วีดีโอ

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.

47:20, Kevin completely goes off the rails. He admits that drugs change the way we think, but then implies that proves we have free will.... the opposite is obviously true and I find of intellectually dishonest for a smart person like Kevin to not admit that. In fact, I would argue that because drugs, outside influence, various diseases and genetic conditions all affect our decision making, then free will is already disproven. Free will is the idea that we know all of the information, we have all the time in the world to make a decision and then we make a choice based on our morals or what we want out of life and we've considered all of the options with perfect clarity. and it's quite obvious that is not true

41:00 Kevin disproved his own point. He admits that there are many different factors going into a decision. We don't have perfect information, we don't have time to weigh all of the options and that our history and neural networks greatly weigh into an decisions we make. So, since we don't have time to properly weigh the repercussions of a decision, we don't even have all of the information and we have influences telling us to do one thing or another, out of our control, and we just pick something. take a bullet chess game for example. you don't see all of the possible moves, you don't have time see the results of all of the moves, you have all of your experience (or lack there of) telling you do play this move or that. and in the end, you just pick something, because your clock will run out if you don't.

thanks for covering this!

So, Sapolsky wrote a book about life without free will but agreed with Mitchell there is a free will in this video. Also, how can he say Denneth didn't understand evolution and science? He was just proven wrong about his belief that free will didn't exist and, correct me if i'm wrong, Denneth's understanding about free will was very close to Mitchell's.

How would you transgress any rule if you didn't have free will?

Comment after Mitchell's opening statement. Mitchell seems to hang his position on the argument that we think about what we want and how to achieve it before acting. Agreed. But, as Hossenfelder says (see her video on free will), the thinking itself is deterministed (to the extent it is not disrupted by quantum randomness). While we are doing the thinking, we do not know where we will end up. We are sometimes even surprised by what we eventually decide to do. So it feels free to us that we are free. But Mitchell's argument does not establish that. All it establishes is that even though our thinking about what we want and what we will do is determined, as we are doing that thinking we don't know where the determined road will lead us until we get there. Hence it feels free. Comment after Sapolsky's opening statement. I doubt that Mitchell would disagree with much that Sapolsky says. Sapolsky fails to discuss the process whereby we think about what we want and what we will do. He speaks as if all decisions are more or less instantaneous. But they're obviously not. And he ignores that. Putting these two comments together, Mitchell says we often think before we act and are thus free. Sapolsky does not engage with that argument. So Mitchell's position would prevail. But as indicated above, thinking itself is a deterministic process. It only feels free because we don't know where it will lead us. My conclusion is that Sapolsky is right even though he doesn't make the complete case. After first round of questioning. They agree that people make choices. Mitchell says that doing so reflects a degree of freedom. Sapolsky says it doesn't. After second round of questioning. They converge on a position that both can live with and sort of give up on reaching a definitive position on "free will." I think they would agree that their area of disagreement has narrowed to the point that it isn't worth debating. Sapolsky was asked how we can make evolutionary sense of our illusory agency. His answer: if we didn't trick ourselves into believeing in our own agency, we wouldn't be able to get up in the morning. Our belief in our free will is evolution's way of enabling us to survive. Mitchell was asked how his position differs from Dennett's and Hofstadter's. He said that Dennett was simply wrong. (Sapolsky commented that Dennett doesn't really understand evolution.) Mitchell also said that he likes the way Hofstadter's "recursive" perspective on thinking is a good way to eliminate the need for something external to the brain that allows us to think.

Super - watched it all

How do I verify the empirical statement that freewill does not exist? Seems to me you'd need to predict someone's future accurately enough to implement Minority Report. That is the exact opposite of justice and morality. I highly doubt the justice system would become more just if people stopped believing in freewill. Instead, they'd decide to eliminate the buggy robots. You can't redeem yourselve without free choice.

Moderator is very good I find on second hearing.His facial and verbal expressions are delightful.

Mitchell is an idiot, sorry, pseudoscientist.

Kevin sounds an awful lot like a religious apologist; he has a fixed idea of what is and defends it because if it isn’t what is, poof! there goes his worldview. His focus on control and the lack thereof telegraphs his point of view.

This was a really great conversation. Thanks to all three of you!

