Welcome to the home of big thinking. The How To Academy Mindset channel shares inspirational ideas for thriving in the 21st century. From Jordan Peterson to Steven Pinker, Stephen Fry to Elizabeth Gilbert - from how to be creative to how to take control of your life, we explore the big questions with world-renowned psychologists, business leaders, authors and coaches.
Visit howtoacademy.com/ for tickets to upcoming events, or become a How To Plus member for free livestreams and access to our entire back-catalogue of 250+ events.
Пікірлер
I’m a neuroscientist with a philosophy background. Sapolsky is obviously a great scientist, but his work on free will is definitely his worst. It didn‘t contribute anything new whatsoever to the free will debate. His entire book was purportedly on free will, but actually, he only argues that causal determinism is true. Furthermore, he claims that the science will settle the question, but he can‘t even give the criterion for the falsification of his thesis. That is, he can‘t say what findings/measurements would disprove his hypothesis (that free will doesn‘t exist), which is always necessary for a hypothesis to be scientific. This suggests that his hypothesis is not scientific, but philosophical. But if it‘s philosophical, then science can‘t settle the question. Lastly, and to be completely fair, he did mention one criterion at one point in the book: he said that free will would require that a neuron would fire without a cause. But it‘s no wonder he only mentioned this in one sentence: it‘s completely ridiculous, and he‘s extremely hypocritical about this: he says while it might look like there‘s free will in macrospace, investigation of the microsoace of neurons reveal that there is nothing that hpoens without a determinate cause. But why stop there? Let‘s go deeper into the microspace. Neurons are made from elementary particles, and quantum physics suggests that they do, indeed, sometimes behave without cause. Using Sapolsky‘s own definition (which we shouldn‘t accept in the first place), he should conclude that there is, indeed, free will.
I watched a couple videos about this person and now I get never ending suggestions for this same person. I have decided that Zizek is a grifter. Goodbye, Zizek.
Will this fucking twat let Herzog speak
The feeling from Daniel is that he's motivated to get things correct first The feeling from Robert is that he's trying to get to the political implications he wants
Daniel Dennett was a great middle man between the iron laws of causal determinism and the feeble emotions of people faced with it. But how could he not?
No Freewill, Causes and Consequences....
Why does he argue that this world would be better if we believed in no free will there's nothing we can do if his argument is true the way things are is the way things are regardless of whether or not we recognize we have no free will whatsoever or not
Calça de shopping
Ruby doesn't get enough credit for the style of television interviewing she really pioneered in the 90s.
Free Will is two words.
Great discussion on both sides. I wish the determinism guy would have had time to elaborate on this scenario: he kept saying things like if you are born poor or to a stressed family your brain will develop different and so you will make different choices that will keep you poor. What about those that were born with every disadvantage and rose to the top? What made them able to do so, given all their history before hand that should have made them incapable? Anyways, great talk i love stuff like this.
💞Nice interview James! 💞
Dennett raised something I never thought of. We never cared about freewill until we evolved a prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex allows us to travel into the future. Like a chess player calculating moves. As Albert North Whitehead said, "we think so we can die in out thoughts rather than die in real life." Once we developed the ability to project avatars of ourselves into the future using our mind, did we create freewill?
Re: houthis, zizek identifies that the negative effect is on poor people in west. Correct, and almost every "strategic" disruptive the left think off negatively effects the poorest. Its very easy to apply this test to any idea, does it make poor people's lives harder? Just try it.
The real disagreement isn't in the definitions of free will. It's in whether it's worth having the free will Dennett is defending.
how can we explain changes in behaviour if there’s no free will whatsoever? this is a question i can’t seem to find an answer to
Determinism doesn't mean unchanging. Dennett said the same thing to Sapolsky, "why are you here do you think you can change my mind?". Any behavior change that occurs does so because of some prior cause. Had Sapolsky explained his argument sufficiently to Dennett, he'd have no choice but to change his mind. You can also flip your question around if free will does exist why don't people change behaviors they dislike, why is there a McDonald's on every other block in America and most people are overweight if they can simply will otherwise? I bet you hold some determinist beliefs to some extent, like not teaching certain things to minors for most adults that's just intuitive. There's a reason conservatives don't like hollywood and it ain't because god gave us free will. In some ways understanding this is liberating and freeing as we could in theory set up a system that complements our biology and not one that hijacks our primal urges for profits at the expense of our dignity. The good news is as people discover more about our biology people learn and our behavior changes, so a shift to a societal deterministic viewpoint is possible.
There is proven 100% free will at the quantum level. Just ask a Quantum Mechanics expert like Michio Kaku. His take on free will is the only scientific one that takes into account the proven free will at the quantum level. Be careful of ALL OTHER scientists' views on free will because, without an understanding of proven free will at the quantum level, their views are not scientifically valid. Einstein and Bohr argued this with Einstein getting mad and saying Bohr's take on the free will at the quantum level messed up his (Einstein's) take on free will. Einstein thought there was no free will. But Bohr got this one right. And it is PROVEN that Bohr got this one right. And Einstein, before he died, said if Bohr was right on this, then there is free will and he'd be wrong about 100% determinism. Einstein and Bohr died not knowing who was right. But it was PROVEN beyond doubt in the 1970s that Bohr was right, so 100% determinism is proven to be wrong. If a view on free will does not take quantum effects into account, you must ignore it since they've missed a crucial piece of the puzzle.
Michio is a christian so he already believes in free will. You don't exist at the quantum level even if you did then you wouldn't have free will at best you'd have randomness so you're back to determinism. The quantum world can't exist in any way other than it exists which came about from prior causes it doesn't have the free will to act otherwise so it's determined.
