Loved the conversation. But please don't have someone on as amazing as Robert Sapolsky on and then take 5 or more minutes to ask a question only to repeatedly interrupt him with extended personal stories or prolonged proclamations of your opinions, all the while Robert extremely generously waits for you to finish.

A like for Sapolsky and his patience for ignorant hosts.

So this guy is showing rhat he simply cannot grasp Sapolsky's concept that there is no free will. And the reason is more than likely because of everything that happened to him 2 seconds, 2 years, or two hundred or more years before he opened his mouth to argue. 😂

@user-vi6ro8bd4l

6 ай бұрын

😅

@Michael-cp9mo

6 ай бұрын

😂😂😂 this is very funny

@RonponVideos

6 ай бұрын

Also can’t seem to grasp how to mute someone when they’re not speaking lol.

@MrManny075

4 ай бұрын

There is free will if you look at it this way a person is not the body and mind, a person is the one that's observing or aware or experiencing, Sapolsky's concept has all to do with the body, to him I guess consciousness is part of the body, in this case, there is no such thing as a soul,

@RonponVideos

4 ай бұрын

@@MrManny075 Describing a person as observing or experiencing their life is the OPPOSITE of a person with free will lol. That's precisely the way Sapolsky sees it.

Oh ffs, this guy arguing against Sapolsky is driving me nuts -

@Michael-cp9mo

6 ай бұрын

He brought in some interesting points that I was not aware of, such as that certain form of deterrence, like rapid punishment, work to improve certain peoples' behaviors in the future.

@noahbrown4388

6 ай бұрын

Thanks, now I don’t have to waste an hour of lifetime 😉🙏🏻

@jqyhlmnp

6 ай бұрын

It’s lack of free will that you’d be annoyed… and a lack of vitamin b

@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353

6 ай бұрын

It's like an ant arguing with a T-rex

@mollygriswold7979

6 ай бұрын

He has no choice

Wow I mean how the hell did you get to interview Sapolsky without understanding a word he says.

@rb5519

4 ай бұрын

What didn't he understand?

@kasramohajery4623

3 ай бұрын

@@rb5519 basics of super determinism

This has been a salutary display of the rationale of privilege over truth. Just impenetrably blind. I feel for you Robert.

I don't know h0w Sapolsky tolerates believers in FW. They simply refuse to engage their brains. He has much more patience than I do.

@freyc1

5 ай бұрын

He knows they couldn't have reacted differently, probably. And he might have a stronger prefrontal cortex than we do, for some reason :)

@user-vi6ro8bd4l

3 ай бұрын

He spent decades of summers with baboons. Sometimes it looks as if he regrets ever having left them.

Sapolsky’s sighs speak volumes.

Who the heck would choose Buenos Aires over Mexico City? Talk about no free will...

I'd rather listen to Sapolsky not hear all this guff that I already know and which has nothing to do with what Saposlky is talking about!

It’s okay to feel freaked out by accepting that there is no free will. It’s part of the stages of grief.

You're not very charismatic. I'm sorry Sapolsky had to put up with you.

@debpoarch6691

6 ай бұрын

Me t00. He likes t0 hear himself talk.

You had great strategic data analytical team conversations Yascha, keep it growing engaging phd students.

@shakina8657

6 ай бұрын

Maybe too much strategic lead to sinistic. Long back in 2015 itself we did thorough research though paused, can be compared to terminal characteristics of silicon junction diode regions of forward, reverse and breakdown, leaving it to the audience to understand the rest. Boosted like covid boosters, genz-ai advance sooner making it easier from imbalance to ambulance, having both free will and no free will did exist like day and night.

& thank you for the video!!!

You're arguing against a strawman, Yascha. In your example of your friend kicking you, of course it matters what the intent of your friend was. Sapolsky wouldn't say otherwise. You're imagining repercussions to the incompatibilist position that simply aren't there.

No kidding. . .I started drinking again after watching these "Free Will" videos by Dr. Sapolsky. . .. Cheers !

