I agree with Sapolsky he really conviced me, as a consequence accepting that there is o free will gives me more grattitude for my own luck and compassion for somebody else unluck. it is really transformative.

@Apebek

8 ай бұрын

It transforms you into slave.

@bobdillaber1195

8 ай бұрын

​@Apebek Go ahead. It's ok to believe in your God.

@Apebek

8 ай бұрын

@@bobdillaber1195 And you believe in Robert Sapolsky who claims they've magically measured conscious intent 200 miliseconds after brain activity

@kirstinstrand6292

8 ай бұрын

​@Apebek, your true essence, then. Sorry 😮

@PavanKumar-ly2tf

4 ай бұрын

It transforms us as human beings​@@Apebek

I pressed the 👍button, but can't say exactly why.

@cuddlemuff6632

8 ай бұрын

😂😂😂I can't explain why I find your comment hilarious

Mr. Sapolsky many thanx to you for all of your work, lecture, dialog, effort and time and sharing them on the internet freely available to anybody! 👋

@nikirogakos9152

5 ай бұрын

So well said !

Dear Robert, should you ever be in need of a doppelgänger, you will find one in me. We are a ridiculously close dead spit and in any other century would easily pass as a Cornish or Shetland fisherman. Love your work btw and best wishes.

@hififlipper

8 ай бұрын

I don´t know. I just love your comment. Have a nice day!

These conversations have helped me forgive myself for my lot in life and gives me a new sense of liberty. It really is great news.

I'm a philosophy major, yet I make no bones with Sapolsky. In fact, I think it's trivially evident (with the understanding that most find the potential consequences repugnant). We're not wired for Truth, but rather any salve to our fundamental nature.

@sylviaowega3839

7 ай бұрын

This guy s very much predicated on the way the brains were evolved to adapt to the environment.

Great. Thanks.

This was great 🎯 thanks for uploading 👏🏽

Yay! Score. Sapolsky is the king! D.A. NYC

Brilliant .

Excellent !

Amazing, so many questions, I want to know more!

It is a fantastic podcast, Ricardo!

I love this topic of Free Will being an illusion. . . .it has made it so much easier for me to start drinking again !!! Cheers Dr. Sapolsky !

@JB.zero.zero.1

5 ай бұрын

That's just lame. If you have been educated to understand the ills of drinking and in the right supportive setting, you are less likely to reach for the bottle. Whereas, if you are living in a different setting, with alcoholics (say) - then the potential for a different outcome * * Depending on your predisposition, given all past events and how your brain currently functions.

@ZiplineShazam

5 ай бұрын

@@JB.zero.zero.1 According to Dr Saplosky. . .I have no free will or choice in this matter.

I've been binging Dr Sapolsky's Determined interviews recently and loved that some new arguments and questions were levied here - good stuff 😊!

You can measure all the activity in the brain as he explained very well. But how do you measure that someone becomes conscious of an intention? He didn't explain anything about that part so we have to take it for granted which I don't. Science can't measure conscious experience and you can't even prove that anyone is conscious at all.

@Superlongevityinstitute

8 ай бұрын

We don’t even have a agreement on what consciousness means

Thank you Ricardo. This conversation was brilliant. You managed to draw out everything that is essential about Dr Sapolsky’s thinking in a way that made perfect sense. I am happy that his thesis is correct as a once was 14 year old who came to the same conclusions as he. I for one am very happy to live with the no free will proposition since that is something I have witnessed all my life. Where I have offered reasons as to why, individuals in my own family for example have behaved in certain ways, the usually moralistic responses from others is simply, “excuses, excuses, excuses”. High horseism is also rampant amongst those whose good luck meant they did not suffer inordinately so they tend to blame others who have had bad luck as being intrinsically “wrong people”. I want to ask you this, so far, nowhere have I come across an interview with Dr Sapolsky together with Bernardo Kastrup. That would make for a fascinating conversation I think. Would it be something that would interest you? It certainly would interest me. Thank you again. This was my first introduction to you so now I am going to subscribe because of your intelligent, thoughtful and self effacing questioning of Dr Sapolsky and I look forward to watching all that you have put out before now as well. Thank you.😊

@Superlongevityinstitute

8 ай бұрын

Thank you for sharing

37:13 I think the point here is that it all becomes instrumental, evidence based.

