Determined: Life without Free Will with Robert Sapolsky
Have you ever looked back on a moment and wondered if you made the right choice? Professor Robert Sapolsky has, but he believes that there was no actual choice at that moment. Professor Sapolsky has staked out an extreme stance in the field: we are nothing more than the sum of our biology, over which we had no control, and its interactions with the environment, over which we also had no control. Explore what it looks like to reject the notion of free will and how doing so can be liberating rather than paralyzing and despairing.
About the Speaker
Professor Robert Sapolsky is the John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor and a professor of biology, of neurology, and of neurosurgery. Over the past thirty years, he has divided his time between the lab, where he studies how stress hormones can damage the brain, and in East Africa, where he studies the impact of chronic stress on the health of baboons.
Sapolsky's research is featured in the National Geographic documentary "Stress: Portrait of a Killer." For more information on this documentary and Robert's research, please visit killerstress.stanford.edu
Professor Sapolsky has authored several books and regularly contributes to magazines and journals such as Discover, Science, Scientific American, Harper's, and The New Yorker. He was recently featured in Stanford Magazine's "As If You Had a Choice."
This event is hosted by the Stanford Alumni Association in partnership with the Stanford Alumni Club of Minnesota.
"An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart." ~ Robert M. Sapolsky
I would say the opposite is true. The brain mostly receives information and stimuli but Dr. Sapolsky is a reductive materialist so it's not surprising he puts primacy to the mind. I'm surprised he didn't say "An open brain is a ....😉
@@Frederer59 To each his own, it's all unknown. "The world which we perceive is a tiny fraction of the world which we can perceive, which is a tiny fraction of the perceivable world." Terence McKenna The three Dan Tians or Elixir Fields are areas of the body that correspond to what the ancient Taoists describe as the Three Cinnabar Fields. They were considered to be the palaces of the Gods in the body. The maintenance of freely circulating qi through these areas was said to insure that the Gods would maintain residence in the body and enable the person to have a long and healthful life. If the circulation of qi became obstructed, the Gods would depart ensuring disease and an early death. These areas can also be interpreted as focal points of different physical and psychological functions of the body. The upper Dan Tian, located in the center of the forehead, corresponds to the physical functioning of the brain and sensory organs and to the psychological processes of thinking and contemplation. The middle Dan Tian, located in the center of the chest between the breasts, corresponds to the physical functions of respiration and the circulation of qi and blood. Psychologically it functions as the emotional and interaction center of the body. The lower Dan Tian, located in the lower abdomen between the navel and the public bone, corresponds to the physical functions of digestion, elimination and reproduction. Psychologically it functions as our sense of stability and balance and as the connection of our sexuality. It’s commonly known as the center of gravity, Hara or Tanden (in Japanese), energy center of the body or the second brain. In internal martial arts it is one of the most important areas in the body. Some studies have found that our cells functions like a battery, able to store electric charge. Taoists believe the human body is basically one big battery, made from millions of small ones. Some researchers have explained that conductivity on the skin and other parts of the body varies greatly and they are able to prove a higher conductivity at acupuncture points. All these recent scientific results back up some of the ancient beliefs such as the Qi channels, which are like wires that carry electric current, Qi vessels, being like capacitors which regulate the current or finally the real lower Dan Tian, which functions like a large battery that stores a charge and is able to provide an electromotive force and distribute Qi throughout the body. The lower Dan Tian has a similar structure to the brain, with the capacity for memory. They are connected through the spinal cord and the central nervous system, where electric conductivity is highest and resistance is lowest. They function almost as one unit. The lower brain can store bioelectricity and the mind that generates an idea creates an electromotive force (Qi) and leads it to the body for action.
@@Frederer59 Where is the mind located? It IS part of the brain?
@@Frederer59However, when one considers that sapiens lives by delusion and denial, we learn that our brain box just makes things up out of nothing coming from the outside world. We experience this all around us all the time every day. Half of the USA 🇺🇸 believes everything Trump says because their brains make it all up. Conspiracy theories are rife. Schizophrenia, delusions, voices speaking to us insude our heads, the false belief that America is a democracy. The machismo of testosterone-fuelled males, dreams, waking dreams, false memories, alien abductions, phantom limbs that one feels when the limb is non-existent, paranoia, entities standing behind us that aren't there, the taste of death, seannces, astrology, fortune tellers, magic acts, slight of hand, voice dubbing, and an infinite list on and on forever. Just ask the Mother Ship. We creare our own reality. Sure, stimulus enters the brain also. Both exist and it becomes complicated and more beautiful!
@@silvercloud1641the *soul"
Professor Sapolsky, I just want to truly thank you for your lectures. You are making such a great contribution to the world out here especially for people that are interested in these studies but are too poor to afford universities. You lectures truly make a difference in life teachings. Thank you so much.
Just finished "Determined". Not only is it hugely illuminating, but it is beautifully written, and so a pleasure to read. Highly recommended, an essential book.
I think it's fair for me to say that "Determined" saved me from taking my life.
@@Nowheart That's amazing!
@@NowheartI get it. It’s wild! I’m an 8 on the ACE’s. I have a bunch of mental differences. I’ve sought out all the cures. How this is affecting me is blowing my mind! Makes so much sense.
@@NowheartMay I ask you what exactly from his book allowed you to not take your life?
@@florentin4061 Likely dumping the burden of guilt and shame that tends to underpin a variety of mental health conditions.
Agree with him or not, reading/listening to Sapolsky brings out the best in peoples' minds. I can't think of a better compliment.
Hey Dr. I heard this theory of yours 7 years ago and it changed my life totally. After watching your HUMAN BEHAVIORAL BIOLOGY course on KZhead, I always tried to explain it to others. I might be no one but I am totally with you on this one and respect you a lot for your knowledge and share in increasing world’s level of literacy.
Determinism became obvious to me when I was 14 too. Everything Sapolsky says is so obvious and redundent to me. An easy test to reveal the pervasive nature of determinism in anyone's life is for a week write down every instance of free will you experience. Then watch this video again and see if that behavior stands the test of free will - Was there nothing that influenced or came before it? This goes all the way down to the flavor of ice cream or the flowers I choose. I see what preceeded everything on a day to day basis. And I feel liberated by determinism and am able to improve my life based on the learnings of determinism. Don't put yourself down. Take advantage of your strengths. Look at yourself without self-deception. Life keeps getting better.
What point are you trying to make?
@@moofano1538 Are you asking someone to identify every single influence which shaped them to behave the way they do, and how each of those shaped them? Seems unreasonable. People are shaped to be exactly what they become, by the circumstances they never got to choose or even understand.