Did the self-aggrandizing circus jester get clean yet?
Could the Psychiatrists who declared Adolph Hickman "normal" had been under duress or fear for their lives?
Good conversation but terrible conclusions and punchline by Prof Dawkins whom I ❤️.
good job ash!
The first 10 minutes are nothing but pure stupidity
Dannett you have no logic at all. 🤮
David Baddiel wants to be a victim so bad
In another podcast Gabor Mate basically said systemic (presumably White) racism was responsible for the higher rate of Black women dying during childbirth and having higher rates of stillborn children. That was an unscientific and irresponsible statement for him to make, it was unnecessarily divisive. Whatever the actual cause I hope it is discovered but pinning it on a people that have brought about tremendous innovation in paediatric medicine is unreasonable & counter-productive. Sometimes he meshes political activism into his talks in a way that could be construed as "racist episodes", ironically.
Only men have free will
Politics and economics looks exactly like what it is. A confidence trick.
I am so much in line with Sapolsky.😅
Brilliant as usual. Thank you.
When the plague killed 1/4 to 1/3 of European population, was it the persons most apt at self control who survived ? When famines and wars kill, is it the most apt at self control who survive ?
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU,PLEASE QUANDO PUDER OUVIR A MINHA VERSÃO DESSA HISTÓRIA, AGRADECERIA, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU ALOHA BE HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY FOREVER NAMASTÊ 💕💖💖💕💖💕💖💕
Delightfull , a sheer enjoy..no matter history, this are two of the most articulate historians, besides their bast knowledge, they keep it down to earth are humble and give all of us a wonderful time. Kids would love history with them .
That's time for some rabble-rousing. I acknowledge one's limits, preconditions etc however Sapolsky keeps saying that 'we're back where we started' regarding any argument based on a human action, so it becomes clear that his view is unchallengeable on this ground due to the fact he may simply claim it's been predetermined whatever the action is or could possibly be. As he says, at some point you choose one of options, and that's it - predetermination is fulfilled. From his biological standpoint all the choices a merely the same, however as a creatures having culture and values (which is not really taken into account, is it) we could claim that some choices are better than others or evidently worse - so what is the use of such (possibly unfalsifiable ) theory to answer the question how to make better choices (or any other use)? Well, you don't even get to choose, that is - the choice is being made, but not by you - isn't it a bit too far-fetched? As a consciouss beings we may act in several ways, we can act instinctively, use our reasoning, reflect, reconsider views or possible options, finally we may suspend judgement or even refrain from acting at all - so if he revokes our own undetermined ability to have infulence over that which aspect does he deny, aren't we consciouss or aren't we beings? Buddhism has a very similar remarks as he does - what you're thinking doesn't really belong to you nor come from the 'you' source, however you're capable of observing your thoughts, actions, emotions and evaluating them, if you feel a sudden urge to punch someone's head you may get to the conclusion that's not really a worthy action, thus you're responsible for what you choose on the ground of ethics. You're not responsible for the input, but you do for the output. But according to him it is the circumstances that are forcing us 'to do the hard work' of reconsidering the good and bad, which could in itself be a kind of God, due to the complexity and incomprehensibility of billions of such factors that predetermine us. Also the psychological experiment shows that such view isn't really beneficial for our psyche (but it's people that had been chosen in a wrong way). I'm curious if a psychological standpoint couldn't defeat his view then as it seems too materialistic and intricacies of consciousness are far beyond that. Regarding the issue of burning witches - while less cruelty should be seen as something good, it doesn't necessarily mean that this evolution is purely good as the establishing of the prison system is a substantial issue (there should be a third guy presenting Foucault-ish point of view ;). While this very argument isn't that relevant for the rest of discussion, it would be nice to point out that even things which are here agreed upon shouldn't be outright taken for granted.
Which book he talked about , please someone give me the title
"Free Will is a skill..." The fuck Dennett?
What is the title of book please?
BANG, she is a filthy liberal 🤣
I read Predetermined and tend to agree more with Sapolsky ideas on the question of free will, and while I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, Dennett is not going to be the one to get me there.
They’re talking about two completely different things..? Language problem
The trick of robert sapolsky when one listen ls to him from the start is to go for an utopian unreal definition of free will. His 1st example of the movie is a fallacy since wether those 2 people reach oposite conclusions or the same conclusion (black and white fallacy example by the way) or as sapolsky will admit himself any intent possible, anyway, is point is proven no matter what. Sapolsky is very right on the biology but because he has an utopian definition he is missing the point of correlation between real free will and intent. He is missing the most important point Humans have some relative degree of free will that can "go away" for those that got educated at having it Great minds trully
I fell so much in love with Moore's works that I never had the chance to hear his voice until now. It's actually the true masterpiece.
RIP Dennet. Your legacy lives on
HOW DOES THIS VIDEO NOT HAVE A MILLION VIEWS
Awwww ego really kicked in around 34.50 If you meditate you'll find out very quickly you have no free will
free will, free from what?
Take advice from someone you want to be like. If you want to become like Jordan Peterson then take his advice.
It's unfortunate that Daniel Dennett doesn't make any sense
Robert keeps arguing against indeterminism, not Free Will. Dan has demonstrated that Free Will is independent of determinism or indeterminism.
19:00 "You get no pity and good luck holding onto your job" 😔 Spot on. Heartbreaking. Already hurting to our core, and that stuff makes it 100% harder.
Sapolsky, like all Jews, simply wants to excuse and normalize evil and vice by whatever means he can. He's a nasty little snake.