Thanks so much for the great conversation. Can u plz tell me how can I contact with Robert Sapolsky to do a podcast with him? An Email or sth?

Is the “intent” to push a button and the “intent” to murder somebody in the same category? Can you even equate these two “intents” ? Is this a reduction to ‘everything people do is comparable to pushing a button’ ? In this way we are all merely robots. Only asking

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

You should read the book. That's one of the topics. Short answer is that button-pushing-experiments are in themselves quite irrelevant, because in order to understand what determines behaviour, you have to go back much further in the past, not just look at what happens at the moment someone makes a "decision".

Is Sapolsky saying that he has no control of what is coming out of his mouth?

@JB.zero.zero.1

5 ай бұрын

I assume he sees the act of talking as being a natural function of the organism, chiefly informed and governed by higher brain functions that themselves were subject to pattern recognition / repetition and habituation. It all gets rather clinical, but he dismisses the idea of a free-floating separate agent/curator, who meticulously assesses what to say and what not to say. At least that's how I see it.

Sapolsky is everywhere, and each time he tells his “when I was 14” story, and it’s made me think that maybe all his research has been an exercise in confirming this bias he’s had since he waa 14

@nonpareilstoryteller5920

8 ай бұрын

Would that not prove his case? Am I wrong?

@Apebek

8 ай бұрын

@@nonpareilstoryteller5920 No it doesn't prove anything. Free will cannot be proven or unproven because it is not a tangible thing you can measure which is essential in modern science. How did they measure that the brain had made a decision 20 ms before you were conscious of the intent? How did they measure the conscious intent? They didn't. There was no explanation provided. You have to take it for granted.

@newearthlivingithaca

8 ай бұрын

His primary interest is primatology

People seem desperate to believe that they have free will.

thinking about raising children - do we lead them to believe that there is free will a little like getting them to believe in Santa or god but then once they are mature enough they learn its just a nice story?

Ultimately we all have the hand in which the universe dealt us with. Some of us have that “god hand”, others have a really crappy hand.

When we look at objects with our eyes the brain too is involved. A basically flat plain becomes three dimensional. We close or blink our eyes and there seems to remain a continuity. Things appear to move across other things that do not move. You could say that the brain creates the illusions of space, distance, size, motion etc. most of the time these illusions are helpful. Such may be the case for free will.

Don't we create our own "luck?" Luck = Opportunity with knowledge present to act upon the opportunity. We create knowledge ourselves. Does this imply that we create our own "luck" through personal development to create personal knowledge?

Free of responsibility. Condemned to retribution... Unstoppable force meets immovable object. Quite the bind.

I think Sapolsky is mostly correct. I do think we sometimes have opportunities to shape our own development... if one is lucky enough to have choices, and one chooses a path that will lead to a more positive environment, then we have influenced our own future development. But I do accept that only a percentage of the population even gets offered such choices.

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

The point is that whether or not you are going to seize these opportunities also depends on a (different) kind of luck. And I don't really understand what it means to be "mostly" right about whether something exists or not.

@einahsirro1488

8 ай бұрын

@@freyc1 Well, free will is an abstract concept, so I don't know if the question is whether it "exists." It's not as if anyone is arguing that there's a blob of it floating around in space somewhere.

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

@@einahsirro1488 "Man" is the name an abstract concept too. That doesn't mean it is not meaningful to ask whether or not men exist. And nobody here suggested that free will existed in anything but human beings or by itself. The question is whether or not human beings have free will. That's what any sane person would understand by "does free will exist?". Anyway, that's not the same thing as wondering whether they can act or do something to ameliorate their condition. Or course they can. Denying free will means saying that the decision to do so has causes too and is determined. It doesn't come from nowhere.

