If the hard determinist is using the idea of the organization of neurons (cellular level of magnification), then how exactly is the "leap" made from such a magnification level to No magnification level in order to conclude that our "voluntary" behaviors, along with semi-voluntary (breathing) and involuntary (blood flow) could Never have turned out differently than they did? He uses one magnification level to observe and analyze cells where there is absolutely no sign of any choice or even any situation where a choice can be made, and then he applies that level of analysis to the level at which we observe the situations and choices of other humans via their purposive actions. The problem here is that if free will turns out to be illusory, then morality is destroyed because there is no alternative action that could ever be performed. It goes against all of our observations and evaluations of people in the most important aspect of ourselves, our moral lives. It is not intellectually honest to take such a hard-lined stance because obviously we cannot go back in time in order to determine whether what happened actually had to happen because nothing else was possible. The intellectually honest position is that we do not know, but what is evident from neuroscience is that people tend to have hesitancy and interruptions of their decision-making processes when they are thinking about their own choices is being already determined. Very questionable and dangerous stance.
Morality is a code that you use _post hoc_ to describe a pattern of behaviors. Whether or not those actions might happen to be in the 'good' or 'bad' camp is incidental to causality. Defenses of freewill like this, that is, the old "morality is destroyed [without] alternative action" routine, still boil down to nothing but an attempt to cling defensively to a more comforting reality for the preservation of the intuitive sense. Whether or not we have freewill is irrelevant with respect to ethics. What we 'ought' to do for the sake of qualitative improvement will be the same no matter how our decisions are made; should we seek to maximize well-being, then our course has already been laid out for us. Interruption of thought is no evidence of agency. Deliberation in a causal system (or in _any_ complex system) is evidence of nothing more than the hefty burden that complexity places upon cognition. Mental processing is nothing short of extreme, and some latency should be expected.¹ ¹Note that error increases as message-delivery speed increases. The amygdala receives preferential treatment in terms of its information reception (over executive function), because instantaneous reaction is so often necessary to survival, but the opportunity cost is an increased number of false-positives. Better to startle at a shadow than it is to sleep through a bear attack, even though misleading shadows are much, much more frequent events.
Truly exceptional book that presents very compelling evidence that free will does not exist. That concept has the real potential to radically change our perception of ourselves and others, and very significant aspects of our society. Just as human understanding grew to realize that disease and other human afflictions are not caused by demons, but have natural causes, we can also come to realize that our ideas, thoughts, emotions and actions are the result of a long sequence of causes rather than being freely chosen according to our will. HIs book is highly recommended.
@@M-J I have watched your videos which are amazing Earlier I used to review books on my channel but now I share mostly science related things on Twitter. I've Left Islam I am from Pakistan and most of Pakistan people are very religious tha's a big problem But in America I'm Very Comfortable People Are More Open Than Asian Countries
Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
what you said from 1:25 to 1:37 is exactly what made me realize that fate is what people define as god or what carl jung defines as the collective unconscious, not done with the video yet but this is so profound to me lol
Not sure what the obvious absence of free will has to do with determinism. Things just happen randomly at quantum level and nothing is determined. Yes, nature always plays dice.
I'm nearly through the first part of his book - the part where he defends his stance. Can't wait to get into the second part. However, Sapolsky's stance is of no great import to me since, in his view, he was helpless to take a different one and I am helpless to do anything but have my own opinion of it. Though I certainly don't know the author in any personal sense, I would be willing to bet that he - like myriad likeminded others - rarely if ever 'behaves' as though he has no free will or that he'd invite the gentleman who delivers a right cross to his (Sapolsky's) jaw home for dinner. Enjoyed your review, nonetheless.
Nice commentary. Particularly enjoyed the point about appearances and ultimately having to live within the confines of our illusions, whatever they may be.
Thank you, Dr Sapolsky. Thank you very much for writing such a fascinating and informative book as "Determined". Before reading it, I had already concluded that animals like us have no free will. But I'm not a scientist. Now I have scientific support. I'm waiting for the day that most people will go about their lives knowing that all animals, including us humans, have one brain and nerve system, no mind, no consciousness despite being capable of being conscious (the former not being a 'thing' but simply a misleading linguistic nominalization of being capable of being conscious), and no 'free will'. We're so lucky to be living in a generation of human evolution which uses sophisticated grammatical languages to communicate with each other and allows us to read your books (otherwise I wouldn't be writing this comment, and nor would I be having such an interesting life). Life is now more comprehensible to me. I now feel comfortable inside my skin. I think I now understand much better what we animals are, who 'I' am, that everyone else is living their unique life just like me, that the 'randomness of the universe' affects each of us without preference or deference, and that we should sympathise with them if we feel anything about them. I very much appreciate you sharing your insights with 'everyone out there', which fortunately for me has included me. Most kind regards, Lud
I believe that everything we think and feel is accompanied by neurological and physiological actions. But I think he is pushing this no free will thing too far.
