@@winryanTH-cam your nasty comment is unprovoked and speaks volumes not only about your character, but the character of the people who raised you....and...you happen to be wrong, but being wrong is the least of your problems. Keep it up.
@@sakuraa2008 Google robert sapolsky on youtube.TH-cam. a series of 22 lectures given to Stanford student were video taped and made free to the public on TH-cam.. one of the lectures is on depression.
@@mozartsbumbumsrus7750 Take walk for a mile in my shoes. Edit. Was this misunderstood? It was supposed to suggest having experienced something one knows it better.
@@ZippyLeroux Even if he won't, remember that we like Sapolsky for how interesting he is as a speaker. That ability doesn't necessarily reflect better ability as a scientist.
@@userNo31909580 I watch Sapolsky for what I interpret as profound scientific rigour, which has been demonstrated over a lifetime of work... That guy's blase statement about Sapolsky being careless is uniquely bizarre and deserving of further exploration... I can read and understand 'behave' but I can't do the chemistry, biology, and statistics upon which it is based. So maybe sailor knows something I don't.
So I suggest _both_ text and audio, while walking through Sapolsky's 'Behave'. Lazer focus, pure transformative knowledge. My life is completely transformed into something completely different over the years after I digested all these lectures for the first time. It is really transformative. I am lucky to be alive, lucky to write this, lucky to exchange with similar people. Al my 'social' networks are full of support, knowledge and radical exchange. So, it IS possible. Stay cool, and optionally remain baboon-like as much as possible;)
@@lancewalker2595 At the same time science isn't a religion. For example, liking music or art (or specific genres of music/styles of art, specific artists, etc) isn't a very scientific thing either. But I still like music and art and have preferences for those things. Likewise there's nothing logically preventing us from having favorite scientists.
@@tomekczajka I don’t take Sapolsky’s line, “Free will is just the biology we haven’t discovered yet” as literally meaning that there is actually free will hidden in biology that’s yet to be discovered. I take it as completely disputing the notion of free will. He means to say that anyone who still believes in free will has not yet fully realized the biological mechanisms of behavior that create the illusion of free will. He is in effect saying that free will does not exist.
@@nirvonna I know that he wanted to say (and says elsewhere) that free will doesn't exist. But I'm pointing out that this particular sentence shows what is really going on: free will is a real phenomenon that is reducible to simpler biological phenomena. Sapolsky likes to say it means it doesn't exist, but that makes as much sense as saying that water doesn't exist because water is "just" atoms of hydrogen and oxygen.
"One of the things that we've been taught over these last four years is that you can't reason somebody out of a stance that they weren't reasoned into in the first place."
And this a few seconds later. "... they probably feel that way because they've gotten some crappy deal along the way." If Sapolsky is anywhere near as smart as he gets credit for, he knows everything he said connected to "the last four years" can be heard in more than one way. Plenty of irrationality all around. Even most con men are acting out some kind if wound. If Sapolsky believes his own insight, he would advocate for looking into the crappy deals in everyone's past, and not allow his audience to assume they're in the right while others are wrong.
Best thing in all media, internet or otherwise: Sapolsky 2010 Human Behavioral Biology course on TH-cam. The only thing that could possibly be better is a 2021 version of the course.
Thanks Sean for bringing Robert to your community. In my opinion, the book " Behave" should become a compulsory reading for lawyers,. judges, judiciary, legislators, polticians and perhaps in simpler form for primary education around the globe. It is what Euclid is to Mathematics, a compendium of much of what we know, think we know, believe to know about human nature. Although Robert has never explicitly dedicated much time to the sociological works of Emile Durkheim, Max Weber or for that matter Karl-Marx, which is not surprising, since he is an American, he nevertheless is well acquainted with the works of anglo-saxon anthropologist, who have based much of their work on continental sociology. No USA has produced no truly trail-blazing sociologist. Robert Sapolsky is however a trailblazer that could make a part of the continental sociology almost redundant. A must read for any daring Physicist, writting about the cosmos and the human existence. The maxim is ancient: Know thy self first!
i first came across his work through the aptly titled teaching company course "biology and behavior- the neurologic origins of individuality" and what a title !! what a body of work! i suggest everyone get all his video courses, for his teaching presentation is a work of art in itself- nevermind the enormous love and compassion he holds for humankind!!! go get all his stuff!!!
Jokes on you, Sean Carroll!! I’ve actually watched the 76ers on mute, while listening to an episode of Mindscape! Therefore, not having to choose between watching a basketball game, or listening to a podcast 😛
Sean Carroll is one of my newer favorite thinkers, but I have to say there are things outside of his scope that I wish he would take interest in and include (e.g. human culture; in particular leadership culture). Robert Sapolsky is a long time hero of mine and can most definitely fill that gap. I can't wait to listen to this tonight. I hope it lives up to it's potential.
@@BlacksmithTWD Sapolsky RM, 2004. Organismal stress and telomeric aging: An unexpected connection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 17323-17324. Sapolsky RM, Romero LM, Munck AU, 2000. How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. Endocrine Reviews 21: 55-89.
@@BlacksmithTWD he phrased his witticism correctly.. in the absence of competent tumor suppression activators and mediators such as p53, short telomeres tend to promote chromosome fusion, aneuploidy and cancer. Long telomeres good. Short telomeres bad.. That's not to say chromosome fusions are all bad-it seems to have occurrd in the human germ line once with respect to other apes.
@@daviddean707 It's the warmth of the truth he brings to us. And, remember: 'The relationship is the price you pay for the anticipation of it." ;) You, welcome;)
I read that book and enjoyed reading it tremendously. Grateful to be able to hear this conversation. It would be wonderful to hear a conversation between Dr. Salpolski and Dr. Barrett. 😄
Thanks for providing a neat package to give to people as an introduction to Sapolsky’s approach. It might be more likely played than an entire book given cold as a gift would to be read.
