วีดีโอ

I liked the answer of Robert Sapolsky at the question, in the end, about how he makes sense of our illusion that we're free agents: Because it's wonderfully protective. Which reminds me the old Woody Allen joke about this guy who walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs. Overall, I really enjoyed the civility and richness of the debate. I was certainly predisposed to it, but I must say that Professor Sapolsky's work has profoundly contributed to my radical change of point of view on the supposed virtues of will and self-determination: Nietzsche takes some beating here...

I appreciate this channel and I really enjoy this discussion format . I can actually listen to each point without having to wade through attacks and heated arguing

Neither of them have a convincing answer

se poate lucra cu dvs. in particular la filosofie? mulțumesc!

It is still remarkable that Chomsky holds that there is no notion of "reference", if there is no "reference", there is no truth conditional semantics. And maybe this will lead to the conclusion that there is no semantics in "language". However, as a syntactician, I sometimes find remarkable works in "semantics" (Chomsky will still say syntax, or it is merely wrong). One is Chierchia's nominal mapping hypothesis. It is the notion of semantics, whether the meanings of bare nouns in your language is a "kind" or a "logical predicate" drives the system to have a plural morpheme, classifier, and even a definite article. Syntacticians would not agree with this, but Chierchia's proposal is very persuasive for me, at least the spirit is, if not the details. The other thing is that when Kratzer put the event variables in the syntax for a separate "projection", VoiceP. The notion of Davidsonian event semantics is purely based on what is happening at the CI interface; that's pre-coded in the syntax? Pretty much remarkable! As a syntactician, I cherish many works from formal semantics, and I don't think it is impossible to converge syntax and semantics if we do not pursue the minimalist program like Chomsky argues. For example, getting rid of inclusiveness condition will let us have lambda abstractions, indices, and operators in the syntax, and this will let the system to cover many exciting things. So there IS semantics (as a part of syntax, though), and pursuing together will be exciting!

Good conversation \ debate, the win goes to Sapoisky though.

What a conman Mitchell is...

At around 3:40 into the video, Mitchell betrays his objectivity by stating "...or even worse, we're just collections of particles obeying the laws of physics." He doesn't like the possibility of not having free will so he builds his entire argument to support the conclusion he *_wants_* to believe rather than a conclusion supported solely by evidence. But I don't blame him for taking that path; he really had no choice in the matter.

So it’s not a choice how much free will you have if you have any??? Aight.

I like Sapolsky but I gotta disagree with him. Yeah, there's a lot of factors influencing our decisions. And we *are* those factors. What would I be if I didn't have my genes or disorders or life experiences? Somebody entirely different. Just because genetics has made me susceptible to anxiety doesn't mean that it isn't *my* anxiety.

Comment 3, paused to reflect Meditating on Sapolsky's argument a bit, I suggest modeling it as: Claim that Free Will is required for Moral Responsibility. This is widely agreed upon. Enumerate a long and confused list of factors that are known or suspected of affecting decision making. These are widely agreed upon. Believes that he has confused himself and his audience with this list and concluded that humans cannot be responsible for their actions - this conclusion in no way follows from the first two! Further concludes that because humans cannot be held accountable for their actions, we do not have free will - Logical Fail!

Comment 2 to this thread a bit of expansion Sapolsky's opening barrage of environmental and cultural diversity intended to confuse and subdue his audience into accepting his prognosis of determinism actually supports free will far more than determinism. A deterministic system can only operate within the specific environment it was designed for, can only accept input of a form and format fitting its design limitations. That a human can not only function across a great diversity of climates and cultures but thrives even longs for diversity in habitat, food and fashion. Humans change their habits on a whim - a deterministic system would freeze up and malfunction.

