Robert Sapolsky vs Kevin Mitchell: The Biology of Free Will | Philosophical Trials #15
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ค. 2024
- Professor Robert Sapolsky is a Professor of Biology, Neurology, and Surgery at Stanford University. He is the author of multiple books, including A Primate’s Memoir, Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, Behave, and Determined. Professor Kevin Mitchell is a Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin, whose research concerns the relationship between the wiring of the brain and the human faculties. His books include Innate and Free Agents. Today’s debate was about whether the empirical literature in the biological sciences allows us to make progress on the free will debate.
Conversation Outline:
00:00 Introduction
02:28 Opening Statement: Kevin Mitchell
16:26 Opening Statement: Robert Sapolsky
27:32 First Round of Questioning
45:56 Second Round of Questioning
1:04:56 How can we make evolutionary sense of illusory agency?
1:06:13 How can we make sense of our accomplishments if we have no free will?
1:08:21 Comparisons with Dennett and Hofstadter
1:12:28 Closing thoughts
Enjoy!
Twitter: / tedynenu
Instagram: / tedynenu - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Conversation Outline:
00:00 Introduction
02:28 Opening Statement: Kevin Mitchell
16:26 Opening Statement: Robert Sapolsky
27:32 First Round of Questioning
45:56 Second Round of Questioning
1:04:56 How can we make evolutionary sense of illusory agency?
1:06:13 How can we make sense of our accomplishments if we have no free will?
1:08:21 Comparisons with Dennett and Hofstadter
1:12:28 Closing thoughts
Enjoy!
twitter.com/tedynenu
instagram.com/tedynenu
Shout out to everyone who’s thinking about free will these days thanks to Sapolsky 😄 and my condolences for having nobody to talk to about it lol
holyfuck, how do you know me? are you autistic like me also?
Some great discussion groups out there if you're bored...
I'm fascinated by it! Even writing a book on it
I didn't want to think about free will but now I have to.
It was Sam Harris for me. Both great orators on the subject.
Both of these men are great at letting the other get their point across. Like thirty times i wanted to interrupt and robert just sat there listening. And i felt the same for kevin as well.
yo, i know, I paused the video just to type this
Great point. In fact, during the Mitchel's opening statement I kept thinking how Robert would come back, but he's the master of exercising "non ad-hominin" attacks. He's too cool and gentleman-like. What a great talk from these two intelligent guys. Imagine if we had that on TV?
Not interrupting the other to get your point across is a skill that very few have these days. Kudos to both
I am a physician, therefore scientifically trained, and I have no problems with the idea that my life is a movie I watch, rather than a videogame I play. If anything it feels very liberating.
I feel very liberated by it too, it tends to relax me
scientism is the way. All discussions about the non-observable or discussions that involve merging the non-observable with the observable are pointless and impossible to falsify or depend on consensus.
I had a stomach ulcer months ago and they gave me meds and it went away in two weeks. Philosophers make the mistake of assuming science ONLY operates on consensus just like non-scientific disciplines and they are WRONG. You cannot deny that the atomic bomb exists. What I'm getting at is that there is no problem in believing in the tooth fairy or in determinism, they are both just as valid since they cant be disproved.
Only people with control issues are uncomfortable with it
@@Dialogos1989 great point
It's funny really, no one can say the lack of free will stopped them doing what they wanted to do, cause your wants are included in the whole system.
Man, I _really_ love this debate format. The conversational format is much better than the more traditional back and forth argument.
I am very excited that this discussion could take place here.
I have read both books in the last 4 weeks and it was my dream that I could experience a direct dialog between the two authors.
I find both texts (and the discussion) extremely stimulating.
Ultimately, the difference is whether the biological and life-historical influences (both of which are beyond one's own control) only influence or determine.
In my opinion, SAPOLSKY's arguments are less intuitive, but more consistent. He dares to think things through to the end - even if this leads to inner resistance.
Mitchell cannot really justify why and at what point a person can freely decide what kind of person they become and what kind of behavior they exhibit in a specific situation. His assessment that a "gap" remains, even in view of the cumulative effect of all influencing factors, appears to be more of an assumption than a real justification.
Presumably, there is indeed a certain amount of 'leeway' in small and insignificant decisions; what kind of person I became was certainly not under my control.
Interesting, because before reading both books I was more inclined to Sapolsky's view. And I still don't believe in the sort of magic God stuff that would presumably be necessary for us to make truly (libertarian) free will type decisions. I think I'm now content to view behavioral flexibility at the organismal level in the form of cognition and deliberation enough to justify the term "free will". Whether my consciousness is involved or is simply along for the ride I find more or less immaterial. If it's just along for the ride, it's still my brain circuits cogitating over decisions (and the conscious me is like the smoke coming out of a steam engine). I may not have sculpted my brain circuits, but I'm willing to "own" them. It may be all we have, but it sure beats being an amoeba. :)
This was exactly my impression too. Mitchell’s arguments consistently seemed to stop at some reductive point, after which he’d conclude with, “It just doesn’t make sense” to explain why things aren’t deterministic. It’s like some emotional and/or subconscious desire for free will to exist is preventing him from making the uncomfortable conclusion he knows is lurking just beyond where he’s content to push his reasoning.
@@psuswim07I don't think that is true in his case. It certainly would be for most. But I genuinely think he's honestly believes there is a free aspect to the will which he explains pretty clearly.
Not sure why you reject his logical explanations in favor of suggesting it's some kind of emotional defense.
Personally I'm of the view that free will and no free wiil are extreme positions and that as humans we can by developing more consciousness about our actions actually increase our freedom as regards our relatively determined predisposition.
I believe to some extent Sapolsky is playing devil's advocate to some extent in insisting on absolute free will. I also believe his motivation for doing so comes strongly from huge compassion because strong advocacy for free will brings with it huge judgemental baggage.
"You deserve your terrible lot in life cause you're a lazy bum" kind of thing.
All good things to you. It's a wonderful topic which I love.
@@waterkingdavid This is pretty close to my view. I agree with a LOT of what Sapolsky said in his introduction. It's all supremely relevant, and it's the exact reason we should view ourselves and other human beings with compassion rather than judging their behavior. At the same time, I have experienced in my life that as I gain more and more awareness over my patterns and what they arose from, I gain more control over those patterns.