@einahsirro1488

8 ай бұрын

@@freyc1 And what I'm saying is that determined might be the word in some situations, but "influenced" might be a better word in others.

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

@@einahsirro1488 I know that's what you say, I just think it's wrong and illusory.

More on neurosurgeons... the way you ensure your society has enough of them, given the huge commitment required, the somewhat rare skill set (dexterity, cool under pressure, etc.), and the immense stress and pressure is... give people big rewards for successfully navigating all the hurdles to becoming a neurosurgeon. Sort of sounds like a meritocracy, doesn't it? It's not perfect, but surely this system simply needs to be tweaked and not discarded? And I don't think the way to argue for a more robust welfare system and more equitable distribution is to start with an argument about free will. Anyways, stimulating as always Ricardo. Looks like the crazies are going to come out of hiding on this one, I see someone made like 30 comments below. Even I made 2! Of course, I couldn't have helped it... it was determined.

@theofficialness578

3 ай бұрын

I feel we are moving in the direction of automation for most the aspects of human existence. With the trajectory of modern day thinking. I think It will turn out to be only for the “few” that’s why this conversation and of course it’s heavily driven by the human concept of importance. It is an important conversation in that sense. I feel what will undoubtedly fuel people to “achieve” something is what’s always fueled people sheer automatic, non-chosen interest in something “good” or “bad”. Strip the notions meritocracy, money, success, punishment and whats deserved or not deserved, I believe it’s the only reason anybody “achieves” or does anything at all. That’s why I think no matter how or what undeniably determines the future. If humans continue to exist and given enough time, the notions of meritocracy, money, success, punishment and whats deserved or not deserved, will ultimately disappear. But the notions undoubtedly served/serve their purpose and I agree, the tweaking of these notions is likely more viable for modern day. It is also all us current day people have the possibility of seeing.

I know that as an individual that agrees with everything Robert Sapolsky is saying about how biology and the universe behaves in a deterministic manner, I still tried to do everything I could to teach my children how to reason, understand the importance of education and treat everyone with respect do as to effect a positive change. That also entails giving consequences, like turning the TV off if when of my children takes a toy without asking her sibling. Of course me being a parent and trying to diligently educate my children is also determined, whether it is my genetic makeup, a priori knowledge and the way I was taught by my own culture and environment.

How are all the toxins in the food and water making a difference? How about the poor who can't eat good food or live in bad environments?

Was Einstein correct when he said, God doesn't play dice?

Sapolsky trumps Dostoevsky... But I can't, in all good conscience, give him credit for it.

Robert Sapolsky’s beard is better. He should be hoarding treasure under a mountain in Middle-Earth with the rest of the dwarves though. 😂❤👍🏻

I’m convinced, too! I am “determined” to write a book and do a book tour to amass as much money as I can from gullible people with lack the free will to think for themselves. 😂

A foundational understanding that, if accepted, has potential for easing topical conflicts. I see no counter argument to free will as illusory, yet armed with this knowledge there's a potential for laying down arms, rather than 'Othering' those we see as culpable or meritorious.

Everything Dr Sapolsky says maybe true, but its all from the neuronal level. But we live our daily lives at the conscious level. Who I am maybe fully determined by my genes and environment, but that is who "I" am. At one point he says that compatibilitists believe free-will emerges like a miracle in a determined world. But what about the "miracle" of consciousness arising out of inanimate matter. If we don't have an explanation of consciousness (and I believe we cannot, because to understand how something works we need to stand outside that thing, and we cannot do this with consciousness) then we cannot have an explanation of free-will. There is another problem with his argument. If I cannot praise or blame someone else because they are determined, then you cannot praise or blame me, when I do, or praise or blame the judicial system,

@Tamarahope77

8 ай бұрын

He is not arguing that you are to be praised or blamed when you praise or blame the judicial system. If you blame the judicial system, he would not blame you for it, but he is arguing for us to think differently about the judicial system. He would understand if some people find it hard to do so, because some people are simply more open to new experiences, and they don't choose that. But if enough people get his message, then maybe we could be a more humane society.