Sorry, but Sapolsky is just throwing out buckets of chaff to confuse the argument and essentially claiming that because I have confused everyone, I must be right. Everything mentioned by Sapolsky does color our choices but does not dictate any choice. The clearest demonstrable difference is that a deterministic system does not innovate. A deterministic system would not speculate, dream or fanaticize. A deterministic system would be fully reactive, not reflective. There is one definitive test for this or any existence question - a definitive example. If there is even one case of something that requires free will, then the question is solved. Human Language. There is no fixed, determined word which exclusively identifies any object either today or across time. There is no fixed format for a sentence. No deterministic system could make sense of human language. And before you ask, no computer built since the '60's is a deterministic system either. A few simple software tricks and computers are no longer deterministic either - they can solve many more problems with this change.

My opinion on free will is that, thus far, all evidence seems to indicate that there are external and physiological events that alter human behavior, but whether they are strict determinants or mere influences that bias our choices remains to be settled. Given this uncertainty, I think we should error on the side of compassion and structure our institutions under the assumption that we do not have agency. Yet at the same time, I think it's perfectly okay to believe in a soft form of agent causal free will until we either succeed or fail in boiling down all the behaviors of a person to purely mechanistic processes.

Trying to discuss this without defining consciousness, "you", "free" or "will" is silly. Sapolsky is making huge leaps in reductionism. And he's reducing Mitchell's arguments down to unfettered free will, which Mitchell is not saying at all. Look, when Sapolsky says "you just think you made a choice." But who is the "you" he's referring to? Where does that you reside? What is rationality? What is thought? In Sapolsky's view, those are all superfluous. In fact, why did Sapolsky write his book? If he believs in full causal determinism, there's no reason to have reason. In Sapolsky's book he ends by saying that humanity will have regrets for the way it treats prisoners, for example. But regret would require culpability. And culpability requires agency. Sapolsky is running far ahead of what he knows or can prove.

Robert Sapolsky discusses free will with a free will researcher: th-cam.com/video/SdgujEWbexQ/w-d-xo.html

It's weird that Sapolsky only is willing to call it free will if it is free from all prior causes. That's just not necessary for it to be free will. He seems a little stubborn.

Mitchell is obviously right here. Also, they are talking about two different things, Mitchell is taking about how physical systems can even evolve agency and causal power, Sapolsky is arguing why many decisions are done subconsciously before becoming conscious. There is no contradiction.

They need to start with a definition of free will that isn't nonsensical before going on to disprove it's existence. They also should be able to say what should be true that would make their claim about free wills non existence false.

34:20 the best reply to putnams twin earth

Bob wins

Dreapta (politica) foloseste selectia naturala pe post de d-zeu. Capitalismul in sine e o extindere a selectiei naturale in sfera socio-economica (rezista cine (ce firma/persoana juridica) poate). Si are moralitatea competitiei, asa cum imoral in sport sa pierzi puncte din mila pt adversarul tau. Ei folosesc logica asta si-n viata, adica e imoral sa-l ajuti pe X, caci il salvezi sau o ia inainte pe nemeritate. Ce nu realizeaza ei e ca sportul e o joaca, unde adversarii vor sa vada (de curiozitate) care-i mai tare, deci e ok sa-ti distrugi adversarul acolo, insa viata reala nu-i o joaca - nu participi benevol la o astfel de competitie. Deci sa folosesti moralitatea asta competitionala inseamna doar sa fi crud. Stanga (eu sunt de stanga) crede in spiritualitate (spiritul uman, adica atunci cand te pui in pielea altuia) ca fiind d-zeu. Moralitatea colaborarii ca sa spun asa. Stanga deci considera ca spiritul e supranatural, adica are realizari infinit peste ce poate produce natura prin selectie naturala. Oricat (timp/generatii) s-ar chinui o specie de maimute sa evolueze, nu vor putea zbura si pe Marte, si pe la fundul oceanelor, etc. Omul n-are nicio modificare genetica de zeci de mii de ani si traieste complet diferit fata de vremea pesterilor. Colaborarea "impersonala" (adica spirituala, cand nu-ti mai vezi eul, interesul personal) creaza spiritul uman, care-i o entitate virtuala ca un software care ruleaza pe creiere umane (hardware), sau poate in viitor si pe computere.. Normal ca fata de o astfel de colaborare e inferior sa ai o competitie intre indivizi si sa-l promovezi pe cel care castiga. Oricat de tare ar fi, tot un simplu individ e. Insa recunosc meritul selectiei naturale ca sa evoluam pana-n punctul de-a putea avea "hardware" care sa suporte instalarea software-ului "Spiritul uman". Insa odata ce-l avem pe d-zeu (practic), nu mai e nevoie de atata suferinta (competitie). Stiinta (spiritul uman) poate va putea umbla la gene sa-i ajutem pe cei cu deficiente genetice.. deci nu mai e nevoie de eugenie (ceea ce esential face filosofia de dreapta, mai pe fata sau mai pe-ascuns).

