes a skill that is cultivated by means like meditative and contemplative practices. This would mean that although human beings are born with the potential or the capacity for free will, the culture it develops has to nurture and help the organism cultivate it. This project would be bound up in our efforts to ameliorate self-deception, foolishness, pursuit of less goods, etc. Another implication is that before this skill is cultivated, individuals cannot take account and be responsible for their own actions, and they could not be expected to justify their actions on the social/moral stage. If we say that a person, in contrast to a primate or animal, is a self-conscious entity who justifies their actions on the social stage and can take account and responsibility for what they do, then children and other adults who have not developed the capacities necessary for what I'm tentatively calling "free will," then they will be considered partially persons as they only have the seeds in them of full personhood (which could be considered distinct from being human if you want).

[@Wingedmagician]

I’ve been waiting a while for this one!

[@JHsillypantsMcGee]

I can have the worst day and I can feel like shit, but I can then recognize this and choose to go into meditation and choose to stop those circumstances from affecting me the rest of the day. Instead of getting drunk in the evening, I write poetry. Does that not show we have a backwards switch to regulate the billiard balls? We just aren't good at doing that. We largely don't exercise it much.

[@Zoomo2697]

I hope this poem helps you as it has helped me with perspective in life and importantly getting up early in the morning as I find it difficult. I read this poem every morning and say 'The Angelus'. Indifference by G. A. Studdert-Kennedy "When Jesus came to Golgotha, They hanged Him on a tree, They drove great nails through hands and feet, And made a Calvary. They crowned Him with a crown of thorns, Red were His wounds and deep, For those were crude and cruel days, And human flesh was cheap. When Jesus came to Birmingham They simply passed Him by, They never hurt a hair of Him, They only let Him die; For men have grown more tender, And they would not give Him pain, They only just passed down the street, And left Him in the rain. Still Jesus cried, ‘Forgive them, For they know not what they do! And still it rained the winter rain That drenched Him through and through; The crowd went home and left the streets Without a soul to see, And Jesus crouched against a wall And cried for Calvary" 🙏

[@foley1family]

Sapolsky would say you have to ask yourself how you became a person who knows to meditate and write poetry?

[@JohnnyWalkerBlack142]

That just shows you have good decision making and introspective capabilities. It doesn’t prove free will. Changing your mind or having regret or remorse can be deterministic. It just shows that you are learning from the consequences of your past actions

[@JHsillypantsMcGee]

@@JohnnyWalkerBlack142 I fail to see how you can determine that

[@mimimonday5539]

Hello Sam Harris, I've watced Dr. Sapolsky's Stanford class lectures here on KZbin and learn about varying subjects. What a delight! Thank you for this talk on Freewill.

[@VCE4]

Wisdom, huhumanity, understand This type of conversation helps to keep mind afloat

[@jim23mac]

it's too much of a stretch for me to say that free will doesn't exist when we're not really sure how consciousness works. As far as I understand it, consciousness is also considered to be an 'emergent property', and it's also something that we're all convinced we have, so are we also prepared to throw that out as we don't understand how, exactly, it emerges?

[@nonononononono8532]

What about the fact that studies have shown that we can detect the contents of thoughts up to 11 seconds before people become cognisant of them? At the very least doesn’t this show that we don’t choose our thoughts? And if we don’t choose our thoughts, how can we choose our actions?

[@jim23mac]

@@nonononononono8532 it was a very simple experiment - the choice between two options - they monitored brain activity and then asked the subjects to choose which one they preferred to 'imagine' - the brain activity prior to choice predicted better than cjhance which one this would be - it seems there a number of issues with this - primarily the subject is making a choice before being asked to articulate it - as anybody might when shown two different images - and they are picking up this choice after it happened but before it was expressed

[@nonononononono8532]

@@jim23mac if your talking about the original Libet experiment then I would agree it’s not the best. However there are more sophisticated replications. Would you mind taking a look at this one from 2019 - “Decoding the contents and strength of imagery before volitional engagement” (Roger Koenig-Robert, Joel Pearson). It’s not conclusive, like all evidence in science, but it’s quite convincing. Regardless, however free will violates the laws of physics fundamentally. If you accept we are just matter, then it is impossible for free will to exist. And if you believe we are not just matter, we’d need evidence for this, but we would also not know if this improved the chances for free will. For instance, we didn’t chose the personalities of our souls, and thus we didn’t chose how it would react in response to different stimuli. Can you define free will, since this might clarify?

[@MarkLeBay]

I think that the argument for“free will” is linked to the argument for an objective moral landscape. If you accept the latter exists, it provides the basis for the former, at least in some degree. 19:20 I think the existence of an objective moral landscape is an example of downward causality examined through self reflection.

[@humblebrag]

In Jewish esoteric thought there's an idea that all we truly have is 'desire'. If you desire to do good, God/existence will make it so. If you desire to do bad, so it will be... Ultimately, therefore, all we can do is desire to go right or left. It's a deep spiritual concept about how powerful desire is. That being said, after watching MANY philosophical conversations on this topic, Rebbe Nachman says it best: Free will is as simple as "a person has in his ability to simply choose. If he wants to, he does something, if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t do it." I think "practically" we have free will. Spiritually and philosophically, we don't. JUST LIKE, practically, we feel all of physical existence as a distinct matter. But fundamentally, spiritually and philosophically there's no separation. Everything that exists is one "energy".

[@templecreations2351]

that sounds closer to compatibalism .

