Determined: Life without Free Will with Robert Sapolsky 

I would say the opposite is true. The brain mostly receives information and stimuli but Dr. Sapolsky is a reductive materialist so it's not surprising he puts primacy to the mind. I'm surprised he didn't say "An open brain is a ....😉

​@@Frederer59 To each his own, it's all unknown. "The world which we perceive is a tiny fraction of the world which we can perceive, which is a tiny fraction of the perceivable world." Terence McKenna The three Dan Tians or Elixir Fields are areas of the body that correspond to what the ancient Taoists describe as the Three Cinnabar Fields. They were considered to be the palaces of the Gods in the body. The maintenance of freely circulating qi through these areas was said to insure that the Gods would maintain residence in the body and enable the person to have a long and healthful life. If the circulation of qi became obstructed, the Gods would depart ensuring disease and an early death. These areas can also be interpreted as focal points of different physical and psychological functions of the body. The upper Dan Tian, located in the center of the forehead, corresponds to the physical functioning of the brain and sensory organs and to the psychological processes of thinking and contemplation. The middle Dan Tian, located in the center of the chest between the breasts, corresponds to the physical functions of respiration and the circulation of qi and blood. Psychologically it functions as the emotional and interaction center of the body. The lower Dan Tian, located in the lower abdomen between the navel and the public bone, corresponds to the physical functions of digestion, elimination and reproduction. Psychologically it functions as our sense of stability and balance and as the connection of our sexuality. It’s commonly known as the center of gravity, Hara or Tanden (in Japanese), energy center of the body or the second brain. In internal martial arts it is one of the most important areas in the body. Some studies have found that our cells functions like a battery, able to store electric charge. Taoists believe the human body is basically one big battery, made from millions of small ones. Some researchers have explained that conductivity on the skin and other parts of the body varies greatly and they are able to prove a higher conductivity at acupuncture points. All these recent scientific results back up some of the ancient beliefs such as the Qi channels, which are like wires that carry electric current, Qi vessels, being like capacitors which regulate the current or finally the real lower Dan Tian, which functions like a large battery that stores a charge and is able to provide an electromotive force and distribute Qi throughout the body. The lower Dan Tian has a similar structure to the brain, with the capacity for memory. They are connected through the spinal cord and the central nervous system, where electric conductivity is highest and resistance is lowest. They function almost as one unit. The lower brain can store bioelectricity and the mind that generates an idea creates an electromotive force (Qi) and leads it to the body for action.

@@Frederer59 Where is the mind located? It IS part of the brain?

​@@Frederer59However, when one considers that sapiens lives by delusion and denial, we learn that our brain box just makes things up out of nothing coming from the outside world. We experience this all around us all the time every day. Half of the USA 🇺🇸 believes everything Trump says because their brains make it all up. Conspiracy theories are rife. Schizophrenia, delusions, voices speaking to us insude our heads, the false belief that America is a democracy. The machismo of testosterone-fuelled males, dreams, waking dreams, false memories, alien abductions, phantom limbs that one feels when the limb is non-existent, paranoia, entities standing behind us that aren't there, the taste of death, seannces, astrology, fortune tellers, magic acts, slight of hand, voice dubbing, and an infinite list on and on forever. Just ask the Mother Ship. We creare our own reality. Sure, stimulus enters the brain also. Both exist and it becomes complicated and more beautiful!

​@@silvercloud1641the *soul"

I think it's fair for me to say that "Determined" saved me from taking my life.

@@Nowheart That's amazing!

@@NowheartI get it. It’s wild! I’m an 8 on the ACE’s. I have a bunch of mental differences. I’ve sought out all the cures. How this is affecting me is blowing my mind! Makes so much sense.

@@NowheartMay I ask you what exactly from his book allowed you to not take your life?

@@florentin4061 Likely dumping the burden of guilt and shame that tends to underpin a variety of mental health conditions.

What point are you trying to make?

@@moofano1538 Are you asking someone to identify every single influence which shaped them to behave the way they do, and how each of those shaped them? Seems unreasonable. People are shaped to be exactly what they become, by the circumstances they never got to choose or even understand.