As all contributions I have ever seen from Sean, also this video is a brilliant contribution to the growth of human knowledge, and hence the growth of human wisdom and truth. I like the statement by Robert on researchers that see the solution single-dimensional, while the answer is multi-dimensional. “If all you have is a hammer, the answer always looks like a nail”. Both Sean and Robert take very good care of having the right set of high quality tools in their mental toolbox, and not just a few “hammers”. This goes along with the “fact” that generalist are better in the solution of complex problems. Especially if those problems are so fundamental that the correct solution has to consider that everything is entangled with everything. The secret lies in the right level of entanglement, which people often have wrong by ten orders of magnitude or more. This wrong level of entanglement, together with a wrong “model” of the system (believe-system) is an impediment to the growth of human knowledge, wisdom and truth. With my comment I want to contribute to the answer to the question of “free will”, which was one of the first questions in this video. On a meta level the two areas, Sean and Robert research, are very similar. Just compare Newton questions: “Why does the apple fall?” with the question Robert posed: “Why did you floss your upper right tooth first?” The answers to both questions are basically the same: Because there is a “quantum field”, whatever that really is, and then the “waves or components” of this system just behaved as they do, to cluster into, what we perceive as elements (atoms), which then cluster into bigger chunks of elements and so on. For this process of clustering it needs “dynamics” or “movement”. Hint: I describe life as “dynamic” and death as “static”. This is true for a human life, but also at any microscopic level in the universe. When elements have the ability to move they will create clusters, except they would in the next move, just move back into the exact former position. I would call this “pseudo-static”, ie. also death. What I now describe is a fractal mechanism which creates, starting with the big-bang, within several steps more and more INTELLIGENT clusters or “things”. Note: The steps could be more or less granular. I just happened used this granularity, because it seems right for the present scope. Step1: non-intelligent generation of elements Step2: non-intelligent generation of galaxies, stars and planets Result of Step2: In some very rare occasions the created clusters were planets with water. On the planet earth this same intrinsic mechanism of “things” that can move, created amino acids (organic material). Step3: (non-intelligent) In this self contained relatively stable sub-system, called earth, a still random process created by chance a structure that showed for the first time something we can call intelligence. Why do I call this “intelligent”? Because for the first time there was a “thing” that was able to copy itself. The first version of a gene 🧬. For a long time this copy mechanism went on. So now “things” do not only have a possibility to move, but also to copy themselves. The world’s toolbox now had two tools: 1) non-intelligent move (accordant to the quantum field) and 2) copying specific “things” (substances) By the way, the IQ of this first intelligence is very low. Maybe 0,00000001 :-) Result of Step3: Sufficient organic material with a distribution of material depending on how successful or efficient the copying works for the specific material. Step4: By chance a cluster of organic material remained together and also moved together. These now bigger “things” obeyed again to the same mechanism, where the more successful and efficient “things” multiply more rapidly and hence after many generations the more successful things outnumbered the less successful things. Let’s call this mechanism selection (Darwin). The cluster that was able to sense the conditions of the environment and behave accordingly multiplied better. This mechanism we can definitely call intelligence. But still it is maybe just an IQ of 0,00001 :-) Result of Step4: We now have a lot of “cells” that successfully sense the environment. This is a big achievement, because it is the invention of the biological transistor. A small part of the cell controls (switches) what the whole cell does. Step5: We now have all the prerequisites for the evolutionary creation of the brain. Note: As this comment gets too long I will skip some steps in my effort to serialize in words my model which I have in my brain. Result of Step5: Humans have developed a brain composed of mainly 3 brains. Reptile, limbic system and neo cortex. The limbic system is the boss. The neo cortex the slave. The behavior of the limbic system is implemented via “visions” that the limbic system wants to be realized. The limbic system asks the neo cortex to fulfill the vision. By the way, the evolution of intelligence has not stopped. We humans have started to create AI which is much more powerful and also very effective in transferring models without this huge serialization overhead you are just now experiencing in my comment... AI may even be able to control the fate of the universe if it succeeds to create a sufficient ratio between matter that controls and matter that is being controlled, i.e. the transistor mechanism. The second law of thermodynamics can be overcome even on a global scale with intelligence and the transistor paradigm. And finally I can come to “free will”. There is no free will, but humans in general will not notice If they should notice, i.e. understand why there is no free will, it does not make any difference. Well, if you commit suicide because you are so frustrated not to have a free will, ok, then it makes a difference... but only indirectly. The explanation why we habe no free will, is in the process of the creation of intelligence, which I explained in the first 95% of this comment. Ups. Anybody still reading? Sorry, I wanted to make a small comment on “free will”, but it, as very often, turns out to be a “water Lilli” question/answer, where when you pull on one leaf you pull out the entire plant covering the lake, as all leaves are entangled. What a great time and place to live in...
Nero research is leading to profound insights on many levels of understanding. One how genetics and environment influences our decisions in combination with our biochemistry. I've heard it said, "In times of stressful events we resort to our training" (or lack thereof). It curtainly is a complex dance between awareness and and inherented constructs. Excellent interview with Dr. Sapolsky.
"You can't *reason* somebody out of a stance that they weren't reasoned *into* in the first place... You can't reason people out of stuff that is just based on the most visceral of emotions."
Oh man, what a fucking treat! I love Sapolsky so much. I've listened to every lecture of his that I can find. I have genuinely not been this excited for a podcast guest since Lisa Feldman's last appearance on Lex Fridman. Great work Sean! Also, I agree with Robert on free will! There's nothing pointing to it besides intuition and, since this is a physics podcast in part, we all know how vastly wrong human intuitions can be! Everything points in the other direction! A spooky thought but I think that's a poor reason to dismiss the likelihood! Someone get Robert Sapolsky and Lisa Feldman to debate free will!