@JB-lovin

6 ай бұрын

Not your fault. You have no free will.

Does this guy talk-over-monlogue all his guests? Not let them answer questions? Why invite any expert, who has had a book published, on at all? This guy should just talk and talk and talk abt his personal opinions....zzzzzzzzzz. Ugh can' take anymore.

@debpoarch6691

6 ай бұрын

Exactly! I'm ab0ut t0 turn this 0ff. It's terrible. W0rst interview 0f Sap0lsky I've ever heard. And I've heard many.

@joh8982

6 ай бұрын

And not just one book either. He sounded more like Adrian Mole than a serious thinker.

@brainmoleculemarketing801

6 ай бұрын

Very good point. He acts like a hyper 4 year old. But no one has any "choice" so.... I am tracking all of RS's youtube interviews and the youtude dudes are all very weak....most are awful. I could not finish this mess... I assume RS is not "curating" who he chats with...where is pro marketing when you need it. Very important new facts on all this but - as history teches us - it will take 100 yrs+ for the discussion to change. Ho hum...@@joh8982

@ReflectiveJourney

6 ай бұрын

Saplosky is an amateur in philosophy. He should stay in his lane or read up on philosophy to be considered an "expert".

@brainmoleculemarketing801

6 ай бұрын

Define "philosophy." What claims or statements in "philosophy" can be proven true or false? What does "philosophy" have to do with matters of physiology, biology, genomics - which are the causes of behavior in all animals. If "philosophy" has any usefulness why is there a philosophy of: plumbing, aeronautical engineering, surgery, bridge building, etc? "Philosophy" is just a semantic word salad trading in pop culture tropes using everyday language....zzzzz @@ReflectiveJourney

sapolsky is right! all hail to sapolsky! (He even bears a striking resemblance to Jesus, doesn't he? Keh keh.)"

You can't will yourself to have more will power.

Poor robert,enduring bravely so much stubborn incoherence! Understandably for the sake of promoting book sales....

The prof sparking.

The fundamental perception of threat and free will seem incompatible if threat is a universal governor for survival instinct but if that instinct is supplanted by advanced technology than social animals could advance structures that govern cohorts to interact with technology for the survival of a cohort and minimise the perception of threat. If on this sense threat is mitigated to an maximal level where a cohort is a master class it seems free will exists as belonging to a class structure that can margins of choices based on their assessment of threat to their cohort. If the assessment is institutionalised then it seems free will is randomness within the mechanism of the institution which manifests as executive orders. So the executive has deterministic operators as the serf but due to the social structural intervening principles manifests will as if free from biological and primordial environmental activators that for most humans activate thoughts to actions which for a select elite with social animals is minimised for maximal strategical outcomes for group selection which is free will from an downward facing group perspective given those with power will seems to have freedoms to determine the fate of the subordinate class. Free will exists as a in-group based supervening principle of domination and perpetuation of in-group status where select agents delimit personal threat to deliberate and act as if that individual is free from drivers of personal threat. This may be why at a primordial level members place great weight on member to leadership dynamics because wired in the social structure is innate knowledge of chaos theory which defaults or converges to a leader which in the modern industrial complex has things like super powers as nation states. Reflection plays a causal role in free will from a group dynamics where members reflect in the glory (free will) that appears to exist in their leader so to evaluate the position in the group. Hence free will as an operator to confer on a leader the role to mitigate threat which gives a power that appears as free will to one and only one agent in a coherent group. The evidence is found for free will deference when individuals who are not leaders of the authentic threat based role tend to exhibit swagger which exhibits free will as consumer discretionary choice in purchase of luxury items or writing on a u tube minor Chanel or soap box, town square. The prototype as 'leader' is then an instantiation of 'little person' within group members that share the free will illusion that confers to one member of the group as existential operator to mitigate threat. So in this sense member to member relations pivots on comparative determinators which include the leader too but when the leader decides as a in-group to out-group operator it is then arguable that free will manifests as a global structural prototype indeterminacy of individual agent properties so free will is not bound to Cartesian mind body dualism but property dualism that allow free will to supervene as causal structures have complex interdependent functional identities over sequential alignment to primordials like electrons. Property dualism confers non causal properties through systems but not at the fine grained structure of biological structures which is the biosphere and exists at the perceptual level for humans. In this sense at a perceptual level society has moved from 19th contrary incarceration to forms of isolation of social primordials that actually exhibit in-group threat or deemed as 'possibly dangerous' individuals to in-group perceptions of delinquency governed by leaders.