Another win for my boy Sapolsky dropping science. The man is ahead of his time. Zero free will. 🤠

Wonderful debate. And though I am Team Sapolsky all the way, I find Mitchell's evolutionary approach inspiring. How about this: Say we are completely predetermined the way Sapolsky describes, but that this notion of independent agency and free will is hard-wired into us by evolution/ culture as a determining factor that shapes our behavior. Meaning we need the illusion of free will to be able to operate as successful individual/society, including all the mechanisms of responsibility, guilt, sense of fairness and justice that seem to be more or less innate as well. If I understand Sapolsky correctly, vertebrae seem to have a fairly clear idea of what fairness and justice and other morality-driven behaviors are within their species, whereas we humans manage to get into all sorts of religious or ideological twists about it - or rather, the variety of it smacks of cultural-evolutionary adaption to different environments. Can we consider moral systems (religion, humanism and all that song and dance, as Sapolsky would probably say) as survival mechanisms and thus judge them from a non-moral standpoint (Criteria of what is the "best" system open to discussion)? This would mean that you can and should highlight the agency and free will of the individual to decide for the best "moral" option - building up pressure in a positive way, giving an individual a cause to decide for that option - while at the same time considering the action finally taken as determined, ending up in the "treatment/quarantine"-model for antisocial behavior, as Sapolsky suggests. As an analogy, you might admire a great athlete, celebrate her achievements and try to emulate her ways of training and her mind-set, but you wouldn't "blame" yourself if you were unable to win a gold medal, nor would you punish those with a handicap (you might get them a wheelchair if needed). Free will not as a "causeless cause", but as a function of our biological nature - and this is where Mitchell's idea of the evolution of agency and autonomy fits in quite neatly as a part of our make-up as a social species. Does all of this make any sense?

Words matter! We have freedom of choice but we do not have freewill. Mitchell is discussing aspects of "freedom" and Sapolsky is discussing "freewill". This is why they both can agree and also disagree, as each is explaining their topic very well. If you think there is no such thing as freedom come visit my house, I could use free labor Dr. Sapolsky. When/if all choices were/are beneficial regardless of time, experience, etc. I would have the Freedom to express my will without concern and therefore I could be confident of my decision's positive outcome, Professor Mitchell.

Just found your channel and watched 2 interviews - I've subscribed, very nice interviews! Thank you so much 😊

If Free Will exists why would anyone choose to be a peadophile, a murderer, an Alcoholic etc. when the consequences of those choices are devastating to that person. Personally if I had Free will I would choose the opposite and have a tranquil life!

We are idea-driven creatures. Free will is an idea, determinism another. Each of these ideas, deeply considered, may _change_ our conscience. It _is_ changed by the input, we are changed.

Im sorry but I dont feel Kevin ever made a substantive point. It was a claim: we have causal power as a result of our biology. But never explains how this is actually done or how this is possible. And sure we do have causal power in the sense that we make things happen. But we are not the first cause of happenings. And how is our cognition somehow different from other biological processes?

I'd like to see the butterfly effect get more credit to point towards the inability to predict the future. Do I want vanilla or chocolate ice cream? Flip a coin. I'd like to see determinism more clearly separated from the ability to predict things.

The bank analogy was interesting, what makes a person rob a bank in contrast to a person who wants to make a deposit instead. I would say financial circumstances may be a cause but yet the circumstances don't make you rob the bank, the circumstances aren't the doer of that activity even through the circumstances influence the behavior. Greed may be a factor, but that character trait in itself Isn't the doer of activity. So, while circumstances and character traits may influence activity an agent who is free to use his will to act I think is the doer of activity.

I watch this after watching the debate between Sapolsky and Dennett. This debate makes more sense and seems more peacefully 😂

Great discussion

Wow, sapolosky chopped up this guys verbose incoherence like a smiling ninja assassin.

What a joy to listen to this. Thank you to all involved

The Law of Determinism makes sense when you reflect on why you choose a wife, a career or a shirt. Why do you marry your wife? Is she attractive? You can use logical reasoning like she is kind and beautiful. But why must she be the one instead of another woman? You fell in love, didn't you? And you could not control your state of mind and the emotion of romance. You didn't choose her, you did it out of love. It is an unconscious 'decision' to say the least.

This will lead us to a question: Why did the big bang happened in that particular way?

