Do We Have Free Will? with Robert Sapolsky & Neil deGrasse Tyson
Is there a quantum reason we could have free will? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comedian Chuck Nice explore the concept of free will and predetermination with neuroscientist, biologist, and author of Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will, Robert Sapolsky.
A special thanks from our editors to Robert Sapolsky’s dog.
Could we put an end to the question of whether or not we have free will? Discover “The Hungry Judge Effect” and how little bits of biology affect our actions. We break down a physicist's perspective of free will, The Big Bang, and chaos theory. Is it enough to just feel like we have free will? Why is it an issue to think you have free will if you don’t?
We discuss the difference between free will in big decisions versus everyday decisions. How do you turn out to be the type of person who chooses vanilla ice cream over strawberry? We explore how quantum physics and virtual particles factor into predetermination. Could quantum randomness change the actions of an atom? How can society best account for a lack of free will? Are people still responsible for their actions?
What would Chuck do if he could do anything he wanted? We also discuss the benefits of a society that acknowledges powers outside of our control and scientific advancements made. How is meritocracy impacted by free will? Plus, can you change if people believe in free will if they have no free will in believing so?
Thanks to our Patrons Pro Handyman, Brad K. Daniels, Starman, Stephen Somers, Nina Kane, Paul Applegate, and David Goldberg for supporting us this week.
A special thanks from our editors to Robert Sapolsky’s dog.
NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free.
Check out our second channel, @StarTalkPlus
Get the NEW StarTalk book, 'To Infinity and Beyond: A Journey of Cosmic Discovery' on Amazon: amzn.to/3PL0NFn
Support us on Patreon: / startalkradio
FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE to StarTalk:
Twitter: / startalkradio
Facebook: / startalk
Instagram: / startalk
About StarTalk:
Science meets pop culture on StarTalk! Astrophysicist & Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson, his comic co-hosts, guest celebrities & scientists discuss astronomy, physics, and everything else about life in the universe. Keep Looking Up!
#StarTalk #neildegrassetyson
00:00 - Introduction: Free Will
3:45 - The Impacts of Biology & The Hungry Judge Effect
9:26 - The Physicist Perspective on Free Will & Chaos Theory
12:15 - Is It Good To Think We Have Free Will?
14:35 - Free Will in Big Decisions vs. Small Decisions
19:43 - Quantum Physics & Randomness
25:25 - Does Lack of Free Will Explain Everything?
29:22 - How Does Society Need to Change?
34:10 - What If You Could Do Anything You Want?
35:00 - How Do Change a Culture If There’s No Free Will?
42:16 - Giving Up Meritocracy
45:17 - Factoring in Accountability
49:12 - Do We Have Free Will To Determine Whether We Believe in Free Will?
Like this comment when you meet the extra special guest of this episode... 🐶
Thanks for the verity of content on StarTalk, excited with every upload. Thanks to everyone who makes this happen! Lets goooo ( PS- love the puppy
Um, "meet" him?
Neil. I'll tell you my biggest fear is that if someone is a determinist they are almost definitely an atheist, a democrat, and a technocrat. Surely you can realize how such underlying ideas can lead to a George Orwell book. Me, personally, I think the brain is a tool-- just like your hands, a drill, or a hammer. If you mess with any of those tools then the self will not be as able to effectively achieve the goals that the self wishes to achieve. Meaning both can be true: making a bad decision to take drugs is sawing off the tip of a pick axe. And, yes, bad decisions are more common among people of lower socio-economic status-- but the lower socio-economic status also correlates strongly with not having two parents in the home. Not having two parents in the home correlates with the parents not taking responsibility for their actions. I tend to lean toward prima facie arguments because they tend to be true. I think it violates Occum's Razor to undermine every decision you've ever made by insisting on determinism.
Special guest is Star Talk+ @@michaelccopelandsr7120
I always liked Christopher Hitchens answer to the question of whether or not we have free will. "Of course we do, we have no choice."
What kind of illogical statement is that by Christopher. It's like saying do we have a squared circle? Yes we do! we just don't know how to draw it.
@@ythjkl2881I mean, you can draw a circle that would appear to us as squared, if you choose a space with rectilinear norm L1.
@@Darth_Niki4what's next? A bachelor who isn't married? They couldn't put the fourth dimension at 90 degrees and came up with a tesseract in an attempt to move from 3d to 4d. And even the that tassaract is only their best attempt at the projection of a 4d model in a 3d world, not a real 4d object which we can't perceive. And my friend you are telling me "appeared" for a circle that can be squared. Please!
@@ythjkl2881 the self contradiction is the point of it, it's supposed to be humour
@@polishane8837 not sure why the guys didn’t catch the humor
A parenting book said "Remember that children are usually doing the best they can, and don't get mad at them." I told myself that so many times as my kids were growing, and it really helped me be patient and look at them as a whole process of learning, not just one moment of a mistake. Now, I realize it's not just children. Most people lead very complicated lives in their minds/bodies, and they really are trying, even if it doesn't seem like it.
I am certain that I was guided by God to this comment. My wife is recovering from a kidney transplant that didn't work....so she is dealing with the physical healing and the sadness of it happening at all. While this is a TOTALLY understandable situation, the fact that I do a lot for her before the surgery is not as beneficial as we try to get her back to the abilities she had before the surgery. The decision to push yourself to get back to what you were or accept the physical impairment as a potentially lifelong impairment is an absolute choice.... just as I will have to choose tough love or total comfort and understanding or a balance in between. How tough is tough enough is never as simple as are they doing the best they can....not when so much is at stake. But what is the right answer is always hard to know.
Yeah, I believe that. We can try to extrapolate to loving everyone for what they are (you never know what someone else is going through), but with innocents it is definitely more understandable. I believe that of animals, that they are perfectly performing the life given to them, because they have even less knowledge and self-consciousness, and work with instinct. I hate it when people are angry at dogs for just being what they are--and doing their best--better than humans, it seems. Your post reminds me of my friend and his kids, who I lived with for years. Sometimes when they were acting up, he just smiled and observed them until things calmed down. He just looked at them with love, not demanding that they immediately " toe the line". You may think that's permissive, but they became the greatest adults.
And as are the parents, and the family, and the teachers, and the colleagues, and the bosses, and the cops, and the judges, etc
Thank you I was just talking to my friend about this. Every single person on this planet is doing the best they can
A beautiful comment 💖💕💖
Robert Sapolsky is such a deeply good person. Through no fault of his own.
Lmao
He just have to understand that 'sometimes it's not that deep'...
@@tychodancer you got the joke
@@timmcdraw7568
Lol he didn't say he's a good person with no fault, he mentioned a few things that he wouldn't do even if they're not enforced by law. And what you define as a good or bad person is subjective or I would say relative
I came here for Sapolsky and Tyson but I gotta say, Chuck Nice is probably the best co-host/guest star or whatever I've ever heard on a podcast.