[@humblebrag]

@@templecreations2351 Indeed. It just depends on the "place" you come at it from. The court rooms and for society, we must come at it from the practical perspective. Educationally/philosophically, it should not harm us to understand that we don't actually have it on the micro level.

[@templecreations2351]

@@humblebrag if that’s what the philosopher would be claiming that would be an entirely different subject altogether. but what they claim, rather click-baitily too i might add, is that we have no control whatsoever and that any sense of control is illusory.

[@spektralsound7704]

What Nachman describes is the will, which is real and practical. It’s the freedom that is the illusion.

[@templecreations2351]

@@spektralsound7704 again, that’s closer to compatibilism than hardcore essentialism, who claim the will itself to be illusory as well. not having perfect freedom over ones will does nor mean the function is altogether illusory

[@francdugas]

Really nice and fun conversation. For those who missed Sam’s podcast episode “final thoughts on free will” it is a must

[@wattshumphrey8422]

I've one requirement for Harris and others who opine that "free will doesn't exist": prove it. This will be met with silence or hand wavy insistence that it's already been proven, despite there being no way to do so. The insistence that free will doesn't exist is based upon the structure, history, and success in explaining physical phenomena with deterministic physics (everything in our current physics except quantum...). The argument boils down to: the physics and its applied versions that have been fantastically successful in explaining and manipulating the physical world are entirely deterministic, our consciousness "arises" in our brains (unproven...), our brains are part of the physical world, and, since everything else in the physical world is deterministic, consciousness and behavior must be deterministic, hence, no free will. A series of unproven assumptions presented as "truths" in order to "force" an unexplained phenomenon into the existing structure of physics. Does this remind you of anything? How about...the state of physics prior to Einstein's relativity theory, where various contortions were proposed to explain the "weird" behavior of light so as to shoe-horn it into the structure of Newtonian Physics. There is something very big missing from our understanding of physics and our world, and consciousness (and free will) is smack dab in the middle of whatever it is.

[@sjoerd1239]

You are clearly not really interested in proof.

[@wattshumphrey8422]

@@sjoerd1239 Not that I'm not interested: I don't think that is theoretically possible. Do you have a proposal on how would such a proof could be accomplished? ****** Reasons for my view: the fundamental issue is "consciousness" -- i.e. only with that is there a possible "free will"; and while many argue that consciousness itself doesn't exist and is an illusion, for my same reasons, I assert that can't be proven either. Starting from the assumption that consciousness is a fact, I assert that, beyond one's own, is impossible to "accurately" view another entities' consciousness because the only way to do so "accurately" is not simultaneously to have your own consciousness or subconscious experience, and, accordingly, "you", the required independent observer to do this scientifically, would be unable to have the experience at all, or retain a memory of it. Even If you could somehow "get under the hood" of another entities' consciousness, and experience their full or some subset if their consciousness (where exactly would you "plug in"?), and still simultaneously were experiencing your own consciousness, by definition, you would not be experiencing their's, but some amalgam of yours and theirs. Uniquely experiencing their consciousness as your "self" it is a logical (never mind scientific...) impossibility. Connected to all this -- what is termed "consciousness" by neuroscience researchers at present is "conscious experience", the "movie on the screen" as it were, and not the entity watching. I have not seen that central, fundamental distinction ever mentioned in any of these discussions. The underlying problem of "confirming" the existence of any consciousness (including one's own...) must be addressed and somehow "solved" before it will be possible to look at the existence, or not, of "free will". Given that, I assert that the only possible, rigorous, "scientific" approach we have at present is to place the existence of "consciousness" as a starting, assumed, "postulate" (all logical systems require starting from such things -- see Euclid, et al), with "free will" to logically follow, and take it from there. And further, that this is exactly what is required to begin the process of building a new "science of consciousness" that might lead us down the road to discovering what "that big missing thing" is that I assert is absent from our current physics. It is necessary for any new science to start with "what we know", and, absent that, what all instinct and experience tells us is the case and that we have no way to disprove. Perhaps if "consciousness" is discovered as being, and can be "proven" to be experienced as something that does or can span the unique and distinct biological creatures, i.e. living animals, that we currently only have reason to believe are "conscious" (some kind of "Vulcan mind-meld"...), then my assertions above might no longer be valid -- although, I think you still would have the same fundamental problem.

[@sjoerd1239]

@@wattshumphrey8422 I've one requirement of you: prove it.

[@Bronco541]

I may subscribe for a month just to get this full episode. Proudly not destabilized by discussions like these.

[@MarkBarna1]

I have read both their books on this topic. But what has really grounded me in seeing no self and no free will are the daily meditation's on Harris's Waking Up app. I had to have this drummed into me every day for a couple of years through the app to really get it. A podcast can let you know these ideas are out there, but you will not get it if this is your first or maybe even 20th exposure. It's tricky.

[@amir3515]

However, have you considered the idea that reality itself might be ‘free’ in a certain sense? If we view reality as self-contained and not influenced by anything outside of itself, could it not be seen as having its own form of ‘free will’? After all, reality is self-determining and not influenced by external factors. Moreover, if we encapsulate all of reality into a single entity, encompassing all things that are real and exist, this entity can’t be influenced by anything outside of itself because anything outside of itself would not be within reality. Therefore, in a way, reality could be seen as ‘free’.

[@Dr.AuMădoare]

ohh I have been wating for this meeting of these two minds...a long time, esepcially after the coming out of Determined. Thank you!

[@alexislou9404]

Great interview...I've teetered on the question of free will for many years. Sam and Robert have recently tipped me into the no free will camp. My meditation and study group are currently reading a text by the Zen teacher Danin Katagiri who refers to free will often. This is confusing as I am under the impression that Buddhists of all stripes embrace the notion of cause and effect.