@jonstewart464

8 ай бұрын

I agree that we don't have an explanation of consciousness, and this 'hard problem' is real. I don't however think that free will presents the same problem. You can't get round the hard problem of consciousness by saying "it's an illusion" because illusions rely on consciousness (John Searle argues this point well). However, with free will, although we do experience it, there's no compelling case that it is real rather than illusory. For it to be real, i.e. for our actions not to be the necessary effects of prior causes, that would break the laws of physics. Sapolsky is filling in detail of this argument, explaining the mechanisms by which our behaviour is necessarily caused by biological processes. Compatibilism is just admitting that (libertarian) free will is false, and then doing some hand-waving to state the obvious, that sometimes we feel free and other times we don't. As for praise of blame of the judicial system, that's not the same *moral* blame or praise we apply to people (when we believe in free will) which holds them responsible. When Sapolsky talks about the judicial system, he's evaluating whether or not it is good system, whether it generates the optimal outcomes by underpinning decisions on good reasons.

curious, a determined creature is in the process of creating AGI, a machine that can think for itself and is capable of dwarfing the human brains capacity of intelligence.

3:00 the hypocrisy of free will apologists.

Is he saying that change happens but you have nothing to do with that change?

@JB.zero.zero.1

5 ай бұрын

My understanding is - that we all have a marked effect on the environment as we act (and upon other players). Acts which are more harmonious and conducive to more favourable outcomes when repeated may create greater harmony. Why we choose to act is the question and I think he challenges the notion of any sense of an individual " I or you " acting. But certainly we create change in the world around us, regardless, as we act. It's quite confusing 😅

9:00 Why don't humans let the inevitable world do its work, and all sleep?! What moves people are the different desires and needs that require satisfaction and the will to accomplish them! This will not be without obstacles or inevitable, but within the pursuit of fulfilling desires and needs!

@cuddlemuff6632

8 ай бұрын

Dogs are so much more smarter in this respect. They'll spend hours just lying down doing absolutely nothing!

@aminam9201

8 ай бұрын

Yes, sleeping dogs are smarter than barking dogs! Dogs usually bark based on their illusions or to please their masters!

The 'final three minutes of the film...' analogy is a good one. My prediction is the book will fly off the shelves and convince almost no one who doesn't already adhere to the conclusion. For some it may be better they will cling to their illusions more strongly than others. Few want to embrace hard determinism or some indeterminate states at the subatomic level. It's a sociopath's wet dream. But they would do well to consider that the appearance of altruism is beneficial for their ability to swing their fists at least so close as they do not connect with or invoke a negative counter response from others.

How do you say bullsh*t in Latin?

Of course, it is nonsensical to accept the no free will realities of neurology and genomics yet make appeals-claims for any-one/system to "change." By definition, no one has ANY capacity to change or direct any actions - blaming/shaming/praising/shaping/etc. or even listening to this video...lol RS is really "interested" in (mainly talks about) social policy, the genomics and neurology is much more interesting.

@iAmEhead

8 ай бұрын

Even if you accept we have no free will, from a policy perspective literally nothing follows. I'm not even sure if eastern civilizations and philosophies based on Confucius and Buddhism even had concepts of free will before their encounter with the West. Would be interested to know.

@brainmoleculemarketing801

8 ай бұрын

@@iAmEhead Well, we, along with all other life forms have no "choice" in these matters anyway. Plus, everyday language is crap at discussing advanced/empirically truthful matters. However, for leaders and accuracy in...well...things...following data seems to help in...avionics, surgery, medical care, bridge building, plumbing, etc...