I love when Tyson says that in modern-day, junkies aren't arrested. Nice and Sapolsky are spot on. Tyson can be out of touch. Nice is the perfect balance for Tyson: Nice is more approachable, and though also highly intelligent, not as arrogant.
@@RachaellHilyer Totes!
Tolstoy said, "The only difference between free will and fate is time." I've always loved that definition.
where can I find this quote from him?
He makes this point at the end of his novel war and peace
got it. what's your interpretation on that?
Wow, that's spot on. In my musings on this subject it occurred to me that understanding the nature of time would be a prerequisite to any scientific examination of free will. For example, if we accept the "block universe" concept of spacetime there is no room for free will as it is generally understood. Which brings up another important point, we need a more precise definition of free will before we can begin to discuss it meaningfully. Just because something is an illusion doesn't mean it's not real
@@RFK_wait4_2028Frank, are you saying that just bc ur paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.?
Dr. Sapolsky’s books- like “why zebras don’t get ulcers” and his online lectures from Stanford Uni are life changing! One of my favorite scientists! Great to see him
Yes
Yes. Glad to see him on Star Talk.
so, why don't zebras get ulcers?
@@arlo2203they don’t have jobs to lose, they worry less, only when running away from predators, hence episodic stress, rather than all the time, chronic stress.
His “Behave” is a masterpiece, but I haven’t yet read his “Determined”, but it’s on my list.
It is FASCINATING listening to scientists of this level having a discussion.
to you because of your past
yes, even if, more that a "discussion", it was deGrasse Tyson interrupting Sapolsky every other sentence, it was a bit annoying for me.
To hear someone of the caliber of DeGrasse Tyson say the phrase "I did not know that" shows how humble this man is - even with all his educational achievements. I've had high-school gym teachers who couldn't admit that there was something they didn’t know.
"...of the caliber of DeGrasse Tyson..." -- that is why he thinks there are more than two genders. That is terrific "caliber."
🤨
I can't stop myself from watching Dr. Sapolski's free will interviews.
Just about to start my journey on that. Thanks to this one 👍
He's done loads,I've got the audiobook too. I'm not sure if he's saying we should ditch things like pride, while they don't make sense there's still utility in it even if you don't believe in free will cause you can't totally escape the notion.
Sapolsky also has a complete Stanford lecture series on KZhead. It's fascinating.
Same here, got heavily addicted 😅
@@konrid22 you had no choice
The fact that Sapolski can sit up immediately after a 2 hour couch nap and still be this coherent while having the interview on the same couch is quite amazing.
LMAO. best comment.
He is amazing but, why is there no mention of feedback loops. Memory as it is formed in both biological and computing logic system need feedback loops. The brain creates it's internal monolog, which gets fed back into the system stimulates new concepts, memories and emotions, and that gets turned into the words of the internal monolog, repeat. Eventually the monolog produces something from which the network stabilizes into a state where the decision is made. I think there is more complexity to discuss in this, there is a conscious part of the brain that is listening to the monolog and has some parameters about what kind of solution it is looking for (direction of thought).
@@haylekm There is no monolog. Animals make decisions without having a concept of language, and their brains work on the same principles as ours do.
😂😂😂😂
@@haylekm Some people have no inner monologue, but I can't remember which Consciousness science podcast i heard this from...But he essentially said that your thoughts arise out of preceding thoughts to a small degree...but the decisions are basically a vote between neurons. the strongest signal produces your choice. that signal strength is effected by genetics, memory, learning, positive and negative experience, words that other brains transmitted about it etc. so your thoughts try to standardize about things, but can change with new plastic forces which alter the neurons to produce a different signal strength.
Buddhism teaches that the only thing we can change in life is our awareness, which gives us more choices, and therefore more creativity and freewill! Knowledge is good!
Under the scenario he maps out, why would more choices give you more free will? No criticism of Buddhism meant, just it doesn't seem to follow.
@@guyquartermaine2685 It doesn't, it makes you freer from suffering, which from a Buddhist perspective is made out of unconscious thinking patterns.
Thanks
@@guyquartermaine2685 We do have choice about whether we want to be good people because this is God's law! It's natural law. Natural law is good because it creates, and destroys chaos. This is why goodness is always the more healthy way to live. The only truth is that God is love, and we all have the choice to accept God, or to oppose his shadow. This duality does exist. You don't want to oppose what God has planned, because you would surely die. When you are young it is unusual for people see God, but with age God begins to reveal whether will have fulfilled our destiny.
@@andreylebeuf1304That's not what Buddhism teaches at all. Sounds like you're painting over Buddhism with Christian nonsense. Buddhism teaches, there is no self. We have no free will because "we" don't exist independently of everything else in our universe. It's about viewing things as all connected and relational.
Thank you, I believe that fueling empathy - through an understanding of the lack of free will - is essential to truly promoting compassion. Most importantly for those we don't understand / dislike. This is a very important conversation to have
No. Placing empathy over rational truth is not good. It leads to coercion of the innocent.
They told me "Cheer up, things could be worse." So I cheered up, and sure enough - things got worse!
That's life.
that's funny. sounds like something Rodney would say.
Sounds like an Elliott Smith album.
That sounds like Murphy's Law😂 and one more to add: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong😅 Murphy wasn't pessimistic, he was realistic🤷♀️
Sullivan's law- Murphy was an optimist
I wish Neil wouldn’t interrupt Robert Sapolsky so much.
Shows how different neil and sapolsky nervous systems are 😅
interrupting is kinda his deal
He’s made a career out of interrupting other people
Yes, I Love Neil but he really has a bad habit of interrupting people. I believe he has all the right intentions of wanting to add some info or humor to the conversation and he usually has some valuable information or insight to add but he tends to overdo it.
@@ignorasmusit's funny, I talk very similarly to Neil, and I have to fight against interupting, because my brain is in a constant struggle to go off on tangents and adding stuff in while someone else is talking is the only way I can keep myself focused on what they say .... I have fairly extreme add and I would guess it's a similar explanation. May just be an interrupter though.
I have had these exact same conversations with people, looking bk at my life, I can see what made me the way I am now, and that's just what I can remember
I love both of these people NDT and RS so so much and was delighted to catch this video. Mostly because they love to teach and enlighten the following generations of thinkers. I was surprised to see the different personalities but also the different disciplines interact. Both of these men had strong religious upbringings and challenged those beliefs as they pursued their love of science. Professor Sapolsky's are at Stanford are free online. He did not pretend to know astrophysics. The difficulty with human behavior is everyone thinks they know, but it's that supposition that makes change difficult. That's what Sapolsky shares when he teaches. First thing is to dispel preconceived untruths and who wants to give those up if they support your way of life.
Stanford has his lectures online. Professor Sapolsky is SO KNOWLEGEABLE! He is an EXCELLENT educator!