Particularly when I experience healing of trauma that keeps me in dysregulated states or cycles of addiction, me as an organism is more free to use metacognition to make decisions as opposed to reacting. In my opinion, awareness, love, and healing are the main things that grant humanity more freedom and agency to not have our past completely determine our future.
We should also consider that there is a form of collective awareness and metacognition formed through culture and community which, again, is something that can grant us more freedom from the past if we move towards healing and connection. To the extent that we don't digest and make sense out of the past, however, we *are* determined by it. It's also true that there are so, so many humans who don't have anything like free will because they and their ancestors were oppressed, and they're being denied the necessary conditions to have a regulated nervous system capable of metacognition.
I think you have it reversed. Sapolsky advocates there's no free will@@waterkingdavid
To me i like to believe in free will. But sapolsky's reasoning is kind of unbreakable.
Worth noting Sapolsky threw subtle shade at Dennett’s knowledge of science. Would be cool to see them in conversation
I actually laughed out loud when Sapolsky cheekily said that, I love this man. Oh and fyi, Sapolsky and Dennett did talk. There's a yt video, published about a month ago. It was a pretty disappointing "debate" though, ngl, as they never agreed on a common definition of free will, and Dennett just doesn't understand Robert's points while he rambled on with incoherent lines of reasonings. I agree with Kevin Mitchell's frustrated points about Dennett. It's funny that after having heard Dennett "argue" FOR his stance of Compatibilism, I became even more convinced that Compatibilism is absolutely logically incoherent.
It would have been cool indeed.
Let's take a moment to realize that we live in an age where we can live in any part of the world where there is internet and a phone and listen to big intellectuals talking. And that we can learn from them. In 1920 I would probably just be a drunk. Potentially huge difference in well being
Nothing is stopping you from being a drunk in 2023. Live your dreams!
/s.
The bes YT video I saw this year. Thaks so much all 3 of you. It brought me hapyness for 1 hour. Keep up the awesome work.
literally it is
I'm with Prof. Sapolsky on this one.
You had no choice so don't take any credit for (the) decision. lol
@@timothy4557 I wasn't taking credit for my choice, I was just making a statement.😜
This is your free will . If not, I’d like to see the causality chain
Prof. Sapolsky wrote an entire book on the subject. It's good, you should try it.@@thierryf2789
@@thierryf2789 The causality chain is a combination of his hardware (determined by his DNA), and the ideas and preferences in his head, which are all information that came from external sources throughout his life and experiences. The output of all of that *computation* is the deterministic result that you perceive as his 'choice'. But it's just the output of a massive computation, from other deterministic things. We don't have the tools to trace it just yet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (We don't have the tools to explain plenty of other things about ourselves yet, but that doesn't mean they don't exist either.)
Thanks to everyone involved for this discussion.
Good conversation. This format of debate really helped bring out their arguments.
Absolutely marvelous, my deepest thanks to all three of you.
LOVE THIS! Wonderfully done
What a joy to listen to this. Thank you to all involved
Great stuff!! Really enjoyed the dialogue!
I am a neuropsychologist who specializes in theoretical psychology and the epigenetics of developmental psychology. I do want to mention that arousal chronic states in infants do often give rise to alterations in transcriptions from DNA to RNA. This may lead to genes that are left dormant for several years. David Chalmers’ posits “psych-physical laws” which govern and allow emergent properties like alterations in phenotype(s) to occur within a causally closed system.
I wonder how Robert’s naturalist determined worldview would explain this natural phenomenon? The same question can be posed to Kevin.
Thanks!
I can explain it. I've had a lot of time to think about the world, and Mensa puts my IQ at 117. So, forget about inside body versus outside world. Now, the WHOLE system is part of YOU. Therefore, any changes on the "outside" also change YOU because there is no such thing as a difference. So now let's go back to the twins. Any minor difference will lead to changes. An example: the other day, I was walking in the kitchen and I noticed a sound. I heard it one way, and one step later, I heard it differently. I went back to my original place, and the sound was very different in just those two places. This might not seem like much, but it's enough for huge changes. So, basically, time, position in the universe, and the "outside" are all part of the sum of why the twins are different.
How is it not deterministic? Chaotic systems are deterministic. Emergent properties are the sum of their parts, including processes (that they are not deterministic is a value judgement, not and objective judgement).
This was a really great conversation. Thanks to all three of you!
This is important discussion and debate, listen twice and think many times about it
Mitchell just keeps describing determinism. He just doesn’t seem to realize it.
Yeah, its weird where he decides things are 'too complicated' to be ascribed to values. Just like Dennett, arguing out of intimidation by complexity rather than acceptance of it.
@@KCrimson00 Well, I might as well put _you_ straight too.
Neither you _nor_ Marxist Sapolsky have even sufficiently _defined_ 'free will' so let me help you with that.
Sticking to the computer analogy: in order to exhibit free will, a computer would have to be capable of suspending the program that governs its behaviour and creating _new_ software 'on the fly' in order to overcome the limitations imposed by the 'rules' of its 'operating system'. Right?
Also, you and Sap fail to consider future undetermined outcomes such as could occur in your imagination and _their_ effect in the real world. For example, you might decide that you want to learn to play the guitar and in your imagination, you can see yourself in the future, on a stage, with Andy Baldman in a band in front of a massive adoring audience shredding on guitar. So you go to a music shop to buy a guitar and rig and you begin the journey from where you are in the present to where you *_want_* to be in the future.
The thing is, _your_ 'present' moment is not the _only_ moment affected by this 'vision', if you will, that exists _only_ in _your_ imagination. Your vision, imperceptible anywhere outside your mind, has a _real_ effect on possible future outcomes available to _actual_ reality. You changed the life of the shop assistant who was delighted to sell you a guitar and rig; your neighbours who were annoyed by your practice sessions decided to move; the girls you met and got pregnant on your way to stardom...
The point is; there is absolutely nothing in deterministic physics that could account for the existence of that specific picture that exists only in _your_ mind. Nothing!
Let me put it this way: if there is in fact a creator God who created the universe as part of a plan, then even God would be surprised and impressed by your performance; _even_ God would have been unable to predict the effect on the world that _could_ be produced as the result of you simply imagining yourself shredding on the guitar.