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

That's nonsense. If a rock falls on my head, it will make a change : I might die. Yet nobody would argue that the stone is endowed with free will. Arguing that human beings don't have free will has nothing to do with arguing that they can't change, or that what they do doesn't matter. Whether or not a man has free will, drinking heavily on a regular basis is bad for his health and it makes sense to discourage him from doing so, if you care about him (since not having free will does not have anything to do with not having emotions or desires either, by the way). It simply means that your desire and your ability to help him are not the product of free will, but of a complex web of antecedent causes.

I can unconditionally destroy the ENTIRE premise of this book in one VERY simple sentence: “Can we (you, I, they) make choices that will change the direction of our lives that you (Sapolsky) cannot definitively explain? The answer is…irrefutably indisputably and unconditionally YES (…in fact…I am doing that very thing right this moment…and so is every single human being on this planet…and it is done trillions of times every day!)! THAT…is free will. It is nothing more than that…AND nothing less. The truly offensive thing about how blindingly and trivially easy it is to UNCONDITIONALLY confirm that you are WRONG (…in fact…I would go further…to borrow a phrase from a fellow scientist…I would say you are “…Not even wrong…”)…is that YOU are an internationally acclaimed scientist. You have ENORMOUS influence, authority, and credibility…and in this book you are assuming you have not only the right but the means to successfully dismantle one of the very foundations of human identity. And you fail …utterly and completely. And worst of all…your failure is so blindingly obvious and easy to verify. And the embarrassment does not only fall upon you. Countless supposedly intelligent interviewers seemed somehow to lose every ounce of intelligence they possess since not one was able to locate the trivially simple and utterly fatal flaw in your supposed grand thesis.

@JB.zero.zero.1

5 ай бұрын

You seem triggered and appear to merely dislike the concept. I don't think you quite grasp the concept yet - which is understandable, I'm still working my way through the maze of ideas. The basic point being, that as I type, this present moment is informed by and defined by all prior events. Filtered through my somewhat uniquely forged physiology, that is a by-product of my parents genes / culture and so on. You need to demonstrate, that there is "anything" disconnected from all prior events. If you can demonstrate this - job done and you have a case for free will. I see an array of options before me as I type, as to what I can do post typing, but that by no means dismantles the notion of determinism. Those options exist through exposure to specific data sets and habituation.

@timb350

5 ай бұрын

@@JB.zero.zero.1 Utter garbage! Yes...I AM triggered. I get seriously pissed off when highly intelligent highly influential people pretend that they have conclusively dismissed the foundation of human identity. Sapolsky's entire argument has the philosophical sophistication of a Bugs Bunny cartoon...and the scientific legitimacy of a fairytale! You can spend every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade for the rest of your life and you wouldn't come within light years of producing a coherent, definitive, let alone remotely comprehensive...description of even a fraction of whatever-it-is that produces a single moment of your existence ( "...all-prior-events...filtered through my somewhat uniquely forged physiology...and by product of my parents genes...culture...what nonsense!...btw...you forgot the butterfly that brushed against a leaf that caused the leaf to fall on Pythagoras head that gave him the inspiration for the Pythagorean theorem that propelled the theories of mathematical geometry just enough to produce the enlightenment that later motivated Newton to come up with classical physics that eventually led to Einstein's discoveries in quantum mechanics that eventually laid the foundation for the development of transistors and integrated circuits that led to the development of computers that led to the creation of the internet that led to you sitting on your chair a few minutes ago and typing that response which was nothing but a complete waste of time...yeah...all that) (and Sapolsky...despite his decades of experience...hasn't done any better). That YOU are involved in creating your existence (which is THE definition of free will)...is the unavoidable default position. Why? BECAUSE YOU EXIST! Good luck arguing your way out of that one. To put it VERY simply...Sapolsky's ENTIRE argument is metaphysics (laughably juvenile metaphysics)...NOT science. The science doesn't come within light years of supporting his conclusions...and that is trivially easy to irrefutably confirm. Your argument is EXACTLY the same. It's nothing but juvenile metaphysics. Go get a degree in philosophy and find out why!