Probably the greatest playlist on KZhead. These 30+ hours of lecture he have on the Standford channel are probably my best investment on this platform in years
kzhead.info/channel/PL150326949691B199.html&si=YksDBAEkMly2lcq-
hes a bit goofy when it comes to the free will thing
THANK God? No... That Neil and his guests for enlightening the world toward a more civilized and advanced understanding of human nature. 'Free will' had always been garbage meant to uphold the power structure. Praise the powerful and indict the weak--all garbage.
@@orwellianreptilian2914 How so?
I’ve got so much love and respect for Professor Sapolsky! Life is such a runaway snowball, rolling downhill and once you get that concept, you grow so much empathy towards people that have less or are in worse situations.
So true. It’s so easy to take for granted why someone acts the way they do and are the way they are but as soon as you appreciate it the entire idea of hating anyone or thinking anyone intrinsically deserves more or less than anyone else goes out the window.
Unless they're a Christian, or conservative of course..
This is so much NONSENSE.
@@ataraxia7439Oh the simpy simp has a voice.
@@markiv2942 if you want to have actual impact you should put in the effort an explain your views otherwise no one is going to take you seriously
it's the first talk I've seen in which somebody understood so quickly a Robert's quantum fisics explanation relatively to free will. Normally Robert has to try to explain it very throughtfully, in about 5 minutes. Well done, Niels.
Could you explain it to me?
Thank you for having Sapolsky on your show to talk about Determined. When you were talking about reading and learning to read, my question is, how do we learn to read and why if we get interrupted by our latest theories while reading? Theories seem to me to be like politics, they are good for many people, but not when reading well because reading well (like writing well) involves our complete attention to the book at hand? I am speaking mostly about literature like poems, plays and novels where a reader reads best when deeply aware of the personalities in the work. Determinism and Free Will in your eyes seem political in nature, but reading well means avoiding distractions. Justice however is more important even than reading, and I agree with your concern to get it by helping the world become more egalitarian. Much love to all of you!
I think you just pulled the best Sapolsky interview. Sapolsky is always fun, but the energy in this scientific approach to the line of questions put to him to break his theory down was better than anyone else has managed .
And it makes perfect sense too. Science is amazing
he was on a political podcast here in the uk.. (the rest is politics) a good programme and he was just so fascinating.. talking mostly about primate behaviour (and of course linking back to politicians lol)
Not that fun, really. Telling people they don't have free will and that accountability doesn't make sense. I recall Dr. Huemer roasting Sapolsky on this debate.
I agree. I've watched dozens of Sapolsky interviews and this is the best. Niel and his partner did a great job and also made it entertaining.
Question: do we pick the womb we are born from or is it assigned, and by whom?
Prof. Sapolsky is so calm and composed. Unlike Neil and Chuck he carefully listens without interrupting others during conversation.
Some people have more zen than others... Work in progress for Chuck and Neil
Particularly for Neil
Different type of communication etiquette. Neil and Chuck have a etiquette style that is characterised by a "everyone jump on in" type involvement. Robert has an etiquette style that is "wait your turn". For people raised in the involved etiquette as the cultural norm, people not jumping in are thought to be uninvolved and thus disrespectful. For people raised in the turn-taking etiquette as the cultural norm, people who jump on in are being disrespectful. If you're a turn-taker talking with an involved and they're jumping in when you haven't gotten to the twist in your comment it is acceptable to put your hand up and say in a friendly way "lemme finish". In the involved etiquette jumping-in shows that you're interested and paying attention. Involved is not the same as "speaking over" someone with the motivation to dominate over your conversation-partner. Neil's increased jumping in is also an indication of his enjoyment of the conversation. I'm Aussie, and we're an involved etiquette culture. Drives the immigrants from the turn-taking etiquette cultures absolutely nuts. For many of us, not jumping in is making us carry the conversation and that's just rude. Does that help you understand what's going on?
@@TheKrispyfort Didn't know that. Thanks for the explanation!
Free will is an illusion!
I can’t help myself, I got happy tears in my eyes when I saw the cameo appearance of Dr. Sapolsky’s cute doggo next to him 🥹😊
"It's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of nurturing and understanding" 100% yes! And beyond that, creating the environment and context that produces prosocial behavior and provides the opportunity for people to thrive.
And awareness that the prosocial is found in the motivation for the behaviour employed by an individual. One culture/individual's rudeness is another culture/individual's display of respect. 😅
But if we don’t, doesn’t matter either, no free will, we are all just bouncing along our pre etched paths. Trump 2024
It’s not that I want to punish anyone… I have no choice!
@@HairySourpuss 🤮🤮🤮 anti-science hate machine, what an insane takeaway to take from this convo
Loved, loved, LOVED this interview. Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on the show. I absolutely love following his work.
He presents a plausible case for people deeply ignorant of the nature of awareness, consciousness, self, reality, and god.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014which all are non proven beliefs…
@@solitudebychoice That is the natural conclusion to reach when you know nothing. Entertain me with your 55 IQ and explain how awareness, reality, and self are "non-proven beliefs"
I'm very entertained by your use of the word "absolutely" considering Robert is himself an absolutist.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014if you have to resort to insults when questioning the validity of a “god” figure and put another (just as conscious and aware person) down…i really don’t think you have the grounds to be arguing about “intelligence”. those whom are defensive of their beliefs live in glass houses. your, nor any human being’s anecdotes are above any others. i suggest you calm down, humble yourself - and treat those how you want to be treated - just like the “god” you oh so dearly have faith in commands you to do…according to your books “he” wouldn’t be very proud of your little temper tantrum you just threw…now would “he”?
"Free will" is not a thing, it's a way of dealing with the infinitely complex and inherintly chaotic reality. It's a phenomenon that does exist, but only on our level of abstraction.
I think this notion of free will brings a whole new level of empathy that most of us aren't comfortable with. It has left me questioning my sense of virtue and wondering if people can come to face such a drastic concept.
I think most people are just uncomfortable with the idea that they do not have the kind of control over their lives that they think they have. The kind of control most people think they have is reinforced by society's expectations of their behaviour.
@@sjoerd1239That's definitely true as well
This is super interesting. I recently took an avalanche training course (AIARE) and one of the things I was surprised at was the emphasis on creating a framework for decision making that doesn’t allow you to make a bad decision. There was a lot of emphasis on recognizing things that could affect your decision making- are you hungry? Are you going through a breakup? Are you cold and tired? Are you deferring to an expert even if you’re uncomfortable taking a risk? You have to make sure everyone in the group is comfortable saying they are uncomfortable- which as social apes is actually difficult. For example more people die in avalanches on days that have blue skies because they take more risks
I've been thinking like this for a decade however it's still hard not to get mad at other human beings and even at myself
I don't think the expectation should be that without free will we don't get mad. Anger is a response to something we identify that would have been better having gone a different way. Identifying these things is important to actually getting better results next time. Anger can be a tool like any other, the danger of course is when it shuts down rational thought and we become impulsive.
indeed.
that seems to contradict the lack of free will idea. important? getting it right? tool like any other? danger? which non determines agent is standing back from this, is transcending this?@@uninspired3583
I agree! I just try to think about why am getting angry/sad etc and what factors make it worse or better. Then I can try to make changes 👍🏼
One positive result of the pandemic lockdowns for me was discovering Sapoksky's Stanford lectures. Now I've read 3 of his fascinating books and myn life 's been enriched. It's sad that school convinces many that science is not for them.. it really is down to the teachers you get.