That part always gets me😂 believing in determinism, but then saying to take action😂

@@davon3384 Beliefs inform actions. Beliefs are caused, not chosen. Try this: choose to believe in determinism. If you fail to do so, you now understand that your beliefs are not things which are chosen, so, there is no "free will" involved in the formation of your beliefs. Else, you could choose to believe your feet are in fact made of delicious pudding, on a whim. If you succeed, that would be "the truth" to you. If one day you decide to eat your feet with a fork, reality will assert itself, and you will go "ouch, f***, I was wrong". Beliefs are caused by the influences which act upon you, not a "free will" separate from causation. Understanding a problem, is the first step in developing a solution. Hence; this discussion occurs. Participants have been brought to question things by their lives. Free will makes no sense without an appeal to magic or faith. The subjective experience of having individual agency, is subject to objective influences which act on people without consent. Taking action, is a product of the beliefs one if (*is) brought to hold, and subjectively, we feel we have choices, rather than feeling that we are acting as a product of causation. My 2cents.

I would argue that Free will in the way it is traditionally thought of is probably false, but if you really look deep enough, to the fabric of logic and the material world you will find (and physics has been struggling with this for ages) that the world is indeterministic. that 1+1 doesn't always equal 2.

"can't help but think" or can't help feel? By all means speculate and hypothesize, but the mounting objective evidence supports there being no free will and believers in free will rely on intuition. (If you have free will, then how much do you have? How confident are you that what you think you do freely today will not be biologically explained tomorrow?)

Exactly. He talks as though walking down a road forces you because of probabilities. But we can take steps and influence the probabilities ourselves. But then you can always argue the circle of... well that was influenced. Sure it was, but you can't perfectly predict it either.

​@@sjoerd1239Enough to influence the future by changing patterns. Also a bit caused by a lack of knowledge of the future.

Why when clearly people can be programmed and changed? I mean that's the basis of the start of the argument is that you can be programmed.

you can't help it of you do, you don't have free will

One of my fav books. Read it, listened to it. I also like the way it takes us back when. I'm seriously considering super-determinism.

Git gud.

Yeah, anyone claiming that depression is a problem with the individual (e.g. an "imbalance of neurochemicals") doesn't understand how biology works. It really is just more complicated mechanical function. If I don't take care of my bicycle's needs for grease, air in the tires, a tight chain, evenly tightened spokes, etc., it won't function well. Same with our animal bodies. If we don't get our biological needs met, we malfunction. And because we are indeed more complicated than a bicycle, we malfunction in far more complex ways, based on both the specific deficiency of needs, and on our specific genetic programming. Fight, flight, freeze, and flow are all default functions of different brain/body types in us animals so we see folks react with anger (to others or themselves), or avoidance, or deep introspection, or hyper-creativity when stressed.

Sapolsky, by taking a neuroscientific approach, is overcomplicating things massively. The argument is very simple and very obvious. Everything is cause and effect and nothing is outside of that. Free will is magical. Randomness does not exist. It is just unexplained cause and effect. Think about rolling dice. It is random from a human perspective because there are so many factors that impact the result that we cannot possibly control for lr understand. A superhuman with full knowledge of physics would get whatever dice roll he/she wanted every single time.

There is a role for an incentive and merit approach based on ability for a particular role for the common good. There is no place for reward and punishment. Our current practices are unsatisfactory. Your feedback loop is no excuse for treating people as if they deserved a reward or punishment because that would be undeserved reward and punishment.

And isn’t his point you had no control over whether you received that reward/punishment? If your focus is rather on whether you dole out the plus or minus then that again is dependent on how your wired. And it isn’t there is no place for these behaviors, it’s just not relevant to who is deserving of praise/demonizing. I think, could be wrong, but I think he frames it differently than you’re implying.