-Particles ARE deterministic (It's why the standard model of particle physics works) and our brains are made of particles. -Some say that free will must include the idea that we could have chosen otherwise… but those are just words because we didn’t. -You can do what you want but you can’t choose what you want. (Paraphrasing Schopenhauer) -To do other than what you want is to want something else more. -Agency is the ability to choose and act but it doesn’t explain why we make any specific choice. -90% of our actions are driven by unconscious motivations and that is not controlled and therefore not free. -We are only aware of a tiny fraction of the information we absorb so we aren't making conscious choices about that. -Neurologists have learned that we make decisions before we are consciously aware of them. If it isn’t a conscious choice it can’t be free. -Any choice made that is not based on external factors and based on who we have become to make such a choice would be irrational. -What will convince you to make a specific decision? You won’t know until it happens and then you become aware of it. It does the convincing TO you.

I am convinced that there is no freewill but there are contingencies of reinforcement and chance or luck factors.

He's literally given the green light to anyone thinking of doing something bad who might have been questioning their conscience about it..

@JB.zero.zero.1

5 ай бұрын

Not really - I think he'd challenge your idea of the green light and also analyse what you mean by conscience.

Puts a lie to the book "Grit".

Sorry I’m not convinced. Science and people are always trying to discredit biblical philosophies. He’s reaching. 😂 I want to see him and Jordan Peterson debate this subject. Decisions come from a thought 💭 process, you can’t convince me how people will behave. Human behavior is predictable but there are people who chose not to act a certain way socially is willful actions not unconsciousness. It’s not being controlled by neurons. You may use this for a case like a murder of passion where neurons, anger, emotion takes over logic and will. You can’t convince me from a scientific perspective that this philosophy can be applied to every human behavior.

sad that most people can t see his main point as being so factual and logic. it destroys their biased optimism and sh.t

Nobody in the history of this planet ever thought the kind of free will that Sapolsky is setting up here could possibly exist. He is arguing against nobody. What a perfect example of a strawman.

@JB.zero.zero.1

5 ай бұрын

Untrue. If you were raised in a religious setting, for instance, the idea of the immortal soul is present. Billions of humans believe there is a part of us that can be separated out from the physical. They also find concepts like determinism repugnant.

when biological fact invades the imagination of psychology

The more I think about it, the more it seems like we are in a computerized matrix (cliche, I know). But it seems like we are living in the dream of the dreamer.

@mandy2tomtube

7 ай бұрын

You are the dreamer as we all are, if we truly believe this, you might as well play out the dream!

12:30 that’s normal because consciousness type one is generated by self concept (requires the brain), they delay is normal.

21:00 all that affects the process of generating personal identity.

I disagree. There is certainly a strong indication that some things in life are Not a result of freewill. However, overall I believe we control our own destinies inasmuch as we can Decide on certain issues that come into play in our lives, crossroads we come to, i.e..

@noahbrown4388

8 ай бұрын

But what is it that makes you decide one way or the other? And who (or what) is the decider? In these circumstances I always ask: did a schizophrenic decide to be who they are? Or OCD, drug addict etc etc? Or is it only “healthy” minds that have free will?

@MysterEEnigma

8 ай бұрын

@@noahbrown4388 exactly...for example,...say there's no freewill. So I am destined to become what my upbringing declares or maybe I decided to do something different with my life, say become a shepherd. That choice could still be predestination. But, if I consciously decide to say, ruin any chance of what was Supposed to be, is freewill at play? I believe so. So, say I'm born into wealth and privilege. But one day I decided to completely walk away and become a zen buddist. Would that choice also be pre-destined? OR was that choice me exercising freewill? You could say that the choice was always going to be made and therefore freewill is illusory. In that case, that particular line of thought only leads to paradox. So I think therefore I am and so there Must be freewill.

