Robert Sapolsky: "The Brain, Determinism, and Cultural Implications" | The Great Simplification #88
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- On this episode, neuroscientist and author Robert Sapolsky joins Nate to discuss the structure of the human brain and its implication on behavior and our ability to change. Dr. Sapolsky also unpacks how the innate quality of a biological organism shaped by evolution and the surrounding environment - meaning all animals, including humans - leads him to believe that there is no such thing as free will, at least how we think about it today. How do our past and present hormone levels, hunger, stress, and more affect the way we make decisions? What implications does this have in a future headed towards lower energy and resource availability? How can our species manage the mismatch of our evolutionary biology with our modern day challenges - and navigate through a ‘determined’ future?
About Robert Sapolsky:
Robert Sapolsky is professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University and a research associate with the Institute of Primate Research at the National Museum of Kenya. Over the past thirty years, he has divided his time between the lab, where he studies how stress hormones can damage the brain, and in East Africa, where he studies the impact of chronic stress on the health of baboons. Sapolsky is author of several books, including Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers, A Primate's Memoir, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst, and his newest book coming out in October, Determined: Life Without Free Will. He lives with his family in San Francisco.
For Show Notes and More visit: www.thegreatsimplification.co...
00:00 - Episode highlight
00:15 - Guest introduction
03:10 - When did Robert know he wanted to study animal behavior?
04:40 - When was his last research trip?
05:46 - Challenges that come from differences from modern and ancestral environments
07:20 - Physiology and our emotions
09:37 - Divide in evolutionary beliefs
12:13 - Behavioral science and religion
14:40 - Past students’ impacted by Robert
16:48 - Testosterone
21:07 - Dopamine
29:02 - Oxytocin
32:19 - Hormones affecting social behavior
38:21 - Changing the environmental stimuli of pregnant people to positively impact fetus’ development.
41:55 - Free will
57:24 - Science of attractiveness
58:55 - Do people have free will?
1:13:12 - Emergence
1:18:17 - Quantum and indeterminacy
1:19:18 - Complexity of free will
1:23:46 - Difference between free will and agency
1:26:43 - How to use Robert’s work to change policies around the world in a positive way
1:29:15 - What’s the difference between a deterministic world and a fatalistic one?
1:34:39 - Robert’s thoughts on his newest book, Determined: Life Without Free Will
1:40:48 - Key components in a new systems society understanding this science
1:45:30 - What should listeners take away from this podcast?
1:47:32 - Robert’s recommendations for the polycrisis
1:52:20 - What Robert cares most about in the world
1:53:00 - Robert’s magic wand
1:54:36 - Future topics of conversations
#natehagens #thegreatsimplification #neuroscience #dopamine #freewill #testosterone
I haven't been educated past the college level but thanks to Prof Sapolsky and Stanford I had the privilege of following his human behavioral biology course for free. My life has been immensely enlightened by him.
Be thankful, its no longer an education, but an indoctrination.
@fesimco4339 Same!
As someone in crippling dept for college I am truly happy that you found him. I’d rather my fellow curious souls are enlightened, it will make for a better world!
Sapolsky was on “The Infinite Mind” and he knew so much about Depression!
He helped lead me out of that.
@@pinchebruha405 You may be in debt but at least you have a diploma as proof of finishing the course!
"Testosterone isn't the problem. The problem is that we hand out so much social status for aggression." This makes so much sense to me as the mother of a son.
Amen!
Women love tough guys (that are actually extremely weak since they are hurt by the slightest percieved insult.) Women are attracted to guys who make them feel safe, which ironically draws them to men who seek conflict.
Wow...keep male bashing and misunderstanding your son- see how that turns out for you. And all humans Need testosterone and currently are depleted of it, throwing off hormones and the ability for descision making, which is its primary function. You best start looking into this with new eyes if you want a real relationship with your son. Neither women nor men should be Followers
@@jefferydecelles7989 knowing something to be false through your own experience doesn't denote anything about the larger societal themes nor does the other commentors skin deep regurgitation of social commentary he or she likes.
@akasypher1556 you win😊
Robert Sapolsky speaks with profound authority and deep humility
A truly inspiring communicator
Really like him but he does impose/pick & choose many of his own biases in interviews ( his liberal bias is clear - ie talking about facial symmetry & afro American conviction without reference to cultural bias ( which is incredibly, nuanced & involves the specific bias of the individual and group; which is a sociological, phenomena - not an exact science). He may be referencing statics but which ones - he doesn't state them ...also, if cheek-bone/symmetry is the one question he is looking at : as a determining factor for all US convictions that you are focused on, then you got to question, his ability, to question his own limits; regarding boundaries of his expertise. It's novel, though - I'll give him that. Lol He's so clever, within the speciality he is engaged, in, love to hear his knowledge & perspective. Like all of us, he can over-reach, to fit his own ideal- which, ironically, would counter his argument on, free will, but hey, life is complex & so much is still, undetermined. 🤔
But he's wrong and a charlatan when he speaks on philosophy
@@padrai9398 Yeah, I'll take Prof Sapolsky of Stanford over your youtube comment thanks
@@connectingupthedots And you are published Professor who? Shaddup fool
@@connectingupthedots There are no absolute rights or wrongs in philosophy and to call him a charlatan is a typical you tube ad hominem attack
Since social media The level of public debate is utterly abysmal and is more about personal abuse than intelligent discussion
Still find it wonderful that one can get this level of intellectual discussion and education from such top tier people online.