This host is getting some good feedback in the comments here. Sometimes the comments are correct.

Though I haven't seen it specifically mentioned yet, I'm finding myself more comfortable with the philosophical Compatibilist perspective! 😃

@draymatthews

6 ай бұрын

I would suggest that you not get too comfortable with compatibilism. Compatibilism is nothing more than woo-wooism to uphold the status quo as it basically states that we should continue doing things as we always have. This presents a threat to society. For instance, jurors are required to find a specific "state of mind" that requires "free will" in order to find guilt in criminal cases. In order to do this, they have to know everything down to neurotransmitters and the connectivity of every neuron in the circuit causing the behavior. Of course, should they be able to do this they should be able to tell us the information or modulation missing in that network which means they know what must happen to change that behavior. The criminal justice system is based on punishment, not rehabilitation. Thus, it never addresses the problem and this explains the problem with recidivism. There is another glaring problem with compatibilism. It seems to say that we all could have done otherwise. This means that the person doing the judging should always reach the correct decision. This is easy to disprove. In U.S. v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, at 52 (1978) the Supreme Court addressed the issue of punishment, sentencing, and incarceration in light of the evidence showing a deterministic Universe. It cited: See also United States v. Moore, 484 F.2d 1284, 1288 (CA4 1973) (Craven, J., concurring). The Scott rationale rests not only on the realism of the psychological pressures on a defendant in the dock -- which we can grant -- but also on a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system. A "universal and persistent" foundation stone in our system of law, and particularly in our approach to punishment, sentencing, and incarceration, is the "belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil." Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 342 U. S. 250 (1952). See also Blocker v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 53, 288 F.2d 853, 865 (1961) (opinion concurring in result). Given that long-accepted view of the "ability and duty of the normal individual to choose," we must conclude that the defendant's readiness to lie under oath -- especially when, as here, the trial court finds the lie to be flagrant -- may be deemed probative of his prospects for rehabilitation. In the above case, it is rather easy to take the opinion and make a statement as to what "free will" requires when it comes to lawful behavior. So, can we prove that “free will to choose a course of action” does not exist?” No, but we don't need to as the citation, supra, contains wording that can be modified to produce a legal definition of human use of free will in their course of action. A "universal and persistent" foundation stone in our system of law, and particularly in our approach to punishment, sentencing, and incarceration, is the belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil." To do so, we just take the words, “Freedom of human will require an ability and duty of individuals to choose between good and evil.” Now, “good and evil” have religious connotations and have nothing to do with the law so we modify those words to “confine one's conduct within the parameters of lawful behavior.” In order to test if judges and justices are using “free will” in their decision-making, we just change the word “human' to “judges and justices.” Then we have a statement, “Do judges and justice use 'free will' in their judicial decision-making to confine their conduct within the limits of lawful behavior?” To get the noise out, we confine the decision-making to the question answered. One other factor to consider; their decisions must be unified as using “free will” in decision-making when they reach different conclusions would be meaningless. Either the law means one conclusion or it doesn't. The opinions cannot be scattered all over the place stating many conclusions as would make the test meaningless. The test does not reveal if the decision is the actual product of “free will” as it could be a unified opinion based on biases of all involved. In fact, when you run the test of human use of free will in their decision-making on judges and justices, you find they fail miserably. For instance, find a major case involving numerous judges and justices, note all dissents and concurrences on different grounds and you'll find they are not making "free will" decisions. I used the Trump Muslim Ban cases but you can follow any case through the courts. Finally, if you look at DNA, you find that we all have a difference in the position of our bases. These differences mean we have different molecules produced by that DNA. Secondly, When we are born, we may have propensities but we have to learn everything as all we can do is emit a weak infant cry and suck on tits. Every that must be learned to be efficient. We can't sit up, roll over, walk or crawl or anything else. Everything must be learned. Moreover, how we learn is from our environment and environments vary immensely.