Eu de mult am zis (pt mine) ca nu exista liber arbitru. Cel mai simplu spus: Avem un CPU (creier) care ia decizii conform celor stiute. Pai, CPU-ul nu e construit de noi, ci e primit (nu putem fi mai inteligenti oricat ne-am chinui), iar ce stim ..e la noroc.. ce-am avut norocul sa aflam (ca de vrut, normal ca vrem sa ne fie cel mai bine, sa stim ce ne trebuie, etc). Altfel spus: Eu n-am libertatea de-a alege decat cea mai buna optiune, iar ce cred eu ca-i cea mai buna optiune e pe baza cunostintelor (de care am avut norocul sa dau), si analizez cu-n creier vai de mama lui (primit genetic). E ca si cum ai avea de ales intre 1: a muri de foame maine, si 2: a nu muri de foame ci a duce un trai bun. Normal ca alegi optiunea 2, care poate ca inseamna sa jefuiesti pe cineva, caci atata te-a dus capul, si ca asa ai vazut in cartierul tau ca se face. Cum poti sa-l tragi la raspundere pe unul care atat a putut gandi? A, ok, il carantinezi daca-i periculos si vezi ca atata e in stare sa faca, dar n-ai de ce sa-i doresti raul (ca si cum a avut liber arbitru). Culmea, deci, ca toti religiosii care chipurile vor sa fie a-tot-iubitor ca Iisus, insa nu pot, fac greseala ca tin cu dintii la liberul arbitru. Ia sa gandeasca fara liberul arbitru si-o sa vada cum devin iubitori.. asa cum iubesti si cainele tau, si-l ierti chiar daca face vreo boacana, caci stii ca atat il duce capul.. Chiar daca-l pedepsesti ca masura de corectie.

Great debate, thanks PT

Robert could be explaining why an assassin freely decides to kill while a pacifist freely decide not to kill. Both deliberate and make a free-will choice based on their beliefs and values (assuming no coercion or mental impairment). Robert just seems to be explaining why they reach quite different conclusions. But worse, he is suggesting that the pacifist should not be praised and the killer should not be blamed. I can actually hear the assassin laughing at this in my head! Not very profound, what am I missing? I’m on Kevin’s side. Why trash praise and blame, it’s even more important if strong determinism!

Great conversation!

Host, you did a great job 👌👏

Sapolskys comments at the beginning about appreciating the two viewpoints being shared at the same time in their respective books was so wholesome. Love this guy

The last stand of the homunculus...the philosopher enchanted by his unidentified linguistic bewitchment..

Singura teorie care răspunde la orice întrebare:cine suntem,încotro ne îndreptăm,ce avem de făcut este credință în Dumnezeu.

While I love this format, there is no debate. The only reason why people insist there's a "debate" is because they simply can not handle the answer. At no point are your decisions not constrained or controlled by your personal limitations in reason, knowledge, perception and/or emotion - none of which you had a hand in setting. To entertain free will is to entertain that your thoughts are divorced from anything and everything that would steer them including causality itself. In short, to believe you have free will, you would have to entertain two things: your behavior is fundamentally random, and that you are God or a god.

OK. Bottom line. Sapolsky won that hands down.

Human beings have no free Will. As the philosopher Schopenhauer said: Human beings can do what they want, but cannot choose what they want . The world is determined by the past plus Quantum random behave,there is no place or possibility for a free Will

Lol the universe which is 100% determined somehow invented a functionality called "free will" for the sake of amusement lol

Tim Crane @ ~ 10:00 rejects the question, "How can an immaterial thing think?" on the grounds that "immaterial thing" has already been characterized in terms of thought. This is a mistake. Here is a replacement question: "How can there be a thing characterized by thought?" If he cannot answer that question - How can there be a thing characterized by thought? - then he doesn't have an answer at all.