[@robertbaker1893]

@alexislou9404 As I understand it, the aim of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of death and rebirth and attain Nirvana by breaking the chain of cause and effect they call Karma. I don't see how that could be possible without free will.

[@jimmymags6516]

@@robertbaker1893 Could be the Buddhists are wrong .

[@pedestrian_0]

a conversation between these two finally happened after Sapolsky's book, what a dream come true!

[@Howtobe777]

They are so obviously correct on this issue that it physically hurts that anyone could even want to attempt to try to disagree with it.

[@warrenreid6109]

You were mentioned by a couple of callers on the David Packmans show so I decided to give you a listen.

[@antitheistvegan]

‘Liked’ just based on Robert Sapolsky being the guest. Love Sam too obviously but man, as of recently, RS has been massively impactful to my life evolution, Sam too.

[@vikisalhotra1051]

Finally!! I've been waiting for this for considerable amount of time .

[@stylovore]

Thanks for the podcast I had no choice but to listen to and the subsequent existential headache I got through no will of my own.

[@ObserverOne6727]

We don't cause what causes what happens to us. The universe is just running, the current now flowing into the next now. Causal/determined, while also unknowable (random). Enjoy the ride, and how random it all is. What happens cannot be otherwise.

[@praxis8304]

Free will exists only in this present moment. All thought and claims about the future or the past are phenomena of the immediate present. We are free to become aware. When awareness shifts, behavior changes itself.

[@kenabyss-000]

thank you guys, Ive been waiting for this

[@lyonnightroad]

I think people get the illusion of free will from our ability to use prior experiences to model future experiences and achieve better future outcomes. The illusion occurs when they forget that they can't take this new insight into the past.

[@croissants1280]

Why did you write this? Was it your choice?

[@lyonnightroad]

@croissants1280 The question is not if this was a choice. The question is if I could ever have not chosen to write it under identical circumstances.

[@catbranchman01]

@@croissants1280having choice alone does not help the free will argument. The key word is “free”. Was the choice free. No, it wasn’t.

[@todradmaker4297]

@@catbranchman01 Actually the key word here is "choice" whereas, the word "free" is relative. If there was absolutely no freedom, there would be no true choice.

[@umbomb]

Another key word here is "you." It depends on what you imagine "yourself" to be and what you imagine "not my self" to be.@@todradmaker4297

[@DankoStojanovic]

Finally, I've been waiting for this one! Thank you, Sam, for making Robert chuckle.

[@michigunsanta8680]

We got that book, haven’t read it yet. Sam has had much better and clearer takes on “Free will” than they did here. Hope the book is alittle clearer. 👍🏻

[@I.Reckon]

You both admit that there is a distinction between voluntary and involuntary behaviour, @ 29:20. Therefor decision making exists. If you can make a decision and choose a voluntary action, then you have exercised FREEWILL. Freewill is simply the ability to either entertain and explore a thought, or line of thinking, or dismiss that thought, as it emerges from the 'working memory'.

[@nibas4920]

You haven’t shown how that decision wasn’t influenced.

[@coyote75]

You are describing will. Not free will. Making decisions does not mean free will is being exercised. If that is your definition of free will you can’t really engage with the arguments in this podcast.

[@shallowgal462]

We judge ourselves based on our intentions & others for their actions.

[@MoSho23]

I remember learning about determinism and nondeterminism in philosophy and theory of computation. However, the notion of no free will, at the time, did not really seem meaningful to me and did not stand out. then a few years ago I heard Sam Harris in a conversation with, I think, Lex Friedmen state that he thinks free will does not exist and I was shocked and never thought about it. I was more shocked that he claimed to never experience the feeling of feeling like he had free will (which I find to be more shocking). But it makes perfect sense in the context of determinism that no free will exists. I just don't understand how Sam Harris does not feel like he has it but I suppose he doesn't have much control over that. I'm not sure without time travel capabilities we could ever verify whether or not it exists. I also don't think it makes much of a difference whether it exists or not. not like we could change it or should act differently either way. so I find it very confusing that people feel uncomfortable with the idea of questioning whether free will exists. but I suppose if they have no free will then they have no control over how they must respond to an awareness of the possibility it does not exist.

[@ConceptHut]

Our parts make us capable of awareness of both our parts and the effects that system of parts produces. Our parts also allow us to evaluate information we are aware of and then act to change things to be more in line with our interests. This means we can be aware of our mental situations and then go about changing them through various actions. Such as medication, avoidance, change of focus, reframing, practice of actions we want instead.

[@lovetownsend]

Absolute titans of moral guidance. Thanks you two.

[@thrashish]

Clearly there are two types of people: those destined to believe they have agency over the universe and those destined to believe in destiny.

[@brentstembridge9683]

Under the circumstances that Robert speaks of, he is correct that in those states, there is no free will. However, free will does exist outside the guise of the mind. Free Will is the act of not allowing the mind to run the show. The mind is a program that guides reaction. Free Will is the act of not reacting like the mind wants you to. It's the understanding that the mind makes decisions based on all past input. Free Will is understanding that you are actually separate from the mind, and therefore you don't have to consent to what it is programmed to want to do.