If it conforts you, the government just want a person smarth enough to push a button, but not to know how that machine really works. Of course, there's a lot of people that make those machines, but not all of them.
For most people, a firmly held belief that "I couldn't have done differently" and "nothing is my fault" would be an utter disaster. It's funny that anyone could think otherwise.
I'm 75% through Sapolsky's book. It's a real eye opener. Highly recommend 😎👍
Trump 2024!
I agree!!!
@@HairySourpuss I don't empathize, but I sympathize.
Wasn’t expecting to Dr Sapolsky, but I’m glad he’s a guest! I’ve watched so many of his lectures and presentations and have learned so much from him.
What’s the point? We have no free will…
"Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet. The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves. The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated. The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law. Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law. So, what is The Law? In a word, The Law is options. Definition option: a thing that is or may be chosen. The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is. Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is. In clarifying what The Law is; The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing. Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate. Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating; the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon, the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded, the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded, the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence, the concept of options, and Free Will. However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential. As we experience The Law in our Being, The Law is Free Will. The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent. The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent." - Goho-tekina Otoko
@@tonyk4615 you have no free will..
In the end, it is science, NOT religion, that makes me want to be kinder to people.
Morality and empathy emerge from selfishness "I don't like that feeling and I don't want someone else to experience it and I want to obey a set of guidelines that will reduce harm upon me"
I always find it funny when someone who doesn’t believe in free will tells us why it matters that we understand it doesn’t exist… oh the irony
How is that ironic? There can be problems for believing in something that isn’t real. You don’t believe anything out of free will, but out of the information you have happened to have been exposed to. Now that you have been exposed to this information, your conclusion will come from it and all your past experiences as well.
About the judge hunger effect, I worked with a guy who always scheduled meetings with his clients between 11h30am and 12h30pm, as an attempt to talk to them before they had lunch. My colleague said the clients said yes to anything he suggested, in order to get rid of the meeting and go have lunch 😄
That’s smart, stealing that!
I'm 29 and been listening to Sapolsky speak since I was 12. Probably the scientist I admire the most. His lectures on evolutionary biology should be a right of passage. They tell you so much about us as a species, and how that expresses itself in our individuality and the choices we make. The interesting thing is when I say "the choices we make", that phrase is precisely what has been the ongoing debate. It gets semantic until it gets very, very real, in it's real world implications.
I am fairly new to him, but i am familiar with determinism philosophically from an eastern religion context, politically from classical marxism, and scientifically from, well, science. But while I agree with some of his conclusions, it seems to me what's happening here is a lack of scanning the horizons of theoretical physics and philosophy on his part is causing his incredulity or surprise, and then sweeping claims that aren't coherent. For example, I think we have some amount of free will, because like free will, we aren't objectively real - as us, as selves. So free will is for selves, which is what we are, but those are also not empirically found in the brain, or body or anywhere, they are emergent simulations on that level, but for us they are real. So he's a bit like a doctor saying we need to change the way we do liver surgery because at the relativistic or quantum level, there is no discreet thing called a liver. Well for sure we can get insights into medicine and surgery this way, and we have, but on the whole that's just confusion.
@emilianosintarias7337 free will has implications in every major field of science and medicine and every other industry. It's confusing to digest free will on a macro level, but in situations like, for example, law, it's simpler to understand why presuming free will's existence is vital. Life in prison is something we have to get right.
But that already depends on the idea that the purpose of law is justice (which assumes free will), rather than the enforcing of social norms. What I am saying is that a total lack of free will on the level of society or individuals is incoherent - for the same reason it is coherent at a more macro level. Thus, it is in actually already established socio political concepts like buddhism, traditional libertarianism, communism, socialism, social democracy, etc, that we can find answers about how to organize industries and laws compassionately. They all assume that free will is constrained by social and natural factors, but don't dispense with it totally@@nothimbutbetteractually
The Palestinians have no choice but to elect Hamas. Israel has no choice to decimate Gaza. Seems legit.
@@askedofgod9067Social norms and religions have an enormous impact on us, so you’re actually right. People often confuse the absence of free will with fate. It’s easier to think of historical events as dominos. No need for free will here.
Absence of Free Will is not a "testable" or scientific hypothesis. It is a logical philosophical conclusion. It doesn't need science at all.
the last message is very important: no free will does not mean change is not possible. on the contrary. through knowledge and experience we CAN change ourselves and the world around us for the better. this creates a positive loop because it works two ways. our envnm. changing us and we changing our envnm. amplify each other.
You got it.
😂😂😂 no we cannot based off of this entire discussion things happen before that led to this time which will continue on infinitely being we have no choice or will to change
Professor Sapplskys intro to human behavior was always one of the most popular classes at Stanford, very funny lecturer.
Even if we don't have free will, I'm determined to be free
You're programmed that way :D
I'm programmed to not do bad things to other people because I'm afraid of what they might do to me.@@Shive1337
@@Shive1337 we are who we are. every moment a new version and will never be the same.
Only Christ and being born again can set you free, give you eyes to see, ears to hear, and stary you on the path to the beginning of wisdom
If Christ made you then you indeed don't have any free will. It's been written and scripted in his eyes. Everything that has happened to you and will happen he intended. Sowwie.
The discussions in this talk are similar to talks with Ramesh Balsekar I had watched and listened to many years back. There was also a print interview (I read it online only) by the magazine What is enlightenment. It was quite good and explained what Ramesh Balsekar really had to say. The magazine was later renamed and I think ownership was also changed. I don't think the interview is available online now. In the search for truth we eventually come across the question of free will. I have also grappled with it, didn't come to a conclusion, and don't think I ever will. Ramana Maharshi was once asked a question: “Are only important events in a man’s life, such as his main occupation or profession, predetermined, or are trifling acts in his life, such as taking a cup of water or moving from one place in the room to another, also predetermined?” Ramana's answer: Yes, everything is predetermined. Thank you.
This was one of the best interviews ever.
"23 orders of magnitude for quantum physics to effect 1 molecule" Storing that away as one of the most important pieces of information in the universe.
Your¨'re all quasi intellectual attention seekers
@@PuppetMasterdaath144 ??? You Okay there champ? Do you need a snack?