That part always gets me😂 believing in determinism, but then saying to take action😂
@@davon3384 Beliefs inform actions. Beliefs are caused, not chosen. Try this: choose to believe in determinism. If you fail to do so, you now understand that your beliefs are not things which are chosen, so, there is no "free will" involved in the formation of your beliefs. Else, you could choose to believe your feet are in fact made of delicious pudding, on a whim. If you succeed, that would be "the truth" to you. If one day you decide to eat your feet with a fork, reality will assert itself, and you will go "ouch, f***, I was wrong". Beliefs are caused by the influences which act upon you, not a "free will" separate from causation. Understanding a problem, is the first step in developing a solution. Hence; this discussion occurs. Participants have been brought to question things by their lives. Free will makes no sense without an appeal to magic or faith. The subjective experience of having individual agency, is subject to objective influences which act on people without consent. Taking action, is a product of the beliefs one if (*is) brought to hold, and subjectively, we feel we have choices, rather than feeling that we are acting as a product of causation. My 2cents.
I would argue that Free will in the way it is traditionally thought of is probably false, but if you really look deep enough, to the fabric of logic and the material world you will find (and physics has been struggling with this for ages) that the world is indeterministic. that 1+1 doesn't always equal 2.
I've been deeply engrossed in the work of Robert Sapolsky lately, who I find to be a compassionate genius in the field of behavioral biology. His insights into the subconscious forces that shape our actions are truly enlightening. Yet, there's a dimension that seems to be missing from these formative theories. Sapolsky lays a foundation for understanding the deterministic elements of our behavior-how our past, down to the biological level, influences our present actions. But I can't help but think about the role of personal effort in transcending this programming. This idea presents the next frontier in our journey towards human enlightenment. What if, despite the deterministic nature of cause and effect as it applies to the human psyche, we possess the capacity to consciously break away and redefine our path? The notion that everything is predetermined could render our attempts for self-improvement futile. However, I believe there's more to the story. Consider this: psychology, along with the intricate task of mapping the human mind, is not an exact science. In my view, it's composed of 88% philosophy, 10% educated conjecture, and a modest 2% of hard fact. This isn't to diminish the field but to acknowledge the vast uncharted territory that still lies before us-territory we must bravely explore if we are to unlock the full potential of the human spirit.
"can't help but think" or can't help feel? By all means speculate and hypothesize, but the mounting objective evidence supports there being no free will and believers in free will rely on intuition. (If you have free will, then how much do you have? How confident are you that what you think you do freely today will not be biologically explained tomorrow?)
Exactly. He talks as though walking down a road forces you because of probabilities. But we can take steps and influence the probabilities ourselves. But then you can always argue the circle of... well that was influenced. Sure it was, but you can't perfectly predict it either.
@@sjoerd1239Enough to influence the future by changing patterns. Also a bit caused by a lack of knowledge of the future.
Okay, so I basically buy Sapolsky's thesis. However, I do not accept his conclusion that there is no place for reward and punishment. It's not because I believe that the recipient deserves reward or punishment, but rather that reward and punishment provides an important feedback loop. If I see that one behavior is rewarded and another behavior is punished, that contributes to the person I am and influences the behavior I choose. As a result, I'm more likely to choose the behavior that will be rewarded. In fact, at one point in his talk, Sapolsky makes the obervation that if someone is well behaved, they are rewarded. That makes the person more likely to be well behaved so they can receive the reward.
There is a role for an incentive and merit approach based on ability for a particular role for the common good. There is no place for reward and punishment. Our current practices are unsatisfactory. Your feedback loop is no excuse for treating people as if they deserved a reward or punishment because that would be undeserved reward and punishment.
And isn’t his point you had no control over whether you received that reward/punishment? If your focus is rather on whether you dole out the plus or minus then that again is dependent on how your wired. And it isn’t there is no place for these behaviors, it’s just not relevant to who is deserving of praise/demonizing. I think, could be wrong, but I think he frames it differently than you’re implying.
No Freewill and a case for punishment, rewards and responsibility. I'm not sure how common or what literature has to say about this but I believe I'm a compatablist of a different kind. One where I think no free will is still compatible with a degree of responsibility along with reward and punishment. My thoughts below. The concept of responsibility can be viewed through the lens of both genetic predispositions and environmental influences, embodying the intricate dance between nature and nurture. At its core, responsibility might be perceived not as a mere trait one is born with, but as a quality cultivated through the interplay of inherent neurological capabilities and the external stimuli provided by one's surroundings. In the realm of human behavior, the notion of freewill often treads on contentious ground, suggesting a degree of autonomy that may not fully account for the underlying mechanisms at work. It can be argued that our actions and decisions are significantly shaped by a combination of innate brain functions and the series of rewards and punishments meted out by our social environment. These elements of positive and negative reinforcement serve not just as tools for behavior modification but as pivotal forces in the development of what we refer to as responsibility. This perspective aligns with the view that our choices may be less about the exercise of freewill and more about the outcomes of a sophisticated process of conditioning. Throughout this process, individuals are subject to various forms of reinforcement that, while beyond their control, serve to mold their behavior in ways that foster individual autonomy and societal cohesion. This is particularly potent during the formative years, when the brain's plasticity renders it more amenable to such influences, though the capacity for change persists, albeit to a lesser extent, into adulthood. Understanding responsibility through this framework suggests that the concept does not hinge so much on free choice or agency but on the capacity of the brain to learn and adapt to its environment through reinforcement learning. In this light, the role of rewards and punishments transcends mere disciplinary tactics; they are essential components in the cultivation of responsible behavior, orchestrated not by conscious selection but by the very nature of human neurobiology and the structure of social interactions. Therefore, responsibility might best be conceptualized as the product of a complex and dynamic process, one that intricately weaves together the threads of biological predisposition and experiential learning. It is through this tapestry that individuals emerge as beings capable of navigating the moral and practical demands of their environments, not solely through the illusion of choice, but as the culmination of the countless influences that shape their existence. In essence, although the concept of freewill may be contentious, the practical application of responsibility, along with the mechanisms of rewards and punishments, retains its validity and utility. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the nuanced interplay between these concepts and the inherent limitations tied to individual cognitive capacities. This suggests a need for a more refined approach to understanding and deploying these concepts, recognizing that they are influenced by factors beyond one's absolute control. The essence of responsibility thus lies not in the assertion of pure autonomy, but in the recognition of the complex, interconnected forces that shape human behavior and decision-making.