I agree!
Listening to Sapolsky is like listening to a compessionate therapist I always needed
NATE!! Your guests are outstanding!! I'm so glad this happened.
Love me some Sapolsky! Read every single book and academic paper he's written (I'm a Neuoscientist). Influenced my career studying chronic stress greatly. For decades. We've cited his work in my Lab. Great Podcast.
We run a false civilization of chronic stress.
I've listened to Robert Sapolsky for the last few years, and he still makes so much sense to me. Thank you for this.
Me too. I'm a huge Sapolsky fan.
@@2R.de.P... Where & when & why isitisn't that convergence is going to becoming an allin mass of emergentphenomon-on ally T bone flavoured icecream bisquitsuitablefit ...
@@2R.de.P ... I recon it may add some. Whatever is the case, feels like the culmination of an era, away from, or toward something significant, and we'll find out pretty soon enough. Cheers from OZ way down under in Australia ...
@@2R.de.P ... Yep. Probable some Sim this plan-it side, soon, too. Cheers ...
I came across Robert Sapolsky many years ago looking for an update on thinking on depression. I found his Stamford University series on behavioral biology all twenty plus episodes. I say episodes because it was as gripping and entertaining as any novel or movie. Even when I am not certain I agree with him I just find him so genuine it does not matter. Something about intellect combined with humility the only word I can find to describe him is love. Just a wonderful person.
Robert is a truly incredible expression of the universe. We’re lucky to be expressed alongside him.
I had no choice.
I just want to tell you, Nate that I'm glad your podcast is getting more attention. I've followed you for over a decade and I am grateful for your service in the world. Thanks for this interview in particular because I think Robert Sapolsky's work is extremely interesting and important, too.
I know that I will have to watch this at least one more time.
This conversation resounded with me on so many levels.
Regarding free will, it immediately makes me think of death and I remember the words of Axel Munthe at the end of his book "Whatever happens when I die, I'm proud to share the same fate of the animals that I lived with."
Many years ago I fell in love with a tiny fish from Lake Tanganyika. A few years later I decided to make a doc series about them and I went there with 7 cameras and I gathered around 500 hours of underwater footage.
I mainly shot an individual, a young male and I decided to see how the people in the village nearby were dealing with the same issues he was dealing with. 2 years later I returned to Lake Tanganyika to try to find that same little fish less than 1".
When Robert described his time in Africa, I felt a knot in my stomach because I knew what we was talking about and the time/space distance is painful. I'm not particularly sensible to landscapes, but I clearly remember one night having to turn my eyes away from the moon because it was unbearably beautiful.
Thanks for sharing that. Axel Munthe ... Read and adored his book on Capri many years ago. 😊
@@markcounseling I visited his home a few years ago. I guess it's time to read the book again.
@@LightSearch Was your quote from the Story of San Michele, or another of his books? And is that the home you visited? I found that book at a Buddhist retreat center on Salt Spring Island in British Columbia. Reading it was such a vivid experience and I'd hoped to visit there some day.
@@markcounseling The quote is from The book of San Michele. I went to Capri to visit his house.
I was glued to this conversation for two hours straight. Thanks guys.
Sapolsky is such an inspirational figure. Love his integration into the wider ecological discourse.
Me too! He would be happy in the deep forest too. We are blessed to have his wisdom being shared. ❤
Oh my god. This man is one of the primary reasons that I went in to the field of psychology. Two absolute legends in one video. Great work!
What a shame. Maybe you should read Iain McGilchrist. This man is part of the MIC, among other things
@@D.E.Saccone-no4og What does MIC mean? (Serious question btw)
@@Shabba870 military industrial complex…probably
@@ericmoyer8538 Thank you for answering!
_CONTENT:_
Introduction 00:15
"Why you became a biologist?" What's your life like? 03:08
Atavisms of our brains: the source of our problems? 05:48
The three hormones and misconceptions about them: 16:47
_(a)_ Testosterone does NOT cause agression 17:35
_(b)_ Dopamine is NOT the result of the reward 21:08
_(c)_ Oxitocine is NOT all about love 29:01
The neurological effects of stress, poverty, social conditions 34:21
Overview of the book _Determined._ Is there free will? 41:57
Is emergence of free will biologically possible? 1:12:26
Multilevel selection and will 1:19:13
(Lack of) free will and agency: societal implications 1:23:46
Determinism and fatalism 1:29:17
"Why did you write this book?" 1:34:48
What if there's undesired backlash? 1:36:41
What would actually prove free will? 1:38:48
How would society change, if we accepted determinism? 1:40:40
Personal advice for the viewers. What does the World need? 1:47:32
"What would you like to discuss next time?" 1:54:37
Thanks!