When I was 16 a video online explained free-will isn't real, it was as obvious to me as learning basic science. It's funny to me it's even controversial, I guess we just emotional creatures and its hard pill to swallow.
@@noeditbookreviews not quite sure what not liking it has to do with reviewing it. Sounds exactly like what Sapolsky does with scientists he doesn't approve of. If you had problems with it that's precisely why you should review it.
Thank you for this review! I love a short and to the point review 🫡 After recently finishing an intro to philosophy, which barely touched on the incredibly interesting idea of compatiblism/incompatibilism, determinism, libertarianism, when discussing free will, etc, focusing more on arguments (premise and conclusions - boring after two days, much less two months) esp when everyone was super interested in the discussion of free will, tho many classmates were quite Uber religious and were completely shut off to the idea of free will not existing yet somehow god has a plan ? Anyways I’m now looking forward to reading this book 😊
Sapolsky's left leaning intuitions have resulted in intellectually dishonest and insane conclusions. 1: We do not have control over our actions 2: Sopolsky is enraged at the people who want to punish people for actions they have no control over 1: We do not have control over our actions 4: Sopolsky is enraged at people for actions they have no control over
If the hard determinist is using the idea of the organization of neurons (cellular level of magnification), then how exactly is the "leap" made from such a magnification level to No magnification level in order to conclude that our "voluntary" behaviors, along with semi-voluntary (breathing) and involuntary (blood flow) could Never have turned out differently than they did? He uses one magnification level to observe and analyze cells where there is absolutely no sign of any choice or even any situation where a choice can be made, and then he applies that level of analysis to the level at which we observe the situations and choices of other humans via their purposive actions. The problem here is that if free will turns out to be illusory, then morality is destroyed because there is no alternative action that could ever be performed. It goes against all of our observations and evaluations of people in the most important aspect of ourselves, our moral lives. It is not intellectually honest to take such a hard-lined stance because obviously we cannot go back in time in order to determine whether what happened actually had to happen because nothing else was possible. The intellectually honest position is that we do not know, but what is evident from neuroscience is that people tend to have hesitancy and interruptions of their decision-making processes when they are thinking about their own choices is being already determined. Very questionable and dangerous stance.
Morality is a code that you use _post hoc_ to describe a pattern of behaviors. Whether or not those actions might happen to be in the 'good' or 'bad' camp is incidental to causality. Defenses of freewill like this, that is, the old "morality is destroyed [without] alternative action" routine, still boil down to nothing but an attempt to cling defensively to a more comforting reality for the preservation of the intuitive sense.
Whether or not we have freewill is irrelevant with respect to ethics. What we 'ought' to do for the sake of qualitative improvement will be the same no matter how our decisions are made; should we seek to maximize well-being, then our course has already been laid out for us.
Interruption of thought is no evidence of agency. Deliberation in a causal system (or in _any_ complex system) is evidence of nothing more than the hefty burden that complexity places upon cognition. Mental processing is nothing short of extreme, and some latency should be expected.¹
¹Note that error increases as message-delivery speed increases. The amygdala receives preferential treatment in terms of its information reception (over executive function), because instantaneous reaction is so often necessary to survival, but the opportunity cost is an increased number of false-positives. Better to startle at a shadow than it is to sleep through a bear attack, even though misleading shadows are much, much more frequent events.
Truly exceptional book that presents very compelling evidence that free will does not exist. That concept has the real potential to radically change our perception of ourselves and others, and very significant aspects of our society. Just as human understanding grew to realize that disease and other human afflictions are not caused by demons, but have natural causes, we can also come to realize that our ideas, thoughts, emotions and actions are the result of a long sequence of causes rather than being freely chosen according to our will. HIs book is highly recommended.
I am saving this since I just learned of this book two days ago and want to read BEHAVE first. Nice, timely, and “in the news”book to review! - MJ
I also have to reas behave but I'm finishing Determined right now
Determine is a very good book and not boring at all.
@@Liabrarian wonderful! 👏🏻👏🏻
@@M-J I have watched your videos which are amazing
Earlier I used to review books on my channel but now I share mostly science related things on Twitter.