No Freewill and a case for punishment, rewards and responsibility. I'm not sure how common or what literature has to say about this but I believe I'm a compatablist of a different kind. One where I think no free will is still compatible with a degree of responsibility along with reward and punishment. My thoughts below. The concept of responsibility can be viewed through the lens of both genetic predispositions and environmental influences, embodying the intricate dance between nature and nurture. At its core, responsibility might be perceived not as a mere trait one is born with, but as a quality cultivated through the interplay of inherent neurological capabilities and the external stimuli provided by one's surroundings. In the realm of human behavior, the notion of freewill often treads on contentious ground, suggesting a degree of autonomy that may not fully account for the underlying mechanisms at work. It can be argued that our actions and decisions are significantly shaped by a combination of innate brain functions and the series of rewards and punishments meted out by our social environment. These elements of positive and negative reinforcement serve not just as tools for behavior modification but as pivotal forces in the development of what we refer to as responsibility. This perspective aligns with the view that our choices may be less about the exercise of freewill and more about the outcomes of a sophisticated process of conditioning. Throughout this process, individuals are subject to various forms of reinforcement that, while beyond their control, serve to mold their behavior in ways that foster individual autonomy and societal cohesion. This is particularly potent during the formative years, when the brain's plasticity renders it more amenable to such influences, though the capacity for change persists, albeit to a lesser extent, into adulthood. Understanding responsibility through this framework suggests that the concept does not hinge so much on free choice or agency but on the capacity of the brain to learn and adapt to its environment through reinforcement learning. In this light, the role of rewards and punishments transcends mere disciplinary tactics; they are essential components in the cultivation of responsible behavior, orchestrated not by conscious selection but by the very nature of human neurobiology and the structure of social interactions. Therefore, responsibility might best be conceptualized as the product of a complex and dynamic process, one that intricately weaves together the threads of biological predisposition and experiential learning. It is through this tapestry that individuals emerge as beings capable of navigating the moral and practical demands of their environments, not solely through the illusion of choice, but as the culmination of the countless influences that shape their existence. In essence, although the concept of freewill may be contentious, the practical application of responsibility, along with the mechanisms of rewards and punishments, retains its validity and utility. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the nuanced interplay between these concepts and the inherent limitations tied to individual cognitive capacities. This suggests a need for a more refined approach to understanding and deploying these concepts, recognizing that they are influenced by factors beyond one's absolute control. The essence of responsibility thus lies not in the assertion of pure autonomy, but in the recognition of the complex, interconnected forces that shape human behavior and decision-making.

@@nodelayfordays8083 Free will is the ability to do things, other than we do them, in the circumstances that we do them. We behave as if we have free will. If we are determined, then we do not have free will. That has repercussions on how we should behave. Redefining free will to suit how we behave is a cop out, misleading and deceptive.

Yeah but there is no deserve in a world of free will. It'll probably be centuries before we see a society that understands determinism and treats a negative behavior in a clinical way, same way we no longer burn witches, epileptic seizures were considered demonic positions, so on.

At best we may have a little free will. ☯ Like choosing what we eat tonight. But there's not much choice in having to eat something to sustain life. Though even that could still be argued is the result of genetics, environment/culture, and in the end causality. We certainly don't have control over the bigger picture, I think we can safely say? If I have free will, can I choose to live forever? Or, never be born in the first place? Where was our choice in that? And if we didn't have a choice in being apart of this. What else do we not have a choice in?

Agree why do u think

Or they can not

​@@silvercloud1641There are still underlying factors as to what we can think of as an option. When's the last time you thought about what to make for dinner and a Cambodian dish popped up? What we recently had, what we haven't had in a long time, what the weather is like (grilling when it's -12 and snowing?), our location (not going to make pho if the only way to get the noodles is to order on Amazon), etc. "I'm feeling like having Chinese today." But where did that feeling come from? Did we have any say in the feelings we have?

In a predetermined universe we still have control. That's because we're alive, which is minimally defined as having the functionality to do work, aka, change our environment to better suit our needs (through exploration and creation). Sure, how we make choices is determined, but it's still making choices. That's what we call free will. It's some form of diversity, variation, as compared to other individuals. Every Bic pen functions almost exactly like every other Bic pen in nearly every environment, but I function very differently than you and we both vary our functionality in different environments, too, based on our unique DNA (needs/goals). That's the core differentiation between something that has free will and something that doesn't. It doesn't matter how that freedom comes about, it only matters that it exists as a category compared to things that don't have freedom.

Not really

I don't agree with that. Just because a lot of behavior is predictable (by computer software), that doesn't in and of itself mean there is 0% free will

There are people lucky enough to have control over them selfs. What I mean by that, a good sense of their feelings, a good recognition and true (not warped in any way) sense of what is “good” or “bad” is, I can’t help but think, if we had “free will” would there ever be mistakes or evil. I always found it’s interesting that we truly think any individual chooses to be “evil” or “good” or even as simple as a “asshole” or “nice”. People just are, literally everyone I’ve ever met just is. Anyone I’ve seen change it just happens. I include my self in this notion. I’ve noticed any changes about my personality have just happened. There is the story my brain tells me about the change the what I did “wrong” and the what I did “right” and how hard or not hard I was trying. I can’t help but ask myself can I truly trust an organ that is designed by nature for survival, selfishness and self preservation. And what else is nature but brutal.

And yet as an individual I don't buy everything or much of anything despite targeted ads. It shows population trends not individual.

​@@theofficialness578Interesting because I've lived my life with the choice of who I would be. And at 40 I've made it happen as I saw fit, to what I considered good. Perhaps it's a limitation that prevents you from understanding those making a choice or some other hidden variable of them not agreeing from ground up premises.