[@felipeschneider1978]

Perhaps Dawkins' somewhat overlooked theory of memes could shed light on this. I'm inclined to agree that no one is ultimately responsible for their actions; determinism holds weight. However, it's undeniable that we're compelled to behave as if our conscious decisions too hold weight. In every action we take, we're faced with the perpetual dilemma of choosing between immediate gratification and delayed rewards. When confronted with the need for self-control, it's prudent to reinforce the latter option, both on an individual and societal level. The world stands to benefit greatly from the widespread adoption of this principle. This notion, in turn, underscores another concept: the existence of free will-those challenging decisions we grapple with. In essence, it's a battle of ideas. Free will may not be an absolute reality, but it remains an indispensable notion. A winning idea.

[@vykintasmorkvenas6839]

How we possibly could? That's the real question.

[@lynlavalight]

exactly

[@lyonnightroad]

As Sam always points out, the very concept is just nonsense upon any level of inspection. It can't even be falsified because it's nonsense as a premise.

[@dannywest8843]

How do you model the difference between two skydivers where only 1 has a parachute?

[@vykintasmorkvenas6839]

@@dannywest8843 are you the ChatGPT? 😁

[@MarkLeBay]

I think that both “free will” and an objective moral landscape exist, and that the latter is the basis for the former.

[@JamesBurke713]

We are corporeally, products of what would be more succinctly described as 'momentumism', rather than determinism. Determinism has a connotative flavour that produces an imagery that there is some external force or agent compelling each of our decisions or actions and that ‘we’ do not interplay with that path. Although it is accurate to state that our lives are, in a manner of speaking “determined”, a more astute way of viewing this determined trajectory; through contained and extremely complex shifting states of inertia, it's more aptly and semantically descriptive if portrayed as a momentum. As a means of contextualizing this particular reconceptualizing of determinism, I'd propose a ‘rock metaphor’. Every rock is different in its fundamental material construction, shape, mass, etc. There are multiple methods in which rocks are created and formed. As they find their ultimate place in time they are imperceptibly changed by gravity, altitude and temperature they are, nonetheless, altered by these changes. Imagine a sloping mountain with its crags and dales, its ever-changing terrain of boulders, shale, trees, grass, moss, waterways, shifting altitudes, temperatures and weather. If we place this particular rock at the top of this metaphorical mountain and push it off in one directional side of the peak of this mountain with a given force and deviation its path will be determined by the rock's given physical construction, shape and size coupled with the features of the mountainside which the rock will encounter as it; by the predetermined force of gravity, tumbles down the face of our mountain that determines what this rock will be exposed to, physically altering it, redirecting it as it encounters the varying frictional surface features and obstructions, ultimately determining its long or short course and the where, when and how it will ultimately end. We were set in motion, into a momentum that determines us.

[@pjaworek6793]

This is just a language game, not a scientific inquiry. Some saying free will means, choices come from you and not outside you, some saying we're just cogs and essentially there is no 'us'. I believe the psychology of that choice of definition means you may either be motivated to act freely or to just flow down some pointless downward spiral. I go with what it seems like. It seems like the body's mechanisms provide us with endless choices and memories at the point of any decision for some purpose. For the purpise of choosing. Otherwise, we wouldn't see all these choices and motivations/memories with which to help us 'choose' things.

[@TheFuzzician]

The impression I have gotten from listening to the discussion between Sapolsky and Dennet is that they two of them are talking about entirely different things. Also, the problem I have with what Sapolsky says is that he often talks across levels of description - he talks about people in terms of neurons interacting, physical causes, etc...but then switches to the higher level by talking about "you" and "responsibility" etc....

[@pjaworek6793]

​​​@@TheFuzzician I agree. That's why I call it a language game and not a pursuit of a problem that we actually have. If someone came along and actually sounded different and in a way I thought really demonstrated determinism in every part of their behaviour, I'd give it a listen. So far, it seems untenable to 'suggest' 'no free will'. In a video recording, we know we can rewind and see the same thing happen. In the real universe, upon close inspection, that might not be the case. You have to seriously limit what the universe might be, and even moreso, what the conscious individual is to suggest there is no free will or conscious agency.

[@farhadfaisal9410]

It seems that much of the difficulties that arise in the present context could be avoided if we may first define ''free will'' as the assumed ''ability of humans to act/will outside the realm of causality a n d randomness'', rather than as one's ''feeling of freedom to choose''. Second, the neurons, their interactions, as well as their states (in particular, possibly specific collective states) are to be recognized as efficient members of causal connections. Then, a so-called ''emergent'' quality, including ''will'' and self awareness (or ''consciousness''), can be considered as a quality of certain collective states of the body (in particular, of its brain and neurons). Moreover, there would be no need for a ''downward causality''. For, a body state as an emergent quality or, experience of qualia, would appear in the usual sequence of cause and effect, that is to say, the state would be a (prior) cause to a (subsequent) effect. (From this perspective, is seems that a major task of neuroscience is (or, has been) to discover the said collective states of the body (brain/neurons, in particular) and, to explain how they may arise, sustain themselves and change in a living body. Perhaps, only then the present issue of ''free will'' (and/or ''consciousness'') would be reduced to the level of current clarity of the past issue of what life (or, a living state) had been, prior to the discovery of the self-replicating DNA and the breaking of the genetic code of biological information storing, processing and transmitting.)

[@jeffkilgore6320]

Whether or not there is completely no free will, which is hard to reckon from a philosophical standpoint, the presenters here do make a powerful case that free will is much less a part of human behavior than we might have previously thought.

[@coyote75]

I encourage you to watch Alex O’Connor video(s) on free will. He tackles it pretty well from the philosophical perspective.

[@robdev89]

Thanks Sam, the introduction is enough to know I want to listen to the full 2 hours. ❤

[@robdev89]

Beautiful minds meeting each other, what a pleasure.