@user-vi6ro8bd4l

6 ай бұрын

@@draymatthews So helpful and thorough, in such a limiting format. Thank you for taking the time to write and share!

@draymatthews

6 ай бұрын

@@user-vi6ro8bd4l I appreciate your reply. I have brought this to the attention of numerous jurors, lawyers, and law professors. With the jurors, they claim that is not what they were informed to do in the judge's charge and the person did do the crime. When I explain to them that the words, "intentionally" and/are "awareness" require free will in order to perform an action, they tell me that free will exists and they know it! End of story. Well, I raise the issue with lawyers and judges, they seem to have "constitutional amnesia" and never reply. I noticed a section symbol in your handle. Do you work in the legal profession? If so, I have briefed many questions concerning the constitutionality of many laws, both criminal and civil, that may be of help in helping you in your endeavors. Again, thanks for the reply.

@user-vi6ro8bd4l

6 ай бұрын

Sorry, no. Just a spectator who sees the need for the criminal injustice system to be revised exactly because of what you do! Bravo! Very brave, and so frustrating. So you must know Sapilsky is an expert and forensic neuroendicrinologist, right? Have you contacted him? It's good knowing there are people trying to do as you do! What luck to come across a person with your level of knowledge here, in a comments section!

@explrr22

6 ай бұрын

I'm a materialist. As far as I'm referring to it, Compatibilism is a philosophical stance and not a specific stance on jurisprudence. It just holds that both concepts have meaning and application. It's up to us to make decisions about application, scope, ethics, etcetera. I'm sure it can be applied in a woo-woo as spiritual manner, or a manipulative manner. Which doesn't in itself discredit other forms or application. After all ... The same can be said for the anti free will and even predestination perspectives. But that is not at all what Sapolsky is doing, and I take his argument seriously, and mostly agree on where he is challenging the conventional understandings and the implications.

People are forced to think and do the types of things that their type of genetics and their types of life experiences force them to think and do throughout their life. Yes people make choices, but what types of choices that they make all depends on how wise they happen to be, how caring they happen to be, and depending on how much control they happen to have over themselves throughout their life. And how wise, how caring, and how much control someone happens to have over themselves all depends on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. Who and how someone happens to be is an extremely unfair unjust lottery that is dependent on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life. The only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible. And that's why nobody deserves anything good or bad to happen to them because the only way people would deserve something is if the way they are would be their fault, but that's not possible. But if someone does something that is bad enough then they should be stopped even though the way they are isn't their fault. But it would be much better if no life forms existed at all because then no life form would be a victim of existing and suffering against their will. And if no life forms existed then that would be just fine because then no life form would know or care that they didn't exist. "God has nothing to do with our failures!" If a god exists then the way that god created everything is the reason why everything is the way it is in every single way. If everything was created then the way that everything was created determines how everything will play out. If a god exists then the type of genetics that god created and forced us to have and the types of life experiences that god created and then forced us to have is what causes people to think and do the types of things that people think and do throughout their life. And if a god exists it's evil for god to force other life forms into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will because they might not like or possibly even hate existing in the type of existence where they will suffer against their will. And that's why forcing them into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will is an evil thing to do to them. But if a god exists then it's not gods fault that god exists and unfortunately happens to be that way. If a god exists and if god has always existed then god didn't get to choose the way god is. God is just forced to be whatever way that god happens to be no matter if god wants to be that way or not. And if a god exists and if god was created then god is forced to be whatever way that god was created no matter if god wants to be that way or not. If a god exists then the only way the way god is would be gods fault is if god willingly chose to come into existence and if god created itself and made itself be exactly the way that god wants to be, but that's not possible. And so if a god exists then god doesn't deserve anything good or bad to happen to god because the only way that god would deserve something is if the way god is would be gods fault, but that's not possible. But just like it's not a horrible criminals fault that they exist and unfortunately happen to be a horrible way, they should be stopped just like a horrible god should also be stopped even though the way god is isn't gods fault.