Much appreciated. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup!
Hating somebody makes as much sense as hating an earthquake! Precisely!! Thank you!!!
Whenever Sapolsky comments on free will it’s the most meta thing ever. Everything that has happened before us has determined us to be here, in this comment section, listening to this conversation, and just as much so will influence our response to the information presented in this podcast. It can get as complex and as deep as you’d like to go with your thinking.
I wasn't his student but I watched the online lectures. It was life changing. I hope more people get to watch them.
Where can we find them ? And how did they change your perspective? 🙏🏼
@@clementemergence
th-cam.com/play/PL848F2368C90DDC3D.html&si=PxPHISTlJMRYwp8P
I have a dopamine release every time I listen to Dr. Sapolsky.
Sapolsky finally got a mic for himself. Good for him.
i think it was a gift from Sam Harris. The mic and headphones.
As someone who searches, this is a breath of fresh air. His responses are eloquent and full of generosity. Thank you for this post.
But I do want to ask a question, what is his belief on god? On spirit? And why is it all simply we have no choice, we are influenced and we are merely a set of biological responses. That seems way too simplistic. And I'm just curious, for someone with such a studied viewpoint, what is his thoughts on god.
He gave them already. @@seubertz
@@seubertzHe is an atheist and has said along the lines of “I have zero capacity for anything spiritual”.
We are all acting in ways that are beyond our own perception and ability to comprehend, yet making the unknown solid seems to be a protective factor for moving around in a world with vast uncertainties. Thank you Nate and Robert for making this discussion available for chimps like me to ponder.
This book feels like a balm. I feel so much calmer as I read it, I feel more empathetic with others.
I also feel a life time of questions about *HOW* to do this. I hope this book gets read far and wide, by MANY fields (talk therapists, judicial workers, educators...)
Robert Sapolsky is among my four most favorite people of all time
Who are the other three?
I think Prof Sapolsky has to be one of the greatest intellects on the face of the planet .
Fascinating conversation. It seems as though Dr Sapolsky is taking the admirable position that something like justice, becoming more humane, or thriving - is desirable and maybe even possible, but only by way of facing the (non)reality of free will. This feels like an interesting paradox; if justice or thriving is possible, it will necessarily be emergent, but also (causally) reliant on persuading and enlightening people to see things this way. It's a disorienting, and somehow beautiful goal. Listening to him talk about how often he succeeds at living his beliefs, it feels almost like an anti-nihilist absurdism. The position is untenable unless/until we succeed in reinventing subjectivity scientifically, and there are many traps along the way.
Excellent podcast. Free will doesn't exist because we believe in it, and ceasing to believe in it leads to a more humane world.
At minute nine in this already beautiful conversation I am reminded of a quote from the movie, “Leaves of Grass,” when a female Rabbi has a conversation with a troubled person, and it goes as follows:
She (the Rabbi) says: "We are animals Professor Kincaid, we have brains that just trick us into thinking we are not."
He asks: "What can I do with that?"
She says: "Repair"
He asks "What...what do you mean?"
She replies: "All of us, you , me, your brother, ...we break the world, help repair it."
"you are going to have to make a lot of personal choices" is a great way to end a talk about the absence of free will 😊
This threw me, too. In another talk (with Kevin Mitchell), this language was also throwing Mitchell.
That said, Sapolsky regularly mentions how hard it is to actually live in this way - that is, talking in a way that uses choice not framed in free will seems really hard to do.
Maybe? 'The-organism-that-is-you will face many choices...' - instead of * '*you* will face many choices'. (* 'you' in an ego-captain-free-will sense.)
Well, you make the choices and there is nothing you can do to prevent it. You spectate yourself doing it
I think he frames it as no free will to create controversy so he can talk about the many drivers of behavior. Some people think you can pure will yourself to make the kind of choices others will. Point in case: you are depressed and someone says "just go for a walk". Point is you dont feel like taking a walk. People say: so he chooses to be depressed. Well you might take medication and then start walking or find an entry point that would be easier to do while depressed like watching a certain movie or eating. See the difference?
The "making of a personal choice" is not the product of free will. It's an example of how our language is built around this idea of self.
Anyone know why he thinks this contradicts compatibilism? AFAIK compatibilism basically says the same thing he's saying about how it all happens materially, just with an extra semantic spin on top of "this has to be 'free will' because this is the only meaningful 'will' we've got anyway".
This is one of the best episodes you’ve done yet. I have so much to reflect on. Nate, I’m inclined to think you’ve made the best intellectual forum maybe ever
Yes. He gets better every month.
I have to say that if anyone read Behave, it felt like the "free will" book was already written. It feels like very few have read it or listened (it's like a 24hr audiobook). I was only hoping to go much deeper into how the lack of individual free will feeds the lack of free will of the superorganism. It was like the conversation ALMOST went there but maybe Nate's initial feeling of "I wish this were a 5 hour discussion" was my same feeling in the end. Great interview in any case.