Frumos. Felicitari

Two of my favorit authors of all time! Greatest real discussion ever thank you

If there could be a scenario in which all relevant prior influences would be predicted to cause the person to pull the trigger and yet he did not pull it, I suppose that would prove free will. But, so far, we cannot ascertain all the prior causes, so we cannot know. This is the only way I have thought of to falsify Sapolsky's thesis.

I don't understand how Kevin is in neuroscience, it's apparent his god bothering comes first as a priority, which is never good for science. 18:48 , boom there is the entire take down of Kevin. I don't see how he's a neuroscientist, this Kevin guy, and I really wish that R.S. would not act like Kevin put out a good book, it's clearly not. The priority is not to be combative, but the priority should be not to mislead people in to thinking this is some issue with two legit sides, when actually the science is clear and it's ridiculous to argue Kevin's position. Lay people don't have a sense of how ridiculous it is and how Kevin is showing Ben Carson levels of obtuse here.

### Robert Sapolsky's Books: 1. **"A Primate's Memoir: A Neuroscientist's Unconventional Life Among the Baboons"** - **Summary**: This memoir chronicles Sapolsky's fieldwork in Kenya studying baboons. Through personal anecdotes and scientific observations, he explores the social dynamics of baboon troops and reflects on human nature. The book blends humor with poignant insights into primate and human behavior. 2. **"Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers: The Acclaimed Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases, and Coping"** - **Summary**: Sapolsky explains the physiological effects of stress and why chronic stress can lead to serious health problems. He discusses how stress affects the body's systems and offers practical advice for managing stress. The book combines scientific explanations with accessible language, making complex topics understandable. 3. **"Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst"** - **Summary**: This comprehensive work examines the biological and environmental factors influencing human behavior. Sapolsky covers the role of genetics, brain development, hormones, and social context in shaping actions. The book explores various behaviors, from empathy to aggression, and provides a detailed look at the science behind why we behave the way we do. 4. **"The Trouble with Testosterone: And Other Essays on the Biology of the Human Predicament"** - **Summary**: A collection of essays that explore different aspects of human behavior and biology. Sapolsky addresses topics such as the impact of testosterone on behavior, the biology of violence, and the nature of human individuality. Each essay blends scientific research with engaging storytelling. 5. **"Monkeyluv: And Other Essays on Our Lives as Animals"** - **Summary**: This book offers a series of essays on human and animal behavior, highlighting the similarities and differences. Sapolsky discusses a wide range of topics, from the genetics of love to the neurological basis of belief. The essays reveal the complex interplay between biology and behavior. 6. **"Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will"** - **Summary**: In this provocative book, Sapolsky argues that free will is an illusion, presenting evidence from neuroscience and biology. He explores the implications of this perspective for personal responsibility, morality, and the justice system. The book challenges readers to rethink their understanding of human agency and decision-making. ### Kevin Mitchell's Books: 1. **"Innate: How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are"** - **Summary**: Mitchell explores how genetic and developmental processes shape the brain's wiring and influence our behaviors, abilities, and personalities. The book explains the concept of neurodevelopment and how it leads to individual differences. Mitchell also discusses the interplay between nature and nurture, arguing that both are crucial in understanding human diversity. 2. **"Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will"** - **Summary**: Mitchell presents an evolutionary perspective on free will, suggesting that our capacity for decision-making evolved because it offers adaptive advantages. He argues that, while influenced by genetics and environment, humans have genuine agency and the ability to make choices. The book delves into the science of cognition and decision-making, challenging deterministic views of human behavior.