Humans have free will to do what they want but can't determine the outcome of their actions, they can choose this or that, and intent usually starts with one thing greed or revenge, hatred, and so on the person who acts doesn't think that far the first is enough to make him do what he does. A man shoots someone his reason is revenge he chooses to do this and he's free to do so, no one forces him to do it, that is his free will but the outcome is not his, which means he doesn't have total free will because the outcome is not his, even if he shoots him five times the guy survived.

One should not be judged based on what they are but what they did. Although, we all know that society does constantly both of those things. But our laws are act-oriented. Free will or not, the crime act is commited and there must be some consequences. Either one gets a medical treatment, or if there's no such treatment, they're put away - for one to not commit more crimes and second, to set an example of unwanted behavior. The fear of punishment is what many people holds back. So I don't really see what would be different if we declare that there's no free will (which I think is right, exactly for the same reasons as presented here). If someone often slaps you, don't be their friend, if you can help it :)

@ivanjaldin235

6 ай бұрын

Agreed. Perhaps the distinction I would make here is: free will presupposes that a person, an "I" is to be the main and/or sole receptor of responsibility. In this sense this is why our current justice system does factor in for example intent, to judge the "I" which "could have done differently". No free will would imo go straight for the act instead of trying to reach for roots that are not even there: a will which we could have changed (somehow? as it is free from outside influence) if we wanted to or had tried hard enough. Should intent really be a factor in determining the severity of a sentencing? Wouldnt it be more useful to think of it as just another thread in the chain of events that made that act? So as in your example: I get randomly slapped, so perhaps I would feel angry, scream at them, hold their hand (all instinctively in order to prevent further slapping) and in reflection realize all this chain of events were determined, conditioned, by my history: nature and nurture rather than the fact that I am a "bad" person or that he has a rotten soul and therefore deserves being told he is going to hell, and therefore stay away from him. In a free will scenario further chastising would ensue as he could have done differently and I should hold him responsible (to blame and object of more hate) rather than that no free will entails that my anger subsumes faster (no will to blame) and that I take all that occurred as a chain of events to learn from (of course a really ideal, wishful scenario haha).

I admire Sapolsky's patience for ignorant interviewers.

that the arguments 'against' determinism presented here by the interviewer are not really forceful or effective. while sapolsky's strategy -- partly due to the popsci genre's requirements, and partly due to his expertise -- of fleshing out the case for determinism through analysis at the level of biology, psychology, sociology... is certainly interesting and entertaining, it's not the level of analysis at which determinism is determined. it is fundamental physics. our contemporary empirically grounded understanding is that biological organisms *just are* physical systems, and our current best theories of physics are deterministic. that's it. but let's suppose that organisms have, or are 'souls' or some transcendental, non-physical entities, either exhaustively, or partly. well, you don't need the idea of determinism to dismiss 'free-will', only necessitarianism. everything is always exactly how it is, even if it's non-physical, and not otherwise. everything cannot be elsewise than how they always are, have been and will ever be. if you're a soul or a mysterious ""self"", why and how would that be mysteriously over and above deterministic, or deterministic+random physicality? free-will and contingentarianism -- that things could have been otherwise, have never been clear ideas or explanations which are empirically well-supported, just vibes and poor arguments, which are nevertheless understandable if you look at the contemporary literature about bounded rationality. see eg; papers and books by hugo mercier and dan sperber, and the handbook of bounded rationality. reasoning is a human activity that people do to convince others, to scrutinize others' arguments, and to justify their actions upon being questioned by others. it is a satisficing process, and it's strongly bounded by ecological limitations, rife with heuristics, many of which can be explained by a set of beliefs and belief-consistent information processing. lastly, i found your restaurant worries and punishment justification sorely lacking and kinda paternalistically arrogant, like holding strong doubts about how 'others' will be unable to comprehend determinism and social bedlam would commence.. well, look at sapolsky. look at countless philosophers and scientists and non-experts who already see that determinism is simply the most empirically supported non-magical theory we have due to countless hours of collective, empirically grounded critical inquiry? if we design systems that don't reproduce living conditions and developmental trajectories for organisms which render antisocial behaviour more probable, then that's far more humane and progressive and intelligent and compassionate than upholding the current status-quo with an array of post-hoc justifications that are jarringly internally incongruent and severely underutilizing our collective empirically-grounded image of reality.