I went to Stanford and remember meeting him at a cocktail party, then having no idea who he was. Man, he was sure interesting to talk to!!
I will listen at least one more time. Thank you and thanks to Jancovici, he's the reason I'm here.
Love the guy, he knows about life, determinism and how fucked up our system is, which thinks humans have free will. I send you love Dr. Robert, I would live to meet you in person one day, and give u a huge hug.
Excellent conversation. Much thanks Dr. Sapolsky.
Robert Sapolsky is a great teacher and a hell of a nice guy. I'm so glad that you are still active, Robert and sharing with us! I missed you on the Internet.
You never fail to make me think.
It is said by Prof. Ian Mcgilchrist that we are what we pay attention to. Now that we know this we can perhaps alter our trajectory.
Nature is all around us willing to sit quietly with us and to share her wisdom. Let us keep Nature healthy and accessible.
Yes, when you think about it, our gifts are given freely, randomly and without merit. There but for some grace go I.Taking too much merit and reward for ourselves doesn't sound very wise all of a sudden. Not being grateful also.
We can perhaps take some merit however if we use these gifts wisely and to make the lot of others good. There is some choice here. Some weighing up so that we are not found wanting. How do we get the wisdom to do this though?
Robert Sopolsky, Ian Mcgilchrist, Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, John Vervaeke and so many others are out there trying to be the change that they want to see in the world, so take heart! They are trying to find wisdom and meaning and to share it.
I suppose that's why religions came about long, long ago.
The demise of any spirituality has perhaps left a wisdom gap and a meaning crisis.
We are at war on so many fronts today. Yes, religions caused wars too but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Religions some merits, they just perhaps lost the run of themselves and became fundamentalist and judging. Forgetting the, " There but for the grace, go I bit.
The gathering, loving your neighbour as yourself and the gratefulness parts of religion seemed good.
We are all connected somehow. Every move we make, every word we utter changes the world. We are all important in this regard.
The imperfect human body can only filter reality. Otherwise, it would be overwhelmed by the infinity of things that are out there.
For this reason, science can only bring us so far. They say that math is the language of science.
I ask myself,
"Who wrote the maths behind the science?" We must perhaps use our imagination in addition to science to see beyond that veil. Instead of betting on good things happening, perhaps we can dream and make them happen. Gaining wisdom by setting time aside to not think about ourselves and to see the beauty in things. Through open minded conversation. Through learning how to listen. Perhaps ?
The world and life are extraordinaire, and so is Sapolsky... because he understand them and is able to translate that in such a simple langage.
Thank you Nate.
Sapolsky is an almost legendary figure in the world of academia. So happy to see him here on one of my go to broadcasts. And what a fascinating, albeit for me a little troubling, discussion between these two great thinkers.
I have listened to numerous interviews, many of which were discussions with Dr. Sapolsky about whether or not we have free will. This exchange was OUTSTANDING! Thank you, both!
first! Robert Sapolsky?? Nate you are KILLING IT! Much love to you both!
i love so much Mr sapolsky, even i am not anthropologist or scientist, his observation are so relevant..... i just get his whole standford course. it's great just after JMJancovici, the combo may be the what of global problems, and then th why.... thank you for this content
I am stubborn to be openly convinced about how someone else is great but ... I am defeated ... All kinds of respect and love for Sapolsky
Really great guest! His lecture "Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lecture about Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity" contains some amazing insights.
I got a hit of dopamine when Nate said he would ask his closing questions. Sapolsky's answers were AMAZZZZING!!!!! The was one of your best conversations, Nate! Both because of the guest and the host! Thank you!
Sapolsky is my hero.
I LOVE the way Robert reduces the complexities and Nate responds with humility toward the understanding of our fundamental existence at this pivotal point of intellectual development. We are entering way to slowly a step in evolutionary psychology, or not. Tomorrow will decide. Stay tuned.
Another stellar guest!
Nate thanks for getting Prof. Sapolsky further into the spotlight. He is great. I've also watched probably all of his recorded lectures. Robert's personality and his enthusiasm for his work really caught me attention about 10 yrs ago. I also ask my self why social leaders spend more time studying laws than human tendencies. I think some kings may have understood this better than some presidents. Anyhow thanks again for promoting Prof. Sapolsky's work. Please thank Robert for being brave and enthusiastic enough to share his passion with the world!!
Love this guy! Thank you so much Nate for bringing him on and for the care you always show to your listeners ❤
Nate. I've been watching your videos and podcasts for about 6 months now. Really impressed with your work. Keep it up!
Robert Sapolsky YES!!!
I think it'd be hilarious if Mr Sapolsky kept a note in his pocket saying: "I knew you were going to pick up the pen"
YES!
Another one of the great minds of the 20th/21st century. Wonderful conversation, so thank you!😁👌
Currently trying to parse Spinoza's Ethica in the original Latin, listening to Sapolsky peaked my interest and sure enough he's definitely familiar with Spinoza.