@@spencernaugle im so triggered right now u quasi intellectual trigger bot
@@PuppetMasterdaath144 bro, I just thought it was important that quantum mechanics has very little impact on our real physical interactions in the universe. So randomness from quantum mechanics doesn't really exist in any meaningful way. Almost certainly disproving any sort of "Multiverse" as it is popularly depicted.
@@spencernaugle But that's just a deduction, deductions do not work, it's too simple a way of looking at it. Think of it this way how is this guy pretending to be able to deduce such a thing, I mean I'm 100% Newtonian physics and science and I freaking love determinism and robotics BUT it would be a bit weird to just assume to know something based on a simple inference, but from a superficial analysis ofc what you're saying is correct but it probably doesn't work that way, it probably works as a field not as a quanta-bit unit interacting in a causal chain or something silly billy hahahahahahah
Robert Sapolsky is one of the best educators EVER 🙌🙌🙌
Absolutel joy to listen to the three of you. Robert Sapolsky’s Behave has a prime spot on my book shelf. It’s both enlightening and humbling to follow his work and thoughts. Amazing episode!
Damn, i did think that also. From time to time, i realized this exactly since the time i understood that everything was deterministic. That every choice has to be somehow already chosen. Because there is no original thought, everything comes from a before reason or knowledge, action. Etc. Every small choice has a why.
I'm always where Robert Sapolsky is invited. I'm 52 years old and when I was a teen I tend to come up with the same conclusion that free will doesn't exist. Simply by observing my violent mother and my alcoholic father (violent, angry everyday with my sisters and I between 4 an 8 years old, they where psychotic and neurotic, with their very difficult past, and observing my class mate, etc.) This made me a very patient, gloom, distant, and introverted person (as little as I know.) ... and that did not help me with life...
So you didn't choose to write this post?
One thing it can do for you: you can be assured that IT WASN'T YOUR FAULT. And it was never your problem to solve, so there is no reason to blame yourself for not stopping them. You absolutely have my sympathy - it must have been horrible.
@@winchesterbearright lol
We have the free will to make better decisions in life but no free will when it comes to our human anatomy so basically yes and no.
@@winchesterbearhis past which he did not choose or control contributed to him writing the comment 🤔
This has got to be one of the best interviews on Startalk. Neil and Chuck's interventions are as apposite as usual, and I always marvel at how Chuck, while genuinely interested and contributive to the conversation, is still funny, not because he's trying, but because he's just made that way and can't help himself. (A kind of appropriate observation now I come to think of it!)
So many people (who still watch and listen, btw) complain at their interview style and that Chuck isn't funny. If we could plot humor on an X Axis and Intellect on a Y Axis, Chuck is crushing it
May I just express my appreciation for your appreciation of other people's diverse communication styles ❤
I love Chuck lol
It's embarrassing how long it's taken me to get on board with the no free will idea. I've had to unlearn many false beliefs. I held on to the idea that there could be some quantum processes and emergence in the brain that nobody yet understands. Bayesian inference seems to suggest I was wrong and free will actually is one of my many illusions. I enjoyed Robert Sapolsky's honesty .😃
Don't be embarrassed. You had no choice in the matter.
Chuck cracks me up every episode. I can't believe I never heard of him before this show. One of the funniest comedians around right now.
There was a great Radiolab where they talked about this lady who was stuck in a loop from medicine or something, and she would go through the exact same logic steps because she wasn't storing any new memories. It was like groundhog day over and over. Honestly, it was really compelling to me, it made me think about that idea of us being biological machines. She would repeat the same questions, the same answers, said the same weird little details, etc, exactly the same each and every time for hours.
Get out!
That’s how everyone is if you look closer
Do you remember the name of the episode? That sounds super interesting but I can’t seem to find it.
Refuting the belief in free will allows you to have empathy and forgiveness. Which has been the best benefit of my life.
There would also be an absence of justice as no one would be held accountable for "their" crimes because they have little to no control over their actions .
@@hafissujanlal6454 that’s not true. People still should face justice. I just don’t judge them from a moral perspective.
@@hafissujanlal6454you can still put people in jail that are bad for society.
@@hafissujanlal6454 the idea is discussed and refuted within the podcast. The main reason to jail somebody who is predisposed towards violence is the same whether they are acting with free will or not. You’re protecting other members of the public from being harmed. It’s the distinction between saying “you’re going to prison in order to protect the rest of the public from your actions” and “you’ve been a very naughty boy or girl and you deserve to be punished”. One of them is a moral judgement and the other is a functional statement, moving away from moralising is what’s being put forward (you really should watch the whole podcast because the arguments are very reasonable - he discusses other examples where moralising isn’t helpful and can even backfire, such as dealing with obesity)
"no free will" means "there is nothing to forgive". So there is no blame, and no guilt. Which has been the best benefit of my life, similarly. We're all doing our best. (and our worst at the same time, but why see it that way). No one makes a mistake if they know it's a mistake.
What always fascinates me about this topic is that, why are we pre-determined to discuss about free-will as if we are a probe that's recursively introspecting itself, which is quite weird isn't it?
wouldn't be for the ones I'm power? I'm not saying government per se since they even have a puppeteer (although the idea to create a democratic government was to do "what is fair for the majority and the people.") wanted to gain something cuz it's what they like, their dopamine will come to make them feel good. it's easier to manipulate everyone and cuz of the hardship that society, people under the anonymity of /society/ general label we put on everyone individually. it's like we all look for a way to feel better and animals tend to have that when we have a superior benefit, even if that is little. it comes to instincts. but remember most people don't want to be label as animals cuz "science/knowledge/machinery "we created."
Awesome interview! On the case of meritocracy and our sense that "we worked hard" to get where we are, I would add that most people work hard. The differences are that sometimes the capability based on our genetic and environmental conditions is different for one person than it is for another and we don't always see the challenges that each person is facing.
This is the best Sapolsky interview I've seen, and I've seen many.
Indeed. It is the first time I see an interviewer bring Karl Popper's falseability principle in conversation with Robert Sapolsky 👍.
Unfortunately Neil was interrupting and cutting off Robert at so many opportunities and that subtracted from the quality for me.
Somehow he got Neil and Arsineal Hall buying this crap too. You guys ever read the Bible hmmm? Tree of life? tree of knowledge of good and evil? Ever hear of those, Bobby?
its great when he's interviewed by someone who has a basic idea of his thesis along with respect for his accolades.
If I could recommend only one video, out of the millions and millions of videos on KZhead, to everyone I know, to my friends, to my acquaintances, even to my enemies!, this would be the one.
Why have enemies?
@@visiblehuman3705for fun?
agreed.... 😉@@visiblehuman3705
@@visiblehuman3705It's just semantics and frame.