@andrew348

7 ай бұрын

Thank god we have a PhD student to shove the trivial Sapolsky aside and save the day. You're talking about the same thing just on different levels. You aren't as profound as you think you are. I'd rather listen to someone like Lawrence Krauss talk about free will with Sapolsky than a PhD student that thinks he is the first person to understand everything.

@real_pattern

7 ай бұрын

@@andrew348 ok. never said that sapolsky is trivial, in fact, i love his work and i enjoy reading it immensely, both the popsci books and his research. the point is that the question of determinism isn't a biological or psychological question. sapolsky knows this perfectly well, and i know that he knows this. this doesn't lessen his contribution by any measure. i just pointed this out as my own little comment on yt, mostly because the talking points of the interviewer suggested to me that he failed to grasp what motivates the idea of determinism. i'm not sure that you're able to accurately gauge just what i or others think based on online crumbs, but go off i guess..

@christopherhamilton3621

7 ай бұрын

Was hoping for edification on this subject only to hear a few PhD types mentally masturbate & obfuscate. Sad.

@real_pattern

7 ай бұрын

@@christopherhamilton3621 dude it's totally irrelevant that people are phds for you to evaluate the information. sapolsky is a phd. what's obfuscation, what's masturbatory? if there's any obfuscation it's the interviewer coming up with talking points that have nothing to do with whether the universe is deterministic. want clarity? cool, the consensus among physicists and philosophers of physics is that physics is deterministic. that's it.

Rupert Sheldrake offers a solution for where free will may exist, but materialists will have problems with it.

not his fault, guys.. 🤣

This guy lacks this extra level of intelligence to truly grasp robert.

@okiedokie2234

3 ай бұрын

He actually seems like a smart and genuine dude. It’s not like he can choose what he believes.

@SteveSteve7590-di2dn

3 ай бұрын

@@okiedokie2234 nah his IQ

I’m unpersuaded. We know far too little to be making definitive claims that we lack free will. Sapolsky is over his skis.

@ataraxia7439

6 ай бұрын

What kind of things would we need to know in order to disprove the kind of free will Sapolsky is discussing?

@JB-lovin

6 ай бұрын

@@ataraxia7439 lol. So now we’re the ones who need to make the case.

@ataraxia7439

5 ай бұрын

@@JB-lovin I mean I think the default is that something doesn't exist until we have evidence to believe that it does in most cases. If I said we don't know enough to disprove the existence of bigfoot I feel like I would have some burden of proof for ppl to think bigfoot does exist if I was claiming it's ambiguous at least.

@JB-lovin

5 ай бұрын

@@ataraxia7439 Determinism is the thing being asserted here. That’s what needs proving.

@freyc1

5 ай бұрын

The inexistence of Bigfoot was the thing asserted in the example given above too. Determinism in this context only means the absence of a supernatural power in human beings to make uncaused decisions. You assert the existence of something, determinism doesn't. It may be wrong, but it's a lot more natural not to believe in something extraordinary if you have no evidence for it. @@JB-lovin

Robert’s hair renders his argument of there being no free will null and void.