I wrote this elsewhere: To the compatibilists/determinists: It's a probabilistic universe if it's infinite. (It's not just classical mechanics.) You are trying to apply determinism/finiteness to a probabilistic/infinite universe. The problem with causality is that infinity (and quantum instantaneousness) breaks it, fundamentally, because you cannot go far back enough to determine all the initial conditions (that lead to you/your behavior) because there are none with infinity! Infinity breaks determinism. To add: The Uncertainty Principle suggests that you cannot say for certain that we have no free will. Sure, you have no control in some senses, like classical mechanics (upbringing, gravity, etc.), but not necessarily from a fundamental/quantum sense. The universe goes beyond classical mechanics. Think also of 'spooky action at a distance.' This doesn't appear causal, but, rather, instantaneous. If the universe created you, then so did infinity if the universe is infinite.

Dr. Sapolsky seems to be stuck in his "Neuro-science Bucket* " when it comes to his free will believes? Science only show how something happened, not why. It can explain extreme and weird events, but it can only make a prediction of what will happen. Thinking every human action can be explained with enough data seems not realizing how much you don't know and is unknown. Kind of seems like he actually believes in Soft-Determinism because he says that he can live a few hours a month conform his "Free Will doesn't exist" 31:15 Dr. Sapolsky is saying proof to that history could be different by looking at history, because we can explain it to a certain degree with our current knowledge. You could also say, we have free will in some degree because the future will always be a mystery. You can always explain history, but never be 100% sure what the future holds. Because we'll always will have chaos or randomness, free will must exist. Even with all the data in the universe, some actions will remain unpredictable. Seems like every free will debate comes down to believes.

Sapolsky argument rests on lack of awareness. Of course free will is fairly simple, as are all the endless influences, it is about awareness, consciousness. Maybe he should take up martial arts.

As long as Animal Intelligence is the omitted master model on human intelligence, only shortcomings are the result.

But determinism has nothing to do with the absence of free will. Cognition might be an uncontrollable response to the chaotic environment, and we are merely passengers.

I don’t understand why Sapolsky argues if he believes that the outcome of the discussion is predetermined in advance.

If all we are is the "outcome of priors" (and thus, we have no free will), is there any way, through my actions, I can falsify this claim? What action can I perform that will either support or disprove this notion? Until I’m shown a way to falsify the claim that we have no free will, I will continue to presume, and live, as if *we do have free will* -despite how erudite Robert Sapolsky is. Not having the complete answer to the question: “How did I turn out to be the person I am, making a particular decision, at a particular moment in time?” (considering my brain one second prior, my hormones, my environment for decades, my fetal stressors, my genes, and the weather this morning), does not mean that the answer to the question: “What flavor of ice cream will I have today?”, is “God will make the decision” or “Someone in ancient Egypt having passed gas, after eating a bean burrito, will be the determining factor.” I have difficulty believing that the ice cream cone I was handed was not a consequence of any decision that I, myself, freely made-if by 'free', I mean I was able to make a different choice. If the claim is unfalsifiable, as I suspect it is, then I’m going to assume the correct answer is “I don’t know if I have free will or not”-at least until there is evidence presented one way or the other. And since the answer is “I don’t know”, I’m going to continue to live my life as if I, me, moi played a significant part in my enjoyment of a chocolate/swirl ice cream cone with my grandson, Daniel. Oh, and by the way, *Daniel chose strawberry with sprinkles* (I wasn't free, apparently, to pick sprinkles because my mother’s belly was scratched by our cat one evening when she was pregnant with me-I think it was during a waxing gibbous moon, but I don’t remember a lot except for the scratch and that it was very dark).

Dr Sapolsky has a Turin Shroud vibe going on.

I think there’s a lot of randomness in our decision making (within parameters) that explains the parts we can’t predict. Also for an atheist/materialist there’s nothing else than Genes & environment- so yes everything is driven by these two. I think it’s very useful to be more self aware of all the factors that influence our decision making - and for me thats Sapolsky’s usefulness - he made me more self aware about the drivers of my “choices”

Sapolsky continues to embarrass himself with half baked thoughts that have no single justification whatsoever. This is what happens when a certain person overestimates his knowledge and understanding of intellectual discipline that deals with questions of action and free will. Sapolsky's inability to produce a single argument that actually stand his ground, is astonishing. The guy is clueless to say at least.