Dennett makes much better arguments for compatibilism if you're interested.

​@@umbombCompatibilism is completely nonsensical. I believe people have this viewpoint which is contradictory because they emotionally want to believe that they have free will and our subjective feeling is that we do have free will. I am 100% sure that hard determinism is the reality. It is a completely obvious fact because all other viewpoints involve some kind of nonsensical magic. Feel free to argue against me. I think Sam Harris gets it completely but Daniel Dannet makes no sense in this regard.

"Simple minds cannot concieve deep truths only superficial details" When you supply a peer reviewed body of work delineating your own ideas, perhaps then you get the right to call his mind "simple" ... "so -called professor of higher education" Clearly triggered.

Actually, simple logic can indeed create a model of reality where everything is deterministic and there is free will, because free will is just a categorization of simple vs. complex systems. Like the difference between whole numbers and prime numbers. Primes are effectively unpredictable in when they occur next, while whole numbers are always just N+1. Free will could just be prime numbers when compared to whole numbers.

@@JB.zero.zero.1 Everyone with a brain has the "right" to say whatever they experience. No appeal to authority needed. You have the right to think whatever you think, given to you by the universe. Same with everyone else with a brain. Even if your brain is simpler than others' brains.

We make decisions and we are aware that we do so. There is no prima facie reason to question free will and we do not often do so. In questioning free will we find ever increasing objective evidence against it, but it is hard to let go of the notion that we are undetermined (my guess, because I cannot speak for everyone, is that it makes us feel creepy/uneasy).

What you mean by the word "me" is what makes your argument not accurate. You're talking about the "self" which is what owns your body and mind. But that simply doesn't exist, It's an illusion. What "you" are is just the complexity of mind and body and nothing more. When you feel you're making a choice, "you" are nowhere to be found. And that's where determinism is the only reality that makes any sense. You might want to read a book called "Free Will" by Sam Harris. He explains all of what I've just described in detail and it's a very straight to the point book.

The biological determinists out here and their complete blindness to the fact most of these claims have zero science-based evidence. Just a bunch of formally logical conclusions tied together with no real substance behind it.

i think that's exactly wrong. Because the self doesn't exist, free will does exist at the level of you, at the level of the self. If the self were real it would be constrained totally by determinism,as your organs and body are, and there would be no free will, . Free will is illusory, out there in nature, it like the self, is nowhere to be found. Where it's found is with you, it's the operating mode appropriate to the self. @@boringhfitness5304

Changing our behaviour based on new information does not require free will.

How so? Is the change automatic, then? You may find David Hume’s work useful, then, as your understanding of causation lacks complexity.

@@sjoerd1239 Good to know! So what then IS free will?

@@skadoodaks2275 Free will is the ability to do other than we do. It is the ability for someone to do something other than is otherwise explicable. If determinism is true, then there is no free will. We are biological robots that respond to the circumstances in which we exist.

I recommend to relisten, but with an open mind this time. And maybe even a 3rd time. It's hard to gras concepts that are alien. Do you know anybody who decides to go into depression? Into lead or mercury poisoning? Even foods alter your mood which alter decisions. You are not in control of anything even if you have the illusion of control of many things

The earlier you know there is no free will the better as an older brain has already been shaped to believe a falsehood. Changing one's beliefs can be a shock even if you know longer believe in what you believed..its a process it takes time to adjust. Have lots of compassion for yourself.

I think learning it at an early age may be beneficial to some extent. You learn that it's not just "your will". You will learn about how your environment truly affects you and your behavior and not just rest everything on your "will". For example, if you want to leave alcohol or drugs or other bad habits, you better start cutting contact with bad friends and not just rely on your "will" to ignore those bad habits.

It sounds like you think we have free will, but our free will is very limited. It is not clear. Our will doesn't follow us and we don't follow our will. It is an integral part of us. Our will is a state of the moment that has consequences. You would need much more than full data on your body. You'd need all the information about the environment that could affect you up until that time as well and the capacity to analyse it. However, that we cannot predict it does not mean that it is unpredictable, and unpredictability does not mean undetermined. I don't know how this will change the scary bit, but if there is no free will, then there never was.

We can make choices yes but those choices are predetermined and not free.