@@nodelayfordays8083 Free will is the ability to do things, other than we do them, in the circumstances that we do them. We behave as if we have free will. If we are determined, then we do not have free will. That has repercussions on how we should behave. Redefining free will to suit how we behave is a cop out, misleading and deceptive.
Yeah but there is no deserve in a world of free will. It'll probably be centuries before we see a society that understands determinism and treats a negative behavior in a clinical way, same way we no longer burn witches, epileptic seizures were considered demonic positions, so on.
I like your ideas about how life works thu scientific observations. It’s got me looking at life from a different angle and makes me feel as if I have free will while keeping in mind that I might not.
My thinking ever since I can remember is and always will be is to "accept people for who they are"
Why when clearly people can be programmed and changed? I mean that's the basis of the start of the argument is that you can be programmed.
Always loved the Jacques the Fatalist and his Master. Sapolsky proved what I always believed. Don’t be too proud for who you are and don’t judge others
you can't help it of you do, you don't have free will
One of my fav books. Read it, listened to it. I also like the way it takes us back when. I'm seriously considering super-determinism.
OK! You've been working hard here popping up in my algos daily. It worked! I bought Determined. Good luck with the road trip. How about coming to Seattle?
You and your wisdom has mentored me through many years. Thank you so much.
How lucky the students of Stanford are! I'd be thrilled to have learned from him at Uni. The book is brilliant.
49:20 - Living through this right now! - "Major Depression" = Inability to BS myself into thinking that "Life is Wonderful"
Git gud.
Yeah, anyone claiming that depression is a problem with the individual (e.g. an "imbalance of neurochemicals") doesn't understand how biology works. It really is just more complicated mechanical function. If I don't take care of my bicycle's needs for grease, air in the tires, a tight chain, evenly tightened spokes, etc., it won't function well. Same with our animal bodies. If we don't get our biological needs met, we malfunction. And because we are indeed more complicated than a bicycle, we malfunction in far more complex ways, based on both the specific deficiency of needs, and on our specific genetic programming. Fight, flight, freeze, and flow are all default functions of different brain/body types in us animals so we see folks react with anger (to others or themselves), or avoidance, or deep introspection, or hyper-creativity when stressed.
Thanks a lot for such a rich video and all the information we got from Professor Sapolsky
I agree that determinism will “determine” your starting point and that likely has an outsized effect on life, but that pure chance/randomness is understated. At a cellular level, decisions need to be made with information that is incomplete or misrepresented (e.g. confounding undetectable forces) and these circumstances generate unique/indeterminite futures. Even as a thought experiment where you had a perfect computer that could quantify all possible inputs, there are events that are purely equivalent probabilitistically and each occurance stacking to create a potentially infinite number of futures. I suppose you could claim that the evolutionary past of an organism will still precondition a decision one way, but I think it’s probably brittle to claim that nowhere along the way there were/are arbitrary decisions (e.g. some such circumstance that creates indecision). Advancing this perspective, we often have to make decisions that appear similar in that the corresponding futures are unknown to us where these choices are purely guesses (because we are not perfect computers), but nonetheless “ours”. To this point, if Sapolsky interprets these junctions as part of Determinism then I can’t disagree, but I believe it dismisses the agency of a random choice; the past cannot infallibly provide us with sensible guidance to novel situations. I believe that this unknowing is at the core of free will. I’m not sure if this is what Sapolsky alluded to as chaos, but it seems dismissive nonetheless because life is chaotic.
Sapolsky, by taking a neuroscientific approach, is overcomplicating things massively. The argument is very simple and very obvious. Everything is cause and effect and nothing is outside of that. Free will is magical. Randomness does not exist. It is just unexplained cause and effect. Think about rolling dice. It is random from a human perspective because there are so many factors that impact the result that we cannot possibly control for lr understand. A superhuman with full knowledge of physics would get whatever dice roll he/she wanted every single time.
I don’t think the majority of people want to look at the underlying environmental causal factors of the world on everything. The need for control I believe lowers the anxiety levels in the populous . The idea of some sort of predestined existence just cannot be swallowed. Even though it’s happening. Great video!!!
At best we may have a little free will. ☯ Like choosing what we eat tonight. But there's not much choice in having to eat something to sustain life. Though even that could still be argued is the result of genetics, environment/culture, and in the end causality. We certainly don't have control over the bigger picture, I think we can safely say? If I have free will, can I choose to live forever? Or, never be born in the first place? Where was our choice in that? And if we didn't have a choice in being apart of this. What else do we not have a choice in?
Agree why do u think
Or they can not
@@silvercloud1641There are still underlying factors as to what we can think of as an option. When's the last time you thought about what to make for dinner and a Cambodian dish popped up? What we recently had, what we haven't had in a long time, what the weather is like (grilling when it's -12 and snowing?), our location (not going to make pho if the only way to get the noodles is to order on Amazon), etc. "I'm feeling like having Chinese today." But where did that feeling come from? Did we have any say in the feelings we have?
In a predetermined universe we still have control. That's because we're alive, which is minimally defined as having the functionality to do work, aka, change our environment to better suit our needs (through exploration and creation). Sure, how we make choices is determined, but it's still making choices. That's what we call free will. It's some form of diversity, variation, as compared to other individuals. Every Bic pen functions almost exactly like every other Bic pen in nearly every environment, but I function very differently than you and we both vary our functionality in different environments, too, based on our unique DNA (needs/goals). That's the core differentiation between something that has free will and something that doesn't. It doesn't matter how that freedom comes about, it only matters that it exists as a category compared to things that don't have freedom.
I’m an 8 on the ACEs test. I have a bunch of mental differences. I’m 45 and have sought after all the “cures.” These teachings have given me the most amazing insights and freedom.
I am lucky to have come across this idea as a 17-18 years old reading Plotinus's Enneads, albeit expressed rather covertly in there. It has shaken my world view since then. I still remember sitting in the room, observing the thoughts popping up in the mind and backtracing them to their source, realizing how accidental free associations they all are to the extent knowable.
The slides were a pleasant addition. The pups were noticeably (and curiously) absent, and I was hanging on to hope we'd get to hear the clock go off, but things turned out fine despite neither of those things happening. 😆
Amazing. You’re are brilliant, thank you for the video.
Brilliant. Thankyou.