I'm often surprised when listening to this (sort of) debate how little language itself is either mentioned or drawn upon. In the most basic sense, language is needed to pose the question, to form the question and to understand the question. But language is also needed to define the terms. What do we mean by 'free-will' - or as Kevin said by 'have' or 'we'. And how absolute are terms such as 'influence' and 'determine' - if I'm 'entirely influenced' by something(s) then that is more absolute than if something is 'almost entirely determined'. It's just a question of semantics and definition. But there's another more important level here - and it's not just about metalanguage or metacognition. There is a sense that it is language that permits choice, language defines choice, language allows for reflection and it makes sense of and determines cognition. There is a two way dynamic at play between language and choice. We use language to form and weigh up our options, to reflect upon intent, and language is part of (or perhaps all of) the process in which both choice is set-up and then reflected upon. It's hard to separate the views of either Robert or Kevin other than through the choice of words they actually adopt to explain their belief system. Robert is keen to point out in his book that determined does not mean knowable and nor is it the same as predetermined. And Kevin sees determined and predetermined as closer cousins. But this is just semantics. I never got the argument, as a young man, between behaviourism and mentalism in linguistics - they both seemed intuitively true - and I think the interplay is now more evident. Similarly, I don't really see the argument here. It's just about language all over again.

When Mitchell says that the organism can take all the factors that Sapolsky discusses as determinative into consideration in making a free-will decision, he assumes that the organism exists as something apart from all these factors when in fact it is the result of all of them. Recursivity is still a deterministic process.

O selectiee naturala face asa dupa cum ai spune si numele, selecteaza......Dar ce selecteaza?Selecteaza in cadrul unei specii indivizii cei mai buni, adica cei mai buni din specia sa, cu alte cuvinte i taresc specia.....Nu o duc in alta directie.Exista adaptare la mediu, exista o diversitate in cadrul jnei specii, o multime de varietati de indivizi, cum ar fi câinii, o gramada de rase sau pisicile , sau vacile sau caii, dar selectia , selecteaza indivizii cei mai buni din cadrjl speciei.....Nu exista treceri de la o specie la alta, sau ca sa nu se confjnde de la o categorie de animale la alta, cainii au fost si vor fi caini, porcii la fel, vacile la fel, nu exista dovezi in acest sens.Aici sa nu imi vi sa kmi spui de nu stiu ce hominide, care a fost reconstruit de la 3 oase gasite , la o imagine completa, ca este milta imaginație.....Da un exemplu de mutatie benefica, care sa ofere un avantaj a unui individ fata de altul. Explica vomplexitatea ireductibila daca poti...Dar ca sa ajungi aici ttebuie sa treci de marele big bang, cand nimicul a explodat...apoi sa explici legile fizice si ordonarea materiei...apoi aparitia vietii cand de fapt se stie ca sansele ca acele elemente peimordiale sa se combine si sa apara prkma forma de viata, sjnt de fapt nule, zero...Ttebuie sa mai explici originea informatiei din adn, fara de care nu exista nici un fel de viata.Sunt doar teorii venite sa contrazica un Dumnezeu, o cauza primordiala a tuturor lucrurilor.Daca cauti sincer cu dorinta de a afla un adevar, o sa l gasesti, si acesta este ca exista un creator.Am fost in ambele tabere, Logica, ratiunea, toate lucrurile care ne inconjoara dau dovada de o inteligenta exterioara, toate ne spun ca nu suntem o intamplare....Creatorul sa revelat de a lungul timpului , prin mai multi oameni , care de sute de ani au vb despre acelasi Dumnezeu, cel din Biblie.Cristos este inceputul si sfarsitul.La un moment dat o sa stim cu totii acest lucru, ca ne place su nu....

The advanced course in biomechanics of behavior: molecular/genomics/micro and all in 140 ms: "Rethinking behavior in the light of evolution" | Paul Cisek, University of Montreal th-cam.com/video/TBr-eSpUdIU/w-d-xo.html

Individually, each item is an influence. Collectively those influences are deterministic.

"It's complicated" is the key to all of it. It's infinitely variable.

I’m with Mitchell on this one.

The world isn't strictly black or white, but rather various shades of grey. Both of these gentlemen make very valid points and both conclusions can be true. Barring any obvious handicap, I believe we are capable of the latitude of freedom to the degree in which we choose.

Mitchell says that not only what happens to us environmentally but also our thought has causal effect on our future actions and that the future as such is not determined... However, even if all that is true there still is no free will. You do not author thoughts in consciousness. You don't controll anything on a consciousness level. You cannot anticipate a thought. It is given to you by your sub consciousness, based on countless parameters. So where is the freedom exactly? The more i listen to him the more i think he talks about somehting else than free will. But rather about that the environment is not our ultimate puppetmaster, but that is obviously true.

Who won the debate, Interviewer?

Wow! What an interview and conversations! Enlightening.