Determinism fails because _nothing_ is 'determined' until the 'future' is filtered out in the present moment. Mapping out the past does not provide the full picture of how we got to the present precisely because events that haven't happened yet, such as the idea that _someday,_ you _will_ play on that stage, have a real impact on the way the present moment passes into the past.
Therefore, the argument 'no free will because determinism' is fallacious since even if there is _no_ 'free will', it's absense cannot be explained by determinism.
Which sperm will be the one to fertilize the egg? Well, we will have to wait until _after_ the race to find out because there is _literally_ *NO* other way the universe could possibly 'know'.
Right?
Thanks for arranging this wonderful conversation and published ...
Wow! What an interview and conversations! Enlightening.
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.
I often when hearing sapolsky feel not just in agreement but that he is trying to emphasize that freewill is a confusion of individual unique action. Everybody is going to act differently because they are programmed sort of uniquely but that programming is still determining the decision making
Excellent conversation. The positions seem to boil down to whether we should talk about "influences" on behavior or "co-determinants" of behavior. Is the organism as a whole merely "influenced" by all the various factors of its biology and environment such that some freedom of choice ultimately still exists? Or are all those factors "co-determinants" that add up to a complete determination of choice? I tend to have the latter position, but I can see why reasonable people would have the former.
Great discussion! I would love to talk to professor Sapolsky about a possibility that makes sense to me which I don’t think contradicts his statement.
I work with people as a Coach with what I call the rule of 5/95. This rule assumes there is around 5% of our mental processes (thoughts/emotions/feelings) that we become aware and 95% we don’t.
This 5% will create a window of opportunity to influence the other 95% (the automatic part).
So consciousness it’s not present in the choice process (that is always autonomously done), but will influence future choices based on what was learned during those 5%.
There is no way of controlling or securing that what you have learned consciously will stick around or will change anything, but there is a possibility that done repeatedly, it will.
It still goes alongside with the idea that there is no free will, but the system includes a learning window that can be helpful in the medium long term, but without guarantees!
He would disagree. You sound like a compatbilist.
I know! But the fact that some people can’t use their conscious attention in a focused way by themselves, but then hire a Coach, a Mentor or a Consultant and then achieve results they couldn’t by themselves, seems to suggest that the power of influence is real, and it can be harnessed somehow.
Very nice point, which is why I have been inclining towards a more soft determinism/compatibilism lately and there are some superb philosophers who hold this view as far back as St. Augustine himself.@@ruigalhoz4188
You work with disordered people, same all are sick like them. Then, you make up metalphysical reality for which you have no evidence.
@@ruigalhoz4188 I wonder if the "decision" to seek out a coach played a part in the results they achieved?
Kevin Mitchell literally doesn't process the arguments from the other side and provides a great example that brain is amazing at confabulating with the goal of justifying its position.
Maybe you could benefit from reading his book to try and seriously engage with his arguments, starting from the causality and indeterminacy. I found them quite refreshing!
But even a rewatch with kinder eyes and a more open mind might be enough. There is a reason beyond politeness why Sapolsky makes the final comment about Mitchell 😊
This is objectively false and the irony in it is that you are guilty of the very thing you charge Mitchell for.
Ta to all 3 for this discussion. I just came across this channel as the algorithm threw the discussion at me for reasons which, whilst it would be untrue to say i have no understanding of , I certainly don't have complete control over.. I possibly, am choosing to subscribe , for reasons that both Kevin and Robert probably understand better than me. At least in Robert's case, he clearly deserves no credit for this fact..
I enjoyed this immensely.
I loved this!
thanks for this vid. do this more with robert and kevin
Compatibilists seem to agree on determinism but then add a second definition of free will on our experiential level but then at some point in their arguments mistake that experiential level of illusionary free will for free will at a deeper metaphysical level altough they already agreed that it is deterministic.
Excelente talk. Thanks.
When we consider Hoffman's interface theory of perception and self as being a construct/concept (that we have a tendency to take as a thing), together with Sapolsky's reasoning, it's easier to consider that there's little we control in life. The fact that we have developed very convincing illusions and tools (religion is one of them-increases the group cohesion) does not mean we have an agency. We have a strong, convincing illusion of it for the sake of our sanity, enabling a sense of continuity. Surely, we grow, change perspectives, develop and become more sophisticated as we process more and more information and get exposed to all sorts of stimuli. Things seem to come down to the natural order, adaptation, breeding. We are animals, just with a more capable brains enabling a vaster horizon of anticipation, meta-cognition, worrying about worrying etc. Good to see two men debating respectfully, despite having perspectives on the topic.
The argument for Free will could be : we want to survive, thus whatever decisions we made that worked towards that goal, we are glad we made. (which feels like a fail). Also chaos and complexity does not lead to free will either. Also, just because the computations going on in my brain are not adequate to respond to the universe, just because I make bad decisions, doesn't mean I'm free either.
Mitchell starts from a fundamental scientific and philosophical flaw. Namely, he assumes that there is indeterminacy in the world (7:21) having relied on the Shrodinger equation. Resorting to quantum physics as a possible mechanism for free will, is a speculative cop out. At best, the so call randomness of quantum events is statistically determinant. Mitchell subsequently says such things as I don’t see how that could work. Mitchell both acknowledges and ignores the complexity of the brain and our interaction with the environment.
Mitchell relies on the language we use, as if that means free will could not be an illusion. Well, we do made choices, but we do not have the ability to have make a choice other than the choice that we make in the circumstances.
The organisation of neurons can generate rationale.
Not brought up is that evolution, including within the brain, involves heaps and heaps of failures for each success. Free will is not required.
Mitchell has no objective evidence for his position. Sapolsky has increasingly heaps and heaps of evidence for his position. Sapolsky is right to put the onus on Mitchell to make his case.
As with Sapolsky and Mitchell, I think we'd both agree and disagree. I think you are right about the fundamental flaw in Mitchell's opener in his book about indeterminacy in the world that he then compounds in the second part of the sentence by saying the 'future is not written' (ie predetermined). The determinist (Sapolsky's) position is not a support for predeterminism but rather an emphasis on unknowability. In such a complex system, events can be determined by what went before but remain unknowable in advance.