[@yaongingyfmm1571]

The complete 2 hours discussion is pure intellectual bliss!

[@TheHerrUlf]

If there's no method of acquiring knowledge, how do you know what you claim to know?

[@bsspkr]

Even the illusion of free will isn't

[@CliffSedge-nu5fv]

Exactly, there isn't even an illusion of free will. No one who believes that free will might be real has the experience of will being free. The belief in free will is purely delusion.

[@audio9849]

My first question to either Sam or Robert would be to ask if they thought that we are spiritual beings having a human experience or human beings having a spiritual experience. If we're a spiritual being having a human experience did we sign up for this non free will journey we're on? And is so what are we gaining from that experience? Not sure anyone can answer that but please note that I'm on board with the whole free will is an illusion evidence/theory.

[@Zellymackintosh]

Thank you father samuel

[@Acyutananda_yogamonk]

Compatibilists are saying that "A decision is being made entirely through me" = "I am the one making the decision" (free will).

[@Ahmet_Koctar]

Is it only me who is not receiving a scholarship? I believed that they were readily available to everyone, without any conditions. It is my sincere wish to listen to the entirety of the episode on free will, irrespective of the absence of my personal volition.

[@serversurfer6169]

How often are they awarded, and how long have you been waiting? 🤔

[@Ahmet_Koctar]

@@serversurfer6169 I thought they're always awarded, no questions asked. I've been waiting forever.

[@pluto9000]

It takes a week or so. Sam is a busy man.

[@theAphelionDT]

one could say, I could pass this convo up even if I wanted to

[@bhupindertube]

If all of a sudden you'd stop believing in free will, then your destiny would change. My intuition says that sum of its effects on many human beings would be negative = negative impact on the society. Even though it's pretty obvious to me that free will doesn't exists but I won't push the idea to the society. And that's because I'm a pragmatic person.

[@Paraselene_Tao]

11:00 around here, "It just feels like (free will) it." I really like Yuval Harari a lot. Liberalism, according to Yuval, is many things, but mainly it's a form of trusting idividuals and their feelings over almost all else. Liberalism sanctifies the personal experience of individuals. If we're truthful with ourseleves, then we see how feelings (or what Rob calls "intuition") aren't to be completely trusted or sanctified above all else. 😅 It's funny. Rob is unintentionally fighting against the current of liberal thought. Even among scientifically minded folks, it's easy for them to fall back on "I feel like I have free will." Well, that's interesting, but what you feel doesn't have to line up with reality of the situation. 😅

[@philsweeney81]

I know Sam's argument against free will, and its a good one. But I have thought of a way that free will could still be possible and it relies on Quantum Super-Position. If it is Consciousness that collapses the wave function and cells within the brain are in a superposition of states, it could be possible for consciousness to have a retro-causal effect on the brain, meaning that consciousness could essentially be dictating brain behaviour. This is along similar lines to the Biocentric Universe idea. Consciousness could be more fundamental that the physical.

[@philsweeney81]

Another way of looking at it would be thinking of the brain like a Company, the workers are like the cells and the boss is like free will. Although the workers make the company function - which makes the boss money, he is still able to alter the structure of the company.

[@PatrickSS351]

​@@philsweeney81yeah anything is possible from my understanding physics is still a mystery at the end of the day, we can't see everything and we can't understand every physical system. I think it's premature to say free will is with out a doubt dead.

[@philsweeney81]

@@PatrickSS351 Exactly, and I think there is an entire angle that Sam and Rob haven't looked at it from, which is strange because I have heard Sam consider ideas along the lines of what I'm talking about in regards to slightly different topics.

[@toby9999]

I agree with you, but most physicists would push back on your interpretation of quantum physics.

[@ThePartyKnife]

I study physics and I have to politely disagree with this sentiment! :P As far as I can tell the very concept of free will is simply a completely nonsensical one. Not only do I not think it is real, but I in fact literally couldn't imagine a universe in which it was. And I simply don't see how consciousness being a more fundamentally constituent of the universe (which is a valid theory imo) could ever possible change that. We can make simulations of things that are quite literally physically impossible, like setting the speed of a particle to 10x the speed of light, and yet, if you tried to make a model /simulation of free will, you wouldn't even know where to start. Because how could you ever get a piece of code (or a physical system like our brain) to compute something in a way that's both deliberate, and yet can't be directly tied too or based on it's coding? So it's decisions would have to be both deliberate in order to count as making choices, but also not deliberate in order for them to be free. This is a paradox. There is simply no combination of determinism and randomness that gives you free will, because the very concept of such a phenomenon simply can't be mapped onto the physical reality of the universe we find ourselves in. Anyways, just my two cent! I hope you great gentlemen of the internet have a fine evening! :)

[@ubiktd4064]

There are layers to consciousness.. The immediate layer of day to day conscious awareness has no free will the same way we are not conscious of the liver.... Because you are not conscious of the actions of the liver doesn't mean you have no free will you're just not aware of the many mechanisms beyond your personal egoic mind.

[@catbranchman01]

You have not made an argument for free will

[@justanothernick3984]

@@catbranchman01 Interested in a rebuttal to these two? Plugging Nexus Void like crazy here but he has over 1.5hrs in the last two weeks on free will. Check them out.

[@ubiktd4064]

@@catbranchman01 we are a collection of wills.. The complexity of being a functioning human cannot be reduced to a simpleton binary.

[@loganleatherman7647]

“you're just not aware of the many mechanisms beyond your personal egoic mind.” Sounds like a great argument FOR determinism. Wanna maybe try this whole comment again?