This is an amazing crossover. Thank you both for your work.
I challenge everyone who has commented on Nate's conversation with Sapolsky to watch Nate's interview with Jean-Marc Janocovic: "Our Global Energy Predicament" Both interviews are mind blowing; the Best on the Net in 2023. I can't wait to read everyone's comments. 💞
Thanks to you both for this wonderful and illuminating conversation.
It’s kind of funny how his honest investigation of human behavior lead him to a conclusion shared by ancient religions about how to treat and see others with universal unconditional compassion. I hope someday that becomes the standard perspective for all of society.
You are on to something my friend; when we get to the bottom we'll find Jesus and the Buddha said it in fewer words 'Be merciful!'
I consider myself fortunate to be alive at the same time as Sapolsky. I've read three of his books now, and will no doubt read everything he cares to write. Not only an outstanding scientist, he's such an incredibly gifted educator.
The transition from the self-aware stage of ego to the Conscientious stage directly coincided with me realizing I had been born with a female brain. I was finally able to accept it and just let go of the PTSD that had been forcing me to pass as the wrong gender since 2nd grade. The amount of self-love and self-worth I feel is unbelievable. I have never felt good about myself before, ever. I have never been happy before, ever. I had always had to get positive feelings from external sources like bad food, bad habits, bad relationships, drugs.
Loved the discussion on free will. I have read "Behave" and this topic produced a lot of angst in my head at first as I really started to wrap my mind around it. But what likely helped me get past this is that before "Behave", I had read Riane Eisler & Douglas P. Fry's book "Nurturing Our Humanity". They make the observation that both humans and non-humans have had egalitarian societies and this was accomplished by using NURTURING as a learning mechanism. By providing nurturing environments, we learn to REASON to a moral understanding (PFC activation). What we currently do is use DOMINATION. Domination triggers the amygdala and the human threat response and leads not to reasoning, but to conformity (the "Fawn" part of the threat response).
Understanding that executive functions like critical thinking, context and impulse control are in the prefrontal cortex and that access to this is shut off when the threat response is triggered, will help us find ways to bypass this. Those who can engage in this emotional regulation likely think this re-engagement of the PFC means "free will", but again, Sapolsky shows that you aren't really free to think up any response to external stimuli. Your response is still limited only to what understandings and possibilities you have "seeded" within your brain. Thus why it's important to open your mind and keep expanding your understanding of things.
What a guest! Thank you!
Wow, you really put a lot of effort and thought into your questions. Thank you, Nate!
This man is full of wisdom. A truthful one! I advice you to read his book called “Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst”.
I respect Professor Sapolsky greatly. Lectures inspired me the most. All of it's great. I found myself telling some friends and my Father his words last night. Reading this new book ASAP! Nate, I'm disabled and trying to apply for SNAP benefits now. I do my best every day. Guess I'll try to do more? I'm trying my hardest and gone surprisingly far. But my resources are limited.
I wish Nate could network some of his guests together and discuss our predicament. Try to figure this stuff out? Multi-Level-Methods "Interdisciplinary Round Table"? It preoccupies me daily. Guests are probably far too busy for that though.
Thank you very much for this relevant episode.
I'm envious of those who are students of Robert Sapolsky. He is very eloquent and humble. I am happy to know about his amazing ideas.
Great conversation!
So glad to see you grow this channel and having guests like Mr. Sapolsky on!
Dr. Sapolsky is certainly one of the most brilliant humans alive in our time. A perfect choice as a guest. Thank you!
He gives me science Gandalf vibes
Two of my favorite minds! Just started listening and really looking forward to this one! Thanks Nate!
Please put together Dr. Robert Sapolski and Dr. Joshua Bach on free will and conciseness
So glad Roberts still sharing.
Sapolsky is really interesting and a brilliant mind. One point where I found his reasoning to be lacking or “incomplete” is when he is talking about morality, good, and evil. And using these concepts to justify actions and position. As if the idea of “no free will” didn’t completely challenge these concepts as well.
He doesn't appear interested in ethics. The finds the process of determining intent boring.
@@pamdarnaby I don't know what you're trying to convey. If Earth's ecosystems were sentient, they (as a collective) would be very concerned with collective human intent. They would be less concerned with individual human intent.
@@pamdarnaby Alright then. Robert Sapolsky is sentient, a hurricane is not. Robert's intentions may be murky; a hurricane does not possess intent, regardless of what it does.
The theory of evolution posits a blind process, devoid of intent, which produced the diversity of life, i.e. the biosphere, and ecosystems.
Sentient collectives are more difficult to classify. Culture may be a reflection of the unexamined intent of the human species. Individuals are capable of introspection; the best a collective can do is produce outcomes based on subconscious desires, motivations, and intentions.
Yes, there's no logical reason to have ethics or a judiciary system if there's no free will. Those who will break any would-be law, will do that. Those who won't - won't. And there's definitely no reason to give anybody a chance at redemption.