But then Saplolsky's position if equally flawed... 'show me the neuron', he says. As a scientist he knows full well that no single neuron is responsible for anything, so he sets out his stall asking for something he knows is both impossible and makes no sense. It's a rather feeble and unsustainable, albeit sound bite grabbing, premise to an otherwise entertaining book. And that's what his book is. Informative and entertaining. But the science falls down at the point of absolutism.
Mitchell says influence... Sapolsky prefers determine and in a sense they are both right... but neither argument is proven... by a long way. But where I disagree with you, and ultimately Sapolsky, is only in the suggestion that it is up to the other side to make their case. In the end that's a cop out. The fact is, they are both persuasive, I tend to think RS makes his case better and yet I still agree with the position of KM. And I'm free to choose.
@@JohnClark-bh6qe
This is not an objectively balanced debate just because neither side cannot theoretically absolutely prove their position.
'future is not written' is only allowing for the possibility of random events. Randoms events do not allow for free will because they are … well … random.
'show me the neuron' means show a neuron the action of which is inexplicable without the notion of free will. In other words, show a neutron, the action of which, does not support determinism. There are heaps of objective evidence supporting determinism, none for free will. The onus is on free will believers to make their case.
Mitchell is a scientist behaving unscientifically on this issue. He is trying to make the conclusion fit the evidence based on what he does not know. He is even speculating without hypothesizing.
The difficulty of persuading people that they do not have the free will that they think they have, is that it makes them feel uncomfortable realizing they do not have the control they think they have. It is difficult changing that which appears to be a fundamental basis on which a model of the world is based, especially when feelings are deeply affected.
[The space for free will is becoming vanishingly so, so, so small that it would not be worth having even if it did exist. The onus is on free will believers to make their case.]
There is no free will.
@@sjoerd1239 I wan't aware that neurons had a notion of free will. And therein lies the problematic at the heart of this reductionist argument. Only within the system of a higher order dynamic can the 'notion' of free will' exist. And I agree that free will is a notion, an idea, a concept. So who creates that concept, that notion, that idea? Are we free to do so, to reject or is it determined. As a hard line determinist you then have to conclude that the notion of free will is determined, therefore it exists. If you wish to conclude that the 'illusion of free will' is determined then we can presume in evolutionary terms that it was determined for a reason. So it is an important notion. All you can ultimately do is tie yourself in knots in an irresolvable debate.
There is no onus on me to persuade you or vice versa. I believe that RS is saying that we have massively less of this thing we call free will than we think or articulate and I agree with him. I believe KM is saying that the neutrons driving and influencing metacognition create a 'reflective space' that permits choice and I agree with him and you can see those neural patterns in action - not a single neutron!!
And I trust we both accept that science cannot prove anything. It can only replicate and disprove.
Another win for my boy Sapolsky dropping science. The man is ahead of his time. Zero free will. 🤠
Thank you very much for this wonderful video with two fantastic thinkers.
We do anything because we think its good or necessary, but no one in these discussion ever focuses on what is really good and what we just perceive as good. See the book: Free Will Is An Activity by Michael A Perez. There is an opening for Free Will in human consciousness. 🙂
Thanks so much for the great conversation. Can u plz tell me how can I contact with Robert Sapolsky to do a podcast with him? An Email or sth?
"We are deciding what reasons to have." That's a key point.
Mitchells argument is basically whatever feels like an act of the 'self' is free will. Even in language we say "I gave him the book", its so engrained in us to view actions with the notion of a self - I, you, she, they. Never mind physics, just stop and watch your experience. Every single event on a momentary basis is without voluntary activity. As I type this Im aware that its just a series of events that have happened where no independent will could have possibly been involved. The will is just the idea that behind all experience there is someone pulling the lever but in fact is just levers collectively pulling us.
Theres an optical illusion of a cyclist cycling an indoor bike. Then the person hosting this illusion shows that its the pedals moving the cyclists feets, not the other way round. The cyclist is actually at rest but it looks to us that hes exerting effort on the pedals. This is the illusion we experience at all times.
Again, just sit and do nothing. Watch exactly whats going on in your experience and you'll there is nothing voluntary happening. Any time you think 'I' thought/felt/did that, see how there was no I, just a deception of self.
amazing to acknowledge the vast web of prior causes but that a self has control over all of this in any way - just a five minute observation of thoughts that emerge and vanish without having control. perhaps some people are born with such a powerful sense of self no argument can undermine this sense.
I think that at the bottom of Kevin Mitchell's view is that he sees no way to make sense of agents making decisions if the future is fixed. But why the puzzlement? What we consider is possible consequences of actions and act to bring about the preferred consequences and or avoid negative ones. We can be predetermined to do that. Yes, there is only one physically possible future that can be arrived at from the past as it was, if determinism is true. But still there are lots of possibilities that *will happen if....* A simple example in nature is the pavement will get wet if it rains. But, of course, rain might not be predetermined to occur.
So I think he starts with what Dennett would say is just a mistake. I'm sure he has discovered a lot on his journey but still the idea that indeterminism is needed for any of it, starts with the mistake that a fixed future is a problem for intentional agents trying to get to one possible future rather than another, possible in the sense of *will happen if* and looking back *would have happened if...*
I started drinking again thanks to these Free Will videos
Oh no, I hope that you are pre-determined to stop again soon 🙏
@@francescomarzotto Apparently I don't have a choice in the matter.
@@ZiplineShazamdrinking happens for no one
I love u. HHAHHAHAHHAHA
@@notfarfromgone1 Cheers !
Thank yous for goal orientation
This is an amazing discovery!
Great discussion
What an inspiring talk. Thank you for this.
I disagree with abandoning incentives and behavior reinforcement. They are part of what makes life exciting and worthwhile, and social structures more safe and less anarchic.