@MysterEEnigma

8 ай бұрын

In the end, you could say that ANY choice I make is pre-destined. To me that assumption seems hollow and Without merit. If EVERYTHING is pre-destined, would life have any purpose at all?

@ahmonjeremiah7114

8 ай бұрын

There is no purpose other than the stories we tell ourselves. None other than survival and reproduction.

@MysterEEnigma

8 ай бұрын

@@ahmonjeremiah7114 I think it's quite a bit more than just that... I think in the end, will discover things so amazing that we will hardly be able to comprehend the vastness

16:10 yeah! He talks about personal identity, but he can’t recognise what does that means!

@dfghj241

8 ай бұрын

mate, sapolsky doesn't care about anything you are talking about because he recognizes precisely that it is all bollocks. there is no free will (to him), humans have no intent, we don't decide jack shit. the human brain, like any mammals brain (practically no difference, to him) is dialetic and reactive. the brain can change, but we must not mistake the change for intentional behaviour, because there IS no intent, there is only change. he exorcised YOU and ME. i doubt, regardless of how correct this is, that people will believe in it lol, at least not now.

11:40 that was already mentioned thousands of times since many years ago! Personal identity and consciousness type one are generated by self concept, here he talks about personal identity, it’s a simulation of self concept by self concept itself. The delay here is normal because personal identity and consciousness type one require the brain to be able to be generated.

13:00 that’s personal identity

Sapolsky should study quantum physics more - especially noncommutativity a la Professor Basil J. Hiley and Roger Penrose.

12:10 the mechanism already was written in the past (the relationship between self concept, consciousness type one, personal identity, memory,….etc)

Sapolsky seems to neglect that you can move yourself into environments where you can get access to elements that may improve or at least stop degrading your position.

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

Or maybe you didn't understand his point. Whether or not you are going to make the right choice under those circumstances also depends on all the subtle interactions between your biology and your environment.

@brain0nfire

8 ай бұрын

@@freyc1 I did, believe me. I was a determinist for a decade. I'm a compatibilist somewhat but I think we have more free will than he realises. First he makes the mistake of thinking that our identity and locus of freedom would have to be circumscribed to some brain function or some different plane of existence, but that's not necessary. Secondly, he splits identity from its constituents. Yes, interactions are not completely chaotic and yes we are heavily influenced and determined by all these variables around us and in us but we also can control the configurations so as to tweek what and how much they determine us. Surely we will never get rid of saying that in the end we don't know why we do each thing because it all comes back to inumerable small processes acting in chain reactions but that doesn't mean we can't create loops that predict and utilize these proccesses to steer them to different paths. If the building blocks are determined, the building can still be chosen even if it's out of these blocks of determination. It may seem at first glance that I'm not truly escaping from determinism and that it's all nested in the same chain reaction but there is a huge practical difference in possible outcomes once you recognize that you do have a choice. The deterministic model doesn't work well when you take into account that you can increase freedom by using different mental models or by expanding the margin of risk management deliberately, for example. There are infinities bigger than others and we live in a quantum world where interactions between particles aren't 100% predictable. In essence, even if you posit that there are still degrees of determination that are sufficient to create stable causality at the chemical level you still can't deny that we can influence our chemistry in a loop like fashion. From medicine to change of environment to eletrodes we can produce all kinds of interferences on our chemical machinery which aren't just chaotic reactions but they are original to us. That's the whole point. Even with the set building blocks we can steer them and have ourselves become more relevant to the causal chain. That's freedom in a nutshell. By increasing our influence in our chain of chemical reactions we become determined by ourselves more and more. Now, you can still argue we haven't fully escaped determinism but you have to concede that freedom lives between the steps of those building blocks. Pure freedom is godlike and we are incapable of that. We are limited by our make up, but this machinery isn't static - it's alive and constantly replicating - and we can work with that. Our brain being plastic is an excelent example of something we can model to our advantage by consistent behavioral changes, food intake, etc. Freedom lies in small consistent changes by making ourselves more prevelant in the equation that leads to our outcomes. I hope I haven't made this explanation sound like word salad or some convoluted semantic arguement. I'd have an easier time talking about it instead of writing.