Great lecture! Thanks again for the insight. If we had true freewill, the “computer algorithms” that predict what you buy or don’t buy, how you vote or don’t vote, how you act or don’t act, etc…. Would be useless. You are an amalgamation of every thing that has come before. Big data and information theory in a round about way, shows that there is no free will. 😊
Not really
I don't agree with that. Just because a lot of behavior is predictable (by computer software), that doesn't in and of itself mean there is 0% free will
There are people lucky enough to have control over them selfs. What I mean by that, a good sense of their feelings, a good recognition and true (not warped in any way) sense of what is “good” or “bad” is, I can’t help but think, if we had “free will” would there ever be mistakes or evil. I always found it’s interesting that we truly think any individual chooses to be “evil” or “good” or even as simple as a “asshole” or “nice”. People just are, literally everyone I’ve ever met just is. Anyone I’ve seen change it just happens. I include my self in this notion. I’ve noticed any changes about my personality have just happened. There is the story my brain tells me about the change the what I did “wrong” and the what I did “right” and how hard or not hard I was trying. I can’t help but ask myself can I truly trust an organ that is designed by nature for survival, selfishness and self preservation. And what else is nature but brutal.
And yet as an individual I don't buy everything or much of anything despite targeted ads. It shows population trends not individual.
@@theofficialness578Interesting because I've lived my life with the choice of who I would be. And at 40 I've made it happen as I saw fit, to what I considered good. Perhaps it's a limitation that prevents you from understanding those making a choice or some other hidden variable of them not agreeing from ground up premises.
Thanks for everything you taught me professor 🙏🏻
It has always been so, but knowing it makes everything different. 😊❤️😊
Blast from the past. Best lecturer ever
Every word Sapolsky says is spoken with intent and therefore matters tremendously. What a gift! Thank you.
I had an extremely strong knowledge/intuition about determinism and lack of free will, was deeply ingraned to my mind ever since I can remember myself. Even as a 4 year old I used to say nothing could have been done differently
Interestingly, this is liberating and reminds me of Biblical teachings of being humble, it’s G-d not I, we are powerless over the very things discussed here. Thank you for your work, I have a clearer understanding of others and myself. Not without internal resistance on some of what you said here. I can’t argue, that this data, information brings me peace and comfort. I sure hope we utilize this science to continue evolving forward.
I am amazed by this Professor!
Professor Sapolsky, As I have said in the comments of a couple other videos., please keep talking about this. The world needs to know this, I need the world to know this. I have been of the same exact opinion for 40 years, myself, and waiting as long for a Neuroscientist to write this. It's been hard, neigh, near impossible, knowing this and trying to live by it, in this world. I have been professing this same message for as long, whenever the topic comes up. I get the impression that you are trying to get this message out also as you have done this video, which will affect the sales of your already, relatively inexpensive book. I might be assuming too much here though. I first came to this conclusion when I was taking biology classes and learning computers, so my mind was heightened ion these 2 areas. I realized that all the arguments in biology revolved around Nature v. Nurture, in its many variations, but all of them were only about these 2 forces being involved.. with any evidence. So, logically, if these are the only 2 forces then there is no door in for free will. Therefore, humans do not have free will. If you happen to see my comments at all, I will be responding to this video with my own thoughts, experiences, and perspectives which may be of interest to you as I Have believe in putting into practice what I have learned and have done so. Which is where the hard part comes in as it does not play well and most humans cannot handle that level of truth yet and it has forced me to back off a little.. and, like you, I am still a product of my programming. You talk about plasticity and how experience has a dramatic effect in changing your brain through this plasticity. That goes farther than just experience. For example, just pure thought can do the same thing. I used to smoke cigarettes. I wanted to stop. So, I picked out as many reasons for stopping as I could, the good (wanting to see my daughter grow up, for example), the bad (the dame it does to the body) etc etc., and I repeated those thoughts and tying them into what that will mean for my life and I repeated those thought over and over for about 24 hours and, after that, I quit smoking, in one day, and never had a single craving for a cigarette. And I can repeat this, at will. I will continue to comment to this video with more of my thoughts and experiences on this topic and, if you happen to read this, and are curious. I would love to talk about this more and am available. I think people can also use to hear more of the benefits of this knowledge to help temper the resistance to it.
I love your work Dr Sapolsky
Free will is a construct that I think has become conflated with our sense of identity and agency to such a degree that the very notion initiates a cascade of existential terror. I think you're spot on....we may need a new construct to allay panic around this new paradigm. 😉
Hard to comprehend that both free will and determined reality can exist at the same time unless you are a Buddhist or a Muslim or free from limited models of logic we've been trained in over and over. and giving examples of details that can never prove or disprove is pretty simplistic thinking but then we've seriously overrated Stanford and its like. Simple minds cannot concieve deep truths only superficial details, all he speaks is, of course, true and yet he too has the gift or curse of free will too! The majesty of existance that they both exist simultaneousely. Dissapointing for a so -called professor of higher education.
Dennett makes much better arguments for compatibilism if you're interested.
@@umbombCompatibilism is completely nonsensical. I believe people have this viewpoint which is contradictory because they emotionally want to believe that they have free will and our subjective feeling is that we do have free will. I am 100% sure that hard determinism is the reality. It is a completely obvious fact because all other viewpoints involve some kind of nonsensical magic. Feel free to argue against me. I think Sam Harris gets it completely but Daniel Dannet makes no sense in this regard.
"Simple minds cannot concieve deep truths only superficial details" When you supply a peer reviewed body of work delineating your own ideas, perhaps then you get the right to call his mind "simple" ... "so -called professor of higher education" Clearly triggered.
Actually, simple logic can indeed create a model of reality where everything is deterministic and there is free will, because free will is just a categorization of simple vs. complex systems. Like the difference between whole numbers and prime numbers. Primes are effectively unpredictable in when they occur next, while whole numbers are always just N+1. Free will could just be prime numbers when compared to whole numbers.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 Everyone with a brain has the "right" to say whatever they experience. No appeal to authority needed. You have the right to think whatever you think, given to you by the universe. Same with everyone else with a brain. Even if your brain is simpler than others' brains.
Perhaps people mistake free will with motivation, such as getting motivated to eat because I'm hungry and believing the story I tell myself as I decide to do it.
We make decisions and we are aware that we do so. There is no prima facie reason to question free will and we do not often do so. In questioning free will we find ever increasing objective evidence against it, but it is hard to let go of the notion that we are undetermined (my guess, because I cannot speak for everyone, is that it makes us feel creepy/uneasy).
Great video
If you understand the intricate, true definition of freewill, this is a very easy understanding and is this only thesis that makes sense. We are all conditioned from the events we witness. And starting at fetal life, we absorb so, so much more because we have the art of staying present at all times allowing him/her to form from the information he/she has interpreted. If it wass negative, that will eventually be her fundamental base and usually the house gets constructed on a broken foundation which can be repaired along the way or not.