I am a filmmaker, and mostly find myself lacking the language and categories to put forward ponderings that occur to me; yet in my experience I feel the notion of free will is a category that is evoked precisely when we are confounded by our behaviour which is 'compulsive' in many senses. It is here that free will is called in to alter that behaviour or drive us towards 'taking our life in our own hands', which is to cunningly shift the focus from the environment and those who control it and direct it towards an individual-where, one can be held accountable, hence punished. To say 'you are responsible' is t say 'you can fuck up and hence be punished' and it is here that the whole law and order is justified. Being from India, I can say how the 'spiritual idea' and 'free will' and 'atman' and 'rebirth' and 'soul' and blah blah are categories precisely created to keep the people in check and in control, to control them and make them feel free agents at the same time-to sell them a drug and make them feel euphoric for a while, while slowly losing our faculties and getting addicted to these categories-like how a drug dealer almost operates. To latch onto the idea of free will is also to latch onto the social position that one thinks one holds 'rationally' and to say that I deserve this, while justify the other positions as somehow the faults of individuals (as subtext).
To find that there is no liberation is liberation from liberation itself.
And very thankful to Kevin, Robert and especially Theodor for this wonderful discussion
I watch this after watching the debate between Sapolsky and Dennett. This debate makes more sense and seems more peacefully 😂
Some of the commenters need to lay off on the personal attacks. Kevin Mitchell makes an argument, if you don't like it, disagree politely.
So basically, Sapolsky is saying there is no 'free' will. And Mitchell is saying we are all influenced from our pasts and biological make up (biases) but that doesn't mean we don't have free will all the time.
Uh, right. But apparently a level or two beyond what these two philosophical nitwits are capable of entertaining.
I find it interesting when it’s suggested anything influenced is in any way shape or form “free”. The words “influenced” and “free” are not compatible.
How does this figure into one involving a person who will not/can not make decisions but act on impulse?
I think the vast majority of the arguments are parallel and differ in semantics.
The main differences are that Mitchell considers that reflection of the sense of self (within culture and biology) is among all influences from seconds to minutes to centuries before that are taken into consideration when the brain calculated options on what the outcome will be. Both believe then we then pick one. For Sapolsky that picking is ignorable (or more strongly explainable by other factors).
Thanks for stopping by. Amazing books both of you. I am one of the biggest fans of Sapolsky. I am kinda compatibilist myself. But I believe our free will is literally only this self reflection feedback. We can use that in the future and awareness to increase the options to pick from. But not really in an instant. Our seconds decision making is kinda all determined. Kanehman and Tversky let clear that our slow brain takes time and that is generally done after you pulled the trigger. 💕
The action of picking would not be a voluntary one per Sapolsky. Its a realization/culmination.
I have a sense, that I think, thinking
“free will is literally only this self reflection feedback.”
Assumes universal mental capacity, Brain structure and mental capability.
At what point do influences become a determining factor? I'm not seeing how influences are different.
And the outcome is... everyone leaves believing in whatever they want to believe
Thank you for the video!
I think logic is the more efficient way to go (not science). Either way i feel the way Sapolsky does in that i dont know how we're supposed to be able to look at the worker who cleans the toilets at the mall in the eye (or the crack-addict or the prostitute) when luck and luck alone has each of us standing in their shoes. luck to have been conceived as the embryo we started off as, and ever since then only 2 possible ideas : causal events or acausal events. So when compatibilists are worried about hypothetical futures, the majority of the unfortunate are suffering at this very moment exponentially more then us lucky privileged minority. and the main thing fueling this outrageous injustice is our false intuition of the myth that our neighbor could have done otherwise of their own accord
**********************
No one could have done otherwise because we are all subject to time and logic and to the logical dichotomy that:
every 'event' must be either: caused- or- not.
When an 'idea' is already logically incoherent (ie 'square-circle'), then there's no need to search for it in the physical world.
And for any & all other urgent moral practical issues, no one stops just to argue that '7=7 isn't absolute knowledge.'
****************
any idea of 'a cause' has to also be an 'event', because the idea of any 'cause' takes 'time'. Everything here is in terms of 'events'; a process.
There’s no static, unmoving, beyond-time 'self' creating events within the universe. the 'self' is also a process.
An indeterministic event can only either be one of the following:
1. via the idea of real perfect randomness, ie of the true ontological nature of reality/the universe.
2. via an idea of some perfect-probability.
3. only seems indeterministic to us due to lack of potential human knowledge, and so really via the idea of determinism/causality.
this is a logical trichotomy of ideas.
none of these logical-options give any of our neighbors the ability of CHDO (Could Have Done Otherwise) of their own accord.
"It's complicated" is the key to all of it. It's infinitely variable.
One one account I am asked to believe the next action I choose is free because of informational complexity intrinsic to my biological determinacy whilst the other account the next action I choose is absolutely determined due to my complex biological determinacy. The amount for information correlated 'will' as supervening the system of biology whilst the account about complex biology qua historical materialism correlated 'will' as intrinsic to the system of biology. The seemed to be convergence as a form of informational agency which places both authors as advocates world system theorists from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. It seems to place free will at the level of organisation of agents that cooperate to survive and at that level free will appears only as a causal role within cooperative colonies rather than at the individual level of analysis. So for humans who inhabit late modernity or post modernity free will might be located as an anomaly at the CEO level that has trickle down impacts on an in-group or share holders, as is currently being played out through AI technology which determines the trajectory of societies and how they exist but its difficult to point out that any individual has free will to use AI given its embedded in the system, but each individual seems free to choose what extensions of information through technology best harness quality of life and standard of living which seem to be a property of free will but determined through society. Although the notion of 'luck' seems to be at play that gives certain luxuries to choose consumer discretionary items to show status its difficult to equate that as authentic free will given being lucky does not necessary entail a free to choose between brands given marketing influences on mind. So this places free will at a supervening systemic level of complex interactions between agents that might be found at member to leadership level in current advanced consumer societies that harness vast amounts of data to control individuals at micro managerial levels that begin at research and development institutions such as universities. Free will on this account is non local as it does not exist at an individual phenomenology but at the interface of hierarchal structures as social categorisation (ants included) direct colonies to feed into resource pools.
Sapolsky😀 seems to be winning the comment section
Sad comment on this site.
why? what compels you to post and say that?
Yes both are right 🎉
In terms of the physics, entropy and uncertainty preclude all possibility of "free will" to make changes to either past or future.