[@TheHerrUlf]

If you're not conscious, how could you possibly know what you claim above?

[@CliffSedge-nu5fv]

If you have more than one honest thought in a row about the subject, it is obvious that free will cannot be real. It is physically impossible.

[@plotofland2928]

100%. It is a magical idea.

[@jlvandat69]

I think the main reason that arguments rejecting the notion of Free Will are distasteful and generally rejected by most people is simply because that hypothesis is contrary to everyday experience. The discussion may have validity within the realm of academia and even neuroscience, but is actually detrimental in terms of negotiating life for ordinary people. If I were to subscribe 100% to the notion that Free Will does not exist then I have no agency in terms of my destiny and life becomes rather meaningless. For those who have built a quality life they are proud of via a series of conscious, well-reasoned decisions the discussion simply appears non-applicable.

[@PatrickSS351]

Yeah I don't get the point of this topic we will all just go on living as if we have free will, it's just the way it is.

[@stephengehly2319]

@@PatrickSS351we won’t go on living life like we have free will because we don’t. You won’t live like that because you can’t. You will make choices. You will have choices. But all of your choices will be predetermined. It’s as simple as that. I fully subscribe to predeterminism. I fully work on improving my life. And determinism doesn’t diminish meaning in processes. “If you already know what choice I’m gonna make, then I don’t really have a choice right?” “You’re not here to make the choice. You’ve already made it. Now you’re just trying to understand why you made it.”

[@jlvandat69]

@@PatrickSS351 Exactly. We have seen the tragic results of living life without exercising rational choices, i.e., Free Will. It's not pretty.

[@PatrickSS351]

@@stephengehly2319 Thanks for reply, I know what determinism means, I understand free will is an illusion until possibly proven otherwise. So you don't live with the illusion of free will?

[@stephengehly2319]

@@PatrickSS351no, I think a lot of people live with the illusion of the illusion of freewill. Because there is no illusion. Free will doesn’t even appear to be the case.

[@minakoa7178]

If free will doesn’t exist, then hatred makes no sense. It makes no sense to hate Trump.

[@noahyes]

True. Emotions generally do not make sense and have become an outdated evolutionary tool. But we experience them anyways because that is how we are made. Increasing awareness will reduce emotional reaction. But we do not get to choose how much or how fast this happens. We don't get to choose anything. Not joking!

[@TheHerrUlf]

I'd say that if we're determined like leaves in the wind then we do what we do and feel what we feel. All cognition and moral judgements are impossible

[@erowan1389]

Sadly, Sam is right about physically attractive people moving with far more opportunity and ease through life. They have magnetism that causes people to bens over backeards ro help them and be near them. As someone with below average attractiveness, it has definitely caused me not to be hired, to lack opportunities, to not be saught as a partner or friend in many situations, not to be invited places, and so on. It is a sad reality. NDT once described the Higgs field in relation to the Beyone-effect and it seems similar. Walking through life beautiful is like ealking through air, while not being attractive is like crawling through neck deep sludge.

[@SandipChitale]

Think of the free will as free-ish will or effective free will, and all issues around free will simply dissolve. If the decision originated inside our body/brain without external coercive influence, that is good enough. The pursuit of the theoretical idea of free will is like people needing the universe to have a purpose so that their life has a purpose. Why does it matter if the universe has a purpose or not for one to make and have a purpose in their own life. That should be good enough. Similarly, the worry about determinism related to free will is only significant, if one is actually a Laplace daemon. But we are clearly not Laplace daemons. Therefore the free will is effectively free and originates in our bodies (when no coercive forces are at play). Thus why worry if free will is not really free if the universe is deterministic or not. For all practical purposes, legal or otherwise what we call free will is effectively free. That is why I suggest to call free will - free-ish will or effective free will or simply effree will (spread the meme). But anyway that is semantic and we could just continue to use free will - and hold people responsible for their actions as long as we understand its nature as described above. The notion of libertarian freewill is hidden in the gap between what a Laplace daemon may know vs. what is possible for us to know when we make decisions. We make moral decisions because there is an implicit coercive force on our decision making based on our knowledge of what society has taught us what is moral. Of course sociopaths ignore that coercion and moral pioneers think for themselves what is moral and make decisions accordingly (when people first realized that slavery was bad) even when the rest of the society thought it was OK. Heck it was there in holy books even. Lastly, we are always constrained by what is possible. I cannot free will myself to get admitted into Harvard Phd program. I am limited by my abilities, desires, life history, economic status and physical laws. BTW we can think of these are implicit coercive forces that constrain our free will anyway. I cannot free will myself to dodge a bullet fired at me at a short range. I think discussions about free will being libertarian or not are much ado about nothing in the end. The real issue is can we hold a competent person responsible for their action for pragmatic purposes. We are not Laplace daemon to know every micro state of our brain and micro-history of our own to be able to track down why we made a decision. Also we have to take decisions (with that partial information) quickly to be able to actually function in the world. Also just to make a decision there is no need to analyze at atomic level how we are making that decision deterministically. It is sufficient to know at the level of our memory, abilities, desires and goals why we made the decision we made. The true issue of libertarian freewill is not important at the time of making decisions in real time. But it is important to determine the responsibility. And for all pragmatic purposes the "responsibility" attribution is at a similar social level of our memory, abilities, desires and goals and legal systems etc, it is OK to hold a "normal" person responsible for their action. And we do have the "insanity defense" or "crime of passion" mechanisms in our legal system to evaluate if the responsibility can in fact be attributed to a particular individual. A "normal" person is the one who will themselves say they can and should be held responsible for their actions.