The list of things we do not choose, however long, does not eliminate a single thing from the list of things we do choose, however short. I had a different teenage experience with the free will issue: After my father died, I spent time in the public library, browsing the philosophy section. I think I was reading something by Baruch Spinoza that introduced the issue of determinism as a threat to free will. I found this troublesome until I had this thought experiment (whether I read it in one of the books or just came up with it myself, I can’t recall). The idea that my choices were inevitable bothered me, so I considered how I might escape what seemed like an external control. It struck me that all I needed to do was to wait till I had a decision to make, between A and B, and if I felt myself leaning heavily toward A, I would simply choose B instead. So easy! But then it occurred to me that my desire to thwart inevitability had caused B to become the inevitable choice, so I would have to switch back to A again, but then … it was an infinite loop! No matter which I chose, inevitability would continue to switch to match my choice! Hmm. So, who was controlling the choice, me or inevitability? Well, the concern that was driving my thought process was my own. Inevitability was not some entity driving this process for its own reasons. And I imagined that if inevitability were such an entity, it would be sitting there in the library laughing at me, because it made me go through these gyrations without doing anything at all, except for me thinking about it. My choice may be a deterministic event, but it was an event where I was actually the one doing the choosing. And that is what free will is really about: is it me or is someone or something else making the decision. It was always really me. And since the solution was so simple, I no longer gave it any thought. Then much later, just a few years ago, I ran into some on-line discussions about it, and I wondered why it was still a problem for everyone else, since I had seen through the paradox more than fifty years ago.
What you mean by the word "me" is what makes your argument not accurate. You're talking about the "self" which is what owns your body and mind. But that simply doesn't exist, It's an illusion. What "you" are is just the complexity of mind and body and nothing more. When you feel you're making a choice, "you" are nowhere to be found. And that's where determinism is the only reality that makes any sense. You might want to read a book called "Free Will" by Sam Harris. He explains all of what I've just described in detail and it's a very straight to the point book.
The biological determinists out here and their complete blindness to the fact most of these claims have zero science-based evidence. Just a bunch of formally logical conclusions tied together with no real substance behind it.
i think that's exactly wrong. Because the self doesn't exist, free will does exist at the level of you, at the level of the self. If the self were real it would be constrained totally by determinism,as your organs and body are, and there would be no free will, . Free will is illusory, out there in nature, it like the self, is nowhere to be found. Where it's found is with you, it's the operating mode appropriate to the self. @@boringhfitness5304
"Take what is given" perhaps influence from that starting point. Knowing is half the battle.
Of course, whether we have “X” or not depends entirely upon our definition of “X”. But if free will means the ability to make choices based on our perception of circumstances in our environment, and we don’t have that ability, I don’t see how learning anything could ever influence whether we burn the witch or not. If we can’t change our behavior based on new or different information, we can’t stop burning the witch no matter what science proves about free will. It’s a self-defeating argument. Perhaps more troubling to me is that a scientist would include in his argument against the existence of something, the practical benefits of believing that way. It’s either that way or not, based only on evidence. The benefits or drawbacks will fall where they may. And for that matter, we don’t have to wait for the free will debate to be settled before we can decide whether to be kind or cruel to our fellow humans. All that is required is compassion right now. And we can access that capacity for compassion only, it seems to me, if we have free will. The only definition of free will that does not appear to me to be a useless tautology is… the human ability to choose behavior that is counter to what our biological instincts urge us to do. And all of the many other determining influences notwithstanding, we do apparently have at least some of that ability occasionally. It may only be three minutes, but it is a sacred three minutes. Peace ❤️
Changing our behaviour based on new information does not require free will.
How so? Is the change automatic, then? You may find David Hume’s work useful, then, as your understanding of causation lacks complexity.
@@sjoerd1239 Good to know! So what then IS free will?
@@skadoodaks2275 Free will is the ability to do other than we do. It is the ability for someone to do something other than is otherwise explicable. If determinism is true, then there is no free will. We are biological robots that respond to the circumstances in which we exist.
I needn’t have been reminded of your admirable attributes-and that was the icing on this cake! However, one question popped up: the heavy lift here, one which needed deep intellectual honesty, was taking some concept (agency and agentic) from a scientific context to a social one! How is that you reversed the direction (twice) in response to your detractors?! What significance would it have, in the scientific context, that more people would be unburdened by ‘not their fault false agency’ than not? Science and truth are those, regardless of their social consequences.
I understand his point. However there are decisions I make in my daily life that involve FREE WILL as I have different possibilities to choose. Our experiences are everything!!!!
I recommend to relisten, but with an open mind this time. And maybe even a 3rd time. It's hard to gras concepts that are alien. Do you know anybody who decides to go into depression? Into lead or mercury poisoning? Even foods alter your mood which alter decisions. You are not in control of anything even if you have the illusion of control of many things
He is extremely honest with his understanding. Splendid
Reminds me of the Merovingians philosophy in the movie matrix reloaded
Yes, I am the lucky one who has the privilege to listen to you RobertBhai.😊
새폴스키의 농담은 제게 잘 통하는 것 같아요. 한국에 최근에 번역된 "행동"은 800쪽이 넘지만 지루하지 않았습니다.
As one of the "lucky ones" Ive been completely messed up ever since I discovered his new lectures on free will. My worldview is challenged at every step. Not sure how everyone around me thinks but everything iny life has been measured based on competition and willpower (to this point) ...I am still a motivated individual but I actually feel MORE lucky that I just learned about the abscence of free will at 45 and not as a kid who had to work their ass off for every tiny bit of success
The earlier you know there is no free will the better as an older brain has already been shaped to believe a falsehood. Changing one's beliefs can be a shock even if you know longer believe in what you believed..its a process it takes time to adjust. Have lots of compassion for yourself.
I think learning it at an early age may be beneficial to some extent. You learn that it's not just "your will". You will learn about how your environment truly affects you and your behavior and not just rest everything on your "will". For example, if you want to leave alcohol or drugs or other bad habits, you better start cutting contact with bad friends and not just rely on your "will" to ignore those bad habits.
While I see the deterministic nature of life and our attachment to this, I would wonder whether our "free will" was connected to our ability to choose our attitude and/or our participation or non-participation in these determining factors. What do you think?