@@MrCBTman Degrees of Freedom (DOF) is a concept that exists in different domains. I originally knew it from statistics. DOF can mean different things depending on who/how it's being utilized. I took a little time to look into your reference, and didn't get a sense that DOF was being used/referenced in the same way, but I didn't take too much time. How does Dennett reference it? Sapolsky references it in relation to the frontal lobe (i.e. the bigger the frontal lobe, the more DOF).
@@thenewtowncryer Interesting. Thanks for that. I think Dennett was referring to how natural selection confers more or less freedom of choice to a species. A dog has a greater degree of freedom than a honeybee, which has more than a bacterium. With our ability to reason, discuss, and plan our actions, humans have the most freedom of all.
@@MrCBTman that is exactly how Sapolsky references it. Perhaps Saplosky got it from Dennett or vice versa. Either way, I think it is an important concept relating to FREE WIll vs DETERMINISM in the domain of biology which is where it belongs. The discussion extends to predisposition does not necessarily equal predetermination. It's nice to exchange thoughts with someone who is not a troll of sorts.
It's kind of scary at times I feel how true is the statement "Ignorance is a bliss" Please make an episode why do we still have problems when we know so much. I am not awaiting for answers but it's food for thought.
Concerning the point about Gods and religion's evolutionary aspect, when he mentioned Josef Henrich and his colleagues. I really really suggest you interview Ara Norenzayan who's written the book "Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict" which talks exactly about the points Sapolsky was making. In fact I'm pretty sure he was referencing him, which is great. Please! It'd be amazing if you met him!
I love Sapolsky's position on humans explaining their own motives. I've always felt that human beings tend to rationalize, and complicate their decision making in order to justify base reasonings. In other words, as complicated as we can be, we do tend to overcomplicate our decision mkaing, and reasons for not only being, but for certain actions. I think a lot of this has to do with our level of consciousness, and feeling that we are spearate from the natural world; yet, we're not. We are animals, and we have mostly the same needs as other animals.
True. We are how we are because of our environment and history. not separate.. history helps. environment is in front now. also individually temporary as an individual
I was halfway in his book Behave, but is quite long (and lots of interesting details and interesting side remarks) and left it fort too long on the table. Very nice talk now with a very insightful person. Now ready tot attack the rest of the book.
Having listened to this podcast, and i did enjoy it, I think that Sapolsky describes why people have tendencies to act in one way rather than another but that is a billion miles away from the idea that we humans don't have free will. We humans are shaped by our genes, our upbringing and our our environment but that has been known for a long time. The idiom that there but for the grace of god go I, sums it up perfectly. There is nothing here that is new and nothing that explains why each human doesn't have free will. The idea that I may prefer mayonnaise rather than humus because of my origin doesn't mean I don't have free will.
Free will is a non-workable concept and that's why you don't have any. What you do have is something that one could call "agency": the ability to chose between different physically possible futures. Nature doesn't care to prescribe everything about tomorrow. Whether a pile of dirt ends up on the left side or the right side of the yard is completely irrelevant to her. So in that sense you can "do some gardening" in your environment. What you can't do (and what the conventional definition of free will implies) is to re-do your decision to pile the dirt on the left. What's done is done and it can, at most, be partially undone.
Robert Sapolsky talking to Sean Carroll. Sean Carroll talking to Sam Harris . Sam Harris talking to Robert Sapolsky. All we need is Brian Greene added to the mix.
Behaviours that result in climate change arise from our emotions. (fear, greed, need for security...I dont think many of us activly 'choose' to destroy our environment). If Sapolsky is right, and no amount of intellectual persuasion will change behaviours based on emotional decisions. We are truly buggered
Free will is just the entropy level of the system, as in the complexity of it with all of the different moving parts and how easy it is for them to reconfigure. Rocks are low entropy, because they are simple, and they don't rearrange their atoms easily, as compared to the human brain, which is hyper complex, and has high entropy, moving bits around at lightning speed all the time. As for the question of how to deal with harmful behavior by humans (and other species), it really does all come down to health: just like how we look to repair a bicycle when it's not running well, we can look to repair human bodies (and the brains inside them) when the humans are not working well. Humans are born to be creative, curious, and compassionate intelligent beings, but if we're not getting our biological needs met, we are going to malfunction. And because we're super complex organisms, our needs are super complex, so just "not starving, not totally falling apart" the way most humans are these days isn't enough.
We how care about his work akd it’s profound impact on the very very likely way in which humans actually behave and work neurobiologically and within a full spectrum of environmental causes! His book called (behave) is absolutely brilliant and enlightening to the point it should be in public libraries and national school curriculums
For me all of this only matters to me when I have conflict with people. How do you judge someone else? I do think there's some sort of "moral brain" that is also a social brain that enables cooperation, but also easily gets domineering and defines other people as wrong simply for having a different perspective. I like the idea of both affective-empathy and cognitive empathy, and second enables perspective taking, so we step back from our POV and imagine another's, which can help you guess what you can do to help someone else, while unfortunately cognitive empathy can also enable manipulating others.
The thing is, you don't need to judge based on your primary genetics or predisposed ideas. You can always contemplate deeply where your ideas come from, and choose to opt out of the judgment , opt out of the manipulation, and live far more free than he is describing. It just takes a good deal of effort and awareness and contemplation.
On free will, I like E.F. Schumacher's quote "Human beings are highly predictable as physico-chemical systems, less predictable as living bodies, much less so as conscious beings and hardly at all as self aware persons." Whatever free will is, it probably is subtle. If you can imagine a choice that has irreversible consequences (like opening your mouth in math class and risking being humiliated for being wrong, or mocked for being a smarty-pants), you can imagine risks and rewards, and decide to try or not. So what if boys speak up more in school because of testosterone reduces their sensitivity to risks? Knowing that, does that mean they should be more worried, or that girls should know they can't listen to their anxieties? But knowing there are differences, at least we don't have to say "hyper boys are bad" or "quiet girls are good" or 100 other things, and see there's reasons for the differences, and we can train ourselves to do a little more or less than we might if we knew nothing about the hidden things.