@@ClarkPotter 😯
I love these type of questions and conversation. I completely agree with Robert. It makes alot of sense
I'm indifferent on free will - the idea that we do or don't make decisions seems largely irrelevant since we still behave in a manner that it's useful to describe as independent from the will of others. That our decisions are governed by our past, I presumed was a given even in the context of having so-called 'free will'. The usefulness of the term, to me, was only ever that one person has different past experiences than another, and would therefore behave differently even under otherwise similar present conditions. I have found it fascinating that a person will cite false reasoning to retroactively justify a decision he'd made. However, even assuming the person believes he's being honest in his post hoc assessment, I don't see how that demonstrates his lack of free will. About the best I can get from this is that he's mistaken on his reasons, not that he lacked free will when making the decision. When Tyson asked Sapolsky how to falsify a notion that we don't have free will, (first of all, props to Sapolsky for pointing out that the onus is on Tyson to prove that we do) Sapolsky's response made me think he has a very different definition of free will than was my understanding. He said in order to falsify his notion, he would need to see a neuron capable of taking an action independent of its history. That, to me, says Sapolsky's notion of free will is one where a person is able to behave contrary to personal past experiences. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me the only alternative to behaving consistently with one's past experience would be erratic or chaotic behavior (which he also rightly pointed out would not be what people would think of as free will). So... what does Sapolsky think other people think free will is if not making decisions based on individual past experiences? Understandably, many of our past experiences are out of our control or unaccounted for, but it shouldn't be surprising that those factors can still affect our decision-making as much as anything else in our past. I did notice Sapolsky mentioned running contrary to a conservative notion of free will, one where an impoverished and/or unwell person can simply pull himself up by his bootstraps and become wealthy and mentally fit solely via hard work and dedication. Is that the notion of free will he's going against? I think it would be useful to distinguish between notions of free will if that's the case. Tyson might have struggled less with coming to grips had 'free will' been defined in advance. But I would have thought they would have discussed these details before the video if not during.
I consider most of this a part of chaos, which I define as "The effect of countless unknown factors upon any given outcome." I do believe in 'free will' - as in we can make our own choices, even against our own biology and circumstances, given that we've done enough self reflection and introspection to know when we tend to make certain kinds of decisions.
But did you actually choose the self reflection introspection etc. or was it just your nature from your nature and nurture. Actions don’t manifest from nothing. That is magic. Actions- including your thoughts happen via nature and the nature that is around you.
@@ducky169So you're saying that me gaining free will was predetermined?
8:25 now I understand why my Aunt is told to do fasting the whole day before her weekly religious congregation meeting
Damn lmaoo
it's all starting to make sense...lol
Does she get bad gas ?
@@unnamedchannel1237😂 well played
Hey after this podcast, I went and listened to Tate again. He's setting himself up to rewrite his settings somehow, and that's pretty much it. So we don't have freedom of choice, but we have the tools to influence ourselves to act differently.
I resonate with his statement about religious trauma. It is a very real thing that not many people talk about. I've only heard two people mention this in my 26 years of life. It resonates with me because I was also having these nihilistic and atheist thoughts around 14 or 15 years of age. When you're forced to believe in something for so long and then it just kinda dissolves and you're left with your own thoughts, you begin to question your reality and nihilism sprouts. Also, hormones add to the experience. Anyways, religious trauma is very real and very difficult to get over.
The argument against the existence of real free will is rooted in the understanding that both deterministic and probabilistic laws govern the universe, and in the evidence that unconscious neural processes precede conscious decision-making. This view posits that what we perceive as free will might be an illusion, with our choices predetermined by past events or influenced by random quantum events, neither of which we control.
things that are not being stated, that the subconscious acts created by narration are exemplorary to what feeling propogates the vision that perpetuates the narrative..folks like to be right, but it takes energy to change a thought. Energetically, bioelectromagnetically, there are Effects that influence outside of proximatey..Quantum energy reveals Spirit energy, not a standardization mean of 40% in behavioral issues in the general population, imo.
the problem there is that first, we don't mostly know those laws or how they work, second, they could be preceded/ determined in turn at a deeper level themselves, analogous to how they determine biology on our level. The next problem is we don't know how time or the mind work, for example backward time referral in the brain, causation from the future, may be real. Finally, the same logic that rules out free will also must rule out identity and selves, so what does it mean to say things aren't as we perceive? What does it mean to say we don't have free will? I don't have the answers, but I am impressed by one brilliant scientist who claims that only simulations can be conscious. In that sense, free will is real - for us. It's not real, beyond us, but that's a realm we can't touch anyway.
@@emilianosintarias7337 Just because we don't know the laws, doesn't mean it's then undetermined. There is a difference between unknowable and random, as was discussed in this video. Same goes for going backwards in time. Just because we cannot determine what happened before, does not make it undetermined. It just means we can't determine it. We just dont have the capability to determine it. No free will doesn't rule out identity or selves. It just removes the idea that they had free will in determining what their identity or selves are. You're conflating free will with a lot of different things. These are assumptions you've made about free will, and without evidence.
@@RigelOrionBeta You don't understand my comments. "Just because we don't know the laws, doesn't mean it's then undetermined. There is a difference between unknowable and random, as was discussed in this video.". That's irrelevant. For example if how it works involves backwards time referral, IE your brain sending information backward to itself all the time, then that invalidates the idea of preceding causes for making choices being the issue. Libbet goes away. It has nothing to do with randomness. And I didn't say free will rules out selves. I claim that just as we can find no place in the functioning of the body and brain for free will, the same examination fails to find selves, and yet they are both cultural and psychological objects or constructions. The mistake Sapolsky is making is to pretend that any brain science has found the self, and then ask how lack of free will affects it, despite there being no place in physiology or neurology for the self to be hiding either. My final suggestion was that free will is not real, but that we (who , in physics, are not discreet individual object) do have it. Just like Frodo Baggins does not exist, but he is a hobbit. So, free will may just be part of the interface or operating system of selves, which are functional illusions, at base determined by bodies determined by physics
OMG, this is really happening!! Two of my favorite contemporary scientists together in one video...I am on cloud nine... RESPECT!!!
Neil, as the physiscist you are, how does creativity fit into the deterministic world view of modern physics.
Arthur Schopenhauer in his "World as Will and Representation" said something like "you can will what you do but you can't will what you will". Thanks for the show.
That makes perfect sense.
Awesome, I became aware of the same thing when I was 13 - 14 years old. Also a French philosopher, Gaston Bachelard said: The willpower consists of doing what one does not like.
Good one.Kinda of a Synthesis, of the subject.
The willingness to accept what others can not. The freedom to choose willingness instead of will not. The willingness to do what others won't. The willingness to change while others don't. -Buddah says
@@ogungou9 I’m not sure that will power is the same as free will but let’s accept that. You will only do what you don’t want if you want something else more. Eg I don’t like to exercise but I want to be fit more. I don’t want to go to the ballet but it makes my wife happy. I don’t want to raise my hand but I will because I want to prove I can more.