It takes away personal responsibility.
I am not your student, but your lectures did change my life.
Thank you, Dr. Sapolsky!
No worry, if you listened to his lectures and learned anything from them, then you're a student, too. You just didn't go to Stanford. 😅
Fantastic interview on a classic topic.
I think Sapolsky's conflating biochemical predispositions and environmental forces with absolute determinacy. That's quite the leap, although I will say that this distinction begins to collapse as you move further down to ever more simple organisms. Just because you can predict which student is more likely to challenge you doesn't mean his decision to pick up the pen was fated to happen since the beginning of the universe. Sapolsky is thinking himself out of existence while denying the notion of the thought itself.
It doesn't violate any physical laws, nor is it inconsistent with the nature of brains, to suppose that thought or consciousness, especially within something as complex as a human brain, results in a kind of randomness that can account for choices or a level of "freedom", however constrained it may be at any given moment e.g. there are decision we make where if we were to replay the moment 100 times we would certainly get different outcomes/choices. I think this is where the notion of chaos theory being important to explaining "free will" comes in.
And we now know that space-time is not fundamental, so everything we observe is some sort of projection or data structure grounded in something else. So we know that simple causality is not the truth of what we see. The universe as we perceive it must be rooted in some sort of primordial consciousness or consciousnesses or drive/drives thereto being the force/forces that shape space-time. Or something like that. It goes back to Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, and it seems that Leibniz might have actually been onto to something, which is completely insane to think about now.
I'm also not sure he's allowing himself to fully understand the consequences of every human on earth truly believing that they had no agency in their actions or future. What would "believe" even mean in this case for that matter? He makes light of this, which to me was an indication of blind spots as is always the case with absolute geniuses like Sapolsky
Following up on this:
He's using language that pre-supposes some level of free will while describing the benefits of our realization of our own determinism.
>Using words like "lucky". There is no luck in a deterministic universe. Everything is as it was ordained to be. I'm not lucky because my ancestors set up my civilization and pro-created with high symmetry people. It just is as it was always going to be. I was always entitled to it since my genetic material in the past resulted in my situation in the present. I "earned" it as much any other deterministic outcome.
>He talks about "Xenophobia". How is there such a thing as an irrational fear in a deterministic world? The fear of outsiders or others was just another domino falling. And how can you even account for the notion of "rationality" in a deterministic world? It doesn't exist. There is no reasoning within a deterministic consciousness.
>How can you have any moral judgements whatsoever in a deterministic universe. He talks about reformed Nazi's. In his universe Nazi's aren't bad, they just are. How can they reform themselves for that matter?
>He talks about how there'd be little reason to "hate" in a deterministic universe. But in this universe hate is merely a deterministic neurochemical condition created through simple causality. No one can will to hate.
>He mentions knowledge. I think our current notion of knowledge falls apart in the face of determinism. A brain configuration that changes determinately over time is not the same thing as what we mean by knowledge.
In a deterministic universe a massive chunk of our language is obliterated.
This perspective has genuinely sparked a unique thought process within me today.
Wonderful! Another hit, Nate, thank you, thank you, thank you! Mr. Sapolsky is brilliant, fascinating and hilarious! I wouldn't say that I entirely agree with his conclusions, necessarily, but he's a delight.
Structurally speaking, it appears to me that we are free to choose from a transfinitely large set of predetermined paths, so it's paradoxical, that is, we do have free will but only to choose that which is predetermined. But, but, bear in mind that the predetermined set of paths in an infinite multiverse is likely infinite, or damn near, so it feels like free will. Sort of a both/and approach.
Another interesting resource on determinism and the human brain your audience might enjoy, 'Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain' by David Eagleman. THANK YOU BOTH!!
But that you don't believe it is not a free choice. It's been formed by your environment and biology. Why do you think you know better than someone who has been studying it for decades?
Hi Nate, Great Guest. One of my all time favorites. Thanks and all the best.
“There’s no normal out there that you are failing to live up to” … man hearing that felt freeing.
Professor Hagens, it was just by serendipidy that I found your channel, and I've learned so much. This is the best channel on You Tube. I'm grateful. Thank you so much sir for what you do.
Exactly, it makes you more happy when you come something mind blowing by chance.
I am brand new here. My mind is getting blown.
Wonderful content!! Thank you for providing this platform for such speakers. Your insights are very much appreciated and make a difference.
From someone who thinks about this: 1) I don't have free will, but I have some on sale for cheap. 2) I don't have free will, but I have free won't. 3) Sometimes I have free will, sometimes I don't. 4) If I had free will, my kitchen would be spotless. 5) Do what Thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. [The difficulty being knowing who Thou art.] 6) "Set me free with liberty to always do what God has planned for me." (From my first poem, written when I was was six, raised in a not particularly religious, non-churchgoing family.)
…you really don’t need to make anything up to be heard. It’s not believable in the slightest that you wrote something with that level of subtext at the age of six. Makes your whole comment come across in a way I’m sure you didn’t intend.