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

@@brain0nfire Free will is not something you can have "a bit", or "more" than someone thinks. You either have it or you don't. He doesn't say people do not act, or do not cause anything.

@brain0nfire

8 ай бұрын

@@freyc1 that's the first error: black and white thinking through stamps. You can't pop an extra arm on demand so no pure freedom there. You're always limited to your body, but whether you can command it beyond it's chemical self-sustaining proccesses I say that you can the more you push them back. It is definitely a differential that isn't always controlled but it can be steered with willpower and enough glucose to pump it. We are the body after all and we choose at surface level.

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

@@brain0nfire Saying one doesn't have free will is not at all saying one can't do anything or act, or do something to improve one's position. It's simply a different matter altogether. But that "willpower" has causes. It doesn't come from nowhere. It's not just pumped by glucose : it's a physical event like any other one. As for black and white thinking, would you say the same thing if I told you that you can't be more or less alive : either you are alive or you are not? Would you suggest I could be more or less dead? Some concepts just don't allow intermediaries. That's the case for free will.

Purple burglar.

Hormones, physical disabilities, surrounding conditions, etc. Of course it affects decision making! I do not wish to say that the human body is merely a vehicle, but my lack of desire for the truth of that will not negate that truth! Future generations of humans will confirm this to be true. They will recognise that this universe is cycle one which built within cycle two (existence itself).

35:00 where is Humanity! He turned everything into machines! Crazy!

13:20 Philosophical stuff! what does he do here ?! does he knows everything?! what’s so-called philosophy?!

42:10 blunt silly philosophy! Actually it’s sophistry!

14:00 He's wearing extra extra large cloak !

Humans have limited free will but being limited doesn’t eliminate its limited existence.

@MichaeldeSousaCruz

8 ай бұрын

Incorrect. Humans have free won’t. Will is determined. Won’t is free.

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

@@MichaeldeSousaCruzI really don't understand how they could have one without the other. Making a fundamental distinction between the decision to do something and the decision not to do something seems quite nonsensical, as you can hardly make one kind of decision without making the other (deciding not to do something simply means deciding to do something else instead). But even if that were not the case, the arguments against free will are as efficient as arguments against "free won't", at least if you exclude libetian experiments, which Sapolsky finds quite secondary and irrelevant anyway.

@MichaeldeSousaCruz

8 ай бұрын

@@freyc1 when you read Sapolsky, he states that the initiation of an action preceded the awareness of the action. In the space of time, we have the ability to vote that action, and hence that is where Free Won’t exists. I look at it this way. Will is Determined. Won’t is Free. Free Will is an aftertaste of the Determined moment.

@freyc1

8 ай бұрын

@@MichaeldeSousaCruzIf you read a bit further, you will see that he argues against free won't just as much as against free will and actually devotes a chapter to it. Libet-style experiments are not at all the most important element of the argument : they are actually quite irrelevant, since what determines a behaviour is only marginally about the few seconds before it occurs.

15:00 he doesn’t recognise what personal identity is!

Human beings did not consciously choose their appearance in this universe, nor did they choose their parents or the environment in which they live.... etc. Humans cannot leave the solar system, nor can they directly reach some of the planets in the solar system, nor can a prisoner leave his prison.... etc. Humans have limited free will within the framework in which they exist.

Will he sue someone who slaps him, insults him in public, etc.?! Because there is no free will! Or will his opinion suddenly change in the real world?

He talks about liberation and freedom to cover his postulations but he doesn’t recognise what does that requires!