Our emotional state nearly always overrides any cognitive awareness when a decision is in progress. To survive is our one true purpose and our immediate environment is the primary influencer. Our conscious fills In the blanks when multiple options are available. This is the only rational thought process but we are tricked into believing this all happens cognitively.
Amazing! Amazing is the emergence of the biggest ideas in the universe, from a mindscape of quantum fields in a functioning brain, self-assembled from the standard model of reality. Emergent complexity that strives to understand the complexity of self… and other… and all else! Such beauty when used wisely. CERN fMRI Yet such destructiveness when bathed in ignorance… “There is no scientific study more vital to man than the study of his own brain. Our entire view of the universe depends on it.” ― Francis Crick
I listened to a discussion that was given by the Royal Institution on TH-cam only yesterday and now this one today. It would be good if you could interview Psychologist Robert Plomin who argues that our genes are the single most powerful influence on the type of person we are. Which is completely the opposite to Robert Sapolsky views.
the book Socioeconomic Environment and Human Psychology also talks about pastoralists vs nomads and honor cultures (1:02:00)... highly recommend. they also talk about the rice vs wheat culture thing
Finally the GOAT, Robert Sapolsky
Sapolsky is absolutely worthy of the title, but Chomsky will always be my #1 GOAT. Shout out to Keekorok.
@@thenewtowncryer There is no GOAT you silly pleb. Stop being simple.
@@winryanTH-cam the DUDE from the big lebowski is the GOAT
@@winryanTH-cam your nasty comment is unprovoked and speaks volumes not only about your character, but the character of the people who raised you....and...you happen to be wrong, but being wrong is the least of your problems. Keep it up.
@@thenewtowncryer All of you need to read : Behave !
I think I will always be grateful for Robert Sapolsky’s work. His Stanford lecture series is gold.
solid gold!
Opened an entirely new world to me.
I agree pure Gold 4sure
😅😅😅😅
for those who want to avoid reality or let's say responsibility for their actions.
Sapolsky gave a lecture in depression that finally convinced me to see a doc. It changed my life. Thank you!
Please, Where can I find it?
@@sakuraa2008 I Believe Is This One: th-cam.com/video/NOAgplgTxfc/w-d-xo.html
@@sakuraa2008 Google robert sapolsky on youtube.TH-cam. a series of 22 lectures given to Stanford student were video taped and made free to the public on TH-cam.. one of the lectures is on depression.
Sapolsky admits to serious deep clinical depression so, he should know a thing or three about it as he's very well placed!
@@mozartsbumbumsrus7750 Take walk for a mile in my shoes.
Edit. Was this misunderstood? It was supposed to suggest having experienced something one knows it better.
I rewatch the Sapolsky psychology lectures every year or two; they are so good!
@@sailorr4287 can you elaborate please?
@@ZippyLeroux he can't
Myself as well
@@ZippyLeroux Even if he won't, remember that we like Sapolsky for how interesting he is as a speaker. That ability doesn't necessarily reflect better ability as a scientist.
@@userNo31909580 I watch Sapolsky for what I interpret as profound scientific rigour, which has been demonstrated over a lifetime of work... That guy's blase statement about Sapolsky being careless is uniquely bizarre and deserving of further exploration... I can read and understand 'behave' but I can't do the chemistry, biology, and statistics upon which it is based. So maybe sailor knows something I don't.
Finally he invited the most inspiring neurobiologist Thumbs Up Sean
My favorite theoretical physicist interviewing my favorite neuroscientist. Pinch me someone, I am dreaming.
marry me
You beat me to it!
l)/l)l@@blaeks)l
Where are you? If you're in the UK a pinching could be arranged.
@@blaeks waah bhai.!
One of my fav humans walking the earth. Thanks for having him on. Good talk!
Mine too was just saying how smart this guy is and it's people like him and Paul stamets who could change the world.
So I suggest _both_ text and audio, while walking through Sapolsky's 'Behave'.
Lazer focus, pure transformative knowledge. My life is completely transformed into something completely different over the years after I digested all these lectures for the first time.
It is really transformative. I am lucky to be alive, lucky to write this, lucky to exchange with similar people.
Al my 'social' networks are full of support, knowledge and radical exchange.
So, it IS possible.
Stay cool, and optionally remain baboon-like as much as possible;)
I see Sapolsky, I hit like.
..same..
I too have no free will
... me too. I hit like before I scrolled to the comments. Sapolsky is so right :)
That's not very scientific.
@@lancewalker2595 At the same time science isn't a religion. For example, liking music or art (or specific genres of music/styles of art, specific artists, etc) isn't a very scientific thing either. But I still like music and art and have preferences for those things. Likewise there's nothing logically preventing us from having favorite scientists.
Great guest great conversation Sean! Nothing more entertaining than listening to two intellectual beings having a conversation!
Let’s admire how incredible of a speaker Robert Sapolsky is, seriously!
Quote: “Free will is just the biology we haven’t discovered yet.”
Love it. I’m with Sapolsky 100% in being a “hard incompatibilist.”
That sounds like the compatibilist position though. An incompatibilist says "free will doesn't exist" rather than "free will is [...]".
@@tomekczajka I don’t take Sapolsky’s line, “Free will is just the biology we haven’t discovered yet” as literally meaning that there is actually free will hidden in biology that’s yet to be discovered. I take it as completely disputing the notion of free will. He means to say that anyone who still believes in free will has not yet fully realized the biological mechanisms of behavior that create the illusion of free will. He is in effect saying that free will does not exist.