@@IHamilton9320 What, you think I'm lying about my first poem? Actually, I am. It was my SECOND poem. I wrote my first one when I was five, but it sucked.
"Look at this.Look at, you see" 1:35:50 🎉 love Uncle Robert. Showing us he's miss understood brilliants. Pure alchemy
I had the revelation a little while ago that free will is not a real thing. Man, was that a load of my shoulders. My thinking was that it is the creation of religion to make people accountable in way of sin and such. I feel a lot better after realizing this. Do I feel good having Mr. Sapolsky on my side. Great channel👍
In regard to the Victor Frankl quote: there is space for a choice but no matter what choice was made, it is the choice that was always going to be made.
You were always going to switch from an omelet to oatmeal since the beginning of time. There is no way to juke fate, no escape from Destiny.
Not just a little depressing, imo.
So grateful to have found this podcast and your guest. Timely knowledge about hormones. TY
I saw a lot of dr. Sapolsky interviews, but that’s the best. I totally agree with professor but thanks to your resistance in abandoning the sensation of having a free will, you push Sapolsky to go very deeply. Thank you.
Robert's error in claiming no free will is most evident at
49:39 where he says "They're able to believe in things like 21st century technology and science and stuff, but somehow there's still a way of getting free will out of there".
Just consider all this technology we are using to exchange these symbol mediated messages. It is all based on transistors.
Transistors rely on a quantum process called tunneling, which is not possible in classical mechanics.
Tunneling has fundamental uncertainty associated with it, in each specific instance.
The way in which we transform that uncertainty into certainty, is by getting large enough groups (over dimensions of both space and time), that the individual uncertainties no longer matter, and the group confidence gives us very large degrees of reliability.
In order to achieve that reliability, we must control many of the constraints in physical reality within very fine tolerances, eg temperature within a range of 270 - 320 kelvin, voltage within some very narrow range - which depending on the particular technology you are using will be between 1 and 5 volts, but in any particular technology some tiny fraction of a volt. Lots of other constraints also required, like limits on torsional forces, compression, extension, magnetic flux, electric field, high energy particles, etc.
So yes, there are constraints required to make technology reliable, and we have developed ways of doing that, and we did that by accepting that at base there is fundamental uncertainty.
That is a very different thing from classical "cause and effect".
It is fundamentally different.
Yes, all complex systems require sets of constraints for their survival and operation. At the surface level that must look like classical causality most of the time. But that does not mean that is classical causality all the way down.
The further down the stack one goes, the greater the uncertainty, the randomness, present.
From my 60 years of exploration of these questions, across multiple domains, it seems clear to me that we are complex systems, and complex systems do necessarily approximate classical causality at many levels (they could not maintain complexity elsewise), and we also seem to live in a reality that is at base constrained uncertainty, and at any level of structure there will exist boundaries where such uncertainty can give rise to meaningful levels of choice and freedom and creativity.
Robert's overly simplistic understanding of how technology actually works leads him to an overly simplistic conclusion - one that is, to my mind, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, wrong.
I am clear that every human does have the reasonable possibility of meaningful levels of choice and responsibility in their lives, and it is a deeply complex and subtle thing, and yes, most of what we are is necessarily the product of multiple levels of complex systems that have sets of constraints that make their operation possible. That is what complex systems are.
And we live in a world that has constraints on everything, contrary to popular economic dogma - on that we firmly agree Nate.
I have been a student of biology, of behaviour, of biochemistry, of evolutionary strategy, for a very long time, and I have also been deeply interested in cosmology and in machines, and have been programming computers for 50 years.
Quantum mechanics is hard.
Quantum field theory is hard.
Getting a reasonable handle on how enzymes actually do what they do takes a great deal of study.
And yes, we all need to use simplifications, useful approximations, it is just too complex for us to do anything else. But it is a mistake of the most fundamental kind to think that our needing to use simplifications means that what we are discussing is simple.
It isn't.
And I am confident, P>.9999 that Robert is incorrect when he claims that free will does not exist.
And what I see as free will is something deeply complex, but also deeply meaningful, and fundamental to the very notion of life, as systems with the ability to explore the unexplored for the survivable; and to sapient life as systems capable of modeling reality to some reasonable degree of fidelity, and to include a model of themselves within that model, and to use language to communicate aspects of those models to other sapient agents.
I am comfortable with paradox and wonder if this theory is only partly useful. Bohm described the implicate order as that which gives rise to the explicate one we experience.. yet it is the whole movement of continuous unfolding and enfolding which utterly requires the counter valence of patterns generating probabilities and emergence generating pattern disruption. And yet (from my relative layperson/non expert/amateur Inquisitor understanding) I feel that if you remove the factor of time --which humans distinctly possess 'organs' for (in the Goethian sense).. then isn't it all just limitless static energy all determined (completely fixed from a process/time experience human perspective)?
@@adrianhodgson4448
Hi Adrian,
For me, paradox is an indication that the paradigm in use is not sufficiently complex to allow resolution of the problem.