I like to imagine Robert Sapolsky having the world's calmest heated argument with Terence McKenna.
YAS lolol
@@ghostrun101lol, shut up
Always enjoy listening to Professor Sapolsky.
One of the most delightful and instructive conversations so far!😊
I have listened to many, many, arguments on this subject of “Free Will” over the past several years. Quite honestly, I’m still having trouble with accepting it as a part of my daily reality of existence. I believe Neil hit the nail on the head. If this perspective of having “No Free Will” is true and really is what’s going on every day with our every day decisions, we have to do some serious changing with our social, political, and cultural perspectives of every single person on this planet. Of course, Robert had an answer and it should take 600 years for this “No Free Will” thing to become the positive part of humanity that he believes it should be. I disagree with that time scale. Probably more like a thousand and it’s not out of the question to say 10,000 years considering the human nature element. Chuck Nice’ comment actually makes very much sense, as he always does on this podcast. Basically, to paraphrase, I will still be me and who am regardless of the rules/laws at hand. This is where I have the problem with the whole “Free Will” thing. The question of where does morality come from is still a relevant question. The answer to that question is rather obvious to most people. Of course, morality comes from us. We human beings make the rules/laws and we give the validity to the meaning of morality. And, it doesn’t matter where in the world you are born. Your morality will be based on the culture you were brought up in. Okay, to some degree, that one point alone, seems to lend credence to the “No Free Will” perspective. However, it does not answer the question of why we believe in morals in the first place. Yes, one could argue that we needed to come up with laws to keep people safe from the psychopaths. But, if “Free will” doesn’t exist then psychopaths are not responsible for their actions or behavior. Listen, I’m all for forgiveness and tolerance of every single social and cultural difference with people in the whole world. But, if everything I think, do, and say is pre-determined, without my knowledge of it, then why am I concerned about Free will in the first place. I mean let’s be honest with ourselves here. If everything I think, do, and say has already been decided, then why bother with deciding anything. Just so you know, I would have no problem if having “No Free Will” was an absolute truth. I feel the same as Chuck. I would keep on keeping on and do what I love to do. Why? Because the truth is folks, that’s all you got anyway. “Free will” or not. Here’s the rub folks. All you got is now. Sam Harris said it and it is as true as true can be. “It’s always now”. In other words, all you have is the moment. So, whether Free Will is real or not, you should be doing what is the most important to you every time you have the opportunity. Because, if you don’t, than once again, Free Will or not, you’re not living your life. So, when it really comes right down to it, that’s all that really matters. LIVING!
You're not the only one on this. Was my response "free will" or was I destined to comment. 🤔
try this and see if it helps: "Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet. The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves. The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated. The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law. Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law. So, what is The Law? In a word, The Law is options. Definition option: a thing that is or may be chosen. The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is. Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is. In clarifying what The Law is; The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing. Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate. Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating; the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon, the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded, the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded, the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence, the concept of options, and Free Will. However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential. As we experience The Law in our Being, The Law is Free Will. The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent. The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent." - Goho-tekina Otoko
Don't force it on you that you don't have a free will when you know deep inside from your first person perspective that you do. And you have correctly and logically linked it to moral code which I'm afraid isn't an issue for people who want to see everything from a chemistry laboratory. Their world view isn't natural, yours is!
You are concerned about freewill probably because you were told of this concept and it is uncomfortable when this notion is challenged. It does have to be that reason, but the point is there is a reason, and then there are reasons behind that reason, and so on, which create this predetermined causal chain, you know the drill.
You are basically saying that if there is no free will, we ought to do some serious changing? An agent only ought to do something if she actually can do it, and ought only to refrain from doing something if she actually can refrain from doing it. But under determinism, neither can you do nor refrain from doing something. Determinism devolves into incoherence.
There's no such thing as too much Sapolsky! Thank you!
Good comment!
“On the battlefield, in the torture chamber, on a sinking ship, the issues that you are fighting for are always forgotten, because the body swells up until it fills the universe, and even when you are not paralysed by fright or screaming with pain, life is a moment-to-moment struggle against hunger or cold or sleeplessness, against a sour stomach or an aching tooth.”
I couldn't agree more with Robert. I was married to someone who has NPD and addiction and I had to study them to understand what on earth was going on with him. We both went through existential crisis and he once asked me why God would punish him for making him the way he made him. It's true, it's not his fault that he suffered an awful upbringing and he had to find a way to survive as much as I found my own ways to survive my own upbringing. Knowing this helped me heal after I left him because it helped me lose all hope. I also realised that it was pointless for me to act like the victim in our dynamic because he was just as much a victim of his own life. That helped me finally accept him for who he is, not someone that needed fixing. I always get baffled when people get mad that the rich live the way they do, just because there are poor people. I believe everyone has their lot in life, that's how it's designed and that's that.
Amazing you had Dr. Sapolsky on! I took a dive through KZhead last year and watched his lectures and couldn't stop watching the class. Amazing teacher and such interesting findings. I still love watching him when he comes up, so this is a real treat!
Yes, you can stop. You have the free will to do so.
He's the professor I never had but needed 😢
The hungry judge effect is a misunderstanding of the scheduling of court cases. If court cases were scheduled randomly, then the theory would stand, but they are not - the "open and shut" cases are scheduled later in the day, while the difficult cases that are more likely not to succeed in conviction are scheduled earlier. Unfortunately, it's a really compelling theory that confirms the pre-existing beliefs of those who use it, so they ignore the flaws in reasoning.
Hi! First i gotta say i love you all 🤓 There’s a question on the back of my head every time i listen to professor Sapolsky. If there’s no free will whatsoever (and i really think there is not, based on how vulnerable we are to our surroundings, society and our own brains), how come there’s actual changes in behaviour and learning? Big hugs from Argentina💚
I have no free will in telling you how beautiful you are lol
According to the theory, the multitude of things that influence us on a pre-conscious level change as we experience things, and so our responses change.
Thank you for brining on Dr.Sapolsky! He is one of my absolute favorite professors!!
Love this man. Love him, love him, love him. Such a beautiful soul and a BRILLIANT mind. He’s doing AWESOME things for the mentally troubled.
Outstanding topic. The good Dr. Sapolsky is amazing
21:14 This is the most crucial question and answer I wanted to hear from these 2 geniuses related to the rigor and relevance of science 😍
Waiting for someone to dumb this down for me...
I came to a similar vibe in this conversation when I studied Situationism in college. It argued about the impact of situational factors in our behavior. It has not left my mind because so much of what I observe and read in research seems to point in this direction. That situations or environment dictate behavior. The funniest thing for me is that we really don’t have language to talk in these terms because our mode of communication assumes free will. Unless we turn the “I went to the store this morning” into a statement made by a third person narrator or something.