Hello all! Been reading some of the criticism here and I like the points some people are making. I've also been troubled by the notion of lack of free will, entitlement, etc (being one of the lucky ones). I still don't think there's free will in the sense in which we're all brought up to think about it, but there are certain subtleties that helped me frame it better (and hopefully explain it to others, including my kids when they're old enough to worry about such things). Our will doesn't follow "us", we follow our will. There is an us in the picture, we're not puppets. Will is free in the sense that it's not pre-determined, i.e. we cannot accurately predict it and that's because of environment, chance events, chaos, Brownian motion, whatever you wanna call it (nobody could tell you exactly what you'd be doing at 9:17 tomorrow morning, even if they had full data on all the atoms in your body). Lack of "free will" is a scary prospect and we've already seen examples in the comments here of how that can be paralyzing (is there any point in doing anything? I'm going to choose what I wouldn't normally, it's depressing, etc). So it makes sense that with the evolution of self-consciousness, we have also evolved a sense of free will. And it's very tough to think about the lack of it and of course it's depressing and paralyzing. What now? You don't have to think about it every day. But think about it next time you decide to judge someone harshly, or fight with your partner about how they "always" do this or that, or your child because they are being "naughty" or an adversary that's set to make your life miserable. This very comment is not a result of free will, but it is very much a result of circumstance (having a high sense of righteousness, being fortunate enough to have caring parents and a high enough education, accepting a job where I met a colleague who recommended Sapolsky, reading some of his books, and binging on youtube). However what this comment might do is, by someone's chance encounter with it, sway their path ever so slightly. And this is how it goes. What is the net effect? We are all gaining more knowledge, empathy, understanding. We are evolving (no surprise there). So I'm not too worried about it. I'm fortunate enough to be stuck with "me", a mostly homeostatic individual, and I'm loving the ride that my will is giving me!
It sounds like you think we have free will, but our free will is very limited. It is not clear. Our will doesn't follow us and we don't follow our will. It is an integral part of us. Our will is a state of the moment that has consequences. You would need much more than full data on your body. You'd need all the information about the environment that could affect you up until that time as well and the capacity to analyse it. However, that we cannot predict it does not mean that it is unpredictable, and unpredictability does not mean undetermined. I don't know how this will change the scary bit, but if there is no free will, then there never was.
Thx bromo
Best scientist I personally know of, after Chomsky, taking into account the breadth and depth of ideas. Is he also the most quoted scientist these days...??
Thank you
We can't turn off the wind - but we definitely can steer at times and adjust the sails. The idea that we have no control doesn't fit with reality
We can make choices yes but those choices are predetermined and not free.
@@plotofland2928 What if your choices are both predetermined AND free? As in your choices are locally unpredictable, as compared to a non-living object that doesn't make choices at all, while also being fully generated by some mathematical function (the laws of physics/entropy/nature). That's what most of us mean by free will. It's just a way to differentiate complex individuals that have internal processes based on unique programming (DNA), versus simple individuals that always react the same way in the same situation, like a pen, or rock.
tonight i was lucky" spring is coming - so i had a firewood-break
Does anyone know the source of the graph at 9:02 of the MoA-a gene effect on aggression in combination with childhood maltreatment.
I am a bit surprised that Sapolsky finds himself on the “lunatic” fringe. Sapolsky doesn’t bring a new idea. He brings a mountain of new objective evidence. Proponents of free will bring intuition without objective evidence. Chaos theory is misnamed. The system evolves according to the starting conditions and any outside influences it encounters along the way. The systems are not reducible to parts alone, as Sapolsky conforms to classical reductionism. However, they are reducible to a repetitive process making use of one or more type of identical parts. Quantum events are, at least, statistically determined. There is no good reason to believe quantum events are truly random, like any other so-called random events.
I am still on the fence about free will, as all this Sapolsky stuff seems like a category error or an error of scale. As soon as it's I or we that has free will, it seems plausible that it is real relative to us. Selves, rather than our physical dimensions and biological processes, aren't real - just a story these real and determined elements and agents give rise to. If selves were real, they would, via determines, not have free will. Brains don't have free will. But does the story the brain spins have free will? It seems so, and maybe this is what "only a simulation can be conscious" means.
If there is no free will, the book you're selling doesn't matter
Dr robert what do you think of the power of belief? If someone believes in free will won't their life be generally better than those who don't? Wouldn't they be more open to hard things? because they can get out of their comfort zone and better themelves? and aside from the power of belief if a depressed individual learns about the fact that there is no free will, sure thing it'll help with the guilt (that they couldn't have pulled themselves out of it and that if they've tried to kill themselves it's not their fault it's just a defeciency in some neurottansmitters and so on) but how does that make their life better? knowing the fact that they turned out that way as a result of all the antecedent causes, now wouldn't that put them at a disadvantage their whole life? I think it does them worse to know there is no free will, am i wrong? I mean which is an easier case for a therapist to treat? Someone with depression who believes in free will or someone with depression who knows it's bullshit?
funny I finished his awesome lecture series when I was 16 , I am not behavioral biologist, grew up in a collective social group, I am studying architecture now and found that his father was an influential architect in NY , it’s not random that I have the intent to build for others :)
Your book is amazing and it has revolutionized my entire way of thinking and looking at the mechanics of all. Recently the Godfather of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, predicted that AI will develop autonomy and can pose a danger to Human Life. I would be curious about how you see it.
Entertaining and informative-he’s probably a popular professor if he’s still around. HOWEVER-completely ridiculous to state that choice has no effect on who someone becomes. E.g., someone who becomes a mass murderer had no choice, but was destined to become that person? Really? There is predisposition, but there is ALWAYS an element of choice in the equation.
Keep clutching that straw.
Thanks for putting together with scientific facts. As a victim of Prenatal trauma I’ve come to a similar conclusion through my search. Our ‘free will’ is designed by the past and constricted by the future. Future is a reflection of the past. We have to use our will to overcome it, irreverent of whether it’s free or predetermined. “You may not know it, but you can be it” - Lao Tzu.
You do understand that you cannot use something you do not have control of (e.g., will in this case if there’s no free will indeed)? I don’t get why this conclusion is not obvious enough to people.
I think we have a language problem with the phrase "free will"- that different people really just don't hear the same thing when you say it. Like, I think all people can agree that *violence is real*, that it matters, that it is diffetent from not violence. And violence means someone's choice being invaded by someone else's. So in the name of preventing violence, we call all agree that some nebulous thing called "choice" is located somewhere. And we can all probably agree that, regardless of genetics and epigenetics and culture and childhood conditioning and physiological conditions like depression- choice, the inviolable idea of where a person begins, exists in the body. The reason not to hit someone is that they don't want you to. So what the heck is "wanting"? Whatever it is, we tacitly accept that it matters. On a pragmatic and theoretical level, we abide to the treatment of distinguishing a beginning and end of personhood; and that boundary is drawn by the location of choice. I think all of us believe in something dialectical. That there two are categories of phenomena we call Choice and Circumstance, and that they both constantly affect the other. I think we're really finding that the border between them changes relative to where we stand. But naming that border only matters if it helps us! If the term trips you up and confuses you or leads you into despair, then its something to discard. It's a device of language- and language is an invention made for human well being. There's no falsehood in letting go of language when it doesn't serve well being.