I've Left Islam I am from Pakistan and most of Pakistan people are very religious tha's a big problem
But in America I'm Very Comfortable People Are More Open Than Asian Countries
Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.
what you said from 1:25 to 1:37 is exactly what made me realize that fate is what people define as god or what carl jung defines as the collective unconscious, not done with the video yet but this is so profound to me lol
Not sure what the obvious absence of free will has to do with determinism. Things just happen randomly at quantum level and nothing is determined. Yes, nature always plays dice.
I'm nearly through the first part of his book - the part where he defends his stance. Can't wait to get into the second part. However, Sapolsky's stance is of no great import to me since, in his view, he was helpless to take a different one and I am helpless to do anything but have my own opinion of it. Though I certainly don't know the author in any personal sense, I would be willing to bet that he - like myriad likeminded others - rarely if ever 'behaves' as though he has no free will or that he'd invite the gentleman who delivers a right cross to his (Sapolsky's) jaw home for dinner. Enjoyed your review, nonetheless.
Nice commentary. Particularly enjoyed the point about appearances and ultimately having to live within the confines of our illusions, whatever they may be.
You are doing amazing job
saved your collection of books and read them
I Also Review Books in Urdu Language
Thank you, Dr Sapolsky.
Thank you very much for writing such a fascinating and informative book as "Determined".
Before reading it, I had already concluded that animals like us have no free will. But I'm not a scientist. Now I have scientific support.
I'm waiting for the day that most people will go about their lives knowing that all animals, including us humans, have one brain and nerve system, no mind, no consciousness despite being capable of being conscious (the former not being a 'thing' but simply a misleading linguistic nominalization of being capable of being conscious), and no 'free will'.
We're so lucky to be living in a generation of human evolution which uses sophisticated grammatical languages to communicate with each other and allows us to read your books (otherwise I wouldn't be writing this comment, and nor would I be having such an interesting life).
Life is now more comprehensible to me. I now feel comfortable inside my skin. I think I now understand much better what we animals are, who 'I' am, that everyone else is living their unique life just like me, that the 'randomness of the universe' affects each of us without preference or deference, and that we should sympathise with them if we feel anything about them.
I very much appreciate you sharing your insights with 'everyone out there', which fortunately for me has included me.
Most kind regards, Lud
Amazing i desperately need more videos like this
What an honest an impartial review. I loved it!
I believe that everything we think and feel is accompanied by neurological and physiological actions. But I think he is pushing this no free will thing too far.
Thank you, I am thinking of buying this as a Christmas present to my family. We can all enjoy it.
He is the frontier of cerebral cortex.
When I was 16 a video online explained free-will isn't real, it was as obvious to me as learning basic science. It's funny to me it's even controversial, I guess we just emotional creatures and its hard pill to swallow.
You mean arrogant creatures
Excellent review. Thank you.
Kind of think he stole this whole thing, including the title, from Robert Plomin's Blueprint, which O don't think Sapolsky ever mentions.
I read that book. I didn't like it enough to review it.
To be fair, it wasn't a bad book, it just wasn't what I was looking for, which was books on genetics, but that was more like a psychology book.
@@noeditbookreviews not quite sure what not liking it has to do with reviewing it. Sounds exactly like what Sapolsky does with scientists he doesn't approve of. If you had problems with it that's precisely why you should review it.
@@juliettailor1616 well hell. Maybe one of these days I'll read it again and review it.
@@juliettailor1616 Why not review it yourself if you see something that @noeditbookreviews didn't?
The only inaccuracy I interpreted in the book at least. Happy people believe in Free Will, unhappy people don't.
Thank you for this review!
I love a short and to the point review 🫡
After recently finishing an intro to philosophy, which barely touched on the incredibly interesting idea of compatiblism/incompatibilism, determinism, libertarianism, when discussing free will, etc, focusing more on arguments (premise and conclusions - boring after two days, much less two months) esp when everyone was super interested in the discussion of free will, tho many classmates were quite Uber religious and were completely shut off to the idea of free will not existing yet somehow god has a plan ? Anyways I’m now looking forward to reading this book 😊
Sapolsky's left leaning intuitions have resulted in intellectually dishonest and insane conclusions.
1: We do not have control over our actions
2: Sopolsky is enraged at the people who want to punish people for actions they have no control over
1: We do not have control over our actions
4: Sopolsky is enraged at people for actions they have no control over
Nothing original under the sun here. Lots of opposing voices out there to his conclusions.
Haha I love the meaningless of that comment :)
great video
Thank you! I certainly appreciate you saying that.
Yep, he’s a lefty alright….