Heisenberg (along with Godel, probability fields, etc., etc. -- all courtesy of QM) make arguments for physical determinism (there are non-physical variants), at best, remotely likely. WTF?
I have zebras I just found determined on line.
I love Robert his wonderful class behavioral biology I’ve watched several times
His lectures
what a wonderful man
I’ve picked up his stuff to repeat
My favorite is religion is” “Metamagical Schizophrenia “
You say that to a bible thumper it knocks them back
If ever there was a saint it’s him his work on stress saved me after my heart attack
I can’t say enough about what a spiritual person he is by giving his life to helping others thru knowledge that flows out of him so effortlessly
Excellent!
i watched Prof Sapolsky’s Stanford lectures when i was 16 and i took notes of them ,i remember nodding my head to the video when he asked the question “ do you believe that freewill exist” 😂
rewatching his lectures series at 20 hits different
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.
Every time I hear somebody defend Free Will I become more of a determinist.
Yeah, I agree ....but it's not their fault.
The more defenses of free will I have heard, the more shallow the position seems. "It's just too complex" to not be a free will process... "It's intuitive that we have free will"...
Honestly it reminds me of some of those interesting believer vs atheist debates. In a good way, not trying to trash talk!
A Marxist _would_ say that. If all of our choices are the product of the past then explain how Einstein could come up with Relativity? You are caught in your own trap. Why Einstein? And why 1905? If our choices are causally linked to the conditions and actions of all our ancestors right back to Abraham then why would Einstein even _dream_ that Newton has missed something from his description of 'gravity'?
Comrade Sapolsky's monotonous mantras are designed to dull your senses; endless causal chains about how drunk your mother was and how absent your grandfather was, all the way back to whether or not Adam needed to use the bathroom before he jumped on Eve to conclude that we have no agency and if God wants us breaking rocks in the Gulags then we should just get used to it.
All Sapolsky manages to do here is to reveal his lack of humanity. Although, for any theists out there, Sapolsky exonerates Adam, Eve and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden on the basis that their actions were _actually_ determined by the God who created them but then blames _them_ for bringing sin into the world because He is too much of a power-hungry coward to admit that it is _His_ fault and His fault alone.
So cheers Bob! You can let Israel know that they can get TF out of the Middle-East now. :)
@@matthewleahy6565 I agree, Roberts position is based on “I have observed”.
even though he intuitively didn’t Believe in free will.
He gathered the evidence to prove what he realized intuitively.
“Free will” belief is still only based on “I feel and think” “it just feels like it”
I think Robert is looking at the forest. From a distance you see a forest grow in a predictable way and say it’s predictable or predetermined. Kevin is right up close to the tree noticing it sway this way and that to get more light. Seemingly making individual decisions.
I think Sapolsky is a clown. Nothing he says is even remotely compelling, and doesn't speak to the faculty of free will seemingly at all. His examples are embarrassing. He's literally putting himself in the minds of hypothetical moviegoers, and simply declaring, on his own say-so, why they did what they did. As if he has some sort of Godl-like omniscience of everyone's thought process in the universe. Which is pathetic, how is one even supposed to respond to such gibberish? How is this guy even taken seriously at all? Fortunately for him there's an online subculture that also clings to the morbid fantasy that there's no such thing as free will. So a lot of people are happy to buy what he's selling, no matter how feeble his arguments.....
@@user-zh1th8sz2l is the a specific example of his that you disagree with?
@@jessicastrat9376 What? I'm not following you. All's I say is, there are no 'examples'. We have free will, very, very obviously so. It is the absolute essence of being a sentient living creature, and is not an illusion. Every single moment of our lives is an example of our free will, every action we ever take, every thought or stimuli we ever act on. And this Kevin Phillips guy is doing yeoman's work, representing very well on free will's behalf, even though it's unbelievable, and not a little alarming that this is even controversial within the scientific community, not to mention the public at large. And he doesn't have the answers, no one does. But he's framing the question beautifully, and carefully laying down the parameters of the essential faculty of free will that we obviously enjoy and experience, and that one day, god willing, we will understand on a more technical level.
That's the only reason I've listened to a handful of Robert Sapolsky's podcast appearances. Because I'm in disbelief, and deeply appalled that some schmuk academic mandarin has taken it upon himself to publicly disseminate this hideous nonsense, and he's not joking. Of which there are no examples to buttress this absurd claim, and his spiel that he spins literally doesn't touch upon the faculty of free will AT ALL. His little paradigm is shockingly vapid, and predicated on the most simplistic and presumptuous internal logic, very much in the style of religious dogma. The head-scratching examples he actually cites are incredibly uncompelling and almost nonsensical. And his argumentation when defending himself is unreal. He basically demands that if you don't have absolute and complete understanding of how our consciousness works in every nuance, then you lose by default. It's shocking! This is supposed to be a serious man of science. And he employs logical fallacies! Like he's on a HS debate team or something...
So whatever his motivations are, probably just to sell books... he needs to cut it out. The temptation for many a lost, lonely soul in this harsh and unforgiving world we live in, to embrace some pseudo/quasi-sciencetific gibberish because it makes them feel like they don't have to feel responsible for their life, and all their failings and shortcomings and unhappiness, I'm sure is a powerful one. And that's all he's playing on. Not to mention how well-to-do folks like himself, when embracing this absurdity, also stand to be completely rid of any responsibility on their part, for being able to enjoy all the best in life while others suffer, and thus can live guilt-free as products of the self-striving American meritocracy. Notice how obsessed he is with the less fortunate in life, as if he is taking some heroic stand by announcing to them that they never had a chance to begin with. Which is an awful thing to say to someone, and is the antithesis of genuine empathy, which I'm sure is an emotion a phony humanitarian like himself prides himself on. Anyway, the guy's bad news, and 'free will' is obviously real - OBVIOUSLY - and it's what makes us the awesome creatures that we are, however flawed. One day we'll understand how it works. In the meantime, everything this guys says is irrelevant tripe....
@@user-zh1th8sz2l can you give an example of a logical fallacy he has used?