@@nirvonna I know that he wanted to say (and says elsewhere) that free will doesn't exist. But I'm pointing out that this particular sentence shows what is really going on: free will is a real phenomenon that is reducible to simpler biological phenomena. Sapolsky likes to say it means it doesn't exist, but that makes as much sense as saying that water doesn't exist because water is "just" atoms of hydrogen and oxygen.
I have watched all of Dr. Sapolsky's Stanford Bio- lectures...... The WORLD NEEDS more Robert Sapolsky.
Sapolsky enlightens every time.
This is a wonderful interview with the brilliant and inimitable Robert Sapolsky. Thank you so much, Sean.
"One of the things that we've been taught over these last four years is that you can't reason somebody out of a stance that they weren't reasoned into in the first place."
You noticed...🤣
And this a few seconds later. "... they probably feel that way because they've gotten some crappy deal along the way." If Sapolsky is anywhere near as smart as he gets credit for, he knows everything he said connected to "the last four years" can be heard in more than one way. Plenty of irrationality all around. Even most con men are acting out some kind if wound. If Sapolsky believes his own insight, he would advocate for looking into the crappy deals in everyone's past, and not allow his audience to assume they're in the right while others are wrong.
Love that quote.. 👌
@@SuperSlik50 😫 😩 🥺
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
-Karl Popper
Fascinating and thought provoking! I quickly became an admirer of Robert Sapolsky with this podcast.
One of the best podcasts I’ve ever listened to. Thanks Sean Carroll and Robert Sapolsky!
Gee some one who knows what is really going on. I can rest easy now, thanks Sean and Robert for sorting this all out for the crowd
Finally!!!!!!! Ive been waiting for this episode for my whole life
Pretty impressive for a two year old. You should pad yourself on the back 😋
@@mrloop1530 )))
Right?
Sapolsky's Stanford videos are good brainfood. Two thumbs up!
Absolute gold!
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself Solid Gold!
Yes!
Best thing in all media, internet or otherwise: Sapolsky 2010 Human Behavioral Biology course on TH-cam. The only thing that could possibly be better is a 2021 version of the course.
Thanks Sean for bringing Robert to your community. In my opinion, the book " Behave" should become a compulsory reading for lawyers,. judges, judiciary, legislators, polticians and perhaps in simpler form for primary education around the globe. It is what Euclid is to Mathematics, a compendium of much of what we know, think we know, believe to know about human nature. Although Robert has never explicitly dedicated much time to the sociological works of Emile Durkheim, Max Weber or for that matter Karl-Marx, which is not surprising, since he is an American, he nevertheless is well acquainted with the works of anglo-saxon anthropologist, who have based much of their work on continental sociology. No USA has produced no truly trail-blazing sociologist. Robert Sapolsky is however a trailblazer that could make a part of the continental sociology almost redundant. A must read for any daring Physicist, writting about the cosmos and the human existence. The maxim is ancient: Know thy self first!
Sean, these are wonderful! Unmatched interviews by an unmatched interviewer with a golden voice.
His voice is smooth as butter tbh. He could have been a TV host too imo
i first came across his work through the aptly titled teaching company course "biology and behavior- the neurologic origins of individuality" and what a title !! what a body of work! i suggest everyone get all his video courses, for his teaching presentation is a work of art in itself- nevermind the enormous love and compassion he holds for humankind!!! go get all his stuff!!!
Jokes on you, Sean Carroll!! I’ve actually watched the 76ers on mute, while listening to an episode of Mindscape! Therefore, not having to choose between watching a basketball game, or listening to a podcast 😛
Two of the greatest thinkers of our time.
Thank you so much for interviewing Robert Sapolsky, Sean! Love the interview!
YES! Thanks for getting Robert on your show Sean.
Sean Carroll is one of my newer favorite thinkers, but I have to say there are things outside of his scope that I wish he would take interest in and include (e.g. human culture; in particular leadership culture). Robert Sapolsky is a long time hero of mine and can most definitely fill that gap. I can't wait to listen to this tonight. I hope it lives up to it's potential.
I've gathered a piece to the puzzle that helps Sapolsky in his dilemma and I'm looking forward to my conversation with him!
What is ‘leadership culture’?🤔
Forgive me, but you seem to be asking as if you have no clue@@HkFinn83
Thank you Dr. Carroll, may your telomeres be long, and don't let the baboons beat you down!
Shout out to Keekorok!
You really want Dr. Carrol to get cancer? Or are you just ignorant about the relation of the lenght of telomeres and Cancer?
@@BlacksmithTWD Sapolsky RM, 2004. Organismal stress and telomeric aging: An unexpected connection. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 101: 17323-17324.
Sapolsky RM, Romero LM, Munck AU, 2000. How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. Endocrine Reviews 21:
55-89.
@@nowhereman8374
Both was another possibility of course. Thanks for your reply.
@@BlacksmithTWD he phrased his witticism correctly.. in the absence of competent tumor suppression activators and mediators such as p53, short telomeres tend to promote chromosome fusion, aneuploidy and cancer. Long telomeres good. Short telomeres bad.. That's not to say chromosome fusions are all bad-it seems to have occurrd in the human germ line once with respect to other apes.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful episode with professor Sapolsky!
I think he may be over-rated like Stephen Hawking, for me, all psychologists reiterate Freud, Jung and Adler and is why I gave it up.
@@daviddean707 It's the warmth of the truth he brings to us.
And, remember: 'The relationship is the price you pay for the anticipation of it." ;)
You, welcome;)
I read that book and enjoyed reading it tremendously. Grateful to be able to hear this conversation. It would be wonderful to hear a conversation between Dr. Salpolski and Dr. Barrett. 😄
Thanks for providing a neat package to give to people as an introduction to Sapolsky’s approach. It might be more likely played than an entire book given cold as a gift would to be read.