[@HumanityPlant]

Could there be benefits to embracing determinism as truth?

[@sjoerd1239]

That should not be the question. Is determinism true? Take it from there.

[@tommylawrence3095]

power of prediction or maybe could lead to presumption

[@slavhondacivicsi]

The freedom of decisions isn’t always clear when we submit to them as well as cope with the reality that if we want to eat, we must work for it.

[@Masamune_91]

Welp, this may be the one I gotta pony up for. You got me.

[@isaacforzan3674]

I haven’t finished listening but I just wish they talk about their last talk!

[@pluto9000]

What about their last talk?

[@davidclifford5124]

It is said that Albert Einstein once remarked that “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”. Well, after listening to this pair, Sam Harris and Robert M. Sapolsky, for thirty-nine minutes, I am fairly confident that neither of them actually knows what he is talking about. I like to think that I can be persuaded by a rational argument but, sadly, I heard no rational arguments at all. All I heard from Harris and Sapolsky was a series of straw man arguments, constant gaslighting, unsupported assertions and ad hominem rants particularly against Dan Dennett. They seem to believe that the thoughts of human beings can somehow be reduced to billiard balls and that emergent properties of the brain such as free will and, by implication, consciousness itself, are nothing more than the deterministic and ‘mechanical’ operations inside our heads. They don’t even bother to clearly define what ‘free will’ actually is. Free will, like consciousness, is the product of billions of years of evolution. As such, it is an emergent property of the brain. This emergent property has nothing to do with colonies of ants as opposed to single ants. It has to do with increasing complexity. In essence, free will is the capacity to analyse situations within our environment where we need to make a decision of some kind. As a result of the emergent complexity of our brains, especially our capacity for language, we are able to identify several courses of action that are open to us in responding to a particular ‘external’ situation. We are able to consider and compare these various possible actions and to decide which particular one we think is best. Very often, we find if difficult to arrive at a final conclusion especially where we are either lacking information or where the ‘influences’ that we have relating to our genetic endowments, our early life experiences, the culture in which we live, our ‘social compass’ and so on and so forth may well be contradictory. But, in the end, we make a decision. Sometimes, when we make a decision, we recognise that it might not turn out to be the best one and sometimes we look back and decide that an alternative decision would have been better. We all learn from this process and, hopefully, get better at making them. In other words, we learn from our experiences. Free will is an essential capacity for learning and it is absurd to suggest that it doesn’t exist because the influences that we have to manage every day overwhelm our ability to choose and instead ‘determine’ our choice. I’m sure there are plenty of academics who could put this case much better than I have. For example, I recently watched Professor Kevin Mitchell gently and very persuasively dismantle Professor Robert Sapolsky’s arguments. I attach a link. Robert Sapolsky vs Kevin Mitchell: The Biology of Free Will | Philosophical Trials #15 - KZbin

[@junio5456]

Funny today I was talking about free will and I was looking for his book right now ! Yes right now

[@pluto9000]

Right now as I read your comment or right now as you write it?

[@borismozer]

Absence of evidence doesn't imply evidence of absence. Just because we don't know where free-will derives from, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't understand how two highly intelligent people subscribe to determinism. If free will doesn't exist, nothing has meaning. There's just a program that runs and everything has already been decided. If no one is responsible for their actions, there should be no motivation to be good or honest, because being bad and dishonest (Machiavellian) tends to produce better outcomes for the completely self-interested individual. Stop trying to convince people to meditate, because its already been decided whether they will or won't. Oh wait, you can't stop, because you're essentially just an NPC running code that someone else wrote. It's pathological to try to live in this world while simultaneously believing this. It tends to lead to nihilism for anyone who truly believes it.

[@Deus_Ex_Machina.]

No matter how many treatments I follow on free will, I still don't know why anyone even thinks the question is well formed enough to stand up to scrutiny. The proposition of free will itself seems to lean on itself without touching any kind of bedrock, spawning paradoxes outpacing resolutions. Circular. Tautoligical. What test could be applied to answer the question? Perhaps this is the same kind of disbelief that Sam holds, but less elaborate ? Nevertheless, the perception of free will is persistent but still lacks explanation. Calling it illusion resolves nothing, doesn't it? Cheers to Sam Harris.

[@Justjoey17]

He is right about the facts but not about what we should do about them

[@terryh1451]

A simple question: based on the guest’s proposed definition of free will, does it really matter if we have free will or not?

[@ObserverOne6727]

Almost all people seem to not understand that what happens can be both (continuum of flowing forces) deterministic AND also be random (unpredictable), unknowable.

[@jaysonp9426]

Yep, look at the 3 bodies problem...let alone the infinite bodies problem lol

[@mattcat83]

Is that because the initial conditions of each world may vary across possible worlds?

[@jaysonp9426]

@@mattcat83 many worlds isn't needed for unpredictable determinism (chaos). Basically there's too many variables to measure so any variation of starting position between multiple objects makes a deterministic system unpredictable. You could argue that those variables include quantum superpositions though which could bring in a many worlds interpretation.