@@jessicastrat9376 Yeah, I think I already alluded to that. The part where he makes a ridiculously unreasonable demand that one must be able to completely explain consciousness and free will, with full neuroscientific detail presumably, otherwise, he has no choice but to stick to his own cockamamie nonsense. I'm not a student of logical fallacies, but I know bull****, bad-faith argumentation when I see it. And Mr. Phillips rather graciously attempts to push back on that as well, that Sapolsky is making far too sweeping an intellectual demand for anyone to reasonably have to respond to. In a way his entire thesis is one giant logical fallacy, based on a priori logic, with crude 'determinism' as the only bit of substance underpinning all of it. Turtles all the way down, as they say.... Rather than simply attempting to painstakingly understand and unlock the phenomenon itself, the way any honest scientist would, and happily accepting one's limitations and quite possibly the inherently unfathomable nature of consciousness itself.
Basically he just likes the idea that there's no free will, it turns him on, it suits him, for whatever his personal reasons are. And then reversing-engineering it from there, with the most pathetic non-sequitur and irrelevant arguments and examples to hang his case on. In any case, you're kind of doing the same thing. So I think we're done here. Hopefully my little screed might have inspired you, even though one's own free will is the most everyday ordinary thing one could ever imagine, and it requires zero psychological/philosophical courage to come to terms with.
Does Robert believe that our individual existence is predetermined as well? If so, how? I've heard him say something to the affect that the trigger of the gun will still be pulled when it was supposed to be.
I like the debate. My opinion is that the desired outcome distorts the concept, but the outcome itself is not involved in definition of free will, the outcome is a seperated. The opportunity to choose one thing or another, even if the outcome is always the same, that opportunity itself is proof for free will. The desire that makes us to choose one thing doesn't mean we couldn't choose the other thing if the circumstances were different. Even if the circumstances were the same we still could have chosen the other thing, but the fact that we didn't, doesn't mean that possibility dissapeared. Circumstances and desire are seperated from free will but they affect one another, it doesn't mean free will is not there it just means something has effect on us and we direct our free will towards what fits us most.
I have a sense that I think, you’re speaking in could’ve, when the time that humans experience is linear. There is no such thing as could’ve after what has occurred.
Dr. Sapolsky seems to be giving multiple, simple examples, yet Dr. Mitchell says abstract sentences and doesn't delve deep enough to assess whether free will truly makes sense. He keeps saying something to the tune of "it just doesn't make sense intuitively" and "well once you use the word 'choice' it's checkmate". His analysis is shallow and there is something holding him back from delving deeper.
Because the brain contains complex structures with feedback loops involving chemical reactions where precise outcomes cannot be predetermined, Mitchell argues that right there in the midst of indeterminism is where the self is making choices through a free will that uses the sort of reason and reflection that are not available to other living things. How does Mitchell get from indeterminism to free will? Indeterminism in chemical reactions would instead add randomness to outcomes. How would randomness be a medium for reason? He claims to not be invoking a ghost in the shell by saying that decision-making is not a top-down mechanism but a holistic process, but he sounds very much to be invoking a ghost in the shell.
What’s missing in debates about free will is the definition of free will.
I would follow Friedrich Hermanni who said that Free will is self-determinism.
It’s the absence of inner and outer compulsion or mind manipulation.
Sapolsky is right in saying that you can explain the action of a person based on their history. But that’s the definition of free will.
It’s to make a decision based on the own character and not just a decision out of the blue.
To me it seems to be important to distinguish free will from randomness.
Self-determination is the best expression of free will and would therefore show that there is no conflict between free will and determinism.
Individually, each item is an influence. Collectively those influences are deterministic.
37:49 "…but what I would says is that those are influences that may bias our decisions and our choices, but that _we do make choices._ It almost just doesn't make any sense to me to have a conversation using those words if everything we do at every moment is fully determined."
I agree, we're not doing a good job of describing the process. Rather than saying we're _making a decision,_ we should say that we're _reaching a conclusion._ Consider weighing your options regarding your best course of action. Hopefully, Professor Mitchell would concede that the options which occur to us are a function of nature and nurture, over which we have no meaningful control. You don't get to decide whether or not using the elephant occurs to you.
As a determinist, I would say that because the thought has now occurred to you, you similarly have no control over whether using the elephant appears to be your _best_ option, because the weighting is similarly determined by your history. Those biases _are the weights._ As Mitchell says, your "character" has _already_ been shaped by your past. Searching for the most reasonable course of action can often be a long and laborious process, but you don't "choose" the outcome any more than you do when searching for your keys. You're not deciding where they are; you're solving the problem of where they are. You're not deciding which is best; you're solving the problem of which is best.
Mitchell seems to suggest that complexity cannot be deterministic. I find it odd thinking that complexity would escape causality. Sure, it cannot probably be predicted by current human technology but that doesn't mean causality is broken.
This is my take on it.
To have a concrete example in mind, take a human decisionmaking mechanism like a drift diffusion model, a stochiastic drift of activiation where incoming evidence (desires, expectations, internal states, etc.) dynamically adjusts weights in the drift until a threshold is reached and an action is triggered. *At the level of that mechanism,* there is no predetermined activation, but it must dynamically play out for us to see the result. He's not saying that's un-caused or non-determined, only that the information coming into the mechanism under-determines the result until the point a threshold is actually met, plus--what makes it "free"--the fact that the input factors are weighting dynamics to respond to considerations* at the agent-level (*agent-level considerations being represented in the weighting mechanism by design).
I think the free will debate has never been about determinism. If I will my arm to rise and it doesn't deterministically rise based on (in a direct causal chain with) that will, that's not free will either. So free will must be deterministic and within a causal chain. I think it's always been whether the determining mechanism can fairly be called "me" or "acting on behalf of me" or not. And I think Mitchell's argument is that it is. That's the position I'm sympathetic with.
Mitchell conflates unpredictability and complexity with "indeterministic." Deep down, in (non-quantum) physics everything is always deterministic, even though it can't be predicted, and at the macro level we label it as "indeterministic." While quantum physics is a whole other dimension that could change everything, and that's the reason why RS "thanks God" that they agree to ignore it.
@@paulusbrent9987 It doesn't make sense for you to say "deep down" with "non-quantum", because the quantum level would be equivalent to the "deepest" level of reality.
If the quantum level is interministic, then reality is fundamentally indeterministic. The quantum domain is not a transcendental plane, separate from our reality, it is just its most fundamental level, on which all other levels depend to exist.