Been waiting years for this combination.
Robert Sapolsky chills me out the way explains things in a calm, though-out manner.
Two of my favorite conversationalists in one video, pressing that like button couldn't be any easier!
As all contributions I have ever seen from Sean, also this video is a brilliant contribution to the growth of human knowledge, and hence the growth of human wisdom and truth.
I like the statement by Robert on researchers that see the solution single-dimensional, while the answer is multi-dimensional.
“If all you have is a hammer, the answer always looks like a nail”.
Both Sean and Robert take very good care of having the right set of high quality tools in their mental toolbox, and not just a few “hammers”.
This goes along with the “fact” that generalist are better in the solution of complex problems. Especially if those problems are so fundamental that the correct solution has to consider that everything is entangled with everything.
The secret lies in the right level of entanglement, which people often have wrong by ten orders of magnitude or more.
This wrong level of entanglement, together with a wrong “model” of the system (believe-system) is an impediment to the growth of human knowledge, wisdom and truth.
With my comment I want to contribute to the answer to the question of “free will”, which was one of the first questions in this video.
On a meta level the two areas, Sean and Robert research, are very similar.
Just compare Newton questions: “Why does the apple fall?” with the question Robert posed: “Why did you floss your upper right tooth first?”
The answers to both questions are basically the same:
Because there is a “quantum field”, whatever that really is, and then the “waves or components” of this system just behaved as they do, to cluster into, what we perceive as elements (atoms), which then cluster into bigger chunks of elements and so on.
For this process of clustering it needs “dynamics” or “movement”.
Hint: I describe life as “dynamic” and death as “static”. This is true for a human life, but also at any microscopic level in the universe.
When elements have the ability to move they will create clusters, except they would in the next move, just move back into the exact former position. I would call this “pseudo-static”, ie. also death.
What I now describe is a fractal mechanism which creates, starting with the big-bang, within several steps more and more INTELLIGENT clusters or “things”.
Note: The steps could be more or less granular. I just happened used this granularity, because it seems right for the present scope.
Step1: non-intelligent generation of elements
Step2: non-intelligent generation of galaxies, stars and planets
Result of Step2: In some very rare occasions the created clusters were planets with water. On the planet earth this same intrinsic mechanism of “things” that can move, created amino acids (organic material).
Step3: (non-intelligent) In this self contained relatively stable sub-system, called earth, a still random process created by chance a structure that showed for the first time something we can call intelligence.
Why do I call this “intelligent”?
Because for the first time there was a “thing” that was able to copy itself. The first version of a gene 🧬.
For a long time this copy mechanism went on. So now “things” do not only have a possibility to move, but also to copy themselves.
The world’s toolbox now had two tools:
1) non-intelligent move (accordant to the quantum field) and
2) copying specific “things” (substances)
By the way, the IQ of this first intelligence is very low. Maybe 0,00000001 :-)
Result of Step3: Sufficient organic material with a distribution of material depending on how successful or efficient the copying works for the specific material.
Step4: By chance a cluster of organic material remained together and also moved together. These now bigger “things” obeyed again to the same mechanism, where the more successful and efficient “things” multiply more rapidly and hence after many generations the more successful things outnumbered the less successful things. Let’s call this mechanism selection (Darwin).
The cluster that was able to sense the conditions of the environment and behave accordingly multiplied better. This mechanism we can definitely call intelligence. But still it is maybe just an IQ of 0,00001 :-)
Result of Step4: We now have a lot of “cells” that successfully sense the environment. This is a big achievement, because it is the invention of the biological transistor. A small part of the cell controls (switches) what the whole cell does.
Step5: We now have all the prerequisites for the evolutionary creation of the brain.
Note: As this comment gets too long I will skip some steps in my effort to serialize in words my model which I have in my brain.
Result of Step5: Humans have developed a brain composed of mainly 3 brains. Reptile, limbic system and neo cortex.
The limbic system is the boss. The neo cortex the slave.
The behavior of the limbic system is implemented via “visions” that the limbic system wants to be realized. The limbic system asks the neo cortex to fulfill the vision.
By the way, the evolution of intelligence has not stopped. We humans have started to create AI which is much more powerful and also very effective in transferring models without this huge serialization overhead you are just now experiencing in my comment...
AI may even be able to control the fate of the universe if it succeeds to create a sufficient ratio between matter that controls and matter that is being controlled, i.e. the transistor mechanism.
The second law of thermodynamics can be overcome even on a global scale with intelligence and the transistor paradigm.
And finally I can come to “free will”.
There is no free will, but humans in general will not notice
If they should notice, i.e. understand why there is no free will, it does not make any difference. Well, if you commit suicide because you are so frustrated not to have a free will, ok, then it makes a difference... but only indirectly.
The explanation why we habe no free will, is in the process of the creation of intelligence, which I explained in the first 95% of this comment.
Ups. Anybody still reading? Sorry, I wanted to make a small comment on “free will”, but it, as very often, turns out to be a “water Lilli” question/answer, where when you pull on one leaf you pull out the entire plant covering the lake, as all leaves are entangled.
What a great time and place to live in...
LOVED YOUR ESSAY..THANKS FOR V THE EFFORT
Sapolsky's writing a book on quantum...
How would you define or at least roughly describe the *free will"?
Crystals copy themselves all the time ...
Amazing guest! Thanks so much
We all thank almighty Chaos
I see Sapolsky, I hit like 2.
Just hit it once, if you hit it twice, it will remove the first like.
ta7iya a si najib
@@ispearedbritney thrice works as well, just keep it to odd clicks ~
I see Sapolsky, I go back to work on my long-awaited Theory of Scissors.
It's a-comin', Robert, just hold on a little longer.