There is a language problem. We behave and use language as if we have free will. It is difficult to look at free will objectively because we are the subject. If determinism is correct, then there is no free will. If we do not have free will, then we do not have choice in the way we generally treat our choices. We select (determine) from options. The selection is not optional, in the way optional is generally treated when free will is assumed. To be convinced of not having free will requires overcoming the intuition of having free will, which is subjective. If we can be objective, say by imagining we are looking from a third person point of view, then it is not so hard, except that it is hard to maintain that point of view.
you say a lot of stuff that says nothing.
We do have free will, it's just not in our awareness, it is controlled by our future self, we only witness our choices after the fact like watching a movie frame of every now. Since we are a connected whole we do access our future self that continuously comes into being. Our core being (soul) determins the progression which collapses our wave function for successive nows.
That does not explain away determinism. "it is controlled by our future self" Effect and cause? Cause and effect backwards? The future causing the present? How is it still not determinism anyway? We don't have a soul. That is your cop out justification for what you do not understand (it is not an explanation).
Correct 💯💯💯
So how do we "choose" to alter the many environmental influences to make a better society given there is no ability to choose. Societal improvement must then be just chance or evolutionary processes? Evolutionary "success" being directed by efficient outcomes? Many, many questions regarding individual motivation to do or not do is raised in my mind. Interesting that Professor Sapolsky struggles with incorporating a no freewill mindset.
👏🏼
Thank You, it îs fantastic that science îs now proven this determinism in our lives. The most easy to feel that îs by persoane who had multiple childhood adverse experiences. But people who have this score 0, they really could not imagine how was the life of the first category above. It is inconceivable for them that such life could exist for someone, so they would not believe. No one who had a really traumatic past will never contradict this science. Omraam Mikchael Aivanhov. told decades ago that If one generation of mothers would get the right care and safety during pregnancy, this will change for ever our world for the better. Further more, this lack of free will could be perceived by anyone who had a sincere self-reflection and sincere "seeking of the truth". But people who never had such intentions know nothing about themselves and from this ignorance only denial could raise.
Just try your best, but understand no one is perfect and things are going to happen. Just keep working.
people listening to this from a library connection homeless :( now i know there's no hope
If you're aware there's such a thing as hope, then nothing in life is hopeless. We are entitled to what we wish for rather than what we are told to give up on.
"beyond freedom and dignity" B.F.Skinner, glad to see his ideas recognised 70 years after.
Yeah, I'm following Friedman. Reuven is my man, actually... Ideally!
Is free will the same as having control? Wouldn't learning what influences your behaviour make you more capable of controling it. For example, if you know low blood sugar influences decision making then you can take steps to avoid making decisions while hungry. The same is you are predisposed to anxiety disorder you can try to make life style choices to reduce stress etc. You can't predict the outcome but knowledge about how you function, your predispositions, would help you control it more as to avoid a more negative one.
A robot can do those kinds of things.
lol you obviously don't realize how far the rabbit hole goes, your entire brain structure, the amount of hormones produced, your epigenetics, all of it influence how you percieved the world , how you act and think. There is no controlling anything.
What do you define as will and free will?
I want to believe in determinism, but I just can't.
Consider where the universe's actions come from if not some set of rules. As I see it, there are three basic models for how reality could be generated (which Sapolsky talks about, sort of, in the book): 1. A fully deterministic, simple, fully linear pattern. E.g., 1234567890... or whatever. 2. A fully entropic, deterministically random pattern (see: Pascal's triangle) generating all possible states/timelines/linear-patterns of matter~energy 3. A combination of the above: A non-deterministic arbitrary or random pattern that plays out in a single linear way (Note, concepts of "God" still fit into these, just with an added level of questions about level of control, and which of the three options created God, of course.) If 1 is how we come into being, then life is basically just a book. Did the book always exist? We characters might still be unpredictable from within the story (like how the next prime number is an unpredictable distance away from any given prime number) and be said to have free will, when compared to other characters, or non-characters (books in the book!). But, we have to ask "Why THIS book?" If 2 is the case, then literally everything is explainable, and there's no need to ask why, because EVERYTHING that's possible happens, through a simple mathematical function of repeated division and recombination across the whole space of existence. (No universe picking this-but-not-that.) Free will is the timelines/individuals that are in the middle of the bell curve, with more variability than other things on the pure-matter, or pure-energy, like rocks, or radio waves. If it's 3, we're back to having to ask "Why this one?" If dice are being rolled generatively, but the entire universe is operating as the outcome of just one random roll, then what determines the outcome of the roll? (I think this is where most "omnipotent God" stories show up, with God picking the single outcome based on its own preferences, but, again, we'd have to then ask why THIS particular God, and are there other Gods running other universes?) In this case of a single linear, random outcome universe, we can go back to calling free will the difference between individuals/systems that are complex vs. simple-patterned systems/individuals. Which one do you imagine your universe is created via? Or can you imagine some other option?
Sapolsky is a scientist/public speaker trying to spread the scientific understanding in his field to the masses! He is successful only partially.
Is it me or there is a huge discrepancy between saying something has a "high probability of" and "determined". While I love this entire topic and how our genes and environment may affect our behaviour, there's a not small gap between "likelihood" and "certainty".
All of the conclusions are valid only if you presuppose a total material universe. But if you include things like God, spirit, demons & angels, the conclusions are incorrect. Nevertheless I do agree that understanding why people behave the way they do, will improve the world in terms of increasing empathy and compassion. Great talk!
Wonder what kind of book it will be
Anybody know if being hungry or decision fatigue would play a bigger or equal role in judges decisions?
Read Noise by Kanehmann
Interesting theory can't say that I agree but still interesting to think about
where did that response come from? It just appeared didn't it?
If experience shapes your brain, what does that say about manifestation and imagining certain positive outcomes? As we know you can induce the same feelings by just imagining a scenario vs it being real.