@@plotofland2928 What if your choices are both predetermined AND free? As in your choices are locally unpredictable, as compared to a non-living object that doesn't make choices at all, while also being fully generated by some mathematical function (the laws of physics/entropy/nature). That's what most of us mean by free will. It's just a way to differentiate complex individuals that have internal processes based on unique programming (DNA), versus simple individuals that always react the same way in the same situation, like a pen, or rock.

I am still on the fence about free will, as all this Sapolsky stuff seems like a category error or an error of scale. As soon as it's I or we that has free will, it seems plausible that it is real relative to us. Selves, rather than our physical dimensions and biological processes, aren't real - just a story these real and determined elements and agents give rise to. If selves were real, they would, via determines, not have free will. Brains don't have free will. But does the story the brain spins have free will? It seems so, and maybe this is what "only a simulation can be conscious" means.

Keep clutching that straw.

You do understand that you cannot use something you do not have control of (e.g., will in this case if there’s no free will indeed)? I don’t get why this conclusion is not obvious enough to people.

There is a language problem. We behave and use language as if we have free will. It is difficult to look at free will objectively because we are the subject. If determinism is correct, then there is no free will. If we do not have free will, then we do not have choice in the way we generally treat our choices. We select (determine) from options. The selection is not optional, in the way optional is generally treated when free will is assumed. To be convinced of not having free will requires overcoming the intuition of having free will, which is subjective. If we can be objective, say by imagining we are looking from a third person point of view, then it is not so hard, except that it is hard to maintain that point of view.

you say a lot of stuff that says nothing.

That does not explain away determinism. "it is controlled by our future self" Effect and cause? Cause and effect backwards? The future causing the present? How is it still not determinism anyway? We don't have a soul. That is your cop out justification for what you do not understand (it is not an explanation).

If you're aware there's such a thing as hope, then nothing in life is hopeless. We are entitled to what we wish for rather than what we are told to give up on.

A robot can do those kinds of things.

lol you obviously don't realize how far the rabbit hole goes, your entire brain structure, the amount of hormones produced, your epigenetics, all of it influence how you percieved the world , how you act and think. There is no controlling anything.

Consider where the universe's actions come from if not some set of rules. As I see it, there are three basic models for how reality could be generated (which Sapolsky talks about, sort of, in the book): 1. A fully deterministic, simple, fully linear pattern. E.g., 1234567890... or whatever. 2. A fully entropic, deterministically random pattern (see: Pascal's triangle) generating all possible states/timelines/linear-patterns of matter~energy 3. A combination of the above: A non-deterministic arbitrary or random pattern that plays out in a single linear way (Note, concepts of "God" still fit into these, just with an added level of questions about level of control, and which of the three options created God, of course.) If 1 is how we come into being, then life is basically just a book. Did the book always exist? We characters might still be unpredictable from within the story (like how the next prime number is an unpredictable distance away from any given prime number) and be said to have free will, when compared to other characters, or non-characters (books in the book!). But, we have to ask "Why THIS book?" If 2 is the case, then literally everything is explainable, and there's no need to ask why, because EVERYTHING that's possible happens, through a simple mathematical function of repeated division and recombination across the whole space of existence. (No universe picking this-but-not-that.) Free will is the timelines/individuals that are in the middle of the bell curve, with more variability than other things on the pure-matter, or pure-energy, like rocks, or radio waves. If it's 3, we're back to having to ask "Why this one?" If dice are being rolled generatively, but the entire universe is operating as the outcome of just one random roll, then what determines the outcome of the roll? (I think this is where most "omnipotent God" stories show up, with God picking the single outcome based on its own preferences, but, again, we'd have to then ask why THIS particular God, and are there other Gods running other universes?) In this case of a single linear, random outcome universe, we can go back to calling free will the difference between individuals/systems that are complex vs. simple-patterned systems/individuals. Which one do you imagine your universe is created via? Or can you imagine some other option?

Read Noise by Kanehmann

where did that response come from? It just appeared didn't it?

Are you saying that the belief in free will is necessary for a functional society?

No, neither is under your control. I am 100% sure of this (and I am not a very decisive person). Give me an example and I will disprove it.

Quantum theory has not shattered the concept of determinism in science.

The point of praising him for his insights? To motivate him to keep sharing them. We may understand intellectually that there is nl free will but even those of us that do act like there is because that is how society has taught us.

I completely agree with you but the problem is not you or I. I am afraid of no free will becoming a mainstream ideas because some of the population will misinterpret this to mean that they can discard their morals and commit atrocious acts. I don't want this idea to spread into the mainstream (although I doubt it will anyway) because it is to abrupt of a shift in public consciousness. We need to come to this realization slowly.