Nero research is leading to profound insights on many levels of understanding. One how genetics and environment influences our decisions in combination with our biochemistry. I've heard it said, "In times of stressful events we resort to our training" (or lack thereof). It curtainly is a complex dance between awareness and and inherented constructs. Excellent interview with Dr. Sapolsky.
2 people that are really really helpfull in life.
Oh great! A Sapolsky interview, thanks Sean. Woot!
Robert one of the best teachers and scientists of our generation.
What a precious gift!
Chaos is good to us this pandemic I see
I _literally_ opened up TH-cam just now to see what Sean Carroll might have been up to.
Same!
"You can't *reason* somebody out of a stance that they weren't reasoned *into* in the first place... You can't reason people out of stuff that is just based on the most visceral of emotions."
@Vlasko60 Sapolsky was subjected to daily orthodox religion until age 13 when he realized that there is no god
I and my wife are great fans of Sean Carroll as Particle Physicist also nice to see his stretch into other subjects.
Finally! Was waiting for this podcast
Holy shit... 2 of my favorite people on one podcast!! I love both of you... with no free will in a quantum state!! Lol
😲 Sean pulled one of my favorite minds, Sapolsky. Well played.
Oh man, what a fucking treat! I love Sapolsky so much. I've listened to every lecture of his that I can find.
I have genuinely not been this excited for a podcast guest since Lisa Feldman's last appearance on Lex Fridman. Great work Sean!
Also, I agree with Robert on free will! There's nothing pointing to it besides intuition and, since this is a physics podcast in part, we all know how vastly wrong human intuitions can be! Everything points in the other direction! A spooky thought but I think that's a poor reason to dismiss the likelihood!
Someone get Robert Sapolsky and Lisa Feldman to debate free will!
Sapolsky has taken me beyond myself and I'm very grateful.
🇮🇪💚🇮🇪
Sapolsky is the much-needed cure to the free will myth.
I'm hoping you understand Sapolsky's concept of "degrees of freedom" when you say that.
@@thenewtowncryer Pretty sure that "degrees of freedom" is Dan Dennett's concept.
@@MrCBTman Degrees of Freedom (DOF) is a concept that exists in different domains. I originally knew it from statistics. DOF can mean different things depending on who/how it's being utilized. I took a little time to look into your reference, and didn't get a sense that DOF was being used/referenced in the same way, but I didn't take too much time. How does Dennett reference it? Sapolsky references it in relation to the frontal lobe (i.e. the bigger the frontal lobe, the more DOF).
@@thenewtowncryer Interesting. Thanks for that. I think Dennett was referring to how natural selection confers more or less freedom of choice to a species. A dog has a greater degree of freedom than a honeybee, which has more than a bacterium. With our ability to reason, discuss, and plan our actions, humans have the most freedom of all.
@@MrCBTman that is exactly how Sapolsky references it. Perhaps Saplosky got it from Dennett or vice versa. Either way, I think it is an important concept relating to FREE WIll vs DETERMINISM in the domain of biology which is where it belongs. The discussion extends to predisposition does not necessarily equal predetermination. It's nice to exchange thoughts with someone who is not a troll of sorts.
Excellent conversation! Thank you .
It's kind of scary at times I feel how true is the statement "Ignorance is a bliss"
Please make an episode why do we still have problems when we know so much. I am not awaiting for answers but it's food for thought.
probably something to do with how people's Ideologies affect their Neurobiology. and what benefits they receive from it by way of their Ignorance.
Can't believe this didn't show up as a notification, of ALL things. Guess I'll have to click the bell.
What an excellent episode! Thank You Sean!
Favorite podcast by far. Will have to buy his book.
BUY THE BOOK, BUT ALSO CHECK HIS STANFORD LECTURES ON TH-cam...22 CLASSES VIDEO TAPED AND FREE
The best takedown of Objectivism and so called rationalism I’ve heard. Bravo.
I read his book and it's simply amazing.
I absolutely love Robert and his work.
I am not sold completely on the idea however but love to ponder and learn more about why we do things.
Concerning the point about Gods and religion's evolutionary aspect, when he mentioned Josef Henrich and his colleagues. I really really suggest you interview Ara Norenzayan who's written the book "Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict" which talks exactly about the points Sapolsky was making. In fact I'm pretty sure he was referencing him, which is great.
Please! It'd be amazing if you met him!
Two brilliant men, one brilliant conversation.
Our favorite friendly ethologist! Yaay!
I love Sapolsky's position on humans explaining their own motives. I've always felt that human beings tend to rationalize, and complicate their decision making in order to justify base reasonings. In other words, as complicated as we can be, we do tend to overcomplicate our decision mkaing, and reasons for not only being, but for certain actions. I think a lot of this has to do with our level of consciousness, and feeling that we are spearate from the natural world; yet, we're not. We are animals, and we have mostly the same needs as other animals.
True. We are how we are because of our environment and history. not separate.. history helps. environment is in front now. also individually temporary as an individual
Thanks for the great episode and congrats for 130k subscribers ! Absolutely deserved!
I was halfway in his book Behave, but is quite long (and lots of interesting details and interesting side remarks) and left it fort too long on the table. Very nice talk now with a very insightful person. Now ready tot attack the rest of the book.
Carrol and Sapolsky. Instant like.
I really wish Sean would debate/argue/discuss with Sapolsky his book Determined. I’d be interested to see how he maintains his Compatabilism
This was an amazing podcast. Both are brilliant. Thank you.
Fabulous chat thanks to you both!
Having listened to this podcast, and i did enjoy it, I think that Sapolsky describes why people have tendencies to act in one way rather than another but that is a billion miles away from the idea that we humans don't have free will. We humans are shaped by our genes, our upbringing and our our environment but that has been known for a long time. The idiom that there but for the grace of god go I, sums it up perfectly. There is nothing here that is new and nothing that explains why each human doesn't have free will. The idea that I may prefer mayonnaise rather than humus because of my origin doesn't mean I don't have free will.