I think this idea has been pondered for several thousand years. At least rabbis and priests of today claim that Adam & Eve had a perfect environment until they desired knowledge and then God -- and in even older versions, the gods -- gave them free will. With this logic, humans are said to be fortunate to have free will, though they used knowledge to defy God and make a "fallen world", according to some traditions. MY POINT IS=> I think humans have had inklings for quite some time, of what Dr. Sapolsky is presenting in his research. What I like about this research is it ought to, once and for all, butt kick the idea that people can think themselves well or sick. Illness is physiological and no amount of positive thinking or will power will affect that physiology, IMO. Pertinent case for the times=> Prior to Long C-------, many people got something called ME/CFS and doctors labelled this "mental". Suffering people were supposed to think themselves well! Suddenly, the recent disaster has put the global spotlight of shame upon this sort of idea! I tend to agree with a lot of this research. I view illnesses as primarily genetic with little influence from the environment. However, the history of humanity is all about steady improvements in the environment. Over 100,000 years ago, prototype humans were not doomed to a life of gathering plant foods and occasionally scavenging the kills of apex predators. Perhaps more important, we did not remain dependent upon finding available shelter such as caves, and we learned to use fire as a tool. Animals that grazed the plains back then still graze as they did. The predators that have survived, are still carnivorous predators. Humans are one of the few species that can remarkably alter their environments. The term 'hive mind' has a different meaning to me, I think, than it does for many. I have an idea that collective knowledge from multiple humans contributes to the overall survival.
Interesting and entertaining. It makes sense on a grand level, but practically speaking the reality is that the quality of one's experience is determined by the "energy" they put out. Granted this may be determined by how one's prefrontal cortex developed, but the concept of "choice" and "intent" is an important one. Couldn't it be said there's a reason for the existence of the old axiom," what goes around comes around", otherwise it wouldn't exist? Omg - we'll have murderers run amok with brain tumors operated on by clowns masquerading as surgeons! 🤯 In examining the idea of retribution for crime - isn't there a difference between getting back at someone for pleasure vs. constraining them from destructive behavior? Is containing destrucive behavior always a trigger for dopamine? Couldn't other factors be at play, such as the relief of cortisol production? As a society, how do we push back against this horrific tendency to evolve toward sadistic behavior? We are like lemmings headed for a cliff. How do we strengthen our prefrontal cortexes? Have the kids do more puzzles? Really like chaos theory, although my understanding of it is limited. We can't predict the future? True, to some extent, but how would he explain the many avenues of prognistication that have existed for milennia, such as tea leaves, card reading, astrology and the like. These are about as well understood on some levels as rolling a pair of dice, yet they have survived and evolved for thousands of years. Why? He makes me wonder if things that haven't happened yet may have already happened? Agree we have a large capacity for self-deception. We see it all the time in the car business 🙃 Lol - I wonder what he drives? 😀 Thanks and appreciation. I thought it was a great discussion. Wish him good luck. Thanks for sharing.
While I'm not oblivious to the fact that this is a scientific book, I firmly believe that free will is essential for human dignity and aura. I'm also genuinely curious about how my professor of Russian literature would comment on this book.
Are you saying that the belief in free will is necessary for a functional society?
You are confusing your circumstances, which you do not have control over, to the choice of how you respond to them, which you do have control over.
No, neither is under your control. I am 100% sure of this (and I am not a very decisive person). Give me an example and I will disprove it.
"With the exception of the artificial and abstract thinker in you, you are pure Nature". This is a phrase from a book titled Toward your Real Self.
Totally true, we are part of systems
So all our decisions (choices) are based on our cumulative physiology starting before our birth up to right now (pre-determined). And our future decisions are the same. And information or miss-information physically changes our brains assuming we have the capacity to learn - no brain damage for example. This reminds me of the story of the scorpion and the frog.
I feel like similar to how quantum theory shattered the conception of determinism in physics, looking at macro behavior is different from micro behavior, and if we look at micro behavior I think it might show quantum mechanical uncertainty might affect micro behavior of attention: where you place your attention is at the root of free will beyond being an agent.
Quantum theory has not shattered the concept of determinism in science.
OK, fine. Now for a test: Can you make yourself shed (or even drastically trim) that massive facial growth, moving against whatever has been the reason, the compulsion or the lack of initiative to do so thus far? I'm not sure I'm kidding. Maybe I had no choice to make this comment.
I think quit is just as interesting as choice in understanding the complete human experience.
I don't care if there is free will or not. I am simply being until I'm not. " A poem by my free will." 😅
Two thoughts: 1. He had to say what he has said - it was determined since the Big Bang. There is no WILL, no brilliance, no genius. He just is what he is, without any choice, each pre-determined effect following each inevitable cause, just as he says all of us are. 2. What is the point of praising him for his insights? You wouldn't praise a machine that did what it had to inevitably do, would you? But that the position in which he has placed himself. If there is to be no punishment for "bad" acts, there certainly can't be any reward for "good" ones.
The point of praising him for his insights? To motivate him to keep sharing them. We may understand intellectually that there is nl free will but even those of us that do act like there is because that is how society has taught us.
The last chapter of War and Peace is an essay all about how free will is an illusion
I find this topic fascinating, but at the same time struggle to wrap my head around it. I don’t know that I could survive thinking in this way. I have cultivated a strong sense of an internal locus of control which has contributed to feeling more fulfilled and less stressed. So my questions would be how do concepts like external/internal locus of control and cognitive based therapies fit in to this idea of free will? When we get to the point in medical science that we can choose to alter our epigenome to account for environmental changes, does that change the idea of free will? And lastly, what does it look like to apply this to biological twins, who we know can have different epigenetical changes as shown by one getting cancer while the other does not?
I don't believe in free will too but have no problem at all functioning normally. No one will. Some religious people claim these conclusion will make people not rake responsibility or believe they can be in control of their own lifes, I don't believe it. Believing free will is an illusion doesn't stop me from thinking I've control over my life or make me to start acting with no care in the world, this behaviors will still register as a conscious choice in my brain no matter if free will exists or not.
I completely agree with you but the problem is not you or I. I am afraid of no free will becoming a mainstream ideas because some of the population will misinterpret this to mean that they can discard their morals and commit atrocious acts. I don't want this idea to spread into the mainstream (although I doubt it will anyway) because it is to abrupt of a shift in public consciousness. We need to come to this realization slowly.
but professor you said that the prefrontal cortex will discourage you from doing things suggested by your impulses and biological history. but isn't this a proof of a freewill? also when you say that we have to push against our sense of pleasure of punishment, how can we do that if we dont have some freewill and control?
This will be great for gym membership. You go in and fill out a questionnaire. They tell you straight up “don’t bother” or “let’s get you signed up”.