@@Vinuken07 Well, it is not clear if at the macro level the indeterminism of qm is really relevant. But even if it is, and I'm one who believes it is, try to explain this to Sapolsky and Mitchell. Sapolsky congratulates Mitchell that they are both of the same opinion that qm should be ignored.
Super - watched it all
They may want to first start at what they think 'free will' is. They are both saying the same things but one is saying we don't have free will the other does. The difference may be that they don't agree that 'free will' means the same thing to one another. Also, I believe both are right - those things should be looked at on a case-by-case basis not general one size fits all.
I'm so grateful for all of this incredible knowledge and exquisite discussions I feel so nourished. I wonderbifnthis applies to people who manipulate the money systems and economy to their beliefs speculation stuff that caused so many innocent people to become instantly homeless during a crash which was subsidized by other rich multinationals, leaving everyone else in the quicksand ?
How about casinos which cheat gamblers out of all their money and rig games to benefit the house? No matter how well u think u play the games you keep getting robbed and then, some people out smart the casino and get banned because the casinos want to determine everything.
So, we are humans being manipulated by other more powerful humans so, what can we do at all???
Having just finished both books in the last week, I think the magical youTube algorithm must have summoned me here with it's strange magic. Super psyched to watch this.
Will just add that, oddly enough, even though both authors seem to be incompatibilists, I gained a new appreciation for compatibilism after reading their books. My intuition was definitely towards their being no free will, but I've since decided that just like for meaning and purpose, rather than require the high bar for free will Sapolsky posits, it is probably better to lower the bar and salvage the concept. The kind of unmitigated free will that was possible for people with a pre-scientific worldview simply isn't feasible anymore, just like universal meaning isn't feasible anymore. We all need to just get over it, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Roberts argument is so comprehensive and logically structured that it is clear that free will can not exist. Therefore, how do we move forward towards personal change of any behaviour we have maintained for a lengthy period of time? What language do we use to describe how change can be made? Maybe we should just accept that there is no free will, but there is influenced will but that we are not aware of what those influences were.
Well, if sage Sapolosky is "right", then "you" have not "maintained" anything.
love that
Personal change is included in what is predetermined.
an action is either random , which in case it was Determined to Be random
or an action is determined by prior reasons
try and fitting anything else in an already determined concept is just being irrational
there always Only have been two choices , determined or random ,
no matter how you look at the problem , there Always was a reason ... or there wasn't , which makes it random
that's it ... there's no ... in between or ... next to it , there never was
religions have twisted people's minds so hard they ended up at the same place , not even knowing their minds are twisted in the first place
Seems the obviousness of the lack of reality of a separate person is being missed. It often is. Most are deep in the illusion that there is a person or a “me”. Once seen through, there is no way to imagine that there is a someone to possess something believed to constitute a free will. There is no decider. No free willer.
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?
Kevin doesn't step back far enough from his sense of being a decider to see the "internal" and "external" causes.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that as a species we are equipped with "an operating system" which helps us analise our own behavior and decisions doesn't mean, I'm afraid, that we are free to use it. Some of us do, but the majority don't and if Mr Mitchell was right that would mean we generally choose to be selfish , greedy and often self-destructing (including our diet, alcohol consumtion, smoking, etc). I'm not convinced.
It would appear the argument falls at what point in time you make the assessment, as Schopenhauer said:
"“You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing.”
Essentially prior to the action, it is always probabilistic, this is evidenced by bayesian/computational accounts of brain processing as well as quantum mechanics. Yet you can and only ever will make one decision.
Post action, the action will and should rightly always be called determined, given that it happened and was constrained by a myriad of factors which lie beyond or beneath conscious/executive processing :)
Both Kevin and Robert are right. It all depends on who you are talking about and from what culture and perspective. ( types and levels 8+billion human beings,US or Europe)
Since I have right brain culture and values , I prefer Robert’s presentation and I know left brain culture is looking at things from objective or subjective and (rational) points of views.
The discussion was great.
Robert may have more experience from working with primates (30yrs) and living in Africa, he may have asked more questions, and found the variables to support his research and conclusions about the complexity of “free will “
Both are right 🎉
Sam Harris is right
Well they're arguing opposing perspectives, only onw can be right. Also Robert states in his new book that his view aligns most closely with Sam Harris
Free Will is like spinning a steering wheel on a broken bumper car ride at an amusement park.
Kevin Michael why argue and defend. You have your own opinions. Robert Sapolsky is open and mindful with many variables!!! He is deep and very interesting.
Thank you Robert Sapolsky 🎉
Outstanding debate. Civil, informed, intelligent, and devoid of any rhetorical wizardry. If may crown a winner, it would have to be Kevin, although Robert was equally compelling. Thanks
I crown Prof. Sapolsky
@@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353 How will you do that if you have no free will?
@@jedser that's irrelevant, actually
@@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353 Actually, it is relevant. The debate is about free will. How is it not relevant that on the one hand you're persuaded of Prof Sap's position and on the other you think you have the free will to crown a winner?
@@jedser I don't need to have free will to crown Prof. Sapolsky. I said I crown him, not that I would crown him out of my free will. In fact existence of free will or not, or even of consciousness, are not necessary for the universe to function. No law of Physics (which are what keeps the universe moving/changing) requires free will or consciousness.
The very fact we have cultures, legal systems, religions etc. Is evidence we dont have a completely free will, as a species we develop social systems to shape our behavior and impulses
Agree, and I would add....to also control and rein them in.
One can have free will and still have to attend to and deal with external contingencies.Your argument makes no sense
I had always assumed there was free will. That unexamined assumption was blown away by antidepressants. Thankfully. Listening to and reading Sapolsky has clarified so much. Thank you for this TH-cam.
Sapolsky vs. Dennett please.
So.. is it common for philosophers to argue against another's theory without actually reading it? This is the second argument against Sapolsky. He doesn't say a lot of the things they are assuming. This argument, in particular, is really close to a lot of what Sapolsky says, but they come to different answers about whether they believe in free will. I think the opposing side might not have read the book in its entirety. They would probably not be so hostile. Maybe they would. I am not good in understanding some of the things people find offensive.