Free will is a non-workable concept and that's why you don't have any. What you do have is something that one could call "agency": the ability to chose between different physically possible futures. Nature doesn't care to prescribe everything about tomorrow. Whether a pile of dirt ends up on the left side or the right side of the yard is completely irrelevant to her. So in that sense you can "do some gardening" in your environment. What you can't do (and what the conventional definition of free will implies) is to re-do your decision to pile the dirt on the left. What's done is done and it can, at most, be partially undone.
Robert Sapolsky talking to Sean Carroll. Sean Carroll talking to Sam Harris . Sam Harris talking to Robert Sapolsky. All we need is Brian Greene added to the mix.
Finally. I've been waiting for this!
Another splendid discussion!
Fantastic! I've really been hoping to hear a conversation with Sapolsky for quite some time.
24:45 changing others people’s minds
37:59 split-second racism and broccoli
42:54 system two to the rescue - but only if you have a dissonance...
1:22:21 - That kind of anecdotes mr Sapolsky injects are my absolute favourites.
Very enlightening and entertaining. And illustrates even the smartest of us are prone to error. As when Sapolsky uses "could care less".
As mentioned at 1:12:04, the Joseph Henrich episode is really good too
Best mindscape episode ever
RS can hold his own on any platform. I would have liked to heard more from him.
Behaviours that result in climate change arise from our emotions. (fear, greed, need for security...I dont think many of us activly 'choose' to destroy our environment). If Sapolsky is right, and no amount of intellectual persuasion will change behaviours based on emotional decisions. We are truly buggered
Free will is just the entropy level of the system, as in the complexity of it with all of the different moving parts and how easy it is for them to reconfigure. Rocks are low entropy, because they are simple, and they don't rearrange their atoms easily, as compared to the human brain, which is hyper complex, and has high entropy, moving bits around at lightning speed all the time. As for the question of how to deal with harmful behavior by humans (and other species), it really does all come down to health: just like how we look to repair a bicycle when it's not running well, we can look to repair human bodies (and the brains inside them) when the humans are not working well. Humans are born to be creative, curious, and compassionate intelligent beings, but if we're not getting our biological needs met, we are going to malfunction. And because we're super complex organisms, our needs are super complex, so just "not starving, not totally falling apart" the way most humans are these days isn't enough.
Oh boy what a treat!
Profess. Watched all your videos on-line….. Thank You
We how care about his work akd it’s profound impact on the very very likely way in which humans actually behave and work neurobiologically and within a full spectrum of environmental causes! His book called (behave) is absolutely brilliant and enlightening to the point it should be in public libraries and national school curriculums
For me all of this only matters to me when I have conflict with people. How do you judge someone else? I do think there's some sort of "moral brain" that is also a social brain that enables cooperation, but also easily gets domineering and defines other people as wrong simply for having a different perspective. I like the idea of both affective-empathy and cognitive empathy, and second enables perspective taking, so we step back from our POV and imagine another's, which can help you guess what you can do to help someone else, while unfortunately cognitive empathy can also enable manipulating others.
Thanks, much appreciated, Very interesting discussion!
49:32 what maturing means at a neurological level is mind blowing
This episode is the highlight of the show.
Powerful and Insightful, thank you.
The thing is, you don't need to judge based on your primary genetics or predisposed ideas. You can always contemplate deeply where your ideas come from, and choose to opt out of the judgment , opt out of the manipulation, and live far more free than he is describing. It just takes a good deal of effort and awareness and contemplation.
I'd LOVE to hear JP and RS talk on current events.
@Vlasko60 JP is another consciousness artist fraud
30:15 Well that escalated quickly
Wonderful conversation. Very insightful
On free will, I like E.F. Schumacher's quote "Human beings are highly predictable as physico-chemical systems, less
predictable as living bodies, much less so as conscious beings and hardly at all as self aware persons."
Whatever free will is, it probably is subtle. If you can imagine a choice that has irreversible consequences (like opening your mouth in math class and risking being humiliated for being wrong, or mocked for being a smarty-pants), you can imagine risks and rewards, and decide to try or not. So what if boys speak up more in school because of testosterone reduces their sensitivity to risks? Knowing that, does that mean they should be more worried, or that girls should know they can't listen to their anxieties? But knowing there are differences, at least we don't have to say "hyper boys are bad" or "quiet girls are good" or 100 other things, and see there's reasons for the differences, and we can train ourselves to do a little more or less than we might if we knew nothing about the hidden things.
Our emotional state nearly always overrides any cognitive awareness when a decision is in progress. To survive is our one true purpose and our immediate environment is the primary influencer. Our conscious fills In the blanks when multiple options are available. This is the only rational thought process but we are tricked into believing this all happens cognitively.
Amazing!
Amazing is the emergence of the biggest ideas in the universe, from a mindscape of quantum fields in a functioning brain, self-assembled from the standard model of reality.
Emergent complexity that strives to understand the complexity of self… and other… and all else!
Such beauty when used wisely. CERN fMRI
Yet such destructiveness when bathed in ignorance…
“There is no scientific study more vital to man than the study of his own brain. Our entire view of the universe depends on it.”
― Francis Crick
I listened to a discussion that was given by the Royal Institution on TH-cam only yesterday and now this one today. It would be good if you could interview Psychologist Robert Plomin who argues that our genes are the single most powerful influence on the type of person we are. Which is completely the opposite to Robert Sapolsky views.
Plumbing is blinkered and buried in his own bucket
the book Socioeconomic Environment and Human Psychology also talks about pastoralists vs nomads and honor cultures (1:02:00)... highly recommend. they also talk about the rice vs wheat culture thing