After 50 some years in the enquiry I have come to a systems definition of life as:
any system capable of generating variation and thence searching the space of the possible for the survivable.
Genetics does this, via the mechanism of the differential survival of collections of genes. This can happen at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the level of multicellular organisms, at the level of populations of such organisms, at ecosystem level, and now (thanks to the new levels of replicators that our brains and language have bought to the party as various collections of culture, institutions and technologies) at the entire biosphere level.
To me, the idea of freedom, is fundamental to the very definition of life - the ability to search beyond the already present. And the demand for survivability introduces the idea of responsibility into higher level systems, in that some of the vectors in the search space will not be survivable for some set of agents, and need to be avoided. At our level, freedom without responsibility necessarily self terminates, as does life without freedom. Like the Greeks said, life exists between the vices of excess and deficiency.
In us freedom manifests in an ability to generate some level of independence from the forces of external cause and effect, and of course that can only happen with many layers of internal cause and effect being maintained, and of course there are influences on everything (as Robert accurately says).
One of the interesting things about human neural activity is that most of it is endogenous (not related to external stimuli). Of course there is relationship in practice, but the internally generated pattern is primary, and is then aligned, to some degree, with external stimuli. This fact is not well appreciated.
One of the fascinating things for me, was a discovery from database theory about a decade ago, that for a fully loaded processor, the most efficient possible search is the fully random search. All forms of indexing, sorting etc, take more processor cycles to execute than they save. If you have spare time, spare processing capacity, then building indexes saves time, but if the processor is fully loaded, then random search wins.
I suspect that is part of why I find it hard to communicate the "solutions" I have found, because I did not get to any of them by any sort of stepwise logical process; much more like flying a helicopter than walking over a landscape.
This was definitely one of the best episodes on here. It almost makes sitting through the delusional hacks like doomberg forgivable.....
Doomberg isn't deluded about everything. He is worth listening to - except when he gets onto politics.
@@gibbogleWhen Nate interviewed him he said "We don't have to worry about the Earth's resources because we don't live in a closed system, we have the sun". On a human lifespan time scale this would have to imply we can eat, drink and breathe sunlight without anything else. And then he went on to say "I am willing to bet we will be using more oil in 2050 than now". Sorry but any educated man delusional or dumb enough to believe either of those idiocy's is not only delusional but needs to be checked for a brain tumor.
Always love to hear from Sapolsky and excited for the new book
Well I didn’t go to Stanford but I watched all of his behavioral biology lectures and did the course reading. It has helped me deconstruct from a religious cult upbringing and I am now a middle school science teacher thanks to Sapolsky. So… I don’t have his number but let him know he is a life changing professor.
Very impressive conversation! I can't keep up with your episodes, I don't want to miss any, great content lately! I didn't know Robert Sapolsky, I'll have to read his books. Not that I have any choice on the matter...
I'm a huge Sapolsky fan. I hear his voice when I read his books. Determined isn't out yet. How did you read it? At least it won't be on Amazon until Oct. I've preordered it.
Thank you very much! You asked exceptional questions and I learned a lot from this!
A great guest! Thanks so much, Nate!
Well what can I say Nate at your choice of guest as all the acclamations seem to have been made of Robert Sapolsky: incredible, amazing, inspirational, and many more descriptions of his knowledgeable magnum opus, so I’ll just say his looks and delivery with his lilting voice reminded me of my TM meditation retreats listening to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Hope he produces an audio version of “Determined: Life Without Free Will”, it could become my favourite bedtime book and who knows left under the pillow I might be able to absorb its content through osmosis😊🤔
Have you heard of Ramesh Balsekar or Roger Castillo? Their teachings might be right up your alley.
@@brushstroke3733 Thank you Brushstrokes, but my needs for spirituality and calmness were in those lazy, crazy days (years 60’s/70’s) of summers, the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, Joan Baez, Woodstock USA, psychedelic rock, flower power and flared trousers. Though I did have a retreat with Muz Murray think in 1980’s, seem to think he was teaching Sound Yoga meditation then, believe he’s now doing quite well as a mystic master. You might like check him out🤔
Fascinating podcast!
It seems that Nate doesn't want to give away his sense of agency... despite the science ;-)
Thank you professors Hagens and Sapolski for this treat of a conversation. It was thrilling like a tennis match, to wait for the next bright and revealing notion. At the same time transmitting serenity an optimism. Several doors of understanding have opened for me. It seems silly to take judgements to heart. That there is no free will is a simpler explanation. Also, difficult to disprove, but o the other hand maybe imposible to prove? I'll have to read the book. Anyway this strong possibility of no free will doesn't depress me, because the game starts afterwards (my preprogramming seems to conclude to make the best of itself)
Wow. Fabulous. I’ve been bingeing on Sapolsky videos but this was particularly wonderful in that your questions were even more thought-provoking for Robert than many other poscasts I’ve listened to. Kudos!
I watched his Stanford lectures 2 or 3 times.
Me too!