You'll see in buddhism this tendency to refer to the self the same way
You could say I went to the store as its accurate, perhaps not "I decided to go to the store" I'm not sure though as this free will stuff has only been in my mind a few years
The hangry affect worked in a positive way for me, when I was at an embassy interview to get a work visa. The officer just said, "okay, you're good. I gotta hurry and eat lunch." 😅
XD nice!
If one knows who and what one IS, one IS able to inner-stand that there IS free will.
"Man is free to do as he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” - German philosopher Arthur Schopenhoer
He always has the dog running around in the background in all the podcasts I've seen him on 😂😂
Just listened to the podcast version.... Brilliant episode....Mr Sapolsky is such a fascinating and interesting person....I loved your back and forth discussion with a serious dose of humour....9,9/10 for this one....(The missing 0,1 because it should've lasted another hour+) 😋
Free will is NOT self will.....use this premise and you will get this right Neil....amazing. I found your show on Pluto and I am so happy you are also on KZhead.🧠🙏
Freedom of action: Can we DO what we want? Freedom of will: Can we WANT what we want?
I've listened to him several times. But this discussion is the first time I understood the point of it all. Thank you Niel and Chuck. Very enlightening conversation.
Would love to have a conversation around how mindfulness and meditation help combat the negative side effects of our lack of free will and planting certain ideas can also help dissolve the same.
I think the interesting here is the notion that you'd perform mindfulness meditation would be pre-determined by the life path you've taken. I think of it like 'I want to create a youtube channel one day'. That will remain a distant goal until the time that I've developed sufficient motivation to complete that goal. The weird part is thinking that "the act of your thinking about it and taking the initiative now" was always going to happen based on your life choices up to that point which made you thoughtful enough to reflect. Also, Sam Harris' Waking Up app/podcast is specifically focused on these concepts (mindfulness, meditation, and free will and becoming aware of how thoughts simply emerge without your initiating them -- and then we ride these thoughts as passengers -- believing that we constructed them. The simplest example being trying to keep an empty mind and observing the random thoughts that emerge that you did not control but instead are an observer of.
@jmx808 but free will doesn't mean we are free in our ability to control our next thoughts. It's about the fact that we're free to choose between the actions presented to us. If I just stayed in bed for the rest of my life, is it societies responsibility to look feed me because I have no choice in how my life is? It makes no sense to me. If free will don't exist, neither do we. I can't make sense of it. Seems irrational to me
@@tobiaskvarnung3411 Well put it this way: you aren't responsible, and so society (also lacking in free will) isn't responsible either for keeping you alive. Makes sense yeah? Once we accept that, ultimately, we're not really responsible for anything, we actually kind of gain more freedom by understanding our constraints and knowing exactly which actions will affect us and how. We're a self-determining machine, but a machine nonetheless. If we view ourselves as somehow innately greater, we're led to even greater biases and worse models of predicting things. I mean here's the thing, even if I had no free will I'd still be hungry, or I'd like Batman more than Superman, or I'd prefer studying theoretical physics over mathematics. I would still be moved into action even if I'm not the source of that action. And so, I would much prefer not to be in bed not contributing to society: I have no other choice.
@kamkamkam_ I see. But it seems to leave so many holes. If your whole life is determined by chemical reactions and molecules, and you have no agency in your life and no say in what direction you want to take. Then we don't even exist. How do our lives hold any value if we exist purely as observers into a life that isn't ours. Wisdom and skills and all such stuff isn't real. I have a hard time grasping that we lack any agency at all. Free will makes more sense to me. If I stay in bed all day, I am responsible for getting up and start owning my life.
@@tobiaskvarnung3411 Yeah it's an interesting thing and something I've not yet come to terms with. If we believe that the universe is deterministic in that it was "set in motion" by a big bang/other event and has for eternity followed rules that create patterns in the chaotic systems -- then it follows that humanity and all life emerged as a random but predictable by-product of this chaos. So then, what follows is that our minds are yet more structured chaos, which is deterministic (if you could compute every atom, and then every molecule, and then every microorganisms behavior). That makes the idea of free-will something of an illusion. I was always going to type this reply because my bio chemistry led me to be more likely to respond to a random comment than to continue my work activities. So here I am. But notice I said 'more likely'. Human behavior is predictable, see 'normal distributions'. But there is a great variance in those ranges. Perhaps, we have some degree of freedom to which of the randomly emerging options we will take. Or perhaps not, perhaps it's more like the double-slit experiment. The photons may take a random path but ultimately, they always form the same distributions. Like a role playing game where all options lead to the same outcome for a given playthrough. Free will implies conscious control over your outcomes. What I've described (random distributions) isn't really free will, just a more advanced algorithm...
I love this guy. Respect to fearless thinkers...or thinkers whose value of truth overrides the fear if its implications.
love hearing smart people talk about something I realized by meditating at 22. Some good thoughts here, really made me think about it in a new way.
"Help over punishment" has for decades been my philosophy but now i guess i had no free will over that. (even this comment.)😅
@alswedgin9274 - Of course you did.
Every which way i go over this..i can't help but come to the conclusion: " no free Will. Now, simplest put im an amateur comparitive philosopher and that's saying too much.. There is no philosopher and/or thinker that wouldn't have said as they did without the combination of Nature And Nurture.. This is going to keep me awake at night for a good while..
Imagine believing every thing you hear on the web?🤣
@@lukeskydropper or take into concideration..
Punishment can help someone rehabilitate. In addition, it protects other people.
I’d love to watch an episode where Neil doesn’t interrupt the guest every single sentence. Ego through the roof. That’d be nice
He can’t help it
No free will buddy
I like Neil for what Neil does... the good and the bad... I accept him, and the experiences that have made him the great man he is today.
I was thinking the same thing , Jesus!
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Frreaking Neil! at around 26:26 'here are my recent thoughts', your rant is amazingly exactly the glue that holds this entire convo together all while re-enphasizing and refocusing the main focus, 'Free Will'. You put this delimna in a relateable perspective of real world examples, challenging society to look seriously at how we pass judgement and/or write off certain marginalized members of our society we share our lives with. The unfortunate outcome that typically and mistakenly occurs is that our lack of compassion and deliberate choice to see the actual set of uncontrollable consequences that have overwhelmed and consumed an individual into despair & misfortune, is much easier to justify as a choice that said person through 'free will' can simply make to turn it all around. The problem is that we deep down understand that most everyone can improve their situation with the compassion and help required to overcome and reprogram the bad hand that people our dealt. But we are not willing to acknowledge this truth because we have to sacrifice our time and resourrces to help those in need: selfishness. We would rather justify and contribe our success on our 'free will' to overcome our own bad hand and conclude that if I can make it, so can anyone. The jist of it is, we all need support, we all need to community to help work through the history that was not our choice but our consequence, and there is no better feeling or fulfilment in life then to witness a change in one's life from the sacrifice we 'chose' to make for an individual that deserves and appreciates the love that we all seek and thrive. Thanks!