[@danielcarnam6420]

So we don’t have free will, instead it’s all our individual brain chemistry reacting to situations? That’s it? Seems like a pointless half hr talk could be two mins. Besides that who cares what you call why you do what you do? What’s the point of

[@franklottar]

In a universe that does not provide room for libertarian free will to exist, there should be , when determining regular human beings, no doubt already a consensus around the motivations for human behaviours, associations and interaction, and a set of non-negotiable constants that one should be able to observe. Still, it seems to me that there are tougher questions ahead of the certainty that free will does not have a space in understanding human behaviours but somehow we keep on explaining everything using subjective cases. For example the tendencies of male and female selection partners, the causes for divorce, the differences in profession or career choice between genders, to cite a few. It all is simply waved away, ignored and we recourse back to subjective cases, individual circumstances, the knock-on effects of other events, rendering this knowledge useless; a curiosity in the museum of things we know but that have no implications. The future of AI is in the hands of very intelligent people who do not know themselves and are attempting to create human-level intelligence without even observing what that animal intelligence is for a dimorphic, mammalian being such as us. The whole project will all reside with socialists and ideological types who align with words and ideals. When forced to look at the mirror, we primates, prefer to grab and throw a stone to that reflective surface. No wonder we are afraid of AI.

[@bastachepistache]

Very weird how they never bother to discuss, let alone steelman, the main compatibilists arguments, and acknowledge that this is the prevailing view amongs the tens, hundreds of thousands of people who have thought about this with any seriousness (which is meaninful considering that the real battle for the concept of free will is purely a dialectic one - that there's a useful meaning of free will which doesn't imply "libertarian" free will. I remember Sam s conversation with Denett where about 3% was devoted to the dialectic use of the word and "what people mean by it" and instead Sam regurgitated fully accepted determinist concepts which no one serious denies.

[@serversurfer6169]

They did steel-man the compatibilist position. Dan says, "Determinism is real but free will is too," and Robert says, "He just means that knowledge of determinism hasn't affected his sense of justice." 🤷‍♂ Why is it important to you that "a useful meaning of free will" remains? If you want to talk about accountability, why call it free will instead? If nobody seriously denies determinism, why should it be effectively disregarded when discussing accountability? 🤔

[@bastachepistache]

I'd say that accountability follows from free will and agency. It's not the main thing. Although it is useful to point out that since we're behaving as if the weaker form of free will matters in the responsibility equation, let's take it seriously. The way I see it, Sam and Robert's whole thing rests on one single premise : what do people mean when they say free will. I've seen no evidence that people really mean "if you rewind the clock but keep all my preferences, learnings, environment, experiences, emotional and physiological state, I could have chosen differently" , rather than "what I choose is a function of combination of my immediate environment, physiological state, and all the learnings, experiences, values ... etc ... and if I was a slightly different person in any of those regards, I might have chosen differently". I do agree that the people Sam refers to don't always go to this very point and instead talk bout responsibility and justice. Sam always says "people feel like they have that kind of free well" - I'd like to ask : what would it feel to have the kind that I described? How could you tell the difference? IT's a lot of weight given to this claim - "this is what people feel, this is what people mean".@@serversurfer6169

[@georgemartin1498]

Thanks to you both! I couldn’t watch the entire episode as I felt the need to exercise my apparently non existent free will to prefer reading Cormac McCarthy, although he would probably agree with you and so, what?

[@SunflowerFlowerEmpire]

I'm all confused and it's OK. I wish I could have a one on one conversation with one of them or both of them. My experience is. OK, I wanna go visit friends ans family in America. I am Canadian. So OK, there is no Free Will. I'm perfectly content with that. OK. Fine. So, determinism means, the world around me is determined to make my decisions very difficult and full of tribulations, and barriers. Homeland security at the borders have already decided that I'm not very welcome everytime I would like to have a visit in the States. No matter how many measures I take to prepare the right documentations they require from me to prove that all I want to do is visit. Still, 98 to 99.5 % of the time. They pull me into interrogation for up to 3 hours, only to delay me or to reduce my visitation length. So, yes. True, there is no freewill. But it seems 99.5% of the time Homeland security decides to bully me, because I am easy target. No matter how law abiding I am and how clean my records are etc etc. They already pre determined that I'll always be met with more barriers than necessary, when I desire to visit friends and family between a week to up to 3 months which is the allowable amount of time a Canadian can visit the States. What gives? How does free will and determinism play out in this situation????

[@ricardosantos6721]

I don't understand the question.

[@serversurfer6169]

You're talking about freedom (or lack thereof). They're talking about free will (or lack thereof). Basically, they're saying that regardless of your _ability_ to visit your family, you cannot control your _desire_ to visit your family, because that is "determined" by your biology and your past. HTH 💜

[@ehcarbles1623]

I am confident that there is no free will, yet I haven't understand any of what these two have to say about it. Maybe because i am not well educated in neurobiology, but Alex O Connor just explains it much simpler with logic

[@wearemany73]

I had no choice but to listen to this and you had no choice but to read this message.

[@Yossarianhoenikker]

And I have no choice but to like it

[@accidentalpatient4152]

Starts at 4:30

[@Thundechile]

Thank you Sam and Robert for being able to so clearly point out the problem with free will thinking!

[@247tubefan]

If God knows what we will do ahead of time, then things are pre-written, thus not free will. If God doesn't know what we will do ahead of time, then God is not Omniscient or all knowing.

[@amir3515]

Consider this: if we encapsulate all of reality - all things that exist and their interconnections - into a single set, then this set is only affected by elements within itself and not by anything outside. This is because anything outside of this set would not be part of reality and therefore, would not exist. So, if reality is self-generating or self-evolving, and is not influenced by anything outside of itself, could we not say that reality is ‘free’? After all, being free is defined as being unaffected by anything outside of oneself. With this in mind, could there be a cascading effect where we, as part of reality, might also be ‘free’ due to some recursive, self-referencing mechanism within reality?